Now if only the delivery worked better. At my house, they normally don't even ring, and leave all the packages at a small store nearby, where you have to pick them up at their not-so-long business hours. So much for the convenience factor.
What is all this babble about?
- a modern mentalist
- how to curry favor
- Dunbar numbers
- Fitbit
- Jawbone
- Mint
- Waze
- It’s about all of these, together
What kind of parallel universe do you come from?
I usually don't mind looking up a new term or name on Google or Wikipedia, but this author just keeps throwing up, and it doesn't look appetizing.
Well, AI has been on forex and stock market for a long while. And if you mean this specific implementation, it would probably be no match for the specialized solutions.
You have to see those people to believe, but they do exist. It is not like they "bang out" more code. They take it smarter and make life better for everyone.
Instead of writing 10x as many random publish/subscribe plugs, they will create a unified processing architecture where the data is routed automatically. Instead of writing 10x as many boilerplate model classes, they will build a code generator.
You've got to have a certain level of proficiency and the right attitude to see such possibilities, to suggest, defend and implement them.
What if I translate someone's book, and release my translation into the Public Domain immediately? Would an alternative Project Gutenberg of liberally licensed translations work?
At least the Berne Convention says that "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work."
Of course the translation is not the same thing. Also, it is more complicated than that. The authors (quite reasonably) have some protection and control over translated versions. Still, even if only some parts of the world, and even only for a selected subset of all good books, could wait less than 50 years after the author's death to easily access his works free of charge, I believe that would be a good thing.
One could imagine both "open source" and "crowdfunding" approaches to building such a library.
It would be ironic to see the author's native language readers having more restrictions than the rest. Maybe such reduction to absurdity could fuel an argument for a worldwide copyright conventions reform for the digital age.
But if history is any indication, they would just make tighter restrictions for the translations.
I quickly checked Wikipedia, and most countries seem to stick with at least "Life + 50yr" term. That is a great achievement of the lobbyists.
Some island nations seem to have no known copyright legislation, but they are still usually parties to some limiting international treaties, and also have similar restrictions under other names ("unauthorized copying", etc.)
Seriously, is there no place on Earth with more reasonable terms?
I think the singularity, by some definitions, has already arrived. It is already hard to keep track of the technological progress, and even harder to predict the future, even on short scale. You can no longer assume things will be about the same in 30 years, because you look only 10 years back and you see drastic changes.
I try to follow at least top news, but I still get caught by surprise sometimes by some 5-year-old technology (like solowheel). Normal consumers are getting used to expect magic and do not try to understand when or how it happened.
We still did not merge with the computers, or produce an artificial consciousness, but that also looks close, and seems to come in small steps to catch us by surprise. For example, Watson and Google can now extract knowledge from raw texts with very minimal help.
If you discovered something, then most likely someone else will do the same soon. These things happen when the time comes. You cannot keep it under your control. And the other person may be less careful or outright malicious.
So as a morally responsible person, the best you can do is make it available to several parties, in order to keep some balance, and to collaborate with other responsible researchers in order to try and keep the applications safe.
Another moral consideration is all the benefits the humanity could get from a friendly AI.
Musk mentioned two things about Mars colonization in that interview, which I find more interesting:
1) A fully reusable Raptor-based rocket, capable of big Mars missions (MCT?), is expected to be tested in 5-6 years.
2) Musk will sell Falcon 9 + Dragon to Mars One if they buy, but he doubts they can afford it, and says Dragon is too small to support a live crew on such a long flight. He suggests waiting for the next generation of technology.
There is no formal obligation, of course. It's just that this study has some apparent authority, and can be bad for Mars One PR. And PR is currently the main driving factor for them.
My point was that it is sometimes hard to prove something impossible, because there are innumerable, sometimes unexpected, ways to approach the implementation. I picked that quote as a quickly recognizable meme with a similar message that saves people some processing time, because they already met it and considered it. Please don't take it literally. The elderly scientist obviously does not apply in this context.
The MIT study does not seem to raise any fundamental reasons (like speed of light, mass of Solar system, anything like that) why a Mars base is impossible. They nitpick around the engineering details, some of which are their own assumptions. If you like finding logical fallacies, the whole thing has signs of a strawman argument.
Yes, that is an important distinction. But in recent years, the gap between possible and practical tends to shorten quite fast. I guess they take advice from the "singularitarian" type futurists, and base their plans on the expectation of accelerating growth in available technology and resources. That is a risky bet, but until they actually send a person to space, they only risk as much as your next TV startup. And who knows if that will ever happen. However, there is hope they will help to promote and advance the necessary technology.
