That's not a robot, that's a telefactor. I.e., a remotely operated machine, like a waldo.
OTOH, Friendly AI *is* an unsolved problem. We don't know how to design AIs that will want to avoid hurting people. So if they have some goal, and it is more easily reached by hurting people, they would. Actually, we don't even have an AI that can recognize people. Remember you've got to include that guy over there in a wheelchair that can't talk or type intelligibly. You've got to include infants and seniors with dementia and everywhere in between. And you shouldn't include plucked chickens. Whether you should include corpses is not clear, which shows the problem isn't properly stated. (There's also the question of who do you take instructions from.)
Probably the first solution will involve picking one particular person and classifying them as "most human" and then allowing lots of false positives, as that's a generally low cost error. But you only alllow direct instructions from the "most human" Even so you need to worry about who you can trust as a source of information...which can act as a proxy for instructions if you know the actual goal. Asimov didn't even scratch the surface of the problems. If you make a mistake, you may well get an automonous killer robot. It's not a silly fear in principle, and perhaps not in practice considering that automated servo-devices are being allowed to kill people. (It's not the official policy in the US, but other countries have other policies. Some have "robot" security guards that can interdict an area. These things aren't actual robots, but they come a lot closer than do the telefactors. You could even justify calling them robots if you are *really* loose about what you are willing to call an AI.)
Maybe it's based on the Eando Binder novel "I, Robot", which long predated Asimov. (It also doesn't feature evil robots.)
But if you want to talk about the guy who invented Robots you should check out RUR by Karel ÄOEapek (RUR == Rossum's universal robots). They are actually more androids than robots, but the term robot was invented to describe them. They end up killing off all humans because they don't want to be slaves. Not exactly evil, but definitely dangerous.
Do you understand just how useless they are against the government? Granted, they might become useful if you went underground. If nothing else they'd allow you to support yourself by robbing people.
1) No, posting AC isn't really anonymous. 2) No FISA letter is needed. Transmissions aren't encrypted. (Well, perhaps they are now, they weren't until recently. Now my browser hides the communications protocol, so I can't easily tell. But https is not more secure than your ISP. Why try to do a site-by-site breach of security when a man-in-the-middle is already in place.)
Given what he was getting through congress, even an asteroid capture is probably overly optimistic. Mind you, it's not clear to me that he as actually trying to get to Mars, despite his stated committment.
OTOH, I also consider that an asteroid capture mission might easily be more valuable than a "lets visit Mars like we did the Moon" mission. I have found the US space program to be a profound disappointment. Most of it isn't NASAs fault. But factories in orbit might just be the way to get people to take space seriously. (Naturally, they mainly, perhaps exclusively,would be for producing goods to be used in space. Transport down isn't cheap either.) But automated factories need to get considerably better before that's a reasonable scenario, even if we hope it would eventually lead to colonies in space.
Given the housing market near most colleges that's probably true. It's also probably true that most entering students won't have checked that the "network access" promissed didn't mean internet access. Entering freshmen are still gullible enough to be a favored target of military recruiters.
Yes, there WILL be individual students who will check before signing, but finding housing before you arrive at school isn't the world's easiest proposition. So the ones that would have ended up in a dorm will still end up in a dorm, they'll just be a lot less happy about it.
Sorry, but I don't think those count as "declarations of war". OTOH, after checking the Constitution I see that I was wrong about it requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate. It seems that no particular procedure was specified. As a result you have a viable argument...just one that I don't accept.
Were I to accept that argument, I would be accepting it as a valid argument for assassinating business owners whenever a life threatening problem was discovered. Is that the argument that you want to be making?
So the important thing is to let all potential customers know so that they can be avoided.
I agree that it was clearly legal for them to cease dealing with the merchandise. It's also legal for me to avoid doing business with them because they did so.
I'm not sure. Having a "formal" head of state for the PR functions may be a reasonable idea. Also, the Anglican church isn't bad. As was said, "it interferes neither with a man's politics nor his religion". (Attributed to John Hickman.)
Following the 1 December 2011 vote by the United States Senate to reject an NDAA amendment proscribing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, the ACLU has argued that the legitimacy of Habeas Corpus is threatened: "The Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment [that] would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world... We're disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said 'no' to the Udall amendment and 'yes' to indefinite detention without charge or trial."[48] The New York Times has stated that the vote leaves the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens "ambiguous," with some senators including Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham arguing that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, and other senators, including Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, asserting the opposite.
A big part of the reason is the centralization of control of the media. ALL media. Blogs are still reasonably exhempt, but they also don't tend to lead to effective action. Local newspapers have been bought up by chains, and now most of their stories are the same, and that same is whatever the publisher wants. (There are still some extremely local papers, some of which are effective. But there's no independent news at that national level, or even at the large state level. Possibly New Hampshire or Rhode Island has some independent coverage of state-wide news.)
Note that this is a large contrast to the case during the VietNam war, when there were many large independent news agencies. Those have all been bought up by other groups, however, and have been kept going so that no new replacements have appeared.
