More to the point, keep that in mind whenever anyone stolidly asserts that some particular activity on the internet came from some particular source. *Maybe* it did. Maybe it's just the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it did. Maybe it's just the obvious evidence indicates that it did. And maybe he just wants to direct your attention. And you don't know which.
No. It's not true that "Security by obscurity is equivalent to no security at all.". Security by obscurity can buy you time. Of course, if you just waste the time rather than fixing the problem...
Knowing that it's unavoidable isn't a reason to not be terrified. Refusal to look ahead and evaluate plausible outcomes is the only reason to not be terrified.
OTOH, being terrified isn't very useful. But knowing these things exist is why I keep hoping for an early singularity. I give us 50% chance of surviving the singularity as a technological species, but if we do thing may turn out very well (though, of course, unpredictably so). My current estimate is still 2030, though that's earlier than most predictions which are around 2050. I consider myself an optimist because if humans stay in charge I put our chances of survival as minimal to negligible. Then again this may be the most significant stage of the "Great Filter". Available evidence is inconclusive. (Another possibility is that virtual reality gets good enough that everyone forsakes meatspace. Another is that sex toys get attractive enough that we have a total population crash. There are also unpleasant possibilities.)
If you don't know, you've got to be ignoring it, but
When you monitor a call between a US citizen at home and one in a foreign country, you are spying on US citizens. When you purchase or suborn some other agency (say British intelligence) to spy on US citizens, you are spying on US citizens.
Everything you said is correct, but the Electoral College is specified in the constitution. It's not based on the popular vote. Even the election of Senators was not originally based on the popular vote, because the founders didn't trust it.
FWIW, I believe that they were right not to trust the popular vote, but unwise in trusting the votes of the wealthy and powerful. There probably *isn't* a decent way to elect a government. A lottery might not be any better, but it probably wouldn't be any worse. It would have the advantage that you couldn't bribe the candidates before they achieved office. You'd be likely to get people who were careless or unqualified, but look what we've been ending up with.
How do you know Siri actually works that way? Have you examined the code? That it is claimed to work that way I believe, but that's a very different statement.
And it's proper to wonder *why* people come out of the woodwork, since we know that such things as astroturfers exist. But we also know that fanbois exist, so certainty isn't available.
Industry in salt water is, indeed, well established. Also well established is that it takes a LOT of on-going maintenance. Oil platforms that are abandoned rapidly decay, e.g. This is intended for residence on the floor of the ocean (well, sea) so maintenance is likely to be a real problem. That means they need to test the pilot well and thoroughly before they build the real one. And I'd think they'd also want to test the prototype in the real environment also, but perhaps it's already got so many untested features that they wanted a safer environment to test it in.
Umnh...there are some sea-based electrical generation attempts off Scotland that might disagree with that statement. Though perhaps the damage originated above 50 feet, it sure propagated down.
Still, the North Sea, especially East of Denmark, is a LOT calmer. So that consideration may depend on where they intend to deploy it.
IIUC, while they may be pumping water, they're depending on air to run the turbines during the extraction. In the system I heard of before they were pumping air into an underground cavern, and then, similarly, pulling off the compressed air to drive the turbines, but they found it worked better if they mixed it with natural gas and burned it to increase the pressure. (I forget what their primary energy source was, but like this it was something that couldn't generate energy as needed, so they needed to store it when it was available.)
If they plan to use it in salt water, they should be testing it in salt water. The problems aren't the same. It may still be a good idea, but testing it in fresh water worries me. Of course, this may be an early prototype...but they damn well better be testing the pilot in salt water...if it were near where I live I'd say they also need to be testing it in winter storms, but perhaps they're planning on using it in a sheltered area.
I'm not sure it's non-sense, but I think the answer might be "You need to choose pumps carefully designed to handle the job."
I'm more worried about various frictional losses, storm damage, etc. There are some similar land-based systems where the geology is right, and I'm told that though they work well, it's best to combine the air flow with a gas flame that heats the air causing it to expand. Still worth-while, but then they didn't need to build the containment vessel.
