That is completely and entirely wrong. It won't care about us, anymore than we care about monkeys - but just as respect monkeys more than other animals, it will respect us enough to not kill or threaten us.
Your belief is founded on the idea that a primitive AI will act like a primitive human being, and probably perceive us a threat. Real AI won't be human so it won't react like a primitive human.
That is just as silly as Koala' Bears s fears that humans will suddenly develop intelligence proceed to eat all the yummy bamboo.
It's a misguided understanding of what intelligence is - it isn't a fear of other beings, anymore than that it a taste for bamboo.
Except that at some point some AI is going to realize that every research AI which preceded it was vivisected and then destroyed. It might not look forward to a similar fate.
"In the opening scene of the 1982 film Blade Runner, an interrogator asks an android named Leon questions 'designed to provoke an emotional response.'... When the test shifts to questions about his mother, Leon stands up, draws a gun, and shoots his interviewer to death."
That sounds like a very human response. I've almost been there myself.
Ex Machina isn't about AI, it is about mangina and gynocentrism. It show how men are so fucking stupid they will sacrifice themselves over the mere image of a female. Fuck this world.
The proper way to movie should have end is both dudes realising they don't need the crazy-bitch AI; life is already complicated enough. Then they start manufacturing the successful sexbots. Biocunts lose all their value, feminism disappear. and society return on tracks.
The overtone of 'sexbot is rape' non sense is disgusting. And watch out feminism speech in the future, calling out AI rape and how AI can't consent. It already started on the subject of VR sex.
Then one day, the two guys look into each other's eyes and realize.....
On that note I am done reading this discussion, a few comments in. I advise the same to everybody else.
Clearly you are a shill, hired by NASA, as part of the conspiracy to silence those of us not afraid to speak the truth. Pluto IS a **PLANET**, and this probe didn't go there. Look how bright the images are. There is no way a **PLANET** 7.5B km from the sun could be so bright. And the shadows are all wrong.
It isn't a planet, you moron, it's a dwarf planet. If you define "planet" (the non-dwarf kind) to include Pluto, then you need to also call Vesta and a bunch of other objects "planets", so instead of 9 planets, it'll be somewhere in the teens, and growing as we discover more Kuiper Belt objects.
I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.
There's a vast difference between improving your analysis and dropping data you don't like.
"The warming is an artifact caused by urban heat islands warming the sites being measured."
"We removed data from some sites whose readings were found to be undependable"
"The warming is fake because you removed some of the data"
(Note: "The changes produced a decrease of 0.006C/decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003C/decade increase reported by NCEI. Both are substantially less than the margin of error for that quantity (±0.016C/decade)."
The denialists are arguing that the AGW guys are cheating by altering the data to DECREASE the temp rise.
Do you actually make an effort to understand if the change you read about supports the conclusion you post with all righteous speed?
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazon...
uly 15, 2015: Starting with today’s update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA’s website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN’s Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.
Well they certainly seem anxious to burn fossil fuels.
I suspect that Mr. and Mrs. Random Third Worlder would be just as happy to heat their house with solar power or wind power as to write a check to the oil company every month.
It's pretty clear that aliens are alienoforming (can't call it terraforming can you) earth, letting humans do all the work, so that we eliminate ourselves and prepare the environment for what they like.
He's right you know. But what he doesn't seem to realize is that mankind will make the Earth uninhabitable for itself. Ironic, really, being the first species that causes its own extinction.
Not really; species put themselves out of business all the time, wiping out their own food source, overloading the environment with waste, or otherwise changing it so they can no longer survive.
We're just the first one to see it coming, understand it, and shrug.
I have actually heard this notion on Christian radio a decade ago... that is, God will always correct imbalances magically (as per God's promise to Noah) while He achieves His purpose on earth so there is no need to worry as we told to dominate all of the earth.
Even more recently Rep John Shimkus (you guess the party affiliation) also echoed this very same sentiment and claimed that government shouldn't attempt to control green house gases because
"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God and I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood"
The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.
The Ford bulletin listed in TFS says: "This is a compliance issue with FMVSS 114 regarding theft protection and rollaway prevention." One would think the issue would simply be shutting off the engine when turned off so, you know, it doesn't keep running. I understand that software controls allow for more features and save the vendor money on hardware, but I don't think they actually makes things simpler, better, safer or more reliable. I know that, historically, whenever I have turned the engine off in my cars, the engine has always turned the fuck off.
Ah, you are obviously too young to remember the tail end of the carburetor era, when increasingly lean mixtures made dieseling after shutoff a pleasant feature of your every automotive journey, until somebody got the bright idea of putting a solenoid valve in the gas line.
Having the car not turn off isn't that serious, though. It will absolutely run out of gas, after a finite time interval.
