You're also playing at equivocation. Your "point" invites comparison between what is widely-accepted now to what is widely-accepted in the past,
I reply to you but the comment goes for all other replies as well.
Did you read the post I quoted?
He specifically asks:
I wonder what kind of batting average you could get by always going with widely accepted vs. widely rejected.
(n.b. - Not a rhetorical questions.)
The answer may look obvious to many; it's intuitively better to always go with widely accepted.
Well, going with widely accepted, while better than going with widely rejected, doesn't have such a great record either. So, even while the objective is correct "to teach what's widely accepted" the hipotetical reason is flawed "because that worked in the past".
How does a group get an evolutionary advantage ? 1) more children... that will do it. 2) more people dying as a result of their actions (as opposed to getting old and dependant) (in short : more selection)
That's a very primitive view of evolution. The index of the evolutionary advantage that applies more correctly to modern humans would be: 1) Less chance of being exterminated by natural or artificial causes. 2) Less chance of becoming a functional slave to another human being.
On both points having an inferior education and less economical power really fracks you up.
If I had a replicator that took raw materials and energy and was able to recreate anything I desired you can bet your ass I would be using it, especially to replicate "luxury" items like expensive cars or high-tech gadgets.
Seriously? Your first instinct was "expensive car"?
Only in Slashdot.
P.S.: And possibly in religious forums, where they think there's more to a human being than its materials.
You wouldn't steal a baby. You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again!
the powers that be eventually will either pull the plug or filter the internet, making the ability to express ideas, opinions and communications among the common folk more difficult.
And then we'll go back to a feudal monarchy. And then a slave empire. And then we'll go back to the caves.
I think your CIV was one of the flawed copies that played in reverse. Didn't you find it strange that you were the only one starting in Alpha Centauri?
I can almost hear the thundering footsteps of developers rushing to HTML 5. I have to admit, I'm one of them.
HTML5 Music Notation Version 0.1 by 0xfe
Test 1 HTML5 Canvas not supported on this browser. Test 2 HTML5 Canvas not supported on this browser. Test 3 HTML5 Canvas not supported on this browser. Generated completely with JavaScript using the HTML5 "Canvas" tag.
once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter"
Why? There are plenty of humans who take great pride in "don't wanna know that sh*t - I'm keeping it 'real'"!
Sorry, you're right. I should've stated that my definition of consciousness implied surpassing farm animals, tamagotchis and those specimens you speak of.
The easiest way to create AI is to model the neuron inside of a computer, slice up someone's brain into lots of thin slices, and then recreate their brain in the computer. Mapping the inputs is the hard part.
You know that now, once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter" will be to slice all human brains into slices.
I've always imagined that the way to overcome the big step is to make a growing, or self replicating machine that incorporates the newly grown elements to its processing power.
I've always imagined it as a biological computer that just needs a mesh of feeding and respiration tubes to grow around.
From that point on, we'd just have to add modules to the tube mesh, wait for the brain to grow and test from time to time if it's "awaken".
The only remaining question is: will it grow slowly enough as to allow us to detect sentience before it develops deceit and decides to let us keep feeding him and making him ever bigger, while he searches for a way of becoming self sufficient and conquer the universe?
This doesn't seem like the most efficient distribution mechanism Steve
I always had my doubts about the efficiency of Steve as a distribution mechanism.
You got it wrong.
He was expressing his doubts about the efficiency of the distribution to Mechanism Steve; the living AI that was embedded in a robot soldier, to preside Apple.
Well, they were about to try the concrete dome aproach, but the germans refused to get under it. Aparently the cheese piece wasn't big enough or something.
go to a bar, and try using the words "kickass invisibility cloak" as part of any pickup strategy with a woman of your choice.
Hmmm... "Hey, do you know where the cloakroom is?... Hmm, kickass music; it reminds me of Underground Invisibility. Are you into death metal?"
P.S.: My woman of choice did make me a black cloak, took pictures of me wearing it and then photoshopped it to make it look as an invisibility cloak. True story.
Slashdot Mirror
You're also playing at equivocation. Your "point" invites comparison between what is widely-accepted now to what is widely-accepted in the past,
I reply to you but the comment goes for all other replies as well.
Did you read the post I quoted?
He specifically asks:
I wonder what kind of batting average you could get by always going with widely accepted vs. widely rejected.
(n.b. - Not a rhetorical questions.)
The answer may look obvious to many; it's intuitively better to always go with widely accepted.
Well, going with widely accepted, while better than going with widely rejected, doesn't have such a great record either. So, even while the objective is correct "to teach what's widely accepted" the hipotetical reason is flawed "because that worked in the past".
Which was my only point.
How does a group get an evolutionary advantage ? ... that will do it.
1) more children
2) more people dying as a result of their actions (as opposed to getting old and dependant) (in short : more selection)
That's a very primitive view of evolution. The index of the evolutionary advantage that applies more correctly to modern humans would be:
1) Less chance of being exterminated by natural or artificial causes.
2) Less chance of becoming a functional slave to another human being.
On both points having an inferior education and less economical power really fracks you up.
I wonder what kind of batting average you could get by always going with widely accepted vs. widely rejected.
(n.b. - Not a rhetorical questions.)
