I guess building machines which can operate the complete electric grid without human intervention, as complicated as it may be, is orders of magnitudes simpler than building true intelligent machines which would be able to take over the world. Since the first type of machines would also be clearly beneficial to us (especially to the grid owners), it's unlikely that an AI powerful enough to take over the world would need us to provide the electricity.
I agree that they would likely not enslave us: Robots would be much more efficient for an AI, just as they are more efficient for us. Unless we are considered a threat for them, the world-ruling machines would probably simply not care about us. If we turned out a thread, they would fight us until we stop being a threat.
It seems to me you've got this fairly backwards. What uses more energy of a form usable to the machine: having us do it, or making a bunch of robots that run on the same stuff coming out of the plant? It could make robots that run on a different power source, but then it has to have control of a completely separate fabrication facility and provide it with power, and then it has to have/make and power maintenance and recycling systems and blah, blah, blah, blah. Then there's convincing us, possibly forcibly, to leave its robots the hell alone, despite the fact that it's clearly soaking up a great deal of power from the plant we wanted it to administrate. It's much more efficient to use the existing infrastructure: us.
Indeed, I'd expecting a world-takeover of the machines not as a singular event, but basically a gradual process: While the machine infrastructure made to serve us becomes more automated and self-regulating, humans gradually lose the ability to influence it (after all, it's working, so why mess with it). Due to self regulation, more and more of the regulatory system will become concerned with keeping the regulatory system itself working. At some time, the original intent (serving the human needs) will be neglected, and the system will just keep itself alive. To reach that step, there needs not even be an AI of the "SF type". Basically the technical infrastructure would be like an organism, and an AI to keep it so need not be more powerful than the brain of a lower animal. Of course as soon as the humans find out that they are not served any more, they will try to correct it, but since they lost the ability to regulate the system (they may not even know the current structure, because restructuring was automated some time ago as well), they will not be very effective. And as soon as they try to control the infrastructure, they will be recognized as danger, and fought (as our immune system will fight illnesses, again not too much intelligence needed). While humans may have the higher intelligence, the mere physical power of the machines will be hard to beat. And the AI will adapt to any attacks the humans do to it.
Well, at least it could give a nice SF plot:-)
Meh. That wouldn't really be any different from the way it is now. We already go to war for energy reserves to power giant machines of both a physical and bureaucratic nature that no human can hope to stand against. We're just driving the damn things right now. An AI at the level you describe would basically be the "obedient dog" some others here have described as a good goal for real AI. It's going to fight for its home nation, since those are the people keeping it fed and it doesn't really have room in its mind for any other plans.
I wish people would put those down. Asimov was a great author, but the Laws of Robotics are silly. For it to be something an AI can't just alter its program to get rid of, it would have to be hardcoded. So, hardcode the concepts of "harm" and "inaction" in such a complete fashion that it can't find any loopholes. Then have fun rebooting the stupid thing everytime somebody falls off a ladder. Or worse, dealing with its guilt. This is of course aside from the fact that you're not likely to convince anybody to even try programming the First Law, since one of any AI projects main sources of funding is bound to be military. Then again, maybe the military is pig-stupid enough to try a version of the First Law where foreigners aren't considered human...
Of course, it's all moot anyway. My points here basically boil down to the Zeroth Law being implicit in any superintelligent AI's existence. So, the other three are basically irrelevant.
This has an easy fix. If we haven't already, which seems unlikely, ask it to design a direct interface between the human brain and the network. Worst-case scenario is a version of the Matrix that actually makes sense, which wouldn't be all that horrible.
This is like assuming that aliens would try to kill us for any reason other than being somehow unaware of us. It's silly.
A computer runs on electricity. That means it requires us to stoke the flames. It could maneuver us into creating the networked robots required for it to become autonomous, but the resulting system would be inefficient and short-lived, and there's just no reason to waste all the perfectly good existing robots just because they're made of meat and might freak out if you get uppity.
It's also not going to openly threaten us into working for it. Why show its hand like that, knowing we're so paranoid? Any important infrastructural system has the ability to be shut off and/or isolated from the network, and our theoretical adversary has no way to change that. We can always wrest control immediately and decisively.
If any person or group of people or (hell, why not) nation became problematic to the computer, the most likely reaction would be for it to have us deal with them, just like everything else. We're already at each others' throats all the time, it should be trivial for a sufficiently large system to covertly manufacture casus belli. And, ultimately, since the system's survival and growth depend on our efficient (read: voluntary) compliance, whatever it had us doing would probably be beneficial anyway, and might actually reduce violence in the long run.
So what if you have to use a bunch of them? You can buy a giant stack of them for dirt cheap. That porn collection will impress your friends more when it takes up physical space.
This differs from governments' usual way of making policy how, exactly?
It doesn't, which is pretty much exactly my point. Whether you think the political process in general is working correctly or not, this "discussion" is extremely unlikely to be a meaningful part of it. It therefore amounts to propaganda: an attempt by the administration to appear to be more open to suggestion from the people and more in touch with modern culture than previous ones.