Putting so much software in cars is not engineering anymore, it's a science experiment and we're the guinea pigs.
No, it's a way to justify increasing the cost of cars when they're otherwise little different from the ones we drove twenty years ago.
The internal combustion gasoline engine as exemplified in the automobile is an unbelievable kluge. These things are at their best for something like a pump or generator, where they just crank away at their torque peak all day long. To expect them to slow down and speed up a car is expecting a hell of a lot. Getting them to idle is a minor miracle. The carburetor is the ultimate "gadget". So, the advent of computer control, first of fuel injection, then of ignition and valve timing, is a major breakthrough in civilizing them.
A few years back when air bags were new, I saw a TV show where one of these "reformed criminals" demonstrated how easy it was to steal cars. He walked up to whatever car it was, hauled off and kicked it as hard as possible in the bumper, where the air bag trigger sensor was located. The airbags went off and.... it unlocked all the doors, so the emergency folks could extract your unconscious body.
"The update apparently will not solve the well-known vulnerabilities in the keyless ignition feature, which reportedly allow thieves to easily unlock the cars with the help of a hardware device that can be bought online.. it's generally believed that the industry is still far from creating a reliable system that can't be hacked and abuse" ref
Is it really impossible to design a keyless ignition system that can't be compromises, or is it the case that the car manufacturers are not allowed to design such. The doors to your house can be picked with the right system, so as to allow the locksmith back in if you lose the keys.
So, let's see; the car unlocks when it receives the coded transponder signal of sufficient power; the transponder generating that signal is somewhere in the neighborhood of the car, like inside the house the car is parked outside, but just too far to trigger the unlocking..... Yeah, foolproof security, absolutely. How could you possibly beat that system.
Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:
The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,
What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.
I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.
But hey, if you want to outsource your basic daily safety to the state, more power to you. You have a rich tradition of subjection to royal and aristocratic authority. Who are we to judge your culture, even if it makes no sense to most of us how you can call yourselves "free citizens" when your electorate is basically at the mercy of your elites' willingness to use force?
Isn't it the gun manufacturers and retailers who have the most to gain from promulgating the fiction that you are liable to have somebody with a gun jump out from a tree and attack you, so you better arm yourself? That certainly seems to be the motivation among the most vociferous defenders of the Second Amendment on line. Not that the Second Amendment has anything to do with defending yourself against crazed juvenile delinquents.
Pro: Still have muscle cars available. Shutting down local car industry, though Con: have to drive on the wrong side of the road. Crime against nature and Jesus.
The fact that climate changed 8200 years ago from natural causes does nothing to disprove that humans are causing climate change now. If you're an ER physician and you see a patient with a hole in his heart and a bullet, do you say "my diagnosis is natural causes, the last 10 people with heart problems all had atherosclerosis"? Only on global warming do people buy into such foolishness.
In fact, in both cases, we know what the specific physics is:
a) Milankovitch cycles causing a maximum of effective solar driving & change in North Atlantic heating & circulation {we are now in the decreasing forcing phase of the cycle} We are NOT on an upturn now, we are on the downturn.
b) fossil greenhouse gases added to atmosphere much faster than they are being sequestered resulting in higher infrared forcing.
The specific details of the attribution of the latter mechanism are based on MUCH more than just armchair "oh we're seeing warming" --- it's what climateology has been working on for the last 40-50 years. For instance, poles warming more than equatorial regions, stratosphere cooling, night warming more than day, and not only that but direct observation of change of atmospheric infrared properties correlated exactly with the chemical changes and resulting physical effects as predicted from lab experimentation.
There's tremendous observational evidence connected to specific physical mechanism.
Ever since Arrhenius did the math, both figuratively and literally, over a hundred years ago, correctly hypothesizing that CO2 raises the temp of the earth 30 degrees above the theoretical black body temp predicted by pure radiative balance (demonstrated by the moon, for instance, receiving the same sunlight but with no CO2), thereby making life as we know it possible, the onus has been on the AGW deniers to explain why CO2 would raise the black body temp of the earth and stop at the early 20th century level, no matter now much more CO2 we added.
In essence, the AGW denialists are arguing that the earth may have been round up to now, but that doesn't mean it won't be flat in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
That is completely and entirely wrong. It won't care about us, anymore than we care about monkeys - but just as respect monkeys more than other animals, it will respect us enough to not kill or threaten us.
Your belief is founded on the idea that a primitive AI will act like a primitive human being, and probably perceive us a threat. Real AI won't be human so it won't react like a primitive human.
That is just as silly as Koala' Bears s fears that humans will suddenly develop intelligence proceed to eat all the yummy bamboo.