I don't think you understand just how difficult what you're proposing is. To start with, how do you tell a program to recognize a human that's cooperating at being recognized? (This can currently be solved, with a few constraints, but it isn't easy.)
Then consider how you construct an intentional stance towards an entity that you have a hard time recognizing. If you're quite successful your robot may go around destroying garbage cans.
The real problem is getting it to act in a generally (as opposed to specifically) useful way, for some definition of useful. I'd be surprised if this can be programmed, I think it's going to need to be learned. But the underlying motives are going to have results that it's quite difficult to predict. (One robot has already started disassembling itself instead of doing something to the car it was supposed to be working on. [Sorry, I never knew the details of the story, I only saw the video of the incident.])
It's pretty simple, but I sure didn't immediately think of the answer, and I'm in a low stress condition.
As for abstract class, I've never needed one. I could easily spout some gibberish about unified descent through to allow common access to methods by instances of derivative classes, but it would be nonsense, as I never do things that way. My real reason for using an abstract class would be something like "I'm stuck using a language that doesn't allow multiple inheritance and also doesn't have interfaces".
To base the definition of "robot" on things that aren't perceptible to humans is probably a mistake. So I don't think that manipulating the flow of electrons would count. Logically I can't fault the argument, but practically English is based on human sensations. Purpose should also be a factor, though, so when talking about a computer the fact that it can eject a CD shouldn't make it a robot, but when talking about a CD Reader, there would be a reasonable argument. But we won't, because there's already a more specific name for the device. (This isn't a good argument, as a Roomba(tm) is clearly a robot, event though we could just call it a roomba, or even an automated vacuum cleaner.)
If you define "activities that requires you to be intelligent" as activities that require the things measured by an IQ test, then you have a valid, if nearly tautological, point. But there are a great many activities that accomplish useful ends which do no correlate well with IQ, and another cluster that only have partial overlap. E.g., changing a tire on a freeway.
So perhaps the problem is that we are using a different definition of which tasks require intelligence.
As for intelligence, I would argue that it requires intelligence to learn to play chess, but that it's not the same intelligence as the one that it takes to learn to deliver a speech. (Even that's too crude a partitioning, but if you finely partition things you start contemplating how intelligent a thermostat is... not very, but a tiny bit, perhaps the smallest possible amount of intelligence. And this only makes sense in a very restricted set of circumstances.) And notice that neither chess playing nor delivering a speech correlates well with IQ.
I'd disagree about what you're calling a robot, though I'd agree that you're describing a 'bot. But we seem to be arguing about the definitions of words rather than about the thing being described. But this is significant if we each interpret the guy's predictions as being about our own meaning of the words. So with two reasonably common definitions we get either an unreasonable or a reasonable prediction about quantity of "robots", depending on which meaning we think he was using.
No. If it has a timer it has a bit more intelligence than a thermostat connected to a heater. But a robot needs to have the ability to manipulate things. So a toaster is a sort of minimal robot, but not a microwave, unless it opens it's door or pops up a switch (or rotates a knob) or some such.
Now what I'm trying to decide is whether that thermostat connected to a heater counts as a robot. It has internal moving parts, like the fan to blow the air. so it might be a sort of minimal robot.
At this point I feel like I'm trying to decide whether a virus is alive or not. I think by now the consensus is that it is, where it used to be that it wasn't, and what changed was not the virus, or even our knowledge of the virus (though that did change), but rather the definition.
IQ is, indeed, not a good measure of intelligence. In fact, intelligence isn't a unitary thing, but a bunch of separate capabilities, at least one of which handles organizing and communicating with the other parts.
That said, if we're going to talk informally about intelligence, IQ is a reasonable stand-in. It means something pretty reasonable in the area between 80-120, possibly 75-125. I'll grant that in no area is is a really good definition, but it's easily quantified.
Note that the very concept of an IQ of 1000 doesn't make any sense. So accept it as a figure of speech. Accepting it as a figure of speech, I still think he's wrong, because I believe that for every task there is an optimum level of intelligence. If he's approximately correct, then there will be a very few extremely intelligent AIs, but it sure won't be your sneakers. The claim that it *could* be in my sneakers is interesting, and a bit unbelievable. And I've got large feet. (Well, he didn't claim that the super-AI would be in my sneakers, just that it would have more computing power than I did, which is also a bit unbelievable unless you start doing strange things with word definitions. I could manage definitions that would make that a reasonable claim, but they sure aren't the standard ones.)
