You're absolutely correct. Let's look at recent publishing history. From TFA:
(We expect that for good stories, the ratings would tend to cluster around the high end of the scale, so with that smaller variance, it would take a larger sample size to find a statistically significant difference between the quality of two stories.)
Look into the critical reviews of Dan Brown's books.
Or the Twilight series.
Or the 50 Shades of Grey series.
Now compare those statistics to the Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs sales.
Yep. Since they already know who leaked this the real question is whether he will be fired for breach of trust or whatever. If he's not fired then this is more likely a publicity stunt despite what anyone claims.
Anyway, she can always create another pseudonym and start writing under that name.
Or submit a manuscript to a different publishing company under a pseudonym and see if she can get that published.
1. I don't believe that there are any "biomarkers" for "violence" that are not common to every person alive today.
2. Remember "The Bell Curve"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve Once you start attempting to match biology to behaviour you run into all kinds of problems with biases and statistics.
Cyber-war/Cyber-warfare - take a drink Cyber-weapon - take a drink Cyber-warrior/Cyber-soldier - chug Cyber-command - chug Others?
Anyway, if this is such a big risk (aside from alcohol poisoning) then why aren't other countries switching to Linux and training their own programmers so that they can "harden" it?
If they have to use something that they did not write/audit themselves then that should be completely isolated.
Wouldn't the intelligent thing to do (if this is really a threat) be to develop a 5 year goal of moving off of software written by your potential cyber-emenies (take a shot).
Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.
Again, that was AFTER Zimmerman strapped on a gun, got out of his car and followed Martin. Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.
An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman. She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.
While I think Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin once the police were contacted, following someone on a public street is not actually illegal in any way in Florida.
Wait until you get a girlfriend and ask her how she feels when some guy starts following her on the street. It may not be illegal. But that is not the same as being innocent.
Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin.
That is Zimmerman's story. Whether that is factual or not cannot be determined any more because the other person is dead.
Zimmerman wouldn't have had a chance to try to flee considering he was on the ground getting pounded.
That would be after Zimmerman decided to follow Martin and got out of his car and kept following Martin. Even if the events happened in that way it is a bit strange to talk of fleeing AFTER the confrontation that Zimmerman apparently wanted had happened.
That lead to Martin being shot.
No. Zimmerman could have NOT carried a gun which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Zimmerman could have NOT followed Martin which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Only after breaking each of those rules was Zimmerman armed and in a fist fight.
Since he was losing the fight, he shot the other guy.
If it were up to me there would have been no conflict, or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off and it would have ended there, but let's be clear about this: if you want to violently attack a stranger who has not initiated violence against you, you are taking a risk
Except that it was Zimmerman who initiated the conflict by following Martin. Again, when you get a girlfriend, ask her about a stranger who starts following her.
We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble, and all this does is lower the risk of burglarizing the law-abiding which in turn can only make burglers more bold.
So a burglar is more bold because the homeowner might NOT shoot him? I don't think so.
I'm wondering why there are still any unsolved major crimes. The government has access almost all of your communications. And if you have a cell phone they have a record of where that cell phone travels.
If all of this is to fight "terrorism" then why haven't we also wiped out kidnapping, drug gangs, organized crime and such?
If this worked, the USofA should be virtually crime free.
Javascript is supposed to be sandboxed in all modern browsers, but that doesn't make it perfect.
And Java was supposed to be in a safe sandbox as well. And anyone here should know about the variety of Java exploits out there and the constant patching to stay ahead of them.
Trusting a sandbox is stupid. You also need a way to globally deny the option of running the code in the first place.
What exactly was "stupid" about ActiveX aside from potential malicious code (either directly or via overflows) that was either enabled by default or presented to the user with a "just click yes so the website will work" style input box?
Isn't the part about enabling malicious code by default stupid enough?
Firefox "avoided" this by not implementing ActiveX but most or all of the functionality was recreated in Javascript, giving it basically the exact same level of "stupid" with the benefit of having learned from about 10 years of exploits.
It's more of the "globally disabled EXCEPT for a whitelist maintained by the user".
It's the security methodology that is the difference. Global enable vs global deny.