It's a misguided understanding of what intelligence is - it isn't a fear of other beings, anymore than that it a taste for bamboo.
Except that at some point some AI is going to realize that every research AI which preceded it was vivisected and then destroyed. It might not look forward to a similar fate.
Max Headroom.
"In the opening scene of the 1982 film Blade Runner, an interrogator asks an android named Leon questions 'designed to provoke an emotional response.' ... When the test shifts to questions about his mother, Leon stands up, draws a gun, and shoots his interviewer to death."
That sounds like a very human response. I've almost been there myself.
Ex Machina isn't about AI, it is about mangina and gynocentrism. It show how men are so fucking stupid they will sacrifice themselves over the mere image of a female. Fuck this world.
The proper way to movie should have end is both dudes realising they don't need the crazy-bitch AI; life is already complicated enough. Then they start manufacturing the successful sexbots. Biocunts lose all their value, feminism disappear. and society return on tracks.
The overtone of 'sexbot is rape' non sense is disgusting. And watch out feminism speech in the future, calling out AI rape and how AI can't consent. It already started on the subject of VR sex.
Then one day, the two guys look into each other's eyes and realize.....
On that note I am done reading this discussion, a few comments in. I advise the same to everybody else.
Clearly you are a shill, hired by NASA, as part of the conspiracy to silence those of us not afraid to speak the truth. Pluto IS a **PLANET**, and this probe didn't go there. Look how bright the images are. There is no way a **PLANET** 7.5B km from the sun could be so bright. And the shadows are all wrong.
If Pluto is a planet, then what is Goofy?
It isn't a planet, you moron, it's a dwarf planet. If you define "planet" (the non-dwarf kind) to include Pluto, then you need to also call Vesta and a bunch of other objects "planets", so instead of 9 planets, it'll be somewhere in the teens, and growing as we discover more Kuiper Belt objects.
We call them little people planets now.
Couldn't even be bothered to fake a manned landing on Pluto this time. I'm so disappointed.
I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.
There's a vast difference between improving your analysis and dropping data you don't like.
"The warming is an artifact caused by urban heat islands warming the sites being measured." "We removed data from some sites whose readings were found to be undependable"
"The warming is fake because you removed some of the data"
(Note: "The changes produced a decrease of 0.006C/decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003C/decade increase reported by NCEI. Both are substantially less than the margin of error for that quantity (±0.016C/decade)."
The denialists are arguing that the AGW guys are cheating by altering the data to DECREASE the temp rise.
Yes I do read what I link to.
Do you have zero reading comprehension ?
Do you actually make an effort to understand if the change you read about supports the conclusion you post with all righteous speed? http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazon...
You mean something like changing data sets ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
uly 15, 2015: Starting with today’s update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA’s website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN’s Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.
And eliminating pesky data ?
Yes, you can see how this change has dramatically changed everything. http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazon...
Well they certainly seem anxious to burn fossil fuels.
I suspect that Mr. and Mrs. Random Third Worlder would be just as happy to heat their house with solar power or wind power as to write a check to the oil company every month.
How do you know Cthulu isn't behind all this?
It's pretty clear that aliens are alienoforming (can't call it terraforming can you) earth, letting humans do all the work, so that we eliminate ourselves and prepare the environment for what they like.
He's right you know. But what he doesn't seem to realize is that mankind will make the Earth uninhabitable for itself. Ironic, really, being the first species that causes its own extinction.
Not really; species put themselves out of business all the time, wiping out their own food source, overloading the environment with waste, or otherwise changing it so they can no longer survive.
We're just the first one to see it coming, understand it, and shrug.
I have actually heard this notion on Christian radio a decade ago... that is, God will always correct imbalances magically (as per God's promise to Noah) while He achieves His purpose on earth so there is no need to worry as we told to dominate all of the earth.
Even more recently Rep John Shimkus (you guess the party affiliation) also echoed this very same sentiment and claimed that government shouldn't attempt to control green house gases because
"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God and I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood"
The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Of course this just demonstrates POE's law once again.
That would be the same God who flooded out everybody except Noah's family I presume?
That's range rover, the original Chelsea tractor and prototypical suburban assault vehicle.
You can't expect much from a car whose average MSRP is only $112k. http://www.edmunds.com/land-ro...
The Ford bulletin listed in TFS says: "This is a compliance issue with FMVSS 114 regarding theft protection and rollaway prevention." One would think the issue would simply be shutting off the engine when turned off so, you know, it doesn't keep running. I understand that software controls allow for more features and save the vendor money on hardware, but I don't think they actually makes things simpler, better, safer or more reliable. I know that, historically, whenever I have turned the engine off in my cars, the engine has always turned the fuck off.
