... that more men work at Microsoft than women is simply because more men apply to worth there in the first place.
And for any women that might express discomfort with the fact that the workplace is primarily male as a disincentive apply to such a place, I would suggest that is ultimately just a manifestation of their own insecurities (cue the feminists who will call me a misogynist upon reading that)... but my point is that it is *THEY* who are focusing on the gender differences, and not necessarily Microsoft In a work environment that may happen to be dominated by the opposite gender, where one can otherwise perform all of the duties that the job demands with sufficient competency, about the only legitimate reason I can think of that one would have to really experience any discomfort is concerns about sexual harassment. But there are laws that govern that anyways, and a mechanism by which people who engage in such actions can be brought to justice. Some people are sincerely afraid to leave their house alone too... simply because they think they might get mugged. One can either allow fear to paralyze them, or take control of their own life and try and do whatever it is that you want to do. One can't control what other people may or may not do to you, so they really shouldn't worry about that. If one is a woman and finds that you have an aptitude for STEM, then by all means they should enter a field relevant to that, and *NOT* worry about what other people *might* do. Otherwise, they are no different than the agoraphobic who stays indoors because they believe something bad will happen to them if they go out.
You do of course realize that the exact same arguments could be made to apply to things like counterfeiting. Money is, after all, imaginary property in a sense, since it typically has a perceived value associated with it that is not connected with any material value the raw materials the currency is manufactured from may possess.
Autistic people can be extremely literal too.... that doesn't mean that we should necessarily fear what they might do when they follow instructions to the letter. If intelligence in general is not something to be fearful of (and I'm not suggesting that it necessarily isn't), then I cannot see how there remains any compelling reason to be afraid of any intelligence merely because it happens to be artificial. If one is afraid of what a computer that can think might do, why not be equally afraid of what people might do instead? Natural intelligence may be inferior to what artificial intelligence can become, but that hardly means that natural intelligence is particularly impotent. Why be afraid of a machine doing what you suggested above when one is not equally fearful that some person (who by human standards would qualify as a psychotic) might do the same?
I guess my fundamental deal is that I have no faith in our ability to set any goals whatsoever for this thing that won't end up sucking for us.
But you haven't shown how the scenario that is opposite to the one that you claim to have no faith in is genuinely deserving of at least some amount faith (because "having no faith" is generally an admission to actually having some faith in the opposite condition) that it is particularly likely. It's fine if you admit to having irrational reasons for believing what you do.
That's all very well and good, but I wasn't talking about maintained high speeds, I was talking just about the acceleration. I had initial speculated that with that kind of acceleration, there would almost certainly to be some atypical ramifications if you are driving on even slightly non-level roads, and as the above poster remarked, accelerations above 1g can have catastrophic results if even a small bump gets hit, confirming my suspicions Truth be told, it turns out that the claimed acceleration is only slightly over 0.97g, but that is so fricken close enough to a full g of acceleration it that it might as well be such (you probably wouldn't notice the difference without taking instrumental measurements or at least very careful observation), and that's also close enough that I'd have no small concern that similar dangers exist, since to the best of my knowledge, the effects of acceleration are not discontinuous with respect to the acceleration rate.
And this is more dangerous than human intelligence how? It's not.... The only thing that changes is that instead of a deranged psychopath that lacks a moral center to realize killing other people to get ahead in business (which actually does happen by the way) is bad, you have an intelligent computer that must have similarly not been taught such guidelines of conduct or else deliberately decided to disregard them.
An ai is actually less likely to engage in such behavior than a human because while humans are often irrational a purely logical thinking computer would realize that killing off vast swaths of humanity to somehow further its purpose of making widgets is ultimately counterproductive to the larger goal of having steady revenue stream, since dead people don't buy anything, and even such an ai could never know for certain that any non customer will not eventually become a customer, and to simply kill them off would need
Essay deplete resources that are better spent trying to succeed at its goal.
Human intelligence is encumbered by fallible memory, shaky logic or outright irrationality, and most of all by a lack of focus. Oh, and the need to sleep. All of this adds up to muddy thinking, which makes it difficult for humans to find the optimal route to their goals.
A computerized artificial intelligence would likely have none of these disadvantages. It would be, in human terms, a supergenius, or at least a savant. It would win at any game its programmers told it to play, constrained only whatever rules were built into at the design phase. Call me a pessimist, but I think that sooner or later somebody's going to inadvertently tell it to play some game where genocide happens to be the best opening gambit.
