It looks like I-35 is roughly the dividing line between a much lighter East and generally darker West. Luckily, I live just west of said road, and can head further west to watch from the top of a big bald rock.
Do you think that when I talk about "AI" I should be referring to "thinking" machines that simulate or somehow replicate human intelligence?
Or do you think I should be referring to a whole host of clever tricks that make us say "Wow, that solves a problem cleverly that we didn't think was subject to brute force."
It seems like there is a lot of hype about AI, but all sorts of ideas out there about what we mean when we mention "AI" at all. What do you think we (nerds) should think of "AI" as?
An individual could write a virus with encrypted source and make it available for download (for community testing purposes, of course). The individual would hold the copyright on this software.
This piece of software would not be necessarily malicious. Because people can use it for its intended purposes only (testing the integrity of their own system/network), any claims that its malicious nature makes it an illegal work, not protected by copyright law, are invalid.
The malicious nature of something is judged more by its intent than by its extent. Providing a frying pan (or even a car) to a friend who then uses it to kill someone does not make you liable (correct me on the car case if I'm wrong). If a "virus" were designed as a security tool, would it be considered malicious? A strong case could be made against this.
It seems that there is the GOFAI, rule-based approach (e.g. expert systems) and the newer emergent/self organizing systems approach to AI, and that your work seems to focus on the latter.
To what extent do you know what sort of behavior you will produce when you design some AI-ish program? With a rule based approach, one has much more direct control over the "intelligence" created. Do you feel that the work you do often has unanticipated results, given the complexity of the systems involved? Do you think there is some middle ground between large, declaratively created ontologies and evolutionary systems? What sort of mixed strategy are you taking?
It seems to me that privacy is a legal right that we've guaranteed under law. It's an agreement to stay out of others' business and provides recourse for dealing with others too deep in your business.
There have been many attempts to compare DoS "attacks" to other sorts of illegal activities. Do you have a preferred metaphor? or do you think that few analogies to other criminal acts carry over to DoS etc?
Slashdot Mirror
"might be about to be revealed"
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Phillips has decided to discontinue the 8-track tape.
Finding a dark sky near you.
It looks like I-35 is roughly the dividing line between a much lighter East and generally darker West. Luckily, I live just west of said road, and can head further west to watch from the top of a big bald rock.
Do you think that when I talk about "AI" I should be referring to "thinking" machines that simulate or somehow replicate human intelligence?
Or do you think I should be referring to a whole host of clever tricks that make us say "Wow, that solves a problem cleverly that we didn't think was subject to brute force."
It seems like there is a lot of hype about AI, but all sorts of ideas out there about what we mean when we mention "AI" at all. What do you think we (nerds) should think of "AI" as?
An individual could write a virus with encrypted source and make it available for download (for community testing purposes, of course). The individual would hold the copyright on this software.
This piece of software would not be necessarily malicious. Because people can use it for its intended purposes only (testing the integrity of their own system/network), any claims that its malicious nature makes it an illegal work, not protected by copyright law, are invalid.
The malicious nature of something is judged more by its intent than by its extent. Providing a frying pan (or even a car) to a friend who then uses it to kill someone does not make you liable (correct me on the car case if I'm wrong). If a "virus" were designed as a security tool, would it be considered malicious? A strong case could be made against this.
Any better sites for Austinites?
To what extent do you know what sort of behavior you will produce when you design some AI-ish program? With a rule based approach, one has much more direct control over the "intelligence" created. Do you feel that the work you do often has unanticipated results, given the complexity of the systems involved? Do you think there is some middle ground between large, declaratively created ontologies and evolutionary systems? What sort of mixed strategy are you taking?
Was surprised to see intelligent remarks about Slashdot and Linux in a front page article.
Coca-cola's lawyers (or all lawyers) should be drug out into the street and shot (maybe with a snurf gun).
Drug out and shot? Like mainlining? (coke perhaps?)
Or dragged out and shot? Keep using that Oxford...
It seems to me that privacy is a legal right that we've guaranteed under law. It's an agreement to stay out of others' business and provides recourse for dealing with others too deep in your business.
send it off the ecliptic. we'll need to give those klingons target practice some time from now.
There have been many attempts to compare DoS "attacks" to other sorts of illegal activities. Do you have a preferred metaphor? or do you think that few analogies to other criminal acts carry over to DoS etc?
you need to make your .sig scan better
halo