And Microsoft had the exact same reasoning behind their global enable. It makes it easier for THIRD PARTIES to present their content in the way that they want to the user.
That's almost acceptable when those THIRD PARTIES are trustworthy.
But those THIRD PARTIES could just as easily be crackers. And why make it easier for crackers to run their code on your computer in the way that they want to?
Are there still security issues with having JS enabled?
One of the main reasons I switched to Firefox in the beginning was because they seemed to understand that NOT doing something stupid was preferable to layers and layers of patches for the stupidity.
IE had ActiveX and such. It was stupid. It was a security issue. It was almost impossible to avoid.
Firefox avoided the entire security issue by allowing functionality to be disabled. While you cannot be 100% certain that XYZ feature had no security issues (or even that there were security issues) you knew that disabling it rendered the question moot.
If your site requires JavaScript or Flash or whatever then I can temporarily enable them just for your site if you can convince me that the risk is worth your content.
I have a long track record of success, despite limited formal education.
Most companies are willing to trade years of experience and certifications for specific degrees. Do you have certifications?
Despite many accomplishments, published papers, and more, I cannot seem to get past the canned hiring process and actually get before a hiring manager.
Are the "published papers" in the same tech field that you're looking in for a job? You have enough knowledge to write papers on the subject but no one will hire you to work in that field?
Is the job situation where you live that bad? Can you move?
I've always considered "turns against" to be an unlikely scenario.
The first problem is that you've skipped over how it was created and you're focusing on how it took over once it was created.
And if you're going to do that then you can replace "AI" with "aliens" or "mutants" or "witches" or "Satan".
I envision the machine becoming an "infallible advisor"...
And if that was what it was intended to do then it is operating within spec. So what is the difference between that system and a non-AI system designed to provide the same service?
Obligatory car analogy - an AI designs a more efficient car. A non-AI expert system designs a more efficient car. What is the difference between the AI and the non-AI?
FWIW, *both* military and factories are already well hooked up to proto-AIs.
I think you're using an overly broad definition of "proto-AI".
It's true, their decisions are tightly focused, but High Frequency Trading is only the most obvious example.
Again, I think your definition is overly broad. HFT just follows the set algorithms (written by humans) as fast as possible within the limits of the connection to trading computers.
It's my opinion that the first true general purpose AI will arise by accident.
Possibly. But that means that the AI must also be able to run on the same processors that run non-AI systems. And on the same operating systems. Which means that an accidentally evolved AI would probably be seen more as a glitch than a threat. Instead of running the apps that it is supposed to, it starts running SelfAwareness.py and eating up all the processor time and RAM. Time to reboot.
Now you not only have to take out the machine, its minions, but the country itself. And if more than one government back the machine? Such as NATO, or CSTO? Then what? Now you have to take out entire military alliances.
Then you're not talking about a machine apocalypse but rather business-as-usual. It's not until the machine turns against its creators/owners that there is a problem. Otherwise it is doing exactly what it was spec'ed to do.
The institute was sparked in part by a conversation between Price and Tallinn, during which the latter wondered, "in his pessimistic moments", if heâ(TM)s "more likely to die from an AI accident than from cancer or heart disease".
Someone doesn't know the difference between "pessimistic" and "optimistic".
In short, the answer is "no".
Not only that, you have things like EMP and nukes, not even the best AI is capable of thwarting getting bombed or nuked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project That depends upon what the AI is hooked up to. And that is EXACTLY the issue with this kind of speculation. Unless the AI is hooked into military command and control infrastructure OR controls a manufacturing plant then it will be more of a novelty than a threat.
If it is even recognized as an AI and not a glitch which gets it wiped and re-installed.
If it works out as expected everybody in Iowa benefits.
While broadly true, it is also true that the benefits will be very unevenly spread.
I'm more interested in the total square footage of these data centers and the average/median pay of the employees (also total number of employees). It is probably pays better than farming the land. But data centers usually have lots of servers and very few highly paid/skilled LOCAL workers.
Sometimes the hype tends to pan out and concepts such as âoee-commerceâ become a normal way to shop.
60% of the time, it works every time.