There is not, and never has existed, a Free Market. To the extent that people believe that it exists they have definitely been sold a lie. You are right, however, that the privatization of bureaucracy is no benefit, and *is* an increased expense.
P.S.: The closest that I am aware of to a Free Market existed in classical Greece, of which Darius the Persian (I believe it was) said "Who are these people who have special places where they go to cheat each other?".
It's not that the government demphasizes and mocks them, it's that the voting system is designed in a way that automatically marginalizes them. But as you say, there's no reason to make the candidates disappear. They are guaranteed to be irrelevant. A plurality wins voting system is the worst voting system except for the single party voting systems. For this reason I support either Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet Voting. Condorcet is theoretically slightly superior, but it's harder to explain to people, and for that reason probably slightly inferior.
No. The real problem is the government needs to be EXTREMELY bad before overthrowing it will benefit the populace. The USSR wasn't that bad. Note that it was overthrown from within. The US isn't even close to that bad. Hell, most decades the Roman government wasn't that bad, though it was enough worse than any major current government that it was occasionally reasonable to try a rebellion, despite the chance of being nailed to a post or burnt alive (while tied to a post) for the entertainment of the crowds.
You don't even need to study history to see why overthowing even a pretty bad government can be a bad idea. Consider the results of allowing a Pot Pol into power. Look into the recent conditions in Somalia. (N.B.: Pot Pol is an example of a government that was bad enough that it made sense to overthrow it, but it's also the result of overthrowing the previous government.)
Sorry, but it doesn't certainly mean that. That's merely one plausible interpretation.
The hideous thing is, it may just be habitual bureaucratic double-speak, and not mean anything in this particular case. In a way that's even worse than NSLs.
In this kind of case, evidence is not expected to be available. Also, this is not a court of law...we have no ability to enact arbitrary punishment. So the same rules cannot reasonably be expected to apply.
That said, it looks as if the CEO said "no comment" in a fancy way. Read that as you see fit. it's not evidence in any direction, but emotionally it makes me more willing to believe that he is complicit.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a robot, that's a telefactor. I.e., a remotely operated machine, like a waldo.
OTOH, Friendly AI *is* an unsolved problem. We don't know how to design AIs that will want to avoid hurting people. So if they have some goal, and it is more easily reached by hurting people, they would. Actually, we don't even have an AI that can recognize people. Remember you've got to include that guy over there in a wheelchair that can't talk or type intelligibly. You've got to include infants and seniors with dementia and everywhere in between. And you shouldn't include plucked chickens. Whether you should include corpses is not clear, which shows the problem isn't properly stated. (There's also the question of who do you take instructions from.)
Probably the first solution will involve picking one particular person and classifying them as "most human" and then allowing lots of false positives, as that's a generally low cost error. But you only alllow direct instructions from the "most human" Even so you need to worry about who you can trust as a source of information...which can act as a proxy for instructions if you know the actual goal. Asimov didn't even scratch the surface of the problems. If you make a mistake, you may well get an automonous killer robot. It's not a silly fear in principle, and perhaps not in practice considering that automated servo-devices are being allowed to kill people. (It's not the official policy in the US, but other countries have other policies. Some have "robot" security guards that can interdict an area. These things aren't actual robots, but they come a lot closer than do the telefactors. You could even justify calling them robots if you are *really* loose about what you are willing to call an AI.)
Maybe it's based on the Eando Binder novel "I, Robot", which long predated Asimov. (It also doesn't feature evil robots.)
But if you want to talk about the guy who invented Robots you should check out RUR by Karel ÄOEapek (RUR == Rossum's universal robots). They are actually more androids than robots, but the term robot was invented to describe them. They end up killing off all humans because they don't want to be slaves. Not exactly evil, but definitely dangerous.
More to the point, you are asking them to cross-compile rather than just recompile. And if you don't have the hardware, you can't test the result.
Do you understand just how useless they are against the government? Granted, they might become useful if you went underground. If nothing else they'd allow you to support yourself by robbing people.
1) No, posting AC isn't really anonymous.
2) No FISA letter is needed. Transmissions aren't encrypted. (Well, perhaps they are now, they weren't until recently. Now my browser hides the communications protocol, so I can't easily tell. But https is not more secure than your ISP. Why try to do a site-by-site breach of security when a man-in-the-middle is already in place.)
Volatiles.
Given how poorly we can manage a closed ecosystem, permanent habitation on the Moon is currently out of the question. With Mars it might be possible.
Given what he was getting through congress, even an asteroid capture is probably overly optimistic. Mind you, it's not clear to me that he as actually trying to get to Mars, despite his stated committment.
OTOH, I also consider that an asteroid capture mission might easily be more valuable than a "lets visit Mars like we did the Moon" mission. I have found the US space program to be a profound disappointment. Most of it isn't NASAs fault. But factories in orbit might just be the way to get people to take space seriously. (Naturally, they mainly, perhaps exclusively,would be for producing goods to be used in space. Transport down isn't cheap either.) But automated factories need to get considerably better before that's a reasonable scenario, even if we hope it would eventually lead to colonies in space.