That's the experience with antarctic bases because it is cheaper to send supplies there. The balance is different on Mars. There was no experiment so far wit an explicit goal and sufficient funding to achieve as much self-sufficiency as possible in Antarctic. Space station is closer, but it's a closed system, so also different. We can use our experience from both cases, but Mars will be unique.
It is largely about Mars One and their timeline. For example, they assume Falcon Heavy to be the largest available transport, while SpaceX Raptor engine and Mars Colonial Transporter may become available shortly after the Mars One projected dates.
It is impossible to imagine every possible approach to build a Mars Base, so it is logical that they evaluate a specific plan.
They also make a lot of assumptions, for example: "If crops grown on Mars are the only food source, they will produce unsafe oxygen levels in the habitat." I imagine that beside traditional crops, one could use algae, bacteria, maybe insects to try and balance that. Also, as a Mars base is not a closed system, this balance could be supported from the outside environment.
Mars One does not claim that the current level of detail in their plan is sufficient. The problem is they are handwaving by saying "well, we will outsource the design". Perhaps it is good to push for more details by analyzing the currently available details like this. But while doing so, one necessarily makes a lot of assumptions, so it is unfair to present it as if the whole idea is proven unsustainable. And that is the impression people will get from articles like this. There must be a way for a more constructive discussion.
Great post. I would only like to emphasize that we don't have to build a 100% self-sustaining colony from the first launch, and that a Mars base is not a closed environment. So, two comforting factors:
1. Importing even only a few small key components (like CPUs or nuclear fuel) can cut a huge part of that tech tree you mentioned, until the local capabilities are improved.
2. We still have a whole huge planet there. It may not have all the same resources we have on Earth, so optimal technological processes may differ, but once you start leveraging local resources at large scale, some inputs may become really cheap and solve parts of your tech tree in other ways than it is currently done on Earth.
Learning how to solve this bootstrapping problem will be one of top benefits we get from this project.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that was the old prototype from 2010. This must be the new strong thing, looks really impressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Not sure if it is the same one; could not be bothered to install the plugin.
Now if only the delivery worked better. At my house, they normally don't even ring, and leave all the packages at a small store nearby, where you have to pick them up at their not-so-long business hours. So much for the convenience factor.
What is all this babble about?
- a modern mentalist
- how to curry favor
- Dunbar numbers
- Fitbit
- Jawbone
- Mint
- Waze
- It’s about all of these, together
What kind of parallel universe do you come from?
I usually don't mind looking up a new term or name on Google or Wikipedia, but this author just keeps throwing up, and it doesn't look appetizing.
Well, AI has been on forex and stock market for a long while. And if you mean this specific implementation, it would probably be no match for the specialized solutions.
...when your social network starts to feel like a cemetery.
You have to see those people to believe, but they do exist. It is not like they "bang out" more code. They take it smarter and make life better for everyone.
Instead of writing 10x as many random publish/subscribe plugs, they will create a unified processing architecture where the data is routed automatically. Instead of writing 10x as many boilerplate model classes, they will build a code generator.
You've got to have a certain level of proficiency and the right attitude to see such possibilities, to suggest, defend and implement them.
What if I translate someone's book, and release my translation into the Public Domain immediately? Would an alternative Project Gutenberg of liberally licensed translations work?
At least the Berne Convention says that "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work."
Of course the translation is not the same thing. Also, it is more complicated than that. The authors (quite reasonably) have some protection and control over translated versions. Still, even if only some parts of the world, and even only for a selected subset of all good books, could wait less than 50 years after the author's death to easily access his works free of charge, I believe that would be a good thing.
One could imagine both "open source" and "crowdfunding" approaches to building such a library.
It would be ironic to see the author's native language readers having more restrictions than the rest. Maybe such reduction to absurdity could fuel an argument for a worldwide copyright conventions reform for the digital age.
But if history is any indication, they would just make tighter restrictions for the translations.
I quickly checked Wikipedia, and most countries seem to stick with at least "Life + 50yr" term. That is a great achievement of the lobbyists.
Some island nations seem to have no known copyright legislation, but they are still usually parties to some limiting international treaties, and also have similar restrictions under other names ("unauthorized copying", etc.)
Seriously, is there no place on Earth with more reasonable terms?
Of the individuals who died in 1965 and whose work will enter the public domain next January
This says so much about our culture...
Are there jurisdictions where one could legally and openly operate a Project Gutenberg clone with more recent works?
Wait, there's chocolate in Mars bars? I'm shocked.
I think the singularity, by some definitions, has already arrived. It is already hard to keep track of the technological progress, and even harder to predict the future, even on short scale. You can no longer assume things will be about the same in 30 years, because you look only 10 years back and you see drastic changes.