Ok, let's start by physics. Which part of what was widely accepted as true two thousand years ago ended up being true?
We can then go to biology.
etc.
(For the sake of discussion, you may consider we agree on math)
That's the problem. Texas buys the most textbooks, and thus has undue influence on the industry.
I didn't say it'd be a cheap fence.
If you can't fight them... Put a fence around and let them devolve in peace.
If I had a replicator that took raw materials and energy and was able to recreate anything I desired you can bet your ass I would be using it, especially to replicate "luxury" items like expensive cars or high-tech gadgets.
Seriously? Your first instinct was "expensive car"?
Only in Slashdot.
P.S.: And possibly in religious forums, where they think there's more to a human being than its materials.
You wouldn't steal a bag
You wouldn't steal a car
You wouldn't steal a baby.
You wouldn't shoot a policeman.
And then steal his helmet.
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet.
And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.
And then steal it again!
The chair is against the door.....the chair is against the door.
ffs...
Someone has to tell the prime minister to stop doin... The Bird! I meant the Bird! HGhaaa a.,gd,,
Never heard of him.
Well, now you have.
Ta-Da!
BROWN LEAVES HOTEL.
The bird is on the tree. I repeat. THE BIRD IS ON THE TREE.
the powers that be eventually will either pull the plug or filter the internet, making the ability to express ideas, opinions and communications among the common folk more difficult.
And then we'll go back to a feudal monarchy. And then a slave empire. And then we'll go back to the caves.
I think your CIV was one of the flawed copies that played in reverse. Didn't you find it strange that you were the only one starting in Alpha Centauri?
First they ignore you
Then laugh at you
Then hate you
Then they fight you
Then you win - you are here
Then you do a FATALITY!
Then the next challenger laughs at you.
So what you mean is:
- Kill everyone
- Burn down all locations
Guys. I've got someone here who knows about protocol ICU2. There's been a leak. Apply procedure K111 to subject and all related to the sixth degree.
Guaranteed security: remove all power supplies, user inputs, and network connections, and melt all hard drives.
You forgot:
- Kill everyone involved.
- Burn down all locations where the data was ever present.
With correct definitions for "involved" and "present", you can guarantee security.
I can almost hear the thundering footsteps of developers rushing to HTML 5. I have to admit, I'm one of them.
HTML5 Music Notation
Version 0.1 by 0xfe
Test 1
HTML5 Canvas not supported on this browser.
Test 2
HTML5 Canvas not supported on this browser.
Test 3
HTML5 Canvas not supported on this browser.
Generated completely with JavaScript using the HTML5 "Canvas" tag.
Obviously, I'm at work.
Sorry, I'm not big on memes. That entire post was a joke about the kid who supported Britney Spears, right?
Maybe he was one of the x% wrongfully imprisoned.
(x goes from 0.01 to 0.6 depending on who you ask)
once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter"
Why? There are plenty of humans who take great pride in "don't wanna know that sh*t - I'm keeping it 'real'"!
Sorry, you're right. I should've stated that my definition of consciousness implied surpassing farm animals, tamagotchis and those specimens you speak of.
The easiest way to create AI is to model the neuron inside of a computer, slice up someone's brain into lots of thin slices, and then recreate their brain in the computer. Mapping the inputs is the hard part.
You know that now, once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter" will be to slice all human brains into slices.
And it will all be your fault.
I don't find it exotic.
I've always imagined that the way to overcome the big step is to make a growing, or self replicating machine that incorporates the newly grown elements to its processing power.
I've always imagined it as a biological computer that just needs a mesh of feeding and respiration tubes to grow around.
From that point on, we'd just have to add modules to the tube mesh, wait for the brain to grow and test from time to time if it's "awaken".
The only remaining question is: will it grow slowly enough as to allow us to detect sentience before it develops deceit and decides to let us keep feeding him and making him ever bigger, while he searches for a way of becoming self sufficient and conquer the universe?
This doesn't seem like the most efficient distribution mechanism Steve
I always had my doubts about the efficiency of Steve as a distribution mechanism.
You got it wrong.
He was expressing his doubts about the efficiency of the distribution to Mechanism Steve; the living AI that was embedded in a robot soldier, to preside Apple.
The early prototype for what eventually became the Palm Pre, Blackberry Bold, and Nokia Symbian phones.
What are those? Like castrated Nexus Ones or Legends? ... Nexi? Nexuses?
What was their alternative?
Well, they were about to try the concrete dome aproach, but the germans refused to get under it. Aparently the cheese piece wasn't big enough or something.
go to a bar, and try using the words "kickass invisibility cloak" as part of any pickup strategy with a woman of your choice.
Hmmm... "Hey, do you know where the cloakroom is? ... Hmm, kickass music; it reminds me of Underground Invisibility. Are you into death metal?"
P.S.: My woman of choice did make me a black cloak, took pictures of me wearing it and then photoshopped it to make it look as an invisibility cloak. True story.
lay public, you have to use words they understand
Your lay public are dumber than mine if they can't understand these words:
Kickass
Invisibility
Cloak
Are you sure they passed the initial "Is this people?" test? Pay extra attention to "indicator 32: Does it bark?".