I get very anxious when I am presented with a bunch of menu items, and I feel social pressure to decide quickly because I am waiting in line. This causes me to stare blankly at menu items for many seconds at a time. I suspect that this would cause this thing to build the strangest pizzas for me, and probably not at all what I want. Good thing I don't eat at Pizza Hut anymore.
I probably won't but not for that reason... I am very suspicious of how most non-profits use their donations. It's well known, for instance, that the Red Cross is horribly mis-managed and probably wastes a shitton of the money that is donated to them. Many non-profits lack transparency, and so we have no way of knowing what happens to the money we donate to them. No thanks, there's better ways to spend my money.
Highjacker extension? I've not seen a single popup or bothersome thing from them about sharing it with others.... maybe they've changed that recently? It's one of the most unobstrusive extension I use.
I don't remember seeing any of that. Perhaps I did get that pop up the first time I used it, but apparently it didn't bother me as I don't even remember it. Wikiwand work great for me. When I switch back to the default Wikipedia interface, it makes me cringe. Apparently, they're still stuck in the 90s. I realize they are trying to keep the site accessible, even for people in 3rd-world countries with spotty internet connections, but still, the site is an eyesore... literally. Have they never heard of night view mode? I pretty much use Wikiwand for the night view mode, I'm not a fan of black text on white backgrounds,.
The British publication, The Economist is quite good, provided you agree with their generally liberal slant (liberal in the European sense). Of course, they're more focused on news of economic and political impact. They're certainly better than any U.S. news media I've ever read. I don't even read U.S. news anymore (tech news aside), it's a total waste of time.
Maybe Hawking's real concern is how strong AI will put scientists out of business, as in this wonderful short story from Nature Futures: http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo...
You're assuming that human actions are deterministic, though. At some scales, human behavior is more like a levy flight or random walk, though, both inherently unpredictable and indeterminstic. Yes, the AI could generate probability distributions indicating the most likely behaviors, but that is not nearly the same thing as understanding "you better than you understand yourself" (I do agree that humans tend to have poor personal insight).
I agree with your main point though, it's not the AI that is inherently dangerous, it's who uses it, and how, and why, that we need to be concerned about. I'm not sure how to get around that, many humans are inherently crummy people, or at least act like it, even more so those in positions of power and influence.
Why are people so attracted to doom scenarios involving technology? What if this supposed strong AI (I don't think we will ever develop that, but let's say we will for the sake of discussion) *gasp* HELPS HUMANITY? Why is that such an improbable scenario? Robert J. Sawyer explored this in his WWW trilogy (and I'm sure others before him have done so too), in which the WWW becomes sentient, but is taught to help humanity by a teenage girl (OK, that part is very improbable...a teenage girl who's thoughts don't revolve around her friends and relationships).
My point here is that, many people (except the transhumanists, I guess) are so quick to assume new technologies will be catastrophic, when most of the evidence on technological history suggests that, on the whole, new technologies will be massively helpful (the development of the computer and the internet, for instance).
I couldn't find anything about how non-coders can help out on OpenHatch. Am I missing something? It looks like they only want people who code: https://openhatch.org/search/
The OP implied that open source projects are looking for non-coders to do non-coding things, but I can't imagine what that would be, as 99% of OSS is the code, is it not? (Let's face it, Google searches of forums is a better way to find out how software works than documentation, which is often obtuse, patchy, or outdated). What use does OSS have for a psychology PhD student with skills in analytical thinking, statistics, and scientific computing (but no real coding experience)?
I'm with the other here who pointed out that, after spending 8-12 hours a day using a computer, I don't want to come home and sit down in front of a computer to work on a project for free, especially a project that might never make it. I want to chill out. Coding, for me, is the exact opposite of relaxing. I'd rather listen to music and close my eyes. That's relaxing.