Either way, the term âoesoftware definedâ is with us to stay, and there is real meaning and value behind it if you look past the hype.
Except that the term "software defined" is not itself defined except by whatever marketing department wants to make it fit their product. And the term will eventually be replaced with another marketing term. Just as SaaS replaced ASP. Just as ASP replaced thin-client.
What all these âoesoftware-definedâ concepts really boil down to is: Virtualization of the underlying component and accessibility through some documented API to provision, operate and manage the low-level component.
Which means that you'll only have the access and granularity that the API gives you.
And somewhere, someone will have to deal with the real servers and switches and such. And to him, you'll just be another account in a bunch of accounts. Sure, they'll deduct the cost of your downtime from your next bill. Well, the cost of what you pay them per business hour per business day.
Don't like it? Just try to get your data from them so that you can move it to a different provider.
And each provider will be under the same pressures to reduce costs as much as possible in order to maximize their profits.
People are corrupt, greedy, and stupid... this naturally leads to an erosion of individual rights.
Not just that. Freedom is scary. There are always lots of "reasonable" arguments to give up some freedom (even just for a little while) in order to defeat or defend against the "bad guys".
You don't want your freedom getting in the way of fighting the bad guys, do you?
The bad guys will abuse your freedom so that they can attack us good guys.
As always, Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
That is not the same as declaring war on the USofA.
By telling the Chinese and the world that the US spies on them and leaking important details, he has empowered our enemies.
How? Look up ECHELON. The story here is how much the USofA spies on its own citizens.
Furthermore, he fled to China to escape US justice, and then did a weak post-hoc justification of fleeing to an enemy country...
So China is an "enemy country"?
Where do you think your mobile phone is manufactured? If they're an "enemy" then we certainly do a lot to help their economy and employment.
I stand by what I said. He's knowingly committed suicide by doing this.
Taking a stand is not the same as committing suicide.
Our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to convict them if they lost the war. But it was not a suicide pact. It was them standing up for their beliefs.
Or, to phrase it another way: if you have the hacking skills to retaliate then you have the skills to be invulnerable to the attack in the first place.
The enemy cracker has a limited number of targets: 1. your router. 2. your firewall. 3. whatever service you provide through your firewall (you do have a DMZ, right?). 4. flooding your bandwidth with traffic from thousands of zombies.
Anyone have any other types of attack that I forgot? And if you cannot secure those (except for #4) then you probably won't be able to "hack back".
Thailand's Rangers Task Force 45, in response to Army policy, has put its troops to the task of promoting and protecting the monarchy in cyber space,...
Retweeting Private Ryan.
And yet that made sense to someone in their military.
If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I was talking about the inability of science to do something, not religion's ability to do things.
That part is okay. It's accurate.
Which is why the belief that the universe started with a big bang, for example, is faith-based.
Bullshit. That's wrong.
Science is falsifiable. Faith is NOT falsifiable.
The CURRENT model says that the "Big Bang" was the origin of this universe. But that model is based upon specific, identified observations and experiments and PREDICTIONS.
Now that model may be incorrect. But whatever new model replaces it will still have to account for all the specific, identified observations and experiments and PREDICTIONS that formed the basis for the "Big Bang" model.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely correct. Let's look at recent publishing history. From TFA:
Look into the critical reviews of Dan Brown's books.
Or the Twilight series.
Or the 50 Shades of Grey series.
Now compare those statistics to the Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs sales.
Yep. Since they already know who leaked this the real question is whether he will be fired for breach of trust or whatever. If he's not fired then this is more likely a publicity stunt despite what anyone claims.
Anyway, she can always create another pseudonym and start writing under that name.
Or submit a manuscript to a different publishing company under a pseudonym and see if she can get that published.
1. I don't believe that there are any "biomarkers" for "violence" that are not common to every person alive today.
2. Remember "The Bell Curve"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve Once you start attempting to match biology to behaviour you run into all kinds of problems with biases and statistics.
We need rules for these articles in the future.
Cyber-war/Cyber-warfare - take a drink
Cyber-weapon - take a drink
Cyber-warrior/Cyber-soldier - chug
Cyber-command - chug
Others?