I was following right along with you up until your closing sentence. In this case, it's less that you're being pessimistic and more along the lines that you don't clarify how your conclusion is inevitable, or even somehow particularly likely to follow from all of the premises that you described before.
Except, as I said,,, they won't be screaming their lungs off.... they will lapse into unconsciousness before the dinosaur part of their brain kicks in and realizes that there is any real danger. Remember, these are people who don't believe in the moon landing in the first place, so why would you expect them to take the notion that you are stranding them on the moon seriously enough to raise an objection to it?
Of course, if you just enjoy knowing that someone is suffering whether or not you can hear them, then what's the point of making them wait? While I'm sure your recommended approach is fine for that, it strikes me as being not very efficient in terms of resource usage, since it is an unnecessary expenditure of otherwise perfectly usable air.
I don't think it's the artificiality of the intelligence that people are worried about, per se. It's more about how the intelligence, being artificial, would by design lack all of the encumbrances that evolution has loaded human intelligence down with
Like what, specifically? And in particular, how would it be problematic?
Of course, I'm not suggesting that such things do not exist at all. I mean, an artificial hand for instance, at today's level of technology, cannot come anywhere near the dexterity of a biological one, for instance, so yeah... there are differences, and sometimes pretty darn big ones. However, I'm not suggesting that there won't be differences between AI an natural intelligence in the first place. I am suggesting that in practice, such differences are probably unlikely to be indicative of the notion that we would necessarily end up worse off with AI (such as what is frequently depicted by no small number of science fiction plots) than if we were to never invent AI.
AI is literally just intelligence that happens to be artificial. Nothing more, and nothing less. Barring irrational fears of anything that is not natural, there is no real reason to fear artificial intelligence over natural intelligence any more than there is reason to fear a person with an artificial limb simply because not all of that person happens to be organic. Can anyone who fears AI explain why artificial intelligence deserves to be even *slightly* more frightening than natural intelligence simply on the basis that it does not happen to be natural? Clothing isn't really natural either, but most people in our society seem to use them a lot, so I'm not entirely convinced that any alleged instinctive fear of something simply because it is manmade is actually a sustainable basis for making an argument against AI.
Hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and we think we can do better in a matter of decades of computer technology. Yea right.
Consider for comparison how fast human intelligence can be used to adapt to a changing environment many orders of magnitude more expeditiously than evolution can produce changes in our physiological makeup to endure such an environment. It's not inconceivable that we might be able to synthesize something in the way of intelligence which evolution hasn't produced naturally yet.
We cannot control how our children necessarily think, but we are rarely dissuaded by that fact from letting them get born and raising them to adulthood.
Artificial intelligence, which is literally just intelligence that happens to be man-made, rather than intelligence that has evolved over a course of millions of years like human beings, is not really any more or less terrifying as a concept than intelligence in a meat-based computer such as a human brain.
We can't reproduce a vacuum chamber large enough to pass on even casual inspection as appearing to not be inside of any building. The largest vacuum chamber in the world (built, I believe, somewhere around 2010) is only about a hundred feed across, which might barely accommodate a typical Douglas jet (certainly nothing larger), but would be far too small to be believable as any kind of out-of-doors environment if they were inside of it unless they think that NASAs secretly been keeping holodeck technology (in which case, their brains are so far gone that a lack of oxygen to it will make no discernible difference to its function anyways).
Personally, I suspect that surrounded with the reality that they are in a vast airless environment, far too vast to reasonably be anything but outside of any man-made building, and about to die will probably be sufficient sensory input to their poorly functioning brain that their final conscious act will be conclude they were wrong.
If not... well then, hey, it's no great loss to humanity. If so, then at least they realized it before dying, even though they were unable to communicate it.
Of course, all of this presumes that convincing them is worth killing them over in the first place. Presumably, if you can do so without killing them, then so much the better because they will be best equipped to relay to other misguided souls precisely how their line of reasoning fails, in terms that those who would think like that in the first place are likely to understand.
A day's supply of O2 is too long... the time scale is such that their brain would not intuitively realize any danger, barring any kind of rational response, which a hoaxer who was convinced that being on the moon was just a drug-induced hallucination has demonstrated themselves incapable of, until they were about to be asphyxiated... they would lapse into unconsciousness first, and so they would never feel any imperative need to consciously change their mind... plus you would not get to hear them screaming as they suffered because they would be unconscious.