They still show those scary WIkipedia-is-doomed-without-your-help banners? LOL. I use Wikiwand now, so I don't see those anymore. What I disliked most about those banners is that once you donate, they don't go away. They keep hounding you for money! As part of my reward for donating, I shouldn't have to have your pledge drive shoved down my throat anymore.
The noted perceptual psychologist and founder of ecological psychology already stated this in his The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. He states that visual perception doesn't involve just the brain and the eyes, it is dependent upon the head, neck, and the entire body. Although he was referring to visual perception specifically, he regarded all modalities as being dependent upon the body and it's parts in relation to one another and in relation to the environmental layout. His theories have largely gone unnoticed. I consider this to be another confirmation of his ecological psychology. A shame his work will probably continue to go unnoticed (although concepts he proposed, such as affordances, have been slowly creeping into the psychology literature).
Even the humble slime mould (Physarum polycephalum) can navigate mazes to find a food source, using the most optimal (least expenditure of energy) path. Slime moulds have been used to create maps of major metropolitan transportation systems (such as the Tokyo subway system). Likewise, Darwin's famous experiments with earthworms revealed that earthworms use what the environment affords them in order to strengthen their burrows. They accomplish this despite lacking a central nervous system and any of the "big five" sensory organs. Finally, there are parallels between the pattern dynamics of the BZ (Belousov–Zhabotinsky) reaction and the aggregation phase of the slime mould life cycle (in which a chemical signal for starvation pulls distinct amoebas into an aggregate, and each amoeba that sends the starvation signal becomes the center of a circle towards which the other amoebas move).
Examples like suggest that many complex systems, both biological and otherwise, can demonstrate intelligent behavior. The social, cultural, political, biological, and other environmental contexts afford and constrain the kind of intelligence an organism has. Brains, especially human ones, aren't particularly special in this regard.
Replying to one of the many posts which are quite confused. The reason for the huge disparity between genes and phenotypes among humans and chimps (or any species for that matter) has to do more with gene regulatory networks and epigenetic traits than anything else. That is to say, differences in phenotype are attributed to gene expression and epigenetic traits, not to the similarity or dissimilarity to the underlying genetic code itself.
You and I could both have say, the VMAT2 gene, the difference lies in whether both of ours are expressed or not, that is, is it switched on. The complexity of the gene regulatory network and the steps involved in gene expression make it quite possible that a gene's expression is inhibited.
People of every religious persuasion: Evolution is a fact. Learn to live with it.
I'm not a "person of religious persuasion" but I couldn't help noticing that you conflate or just plain confuse fact and theory-- in the same way the the "intelligent design" advocates do/did. A theory is an explanation of facts. A fact is a statement about a verifiable, observable phenomenon. It is a fact that the lizard's legs changed size. It is a theory that the changes in leg size are evolutionary advantageous because the lizards that survived the introduction of a predatory species are those with differences in leg sizes (this statement is a theory because it explains facts rather than just plainly stating them). From this theory hypotheses can be generated and tested in hopes that further facts will result which support said theory. Another way of thinking about the distinction is to consider that facts are verifiable whereas theories are falsifiable, and it is those qualities which give each their strengths.
Both books show quite well how the modern synthesis is changing and what is likely to incorporated into it. The former book is particularly revolutionizing, the latter is every bit as readable as Dawkins is for the layperson. Both books benefit from the wealth of insights from molecular genetics and other areas pertaining to evolutionary theory within the last 20 years, unlike The Selfish Gene.
Well, In regards to random behavior, suppose my choice of words was wrong, it obviously did not convey what I intended.
Depending on who you ask, irrationality and (to avoid using random) let me say, irregular, behavior is not so irregular. If you ask the behaviorist, they can and will account for most of not all of human behavior, socially, private or otherwise.
I am obviously supposed to take that on the strength of your say-so. Uh-huh.
I did not mean to law out some absolute truth, but it is not unreasonable, and pretty obvious to me that human behavior is irrational, and partly unpradictable.