Anyway, if this is such a big risk (aside from alcohol poisoning) then why aren't other countries switching to Linux and training their own programmers so that they can "harden" it?
If they have to use something that they did not write/audit themselves then that should be completely isolated.
Wouldn't the intelligent thing to do (if this is really a threat) be to develop a 5 year goal of moving off of software written by your potential cyber-emenies (take a shot).
Again, that was AFTER Zimmerman strapped on a gun, got out of his car and followed Martin. Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.
An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman. She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.
Wait until you get a girlfriend and ask her how she feels when some guy starts following her on the street. It may not be illegal. But that is not the same as being innocent.
That is Zimmerman's story. Whether that is factual or not cannot be determined any more because the other person is dead.
That would be after Zimmerman decided to follow Martin and got out of his car and kept following Martin. Even if the events happened in that way it is a bit strange to talk of fleeing AFTER the confrontation that Zimmerman apparently wanted had happened.
No. Zimmerman could have NOT carried a gun which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Zimmerman could have NOT followed Martin which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Only after breaking each of those rules was Zimmerman armed and in a fist fight.
Since he was losing the fight, he shot the other guy.
Except that it was Zimmerman who initiated the conflict by following Martin. Again, when you get a girlfriend, ask her about a stranger who starts following her.
So a burglar is more bold because the homeowner might NOT shoot him? I don't think so.
If you send an email "through the cloud" (and how else are you going to send it today) then the NSA collects the "meta-data" (at least).
If your message is encrypted then the NSA also holds onto the message. Even if they do not decrypt it.
If you store your data "in the cloud" then the NSA can copy that as well.
Being able to erase stuff on your personal machine does not matter in these instances. Even if the average person could understand the issues.
I'm wondering why there are still any unsolved major crimes. The government has access almost all of your communications. And if you have a cell phone they have a record of where that cell phone travels.
If all of this is to fight "terrorism" then why haven't we also wiped out kidnapping, drug gangs, organized crime and such?
If this worked, the USofA should be virtually crime free.
And Java was supposed to be in a safe sandbox as well. And anyone here should know about the variety of Java exploits out there and the constant patching to stay ahead of them.
Trusting a sandbox is stupid.
You also need a way to globally deny the option of running the code in the first place.
Isn't the part about enabling malicious code by default stupid enough?
It's more of the "globally disabled EXCEPT for a whitelist maintained by the user".
It's the security methodology that is the difference.
Global enable vs global deny.
And Microsoft had the exact same reasoning behind their global enable. It makes it easier for THIRD PARTIES to present their content in the way that they want to the user.
That's almost acceptable when those THIRD PARTIES are trustworthy.
But those THIRD PARTIES could just as easily be crackers. And why make it easier for crackers to run their code on your computer in the way that they want to?
One of the main reasons I switched to Firefox in the beginning was because they seemed to understand that NOT doing something stupid was preferable to layers and layers of patches for the stupidity.
IE had ActiveX and such. It was stupid. It was a security issue. It was almost impossible to avoid.
Firefox avoided the entire security issue by allowing functionality to be disabled. While you cannot be 100% certain that XYZ feature had no security issues (or even that there were security issues) you knew that disabling it rendered the question moot.
If your site requires JavaScript or Flash or whatever then I can temporarily enable them just for your site if you can convince me that the risk is worth your content.
Most companies are willing to trade years of experience and certifications for specific degrees. Do you have certifications?
Are the "published papers" in the same tech field that you're looking in for a job? You have enough knowledge to write papers on the subject but no one will hire you to work in that field?
Is the job situation where you live that bad? Can you move?
The first problem is that you've skipped over how it was created and you're focusing on how it took over once it was created.
And if you're going to do that then you can replace "AI" with "aliens" or "mutants" or "witches" or "Satan".
And if that was what it was intended to do then it is operating within spec. So what is the difference between that system and a non-AI system designed to provide the same service?
Obligatory car analogy - an AI designs a more efficient car. A non-AI expert system designs a more efficient car. What is the difference between the AI and the non-AI?