So all your method does is simply kill off a moon hoaxer without any serious chance of actually convincing them they were ever wrong. At least the method I proposed has a pretty good chance of convincing them they were wrong before they died by first giving them the opportunity to rationally change their mind by accepting the reality of being on the moon in a safe environment, and only if they *prove* themselves incapable of being convinced by that experience, putting them in imminent danger where any suffering they might endure before they expire is only just barely long enough for them to at least be able to realize they were wrong.
I've been considering that what may be the only way to convince a die-hard moon hoaxer of the possibility of getting to the moon is to take them there personally... and if (or when) they start insist on saying that what they think they are experiencing is some sort of induced hallucination brought about by drugs or some such thing, just shove them out the airlock without a spacesuit. They'd probably last no more than a few seconds, but I sincerely think it would be enough for most of them to consciously accept the reality of the experience at least before they died. Of course, even if they don't... it's still not a total loss, because at least they won't continue to be around try and convince other people of their tripe.
Not that I'm suggesting it couldn't possibly ever happen, but how often do people in motorized wheelchairs in NYC have their wheelchairs stolen from them while they are out and about and using them? The logistics of stealing something like this exoskeleton are certainly no less involved.
Or are you suggesting that somebody is likely to break into his home and steal it while he's *NOT* using it?
The moon would certainly have the negligible atmospheric friction thing going for it, better than Mars, even... plus the moon is a whole lot closer, cheaper to get to, and has merits of its own for having a permanent base there at some point in the future anyways (such as a lower gravity well for spaceship launches to locations much further in space), so I cannot help but think it absurd to imagine that we would develop an infrastructure sufficiently complex on Mars that could accommodate something like this before we have something no less permanent and sophisticated installed on the moon.
Just because we've been there already does not mean there are no compelling reasons to go back.
Reasonably, I would think that sockets that are not for use by the public in location otherwise freely accessible to anyone should be secured behind a locked panel.
It's either a use of quotes for emphasis when they should have been using either bold face or italics, or else it is offering to use the same term that the writer's source used (literaaly quoting someone else) while suggesting they would not use that terminology themselves
Slashdot Mirror
And for any women that might express discomfort with the fact that the workplace is primarily male as a disincentive apply to such a place, I would suggest that is ultimately just a manifestation of their own insecurities (cue the feminists who will call me a misogynist upon reading that)... but my point is that it is *THEY* who are focusing on the gender differences, and not necessarily Microsoft In a work environment that may happen to be dominated by the opposite gender, where one can otherwise perform all of the duties that the job demands with sufficient competency, about the only legitimate reason I can think of that one would have to really experience any discomfort is concerns about sexual harassment. But there are laws that govern that anyways, and a mechanism by which people who engage in such actions can be brought to justice. Some people are sincerely afraid to leave their house alone too... simply because they think they might get mugged. One can either allow fear to paralyze them, or take control of their own life and try and do whatever it is that you want to do. One can't control what other people may or may not do to you, so they really shouldn't worry about that. If one is a woman and finds that you have an aptitude for STEM, then by all means they should enter a field relevant to that, and *NOT* worry about what other people *might* do. Otherwise, they are no different than the agoraphobic who stays indoors because they believe something bad will happen to them if they go out.
You do of course realize that the exact same arguments could be made to apply to things like counterfeiting. Money is, after all, imaginary property in a sense, since it typically has a perceived value associated with it that is not connected with any material value the raw materials the currency is manufactured from may possess.
Autistic people can be extremely literal too.... that doesn't mean that we should necessarily fear what they might do when they follow instructions to the letter. If intelligence in general is not something to be fearful of (and I'm not suggesting that it necessarily isn't), then I cannot see how there remains any compelling reason to be afraid of any intelligence merely because it happens to be artificial. If one is afraid of what a computer that can think might do, why not be equally afraid of what people might do instead? Natural intelligence may be inferior to what artificial intelligence can become, but that hardly means that natural intelligence is particularly impotent. Why be afraid of a machine doing what you suggested above when one is not equally fearful that some person (who by human standards would qualify as a psychotic) might do the same?