(2) You will be hard pressed to explain how it is that people are so regular in so many regards, even in trivial ones like usually loving their mothers etc. You would have to demonstrate that these regularities don't actually exist. You can't.
No, outward behaviors I cannot refute. However, it seems, to me anyway, that merely observing outward behavior is a poor assesment of that behavior (the prime objection to behaviorism). One must take into account the cognitive processes at the time of a given behavior to fully explain it, which is impossible. The reason something like the Cognitive-Behavioral model in Psychology is popular today, is because of that reason. We can get a detailed account after the fact that sheds some insight into a given action or occurance.
Having said that, If we were to consider the cognitive processes as a part of the behavior (the behavior an extension of the cognitive process or vice versa) it would make the entire given behavior much different. The act of, loving your mother, as you said, would include a private cognitive basis which varies alot from yours.
Way off topic here, sorry about that. I'm sure I caused more problems then solutions, but since no one that I have read or talked to has an explanation that is anymore on target, I figured I would give it a go.
This neural science approach ackowledges that people aren't rational and tries to explain why.
Then that is their first very big mistake. I am totally amazed as the Scientists and Analytic Philosophers who are insistent that the world can be reduced to/ explained by/ etc., grand theories and laws which govern everything, including human behavior.
Speaking of behavior, If you are familiar with Psychology, you would know that today we still do not know HALF as much as they like to claim. We are still as very much confused as any philosopers/psychologists were about the mind in Freud's time. We've just manage to classify a bunch of disorders instead of calling them all neurosis/psychosis.
The same in the Philosophy of Mind field. We haven't made any headway for 100 years, and some might argue since Plato.
My point? The idea that highly irrational (i.e. random, and non-deterministic) can be explained by absolute, deterministic laws. Of course, the Quantum Physicist might agree, and propose a Quantum explanation of consciousness and human behavior, its not new, but its not any more valid than Freud.
Would you guys laugh if Richard Stallman had scizophrenia? What about things like alcoholism or depression? Personality disorders aren't funny
So who said anything about personality disorders? ADHD is NOT a personality disorder, look in the DSM-IV. Neither is Schizophrenia, or Alcoholism (both are genetically and neurologically based DISEASES... yes they progress) On the other hand, I would agree with the people denouncing ADHD/ADD, but whether I do it not, it is a disorder, and one not related to the personality.
The only personality disorder slashdotters might have is Avoidant Personality Disorder.
I don't believe this picture for one minute. I am certain John Carmack and his cronies made this in the Doom III engine, I can see he didn't have the anti-aliasing turned on though...shame on him.
"If that's not bad enough, they won't tell you which sites those are because - so the excuse goes - that could be construed as 'disseminating pornography.' So much for public review, huh?"
Come on you just wanted to get a look at the kiddy porn... I know I do, purely novelty. I have never seen any, and its one of those disgusting, evil things that humans are capable of therefore other humans who cannnot possibly imagine doing it, are interested in it (i.e. war, murder, rape, violence of any sort etc.)
Personally, I think the whole thing is bullshit. Fit this right in with the Patriot Act (I and soon II) as yet another thing that the Nazis running our country are doing to remove our civil liberties. No, it is not a right to exploit children in very imhumane ways, but yes it is a right to post, download/view, and be arrested for doing so. To me, this is somewhat like that movie Minority Report, where we now deter crime by arresting those that think about it... this is not too far from that. "Yes we'll will stop child porn by blocking all access to it."
For Christ's sake, go after the source, don't ignore it... does this remind anyone of the war on drugs? Finally, isn't it ironic (thanks Alanis) that this is happening in the former state of our esteemed Secretary of Homeland Terror (err security)?
Slashdot Mirror
I get very anxious when I am presented with a bunch of menu items, and I feel social pressure to decide quickly because I am waiting in line. This causes me to stare blankly at menu items for many seconds at a time. I suspect that this would cause this thing to build the strangest pizzas for me, and probably not at all what I want. Good thing I don't eat at Pizza Hut anymore.