We aren't even sure that they're unrelated. If gravity needs to be redone, the change might include both of them (or parts of both of them), e.g.
OTOH, coming up with something better than "We can't actually see anything causing these effects, but we see these effects..." is quite difficult.
Given the housing market near most colleges that's probably true. It's also probably true that most entering students won't have checked that the "network access" promissed didn't mean internet access. Entering freshmen are still gullible enough to be a favored target of military recruiters.
Yes, there WILL be individual students who will check before signing, but finding housing before you arrive at school isn't the world's easiest proposition. So the ones that would have ended up in a dorm will still end up in a dorm, they'll just be a lot less happy about it.
That's ok. The argument also works for sales tax.
Sorry, but I don't think those count as "declarations of war". OTOH, after checking the Constitution I see that I was wrong about it requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate. It seems that no particular procedure was specified. As a result you have a viable argument...just one that I don't accept.
Consider who is issuing the posts. Or just assume that they come from astroturfers...you won't be far wrong.
Have they? A declaration of war requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. I don't think they even got that for the "war on terror".
Were I to accept that argument, I would be accepting it as a valid argument for assassinating business owners whenever a life threatening problem was discovered. Is that the argument that you want to be making?
So the important thing is to let all potential customers know so that they can be avoided.
I agree that it was clearly legal for them to cease dealing with the merchandise. It's also legal for me to avoid doing business with them because they did so.
That sounds like it's only for marks that are pending, not for those already granted. And who hears about them before something idiotic is granted.
I'm not sure. Having a "formal" head of state for the PR functions may be a reasonable idea. Also, the Anglican church isn't bad. As was said, "it interferes neither with a man's politics nor his religion". (Attributed to John Hickman.)
Have they reinstated habeus corpus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
In particular:
Following the 1 December 2011 vote by the United States Senate to reject an NDAA amendment proscribing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, the ACLU has argued that the legitimacy of Habeas Corpus is threatened: "The Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment [that] would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world... We're disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said 'no' to the Udall amendment and 'yes' to indefinite detention without charge or trial."[48] The New York Times has stated that the vote leaves the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens "ambiguous," with some senators including Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham arguing that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, and other senators, including Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, asserting the opposite.
A big part of the reason is the centralization of control of the media. ALL media. Blogs are still reasonably exhempt, but they also don't tend to lead to effective action. Local newspapers have been bought up by chains, and now most of their stories are the same, and that same is whatever the publisher wants. (There are still some extremely local papers, some of which are effective. But there's no independent news at that national level, or even at the large state level. Possibly New Hampshire or Rhode Island has some independent coverage of state-wide news.)
Note that this is a large contrast to the case during the VietNam war, when there were many large independent news agencies. Those have all been bought up by other groups, however, and have been kept going so that no new replacements have appeared.
There is not, and never has existed, a Free Market. To the extent that people believe that it exists they have definitely been sold a lie. You are right, however, that the privatization of bureaucracy is no benefit, and *is* an increased expense.
P.S.: The closest that I am aware of to a Free Market existed in classical Greece, of which Darius the Persian (I believe it was) said "Who are these people who have special places where they go to cheat each other?".
It's not that the government demphasizes and mocks them, it's that the voting system is designed in a way that automatically marginalizes them. But as you say, there's no reason to make the candidates disappear. They are guaranteed to be irrelevant. A plurality wins voting system is the worst voting system except for the single party voting systems. For this reason I support either Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet Voting. Condorcet is theoretically slightly superior, but it's harder to explain to people, and for that reason probably slightly inferior.
No. The real problem is the government needs to be EXTREMELY bad before overthrowing it will benefit the populace. The USSR wasn't that bad. Note that it was overthrown from within. The US isn't even close to that bad. Hell, most decades the Roman government wasn't that bad, though it was enough worse than any major current government that it was occasionally reasonable to try a rebellion, despite the chance of being nailed to a post or burnt alive (while tied to a post) for the entertainment of the crowds.
You don't even need to study history to see why overthowing even a pretty bad government can be a bad idea. Consider the results of allowing a Pot Pol into power. Look into the recent conditions in Somalia. (N.B.: Pot Pol is an example of a government that was bad enough that it made sense to overthrow it, but it's also the result of overthrowing the previous government.)
Sorry, but it doesn't certainly mean that. That's merely one plausible interpretation.
The hideous thing is, it may just be habitual bureaucratic double-speak, and not mean anything in this particular case. In a way that's even worse than NSLs.
But the point he was making is that if they were "volunarily" complying with a "request" it wouldn't be a lie, merely a violation of their policy.
In this kind of case, evidence is not expected to be available. Also, this is not a court of law...we have no ability to enact arbitrary punishment. So the same rules cannot reasonably be expected to apply.
That said, it looks as if the CEO said "no comment" in a fancy way. Read that as you see fit. it's not evidence in any direction, but emotionally it makes me more willing to believe that he is complicit.