I try to follow at least top news, but I still get caught by surprise sometimes by some 5-year-old technology (like solowheel). Normal consumers are getting used to expect magic and do not try to understand when or how it happened.
We still did not merge with the computers, or produce an artificial consciousness, but that also looks close, and seems to come in small steps to catch us by surprise. For example, Watson and Google can now extract knowledge from raw texts with very minimal help.
As you asked directly for moral advice...
If you discovered something, then most likely someone else will do the same soon. These things happen when the time comes. You cannot keep it under your control. And the other person may be less careful or outright malicious.
So as a morally responsible person, the best you can do is make it available to several parties, in order to keep some balance, and to collaborate with other responsible researchers in order to try and keep the applications safe.
Another moral consideration is all the benefits the humanity could get from a friendly AI.
Musk mentioned two things about Mars colonization in that interview, which I find more interesting:
1) A fully reusable Raptor-based rocket, capable of big Mars missions (MCT?), is expected to be tested in 5-6 years.
2) Musk will sell Falcon 9 + Dragon to Mars One if they buy, but he doubts they can afford it, and says Dragon is too small to support a live crew on such a long flight. He suggests waiting for the next generation of technology.
But the press is fully focused on the AI devil.
Turns out they do have some sort of prototype, just not the complete one they plan to refine with 1-year iterations.
Here are some details about their technology.
Related news: How faster-than-light travel can be created in a reflected sunlight spot.
There is no formal obligation, of course. It's just that this study has some apparent authority, and can be bad for Mars One PR. And PR is currently the main driving factor for them.
Nuclear reactors may be heavy, but they surely do not necessarily all require hundreds of people to operate them.
The parent post has the perspective that many other posts here lack.
Your point is very logical.
My point was that it is sometimes hard to prove something impossible, because there are innumerable, sometimes unexpected, ways to approach the implementation. I picked that quote as a quickly recognizable meme with a similar message that saves people some processing time, because they already met it and considered it. Please don't take it literally. The elderly scientist obviously does not apply in this context.
The MIT study does not seem to raise any fundamental reasons (like speed of light, mass of Solar system, anything like that) why a Mars base is impossible. They nitpick around the engineering details, some of which are their own assumptions. If you like finding logical fallacies, the whole thing has signs of a strawman argument.
Yes, that is an important distinction. But in recent years, the gap between possible and practical tends to shorten quite fast. I guess they take advice from the "singularitarian" type futurists, and base their plans on the expectation of accelerating growth in available technology and resources. That is a risky bet, but until they actually send a person to space, they only risk as much as your next TV startup. And who knows if that will ever happen. However, there is hope they will help to promote and advance the necessary technology.
That's the experience with antarctic bases because it is cheaper to send supplies there. The balance is different on Mars. There was no experiment so far wit an explicit goal and sufficient funding to achieve as much self-sufficiency as possible in Antarctic. Space station is closer, but it's a closed system, so also different. We can use our experience from both cases, but Mars will be unique.
It is largely about Mars One and their timeline. For example, they assume Falcon Heavy to be the largest available transport, while SpaceX Raptor engine and Mars Colonial Transporter may become available shortly after the Mars One projected dates.
It is impossible to imagine every possible approach to build a Mars Base, so it is logical that they evaluate a specific plan.
They also make a lot of assumptions, for example: "If crops grown on Mars are the only food source, they will produce unsafe oxygen levels in the habitat." I imagine that beside traditional crops, one could use algae, bacteria, maybe insects to try and balance that. Also, as a Mars base is not a closed system, this balance could be supported from the outside environment.
Mars One does not claim that the current level of detail in their plan is sufficient. The problem is they are handwaving by saying "well, we will outsource the design". Perhaps it is good to push for more details by analyzing the currently available details like this. But while doing so, one necessarily makes a lot of assumptions, so it is unfair to present it as if the whole idea is proven unsustainable. And that is the impression people will get from articles like this. There must be a way for a more constructive discussion.
Great post. I would only like to emphasize that we don't have to build a 100% self-sustaining colony from the first launch, and that a Mars base is not a closed environment. So, two comforting factors:
1. Importing even only a few small key components (like CPUs or nuclear fuel) can cut a huge part of that tech tree you mentioned, until the local capabilities are improved.
2. We still have a whole huge planet there. It may not have all the same resources we have on Earth, so optimal technological processes may differ, but once you start leveraging local resources at large scale, some inputs may become really cheap and solve parts of your tech tree in other ways than it is currently done on Earth.
Learning how to solve this bootstrapping problem will be one of top benefits we get from this project.