I probably won't but not for that reason... I am very suspicious of how most non-profits use their donations. It's well known, for instance, that the Red Cross is horribly mis-managed and probably wastes a shitton of the money that is donated to them. Many non-profits lack transparency, and so we have no way of knowing what happens to the money we donate to them. No thanks, there's better ways to spend my money.
Highjacker extension? I've not seen a single popup or bothersome thing from them about sharing it with others.... maybe they've changed that recently? It's one of the most unobstrusive extension I use.
Slow? Are you still using a modem, by chance?
I don't remember seeing any of that. Perhaps I did get that pop up the first time I used it, but apparently it didn't bother me as I don't even remember it. Wikiwand work great for me. When I switch back to the default Wikipedia interface, it makes me cringe. Apparently, they're still stuck in the 90s. I realize they are trying to keep the site accessible, even for people in 3rd-world countries with spotty internet connections, but still, the site is an eyesore... literally. Have they never heard of night view mode? I pretty much use Wikiwand for the night view mode, I'm not a fan of black text on white backgrounds,.
The British publication, The Economist is quite good, provided you agree with their generally liberal slant (liberal in the European sense). Of course, they're more focused on news of economic and political impact. They're certainly better than any U.S. news media I've ever read. I don't even read U.S. news anymore (tech news aside), it's a total waste of time.
What role did Slashdot play in building Wikipedia? Sounds like hyperbole, pretty typical for U.S. news media, I suppose.
Maybe Hawking's real concern is how strong AI will put scientists out of business, as in this wonderful short story from Nature Futures: http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo...
You're assuming that human actions are deterministic, though. At some scales, human behavior is more like a levy flight or random walk, though, both inherently unpredictable and indeterminstic. Yes, the AI could generate probability distributions indicating the most likely behaviors, but that is not nearly the same thing as understanding "you better than you understand yourself" (I do agree that humans tend to have poor personal insight).
I agree with your main point though, it's not the AI that is inherently dangerous, it's who uses it, and how, and why, that we need to be concerned about. I'm not sure how to get around that, many humans are inherently crummy people, or at least act like it, even more so those in positions of power and influence.
Why are people so attracted to doom scenarios involving technology? What if this supposed strong AI (I don't think we will ever develop that, but let's say we will for the sake of discussion) *gasp* HELPS HUMANITY? Why is that such an improbable scenario? Robert J. Sawyer explored this in his WWW trilogy (and I'm sure others before him have done so too), in which the WWW becomes sentient, but is taught to help humanity by a teenage girl (OK, that part is very improbable...a teenage girl who's thoughts don't revolve around her friends and relationships).
My point here is that, many people (except the transhumanists, I guess) are so quick to assume new technologies will be catastrophic, when most of the evidence on technological history suggests that, on the whole, new technologies will be massively helpful (the development of the computer and the internet, for instance).
I couldn't find anything about how non-coders can help out on OpenHatch. Am I missing something? It looks like they only want people who code: https://openhatch.org/search/
The OP implied that open source projects are looking for non-coders to do non-coding things, but I can't imagine what that would be, as 99% of OSS is the code, is it not? (Let's face it, Google searches of forums is a better way to find out how software works than documentation, which is often obtuse, patchy, or outdated). What use does OSS have for a psychology PhD student with skills in analytical thinking, statistics, and scientific computing (but no real coding experience)?
I'm with the other here who pointed out that, after spending 8-12 hours a day using a computer, I don't want to come home and sit down in front of a computer to work on a project for free, especially a project that might never make it. I want to chill out. Coding, for me, is the exact opposite of relaxing. I'd rather listen to music and close my eyes. That's relaxing.