But you haven't shown how the scenario that is opposite to the one that you claim to have no faith in is genuinely deserving of at least some amount faith (because "having no faith" is generally an admission to actually having some faith in the opposite condition) that it is particularly likely. It's fine if you admit to having irrational reasons for believing what you do.
That's all very well and good, but I wasn't talking about maintained high speeds, I was talking just about the acceleration. I had initial speculated that with that kind of acceleration, there would almost certainly to be some atypical ramifications if you are driving on even slightly non-level roads, and as the above poster remarked, accelerations above 1g can have catastrophic results if even a small bump gets hit, confirming my suspicions Truth be told, it turns out that the claimed acceleration is only slightly over 0.97g, but that is so fricken close enough to a full g of acceleration it that it might as well be such (you probably wouldn't notice the difference without taking instrumental measurements or at least very careful observation), and that's also close enough that I'd have no small concern that similar dangers exist, since to the best of my knowledge, the effects of acceleration are not discontinuous with respect to the acceleration rate.
Why are they manufacturing a car for use by the general public if it is that dangerous on even slightly uneven roads?
And this is more dangerous than human intelligence how? It's not.... The only thing that changes is that instead of a deranged psychopath that lacks a moral center to realize killing other people to get ahead in business (which actually does happen by the way) is bad, you have an intelligent computer that must have similarly not been taught such guidelines of conduct or else deliberately decided to disregard them.
An ai is actually less likely to engage in such behavior than a human because while humans are often irrational a purely logical thinking computer would realize that killing off vast swaths of humanity to somehow further its purpose of making widgets is ultimately counterproductive to the larger goal of having steady revenue stream, since dead people don't buy anything, and even such an ai could never know for certain that any non customer will not eventually become a customer, and to simply kill them off would need Essay deplete resources that are better spent trying to succeed at its goal.
That's gotta have some interesting ramifications when you are driving on a slope, especially if you are accelerating over a small rise in the road.
I was following right along with you up until your closing sentence. In this case, it's less that you're being pessimistic and more along the lines that you don't clarify how your conclusion is inevitable, or even somehow particularly likely to follow from all of the premises that you described before.
Except, as I said,,, they won't be screaming their lungs off.... they will lapse into unconsciousness before the dinosaur part of their brain kicks in and realizes that there is any real danger. Remember, these are people who don't believe in the moon landing in the first place, so why would you expect them to take the notion that you are stranding them on the moon seriously enough to raise an objection to it?
Of course, if you just enjoy knowing that someone is suffering whether or not you can hear them, then what's the point of making them wait? While I'm sure your recommended approach is fine for that, it strikes me as being not very efficient in terms of resource usage, since it is an unnecessary expenditure of otherwise perfectly usable air.
Like what, specifically? And in particular, how would it be problematic?
Of course, I'm not suggesting that such things do not exist at all. I mean, an artificial hand for instance, at today's level of technology, cannot come anywhere near the dexterity of a biological one, for instance, so yeah... there are differences, and sometimes pretty darn big ones. However, I'm not suggesting that there won't be differences between AI an natural intelligence in the first place. I am suggesting that in practice, such differences are probably unlikely to be indicative of the notion that we would necessarily end up worse off with AI (such as what is frequently depicted by no small number of science fiction plots) than if we were to never invent AI.
AI is literally just intelligence that happens to be artificial. Nothing more, and nothing less. Barring irrational fears of anything that is not natural, there is no real reason to fear artificial intelligence over natural intelligence any more than there is reason to fear a person with an artificial limb simply because not all of that person happens to be organic. Can anyone who fears AI explain why artificial intelligence deserves to be even *slightly* more frightening than natural intelligence simply on the basis that it does not happen to be natural? Clothing isn't really natural either, but most people in our society seem to use them a lot, so I'm not entirely convinced that any alleged instinctive fear of something simply because it is manmade is actually a sustainable basis for making an argument against AI.
Consider for comparison how fast human intelligence can be used to adapt to a changing environment many orders of magnitude more expeditiously than evolution can produce changes in our physiological makeup to endure such an environment. It's not inconceivable that we might be able to synthesize something in the way of intelligence which evolution hasn't produced naturally yet.
We cannot control how our children necessarily think, but we are rarely dissuaded by that fact from letting them get born and raising them to adulthood.
