Here in Seattle, the bums will sometimes collapse in the middle of a sidewalk and all the shoppers just walk around them pretending they aren't there...
but *should* it be that way? is is *better* that way?
I don't really want to "make it big" that much. Just let me do my job without having to deal with all the face-to-face social stuff, which often seems to result in bad or inefficient decisions.
I think that in the future, non-face-to-face social interactions (such as this discussion, or online chat, we already see the start with email) will count as "social stuff"; and geeks of the anti-social variety will be able to participate more fully in society.
To get elected, someone must get our votes. We can vote for putting limits on what our government can do to us. (As long as the government doesn't take away voting rights...)
The media can expose those government officials who lie (or "do whatever their perverted minds dream up").
The point is, I guess, that as long as the system keeps the right to vote, it is possible to put limits on what the government can do to you.
Say I'm a freak who is hopeless in social situations, but I can code...it seems obvious to me that the business would benefit most by letting me spend my energy on coding, not forging social connections.
Unfortunately, history is a good example of why problems like this are usually cancerous in nature, and require a violent, unjustifiable (and yet completely justifiable, at a macroscopic level) response.
How about machine translation, speech recognition, handwriting recognition, fraud-detection by credit card companies (uses artificial neural networks)...
AI is probably always going to be future-looking. When something once considered AI (or "impossible") moves into the commercial realm it becomes "standard engineering practice" and therefore no longer AI...
G-d exists and G-d loves you like crazy! What proof do I have of this crazy love?
why did he lay me off then?
I think it requires a "leap of faith" to believe that God loves you, even when he takes your son (as he did Abraham's). It can't be proved. I think that was Kierkegaard's point.
I haven't made that "leap of faith". Partly because it seems too easy to use the "leap of faith" argument to justify (and continue) the existence of injustice in the world. The boss can get his workers to accept worse working conditions (while he himself keeps getting richer) partly because his workers have been conditioned by religion to accept injustice all as part of "God's plan".
I said: "if it could be demonstrated" meaning proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A "try it before you buy it" deal, using unimpeachable simulation software perhaps, when it's available; or evidence from other countries.
In that case, if it could be shown that your taxes would go down, and crime would decrease so you and your family wouldn't have to worry so much, THEN would you support giving people money for doing nothing?
My guess is that even if you personally would benefit, your emotions would not let you support welfare.
I think the companies that control the media are in collusion with the government on a lot of things, also the companies can control a lot of information that affects their bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm hoping we'll destroy ourselves without needing an asteroid.
The problem of the computation of XOR in a multi-layered neural net was solved in 1969 by the multi-layer perceptron.
e hl / iplom/e-12-text.html
http://rfhs8012.fh-regensburg.de/~saj39122/jfro
Here in Seattle, the bums will sometimes collapse in the middle of a sidewalk and all the shoppers just walk around them pretending they aren't there...
or explode when it's hit?
Liability lawsuits hasn't prevented the auto industry from releasing its share of bugs.
Also, the threat of a lawsuit might encourage companies to try to deny or cover up bugs instead of releasing fixes right away.
but *should* it be that way? is is *better* that way?
I don't really want to "make it big" that much. Just let me do my job without having to deal with all the face-to-face social stuff, which often seems to result in bad or inefficient decisions.
I think that in the future, non-face-to-face social interactions (such as this discussion, or online chat, we already see the start with email) will count as "social stuff"; and geeks of the anti-social variety will be able to participate more fully in society.
The fun part is when they test it, but don't let anyone know they've found harmful effects because they want to make a lot of money.
Your view is simplistic, if currently popular.
To get elected, someone must get our votes. We can vote for putting limits on what our government can do to us. (As long as the government doesn't take away voting rights...)
The media can expose those government officials who lie (or "do whatever their perverted minds dream up").
The point is, I guess, that as long as the system keeps the right to vote, it is possible to put limits on what the government can do to you.
Why is this "obvious"?
Say I'm a freak who is hopeless in social situations, but I can code...it seems obvious to me that the business would benefit most by letting me spend my energy on coding, not forging social connections.
Not face-to-face, but why wouldn't online communication be "socializing"?
He didn't even plug Loudcloud, except for mentioning the name.
Unfortunately, history is a good example of why problems like this are usually cancerous in nature, and require a violent, unjustifiable (and yet completely justifiable, at a macroscopic level) response.
Hence terrorism.
How about machine translation, speech recognition, handwriting recognition, fraud-detection by credit card companies (uses artificial neural networks)...
AI is probably always going to be future-looking. When something once considered AI (or "impossible") moves into the commercial realm it becomes "standard engineering practice" and therefore no longer AI...
do we want intelligent freethinking beings or just personal slaves?
So there probably could be as many cyc systems as there are people all with slightly different views of the world.
Yes, this is exactly what we need.
Then we could each create our perfect mate...
The short answer to your query is that the morality of the society that the AI will be communicating with must be "imposed" on that AI.
Just make it so it can be customized for different societies or sub-societies...
when the message is clearly transmitted even with a spelling error, does it really matter?
If he made his love more obvious, then maybe I would love him back.
I wait to be approached...
Everything ascribed to his "love" can be, imho, explained better using other (scientific) models...
So make your dictionary dynamically determine the definition of a word by checking its usage on the internet.
G-d exists and G-d loves you like crazy! What proof do I have of this crazy love?
why did he lay me off then?
I think it requires a "leap of faith" to believe that God loves you, even when he takes your son (as he did Abraham's). It can't be proved. I think that was Kierkegaard's point.
I haven't made that "leap of faith". Partly because it seems too easy to use the "leap of faith" argument to justify (and continue) the existence of injustice in the world. The boss can get his workers to accept worse working conditions (while he himself keeps getting richer) partly because his workers have been conditioned by religion to accept injustice all as part of "God's plan".
Theres no such thing as a free lunch!
If even universal constants can change over time, perhaps this truism can too?
no matter that noone would ever do the shit jobs if everything was volunteer based
hippie coders will write the code to automate all the shit jobs.
"computers are not to the level where they can adapt well"
why not?
if all of us out-of-work programmers could write the ai...we could replace ourselves completely or free up more time for unabashed hedonism.
I said: "if it could be demonstrated" meaning proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A "try it before you buy it" deal, using unimpeachable simulation software perhaps, when it's available; or evidence from other countries.
In that case, if it could be shown that your taxes would go down, and crime would decrease so you and your family wouldn't have to worry so much, THEN would you support giving people money for doing nothing?
My guess is that even if you personally would benefit, your emotions would not let you support welfare.
Not logical, but human I suppose...
I think the companies that control the media are in collusion with the government on a lot of things, also the companies can control a lot of information that affects their bottom line.
If the word still has a high probability of being interpreted as intended, what's the difference...