They still show those scary WIkipedia-is-doomed-without-your-help banners? LOL. I use Wikiwand now, so I don't see those anymore. What I disliked most about those banners is that once you donate, they don't go away. They keep hounding you for money! As part of my reward for donating, I shouldn't have to have your pledge drive shoved down my throat anymore.
The noted perceptual psychologist and founder of ecological psychology already stated this in his The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. He states that visual perception doesn't involve just the brain and the eyes, it is dependent upon the head, neck, and the entire body. Although he was referring to visual perception specifically, he regarded all modalities as being dependent upon the body and it's parts in relation to one another and in relation to the environmental layout. His theories have largely gone unnoticed. I consider this to be another confirmation of his ecological psychology. A shame his work will probably continue to go unnoticed (although concepts he proposed, such as affordances, have been slowly creeping into the psychology literature).
A few posts down, there is a suggested fix. It seems this is a known bug.
libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59217
Even the humble slime mould (Physarum polycephalum) can navigate mazes to find a food source, using the most optimal (least expenditure of energy) path. Slime moulds have been used to create maps of major metropolitan transportation systems (such as the Tokyo subway system). Likewise, Darwin's famous experiments with earthworms revealed that earthworms use what the environment affords them in order to strengthen their burrows. They accomplish this despite lacking a central nervous system and any of the "big five" sensory organs. Finally, there are parallels between the pattern dynamics of the BZ (Belousov–Zhabotinsky) reaction and the aggregation phase of the slime mould life cycle (in which a chemical signal for starvation pulls distinct amoebas into an aggregate, and each amoeba that sends the starvation signal becomes the center of a circle towards which the other amoebas move).
Examples like suggest that many complex systems, both biological and otherwise, can demonstrate intelligent behavior. The social, cultural, political, biological, and other environmental contexts afford and constrain the kind of intelligence an organism has. Brains, especially human ones, aren't particularly special in this regard.
Replying to one of the many posts which are quite confused. The reason for the huge disparity between genes and phenotypes among humans and chimps (or any species for that matter) has to do more with gene regulatory networks and epigenetic traits than anything else. That is to say, differences in phenotype are attributed to gene expression and epigenetic traits, not to the similarity or dissimilarity to the underlying genetic code itself.
You and I could both have say, the VMAT2 gene, the difference lies in whether both of ours are expressed or not, that is, is it switched on. The complexity of the gene regulatory network and the steps involved in gene expression make it quite possible that a gene's expression is inhibited.
People of every religious persuasion: Evolution is a fact. Learn to live with it.
I'm not a "person of religious persuasion" but I couldn't help noticing that you conflate or just plain confuse fact and theory-- in the same way the the "intelligent design" advocates do/did. A theory is an explanation of facts. A fact is a statement about a verifiable, observable phenomenon. It is a fact that the lizard's legs changed size. It is a theory that the changes in leg size are evolutionary advantageous because the lizards that survived the introduction of a predatory species are those with differences in leg sizes (this statement is a theory because it explains facts rather than just plainly stating them). From this theory hypotheses can be generated and tested in hopes that further facts will result which support said theory. Another way of thinking about the distinction is to consider that facts are verifiable whereas theories are falsifiable, and it is those qualities which give each their strengths.
I'd recommend the following books over Dawkins':
Mary Jane West-Eberhard's Developmental Plasticity and Evolution
Jablonka & Lamb's Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life
Both books show quite well how the modern synthesis is changing and what is likely to incorporated into it. The former book is particularly revolutionizing, the latter is every bit as readable as Dawkins is for the layperson. Both books benefit from the wealth of insights from molecular genetics and other areas pertaining to evolutionary theory within the last 20 years, unlike The Selfish Gene.
There is still great hope that this data, and more to come will bring us one step closer to Mars habitation.
I believe Arnold said it best in Total Recall: Get your ass to mars!
Depending on who you ask, irrationality and (to avoid using random) let me say, irregular, behavior is not so irregular. If you ask the behaviorist, they can and will account for most of not all of human behavior, socially, private or otherwise.