Artificial intelligence, which is literally just intelligence that happens to be man-made, rather than intelligence that has evolved over a course of millions of years like human beings, is not really any more or less terrifying as a concept than intelligence in a meat-based computer such as a human brain.
There is nothing inherently more dangerous about AI than there is about human beings possessing intelligence in the first place.
If you want to argue that evolution took a misstep in giving us the capacity to even begin to consider such things, well then that's your perogative.
We can't reproduce a vacuum chamber large enough to pass on even casual inspection as appearing to not be inside of any building. The largest vacuum chamber in the world (built, I believe, somewhere around 2010) is only about a hundred feed across, which might barely accommodate a typical Douglas jet (certainly nothing larger), but would be far too small to be believable as any kind of out-of-doors environment if they were inside of it unless they think that NASAs secretly been keeping holodeck technology (in which case, their brains are so far gone that a lack of oxygen to it will make no discernible difference to its function anyways).
Personally, I suspect that surrounded with the reality that they are in a vast airless environment, far too vast to reasonably be anything but outside of any man-made building, and about to die will probably be sufficient sensory input to their poorly functioning brain that their final conscious act will be conclude they were wrong.
If not... well then, hey, it's no great loss to humanity. If so, then at least they realized it before dying, even though they were unable to communicate it.
Of course, all of this presumes that convincing them is worth killing them over in the first place. Presumably, if you can do so without killing them, then so much the better because they will be best equipped to relay to other misguided souls precisely how their line of reasoning fails, in terms that those who would think like that in the first place are likely to understand.
A day's supply of O2 is too long... the time scale is such that their brain would not intuitively realize any danger, barring any kind of rational response, which a hoaxer who was convinced that being on the moon was just a drug-induced hallucination has demonstrated themselves incapable of, until they were about to be asphyxiated... they would lapse into unconsciousness first, and so they would never feel any imperative need to consciously change their mind... plus you would not get to hear them screaming as they suffered because they would be unconscious.
So all your method does is simply kill off a moon hoaxer without any serious chance of actually convincing them they were ever wrong. At least the method I proposed has a pretty good chance of convincing them they were wrong before they died by first giving them the opportunity to rationally change their mind by accepting the reality of being on the moon in a safe environment, and only if they *prove* themselves incapable of being convinced by that experience, putting them in imminent danger where any suffering they might endure before they expire is only just barely long enough for them to at least be able to realize they were wrong.
Actually, you can 3d-print with titanium
I've been considering that what may be the only way to convince a die-hard moon hoaxer of the possibility of getting to the moon is to take them there personally... and if (or when) they start insist on saying that what they think they are experiencing is some sort of induced hallucination brought about by drugs or some such thing, just shove them out the airlock without a spacesuit. They'd probably last no more than a few seconds, but I sincerely think it would be enough for most of them to consciously accept the reality of the experience at least before they died. Of course, even if they don't... it's still not a total loss, because at least they won't continue to be around try and convince other people of their tripe.
Not that I'm suggesting it couldn't possibly ever happen, but how often do people in motorized wheelchairs in NYC have their wheelchairs stolen from them while they are out and about and using them? The logistics of stealing something like this exoskeleton are certainly no less involved.
Or are you suggesting that somebody is likely to break into his home and steal it while he's *NOT* using it?
This page answers that question.... turns out that it's not very hard at all, but not generally very useful either.
Did he just say ... "planet"?
It's catchy and bright, if one's not uptight,
To catch up on news with a poetical muse.
No?
(crickets)
(goes away and sulks in corner)
The moon would certainly have the negligible atmospheric friction thing going for it, better than Mars, even... plus the moon is a whole lot closer, cheaper to get to, and has merits of its own for having a permanent base there at some point in the future anyways (such as a lower gravity well for spaceship launches to locations much further in space), so I cannot help but think it absurd to imagine that we would develop an infrastructure sufficiently complex on Mars that could accommodate something like this before we have something no less permanent and sophisticated installed on the moon.
Just because we've been there already does not mean there are no compelling reasons to go back.
Reasonably, I would think that sockets that are not for use by the public in location otherwise freely accessible to anyone should be secured behind a locked panel.
It's either a use of quotes for emphasis when they should have been using either bold face or italics, or else it is offering to use the same term that the writer's source used (literaaly quoting someone else) while suggesting they would not use that terminology themselves