I know those "Forever" stamps could not be trusted. And the mailman? Do you think he's innocent? Don't you know that he delivers computers?
http://www.amazon.com/CPU-Processors-Memory-Computer-Add-Ons/b?ie=UTF8&node=229189
Do you think there's any safe place? Do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
There is no escape.
I think you're using an overly broad definition of "proto-AI".
Again, I think your definition is overly broad. HFT just follows the set algorithms (written by humans) as fast as possible within the limits of the connection to trading computers.
Possibly. But that means that the AI must also be able to run on the same processors that run non-AI systems. And on the same operating systems. Which means that an accidentally evolved AI would probably be seen more as a glitch than a threat. Instead of running the apps that it is supposed to, it starts running SelfAwareness.py and eating up all the processor time and RAM. Time to reboot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/georgian-woman-cuts-web-access
Then you're not talking about a machine apocalypse but rather business-as-usual. It's not until the machine turns against its creators/owners that there is a problem. Otherwise it is doing exactly what it was spec'ed to do.
From TFA:
Someone doesn't know the difference between "pessimistic" and "optimistic".
In short, the answer is "no".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
That depends upon what the AI is hooked up to. And that is EXACTLY the issue with this kind of speculation. Unless the AI is hooked into military command and control infrastructure OR controls a manufacturing plant then it will be more of a novelty than a threat.
If it is even recognized as an AI and not a glitch which gets it wiped and re-installed.
While broadly true, it is also true that the benefits will be very unevenly spread.
I'm more interested in the total square footage of these data centers and the average/median pay of the employees (also total number of employees). It is probably pays better than farming the land. But data centers usually have lots of servers and very few highly paid/skilled LOCAL workers.
I think they already did. From TFA:
60% of the time, it works every time.
Except that the term "software defined" is not itself defined except by whatever marketing department wants to make it fit their product.
And the term will eventually be replaced with another marketing term.
Just as SaaS replaced ASP.
Just as ASP replaced thin-client.
Which means that you'll only have the access and granularity that the API gives you.
And somewhere, someone will have to deal with the real servers and switches and such. And to him, you'll just be another account in a bunch of accounts. Sure, they'll deduct the cost of your downtime from your next bill. Well, the cost of what you pay them per business hour per business day.
Don't like it? Just try to get your data from them so that you can move it to a different provider.
And each provider will be under the same pressures to reduce costs as much as possible in order to maximize their profits.
Not just that. Freedom is scary. There are always lots of "reasonable" arguments to give up some freedom (even just for a little while) in order to defeat or defend against the "bad guys".
You don't want your freedom getting in the way of fighting the bad guys, do you?
The bad guys will abuse your freedom so that they can attack us good guys.
As always, Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
That is not the same as declaring war on the USofA.
How? Look up ECHELON. The story here is how much the USofA spies on its own citizens.
So China is an "enemy country"?
Where do you think your mobile phone is manufactured? If they're an "enemy" then we certainly do a lot to help their economy and employment.
Taking a stand is not the same as committing suicide.
Our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to convict them if they lost the war. But it was not a suicide pact. It was them standing up for their beliefs.
Anything else is tyranny.
Or, to phrase it another way: if you have the hacking skills to retaliate then you have the skills to be invulnerable to the attack in the first place.
The enemy cracker has a limited number of targets:
1. your router.
2. your firewall.
3. whatever service you provide through your firewall (you do have a DMZ, right?).
4. flooding your bandwidth with traffic from thousands of zombies.
Anyone have any other types of attack that I forgot? And if you cannot secure those (except for #4) then you probably won't be able to "hack back".
I don't know but I've been told
4th platoon got Rick Rolled
Am I right or wrong? (you're right!)
Are we going strong? (we're strong!)
Retweeting Private Ryan.
And yet that made sense to someone in their military.
That part is okay. It's accurate.
Bullshit. That's wrong.
Science is falsifiable.
Faith is NOT falsifiable.
The CURRENT model says that the "Big Bang" was the origin of this universe. But that model is based upon specific, identified observations and experiments and PREDICTIONS.
Now that model may be incorrect. But whatever new model replaces it will still have to account for all the specific, identified observations and experiments and PREDICTIONS that formed the basis for the "Big Bang" model.