I am obviously supposed to take that on the strength of your say-so. Uh-huh.
I did not mean to law out some absolute truth, but it is not unreasonable, and pretty obvious to me that human behavior is irrational, and partly unpradictable.
(2) You will be hard pressed to explain how it is that people are so regular in so many regards, even in trivial ones like usually loving their mothers etc. You would have to demonstrate that these regularities don't actually exist. You can't.
No, outward behaviors I cannot refute. However, it seems, to me anyway, that merely observing outward behavior is a poor assesment of that behavior (the prime objection to behaviorism). One must take into account the cognitive processes at the time of a given behavior to fully explain it, which is impossible. The reason something like the Cognitive-Behavioral model in Psychology is popular today, is because of that reason. We can get a detailed account after the fact that sheds some insight into a given action or occurance.
Having said that, If we were to consider the cognitive processes as a part of the behavior (the behavior an extension of the cognitive process or vice versa) it would make the entire given behavior much different. The act of, loving your mother, as you said, would include a private cognitive basis which varies alot from yours.
Way off topic here, sorry about that. I'm sure I caused more problems then solutions, but since no one that I have read or talked to has an explanation that is anymore on target, I figured I would give it a go.
-Andy
This neural science approach ackowledges that people aren't rational and tries to explain why.
Then that is their first very big mistake. I am totally amazed as the Scientists and Analytic Philosophers who are insistent that the world can be reduced to/ explained by/ etc., grand theories and laws which govern everything, including human behavior.
Speaking of behavior, If you are familiar with Psychology, you would know that today we still do not know HALF as much as they like to claim. We are still as very much confused as any philosopers/psychologists were about the mind in Freud's time. We've just manage to classify a bunch of disorders instead of calling them all neurosis/psychosis.
The same in the Philosophy of Mind field. We haven't made any headway for 100 years, and some might argue since Plato.
My point? The idea that highly irrational (i.e. random, and non-deterministic) can be explained by absolute, deterministic laws. Of course, the Quantum Physicist might agree, and propose a Quantum explanation of consciousness and human behavior, its not new, but its not any more valid than Freud.
-Andy
So who said anything about personality disorders? ADHD is NOT a personality disorder, look in the DSM-IV. Neither is Schizophrenia, or Alcoholism (both are genetically and neurologically based DISEASES... yes they progress) On the other hand, I would agree with the people denouncing ADHD/ADD, but whether I do it not, it is a disorder, and one not related to the personality.
The only personality disorder slashdotters might have is Avoidant Personality Disorder.
Laugh, it was a joke.
-Xanadu
I don't believe this picture for one minute. I am certain John Carmack and his cronies made this in the Doom III engine, I can see he didn't have the anti-aliasing turned on though...shame on him.
-Xanadu
Come on you just wanted to get a look at the kiddy porn... I know I do, purely novelty. I have never seen any, and its one of those disgusting, evil things that humans are capable of therefore other humans who cannnot possibly imagine doing it, are interested in it (i.e. war, murder, rape, violence of any sort etc.)
Personally, I think the whole thing is bullshit. Fit this right in with the Patriot Act (I and soon II) as yet another thing that the Nazis running our country are doing to remove our civil liberties. No, it is not a right to exploit children in very imhumane ways, but yes it is a right to post, download/view, and be arrested for doing so. To me, this is somewhat like that movie Minority Report, where we now deter crime by arresting those that think about it... this is not too far from that. "Yes we'll will stop child porn by blocking all access to it."
For Christ's sake, go after the source, don't ignore it... does this remind anyone of the war on drugs? Finally, isn't it ironic (thanks Alanis) that this is happening in the former state of our esteemed Secretary of Homeland Terror (err security)?
-Xanadu
Wow thanks...I live in Philly and I liked I Goldberg and wasn't quite sure if they were opening again.... I'm glad you provided the info!