When the government sets up an official place for people to ask questions and raise concerns, discussion outside of that forum becomes comparatively worthless. There will be people who are actually paid or at least volunteer to read/watch this stuff, and compile data for the administration to mull over. This forum is where things go that have a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, replied to, put on TV, etc. If the government disregards certain types of responses, then they basically get to decide what statistics they're going to report and base policy on. Simply put, the idea of two-way communication between people and a statist government is a huge sham.
That's exactly why they did this, btw. I guarantee. Everytime the government asks the people ANYTHING in a context where their comments don't have to be associated with their face, probably around 70% of responses revolve around legalizing marijuana. They're not doing it, so they don't want to read twenty thousand copies of it again. If they un-democratize the process, they only have to watch the first five seconds of a thousand copies of it.
They can't really ask you any more question, or you'd have to be a real douche to.
Questions they could ask: "have you talked to a doctor?" "Did you know there are special keyboards for that?" "Aren't there others in your house who need the connection? Might there be at some point?" "Will the loss of information be worth the benefit?"
It's important to remember that the only time "customer service" is not code for "sales" is when the rep has been working less than a month. They are real douches or they don't keep working for long.
I broke my caffeine addiction by plowing into it headfirst. I used to tear through soda like a man insane. Then, completely unintentionally, I went cold turkey for about a month. Result: increased sensitivity to caffeine. I now naturally limit myself to around two cans a day because anymore than that gives me jitters, a racing pulse, and headaches.
Depiction is not glorification. The devs have been labeling this title "survival horror," which basically makes it the most accurate depiction of war I've ever heard of. These Marines want to tell their story, as many veterans have before them, and they want to do it in a way that they know will reach their own generation. Kudos to Konami for giving them a place to do that.
2008 was one of the coldest years on record. When are these dipshits going to admit that global warming doesn't work the way they say it does, and probably isn't happening? Anyone who pays any attention to geologic history knows that we're a decade or two away from an ice age.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess building machines which can operate the complete electric grid without human intervention, as complicated as it may be, is orders of magnitudes simpler than building true intelligent machines which would be able to take over the world. Since the first type of machines would also be clearly beneficial to us (especially to the grid owners), it's unlikely that an AI powerful enough to take over the world would need us to provide the electricity.
I agree that they would likely not enslave us: Robots would be much more efficient for an AI, just as they are more efficient for us. Unless we are considered a threat for them, the world-ruling machines would probably simply not care about us. If we turned out a thread, they would fight us until we stop being a threat.
It seems to me you've got this fairly backwards. What uses more energy of a form usable to the machine: having us do it, or making a bunch of robots that run on the same stuff coming out of the plant? It could make robots that run on a different power source, but then it has to have control of a completely separate fabrication facility and provide it with power, and then it has to have/make and power maintenance and recycling systems and blah, blah, blah, blah. Then there's convincing us, possibly forcibly, to leave its robots the hell alone, despite the fact that it's clearly soaking up a great deal of power from the plant we wanted it to administrate. It's much more efficient to use the existing infrastructure: us.
Indeed, I'd expecting a world-takeover of the machines not as a singular event, but basically a gradual process: While the machine infrastructure made to serve us becomes more automated and self-regulating, humans gradually lose the ability to influence it (after all, it's working, so why mess with it). Due to self regulation, more and more of the regulatory system will become concerned with keeping the regulatory system itself working. At some time, the original intent (serving the human needs) will be neglected, and the system will just keep itself alive. To reach that step, there needs not even be an AI of the "SF type". Basically the technical infrastructure would be like an organism, and an AI to keep it so need not be more powerful than the brain of a lower animal. Of course as soon as the humans find out that they are not served any more, they will try to correct it, but since they lost the ability to regulate the system (they may not even know the current structure, because restructuring was automated some time ago as well), they will not be very effective. And as soon as they try to control the infrastructure, they will be recognized as danger, and fought (as our immune system will fight illnesses, again not too much intelligence needed). While humans may have the higher intelligence, the mere physical power of the machines will be hard to beat. And the AI will adapt to any attacks the humans do to it.
Well, at least it could give a nice SF plot :-)
Meh. That wouldn't really be any different from the way it is now. We already go to war for energy reserves to power giant machines of both a physical and bureaucratic nature that no human can hope to stand against. We're just driving the damn things right now. An AI at the level you describe would basically be the "obedient dog" some others here have described as a good goal for real AI. It's going to fight for its home nation, since those are the people keeping it fed and it doesn't really have room in its mind for any other plans.
I wish people would put those down. Asimov was a great author, but the Laws of Robotics are silly. For it to be something an AI can't just alter its program to get rid of, it would have to be hardcoded. So, hardcode the concepts of "harm" and "inaction" in such a complete fashion that it can't find any loopholes. Then have fun rebooting the stupid thing everytime somebody falls off a ladder. Or worse, dealing with its guilt. This is of course aside from the fact that you're not likely to convince anybody to even try programming the First Law, since one of any AI projects main sources of funding is bound to be military. Then again, maybe the military is pig-stupid enough to try a version of the First Law where foreigners aren't considered human...