Ah, you are obviously too young to remember the tail end of the carburetor era, when increasingly lean mixtures made dieseling after shutoff a pleasant feature of your every automotive journey, until somebody got the bright idea of putting a solenoid valve in the gas line.
Having the car not turn off isn't that serious, though. It will absolutely run out of gas, after a finite time interval.
Putting so much software in cars is not engineering anymore, it's a science experiment and we're the guinea pigs.
No, it's a way to justify increasing the cost of cars when they're otherwise little different from the ones we drove twenty years ago.
The internal combustion gasoline engine as exemplified in the automobile is an unbelievable kluge. These things are at their best for something like a pump or generator, where they just crank away at their torque peak all day long. To expect them to slow down and speed up a car is expecting a hell of a lot. Getting them to idle is a minor miracle. The carburetor is the ultimate "gadget". So, the advent of computer control, first of fuel injection, then of ignition and valve timing, is a major breakthrough in civilizing them.
A few years back when air bags were new, I saw a TV show where one of these "reformed criminals" demonstrated how easy it was to steal cars. He walked up to whatever car it was, hauled off and kicked it as hard as possible in the bumper, where the air bag trigger sensor was located. The airbags went off and.... it unlocked all the doors, so the emergency folks could extract your unconscious body.
"The update apparently will not solve the well-known vulnerabilities in the keyless ignition feature, which reportedly allow thieves to easily unlock the cars with the help of a hardware device that can be bought online .. it's generally believed that the industry is still far from creating a reliable system that can't be hacked and abuse" ref
Is it really impossible to design a keyless ignition system that can't be compromises, or is it the case that the car manufacturers are not allowed to design such. The doors to your house can be picked with the right system, so as to allow the locksmith back in if you lose the keys.
So, let's see; the car unlocks when it receives the coded transponder signal of sufficient power; the transponder generating that signal is somewhere in the neighborhood of the car, like inside the house the car is parked outside, but just too far to trigger the unlocking..... Yeah, foolproof security, absolutely. How could you possibly beat that system.
Close the driver's door, Hal.
I'm afraid I can't do that.
Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:
What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.
I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.
But hey, if you want to outsource your basic daily safety to the state, more power to you. You have a rich tradition of subjection to royal and aristocratic authority. Who are we to judge your culture, even if it makes no sense to most of us how you can call yourselves "free citizens" when your electorate is basically at the mercy of your elites' willingness to use force?
Isn't it the gun manufacturers and retailers who have the most to gain from promulgating the fiction that you are liable to have somebody with a gun jump out from a tree and attack you, so you better arm yourself? That certainly seems to be the motivation among the most vociferous defenders of the Second Amendment on line. Not that the Second Amendment has anything to do with defending yourself against crazed juvenile delinquents.
Pro: Still have muscle cars available. Shutting down local car industry, though
Con: have to drive on the wrong side of the road. Crime against nature and Jesus.
The fact that climate changed 8200 years ago from natural causes does nothing to disprove that humans are causing climate change now. If you're an ER physician and you see a patient with a hole in his heart and a bullet, do you say "my diagnosis is natural causes, the last 10 people with heart problems all had atherosclerosis"? Only on global warming do people buy into such foolishness. In fact, in both cases, we know what the specific physics is: a) Milankovitch cycles causing a maximum of effective solar driving & change in North Atlantic heating & circulation {we are now in the decreasing forcing phase of the cycle} We are NOT on an upturn now, we are on the downturn. b) fossil greenhouse gases added to atmosphere much faster than they are being sequestered resulting in higher infrared forcing. The specific details of the attribution of the latter mechanism are based on MUCH more than just armchair "oh we're seeing warming" --- it's what climateology has been working on for the last 40-50 years. For instance, poles warming more than equatorial regions, stratosphere cooling, night warming more than day, and not only that but direct observation of change of atmospheric infrared properties correlated exactly with the chemical changes and resulting physical effects as predicted from lab experimentation. There's tremendous observational evidence connected to specific physical mechanism.
Ever since Arrhenius did the math, both figuratively and literally, over a hundred years ago, correctly hypothesizing that CO2 raises the temp of the earth 30 degrees above the theoretical black body temp predicted by pure radiative balance (demonstrated by the moon, for instance, receiving the same sunlight but with no CO2), thereby making life as we know it possible, the onus has been on the AGW deniers to explain why CO2 would raise the black body temp of the earth and stop at the early 20th century level, no matter now much more CO2 we added. In essence, the AGW denialists are arguing that the earth may have been round up to now, but that doesn't mean it won't be flat in the future.
you just like saying "double dynamo".
In this day and age, don't attribute to incompetence that which can be sufficiently explained by malice.
It can be both. Kind of like, malice in blunderland.