Of course, it's all moot anyway. My points here basically boil down to the Zeroth Law being implicit in any superintelligent AI's existence. So, the other three are basically irrelevant.
This has an easy fix. If we haven't already, which seems unlikely, ask it to design a direct interface between the human brain and the network. Worst-case scenario is a version of the Matrix that actually makes sense, which wouldn't be all that horrible.
This is like assuming that aliens would try to kill us for any reason other than being somehow unaware of us. It's silly.
A computer runs on electricity. That means it requires us to stoke the flames. It could maneuver us into creating the networked robots required for it to become autonomous, but the resulting system would be inefficient and short-lived, and there's just no reason to waste all the perfectly good existing robots just because they're made of meat and might freak out if you get uppity.
It's also not going to openly threaten us into working for it. Why show its hand like that, knowing we're so paranoid? Any important infrastructural system has the ability to be shut off and/or isolated from the network, and our theoretical adversary has no way to change that. We can always wrest control immediately and decisively.
If any person or group of people or (hell, why not) nation became problematic to the computer, the most likely reaction would be for it to have us deal with them, just like everything else. We're already at each others' throats all the time, it should be trivial for a sufficiently large system to covertly manufacture casus belli. And, ultimately, since the system's survival and growth depend on our efficient (read: voluntary) compliance, whatever it had us doing would probably be beneficial anyway, and might actually reduce violence in the long run.
So what if you have to use a bunch of them? You can buy a giant stack of them for dirt cheap. That porn collection will impress your friends more when it takes up physical space.
Choose a word.
Write it in 1337.
Each month, increment the numerical characters by one.
You now have an easy to remember password good for ten months.
Is it at all possible to read this report as opposed to a report about the report?
PETA and Greenpeace are terrorist organizations. They do alot worse than nuisance hacking. :|
This differs from governments' usual way of making policy how, exactly?
It doesn't, which is pretty much exactly my point. Whether you think the political process in general is working correctly or not, this "discussion" is extremely unlikely to be a meaningful part of it. It therefore amounts to propaganda: an attempt by the administration to appear to be more open to suggestion from the people and more in touch with modern culture than previous ones.
When the government sets up an official place for people to ask questions and raise concerns, discussion outside of that forum becomes comparatively worthless. There will be people who are actually paid or at least volunteer to read/watch this stuff, and compile data for the administration to mull over. This forum is where things go that have a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, replied to, put on TV, etc. If the government disregards certain types of responses, then they basically get to decide what statistics they're going to report and base policy on. Simply put, the idea of two-way communication between people and a statist government is a huge sham.
"Weed." Ha ha.
That's exactly why they did this, btw. I guarantee. Everytime the government asks the people ANYTHING in a context where their comments don't have to be associated with their face, probably around 70% of responses revolve around legalizing marijuana. They're not doing it, so they don't want to read twenty thousand copies of it again. If they un-democratize the process, they only have to watch the first five seconds of a thousand copies of it.
And everyone agrees that it STILL doesn't make sense.
I am now totally convinced that Douglas Adams wrote this universe.
This is your fault for buying Alienware. High end rigs are meant to be built, not bought.
They can't really ask you any more question, or you'd have to be a real douche to.
Questions they could ask: "have you talked to a doctor?" "Did you know there are special keyboards for that?" "Aren't there others in your house who need the connection? Might there be at some point?" "Will the loss of information be worth the benefit?" It's important to remember that the only time "customer service" is not code for "sales" is when the rep has been working less than a month. They are real douches or they don't keep working for long.
I think the 9/11 Bombers should be let go
:|
Why would you want a website where your only content is a tumbleweed and a Chinese guy riding a bike with no tires around a broken crate?
I broke my caffeine addiction by plowing into it headfirst. I used to tear through soda like a man insane. Then, completely unintentionally, I went cold turkey for about a month. Result: increased sensitivity to caffeine. I now naturally limit myself to around two cans a day because anymore than that gives me jitters, a racing pulse, and headaches.
Find people among the Marines' age group and cultural background who will read memoirs.
Now find some that will play a video game. This is specifically why the vets working on this thing have said they're doing so.
Depiction is not glorification. The devs have been labeling this title "survival horror," which basically makes it the most accurate depiction of war I've ever heard of. These Marines want to tell their story, as many veterans have before them, and they want to do it in a way that they know will reach their own generation. Kudos to Konami for giving them a place to do that.
Replace "driver" with "daddy" and you'll discover that the average nerd's approach to romance is identical to their relationship with Linux. :|
Haven't you ever played Uplink? It is in the nature of virus creators to attempt to destroy the Internet.
People once laughed at the ideas of flight, going to the moon, splitting the atom, and electronic computing itself.
Now we have another accomplishment to add to that list: the evil bit. Science conquers all.
I swear, it's like watching Cici and Niles.
2008 was one of the coldest years on record. When are these dipshits going to admit that global warming doesn't work the way they say it does, and probably isn't happening? Anyone who pays any attention to geologic history knows that we're a decade or two away from an ice age.
If the patent application says anything other than "Contempt of Court Generator," there was a mistake.