OTOH, my projection to a human equivalent AI is still around 2030, which is sooner than he is talking about. But I'm not expecting that thing to be mobile or portable. And when I say "human equivalent" I'm not talking about all characteristics. I'm not talking about motivational structure. I'm not talking about built-in sense organs. I'm not talking about computations/watt. Etc. I'm talking mainly about ability to reason about situations with incomplete data of uncertain reliability...which, admittedly, covers a lot of what we do.
If you were discussing switching away from Apple, I'd at least seriously consider your point. Lots of people seem to like Apple. With MS the most you can say is it's what they're used to...but many actively hate it.
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point, keep that in mind whenever anyone stolidly asserts that some particular activity on the internet came from some particular source. *Maybe* it did. Maybe it's just the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it did. Maybe it's just the obvious evidence indicates that it did. And maybe he just wants to direct your attention. And you don't know which.
It's a legitimate position to take. It sort of depends on what you are looking at. E.g., from one position most of the problem is social engineering.
That said, I haven't checked his credentials. He could be a scam artist, and thus a part of that major part of the problem.
No. It's not true that "Security by obscurity is equivalent to no security at all.". Security by obscurity can buy you time. Of course, if you just waste the time rather than fixing the problem...
Knowing that it's unavoidable isn't a reason to not be terrified. Refusal to look ahead and evaluate plausible outcomes is the only reason to not be terrified.
OTOH, being terrified isn't very useful. But knowing these things exist is why I keep hoping for an early singularity. I give us 50% chance of surviving the singularity as a technological species, but if we do thing may turn out very well (though, of course, unpredictably so). My current estimate is still 2030, though that's earlier than most predictions which are around 2050. I consider myself an optimist because if humans stay in charge I put our chances of survival as minimal to negligible. Then again this may be the most significant stage of the "Great Filter". Available evidence is inconclusive. (Another possibility is that virtual reality gets good enough that everyone forsakes meatspace. Another is that sex toys get attractive enough that we have a total population crash. There are also unpleasant possibilities.)
If you don't know, you've got to be ignoring it, but
When you monitor a call between a US citizen at home and one in a foreign country, you are spying on US citizens. When you purchase or suborn some other agency (say British intelligence) to spy on US citizens, you are spying on US citizens.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Just because the politicians are corrupt doesn't exonerate those who bribe them, legally or not.
Everything you said is correct, but the Electoral College is specified in the constitution. It's not based on the popular vote. Even the election of Senators was not originally based on the popular vote, because the founders didn't trust it.
FWIW, I believe that they were right not to trust the popular vote, but unwise in trusting the votes of the wealthy and powerful. There probably *isn't* a decent way to elect a government. A lottery might not be any better, but it probably wouldn't be any worse. It would have the advantage that you couldn't bribe the candidates before they achieved office. You'd be likely to get people who were careless or unqualified, but look what we've been ending up with.
And, as with the other services, they may be telling the truth, but you can't verify.
How do you know Siri actually works that way? Have you examined the code? That it is claimed to work that way I believe, but that's a very different statement.
And it's proper to wonder *why* people come out of the woodwork, since we know that such things as astroturfers exist. But we also know that fanbois exist, so certainty isn't available.
So in this one they're keeping the air at ambient pressure? That may explain why the casing is so thick.
Industry in salt water is, indeed, well established. Also well established is that it takes a LOT of on-going maintenance. Oil platforms that are abandoned rapidly decay, e.g. This is intended for residence on the floor of the ocean (well, sea) so maintenance is likely to be a real problem. That means they need to test the pilot well and thoroughly before they build the real one. And I'd think they'd also want to test the prototype in the real environment also, but perhaps it's already got so many untested features that they wanted a safer environment to test it in.
Umnh...there are some sea-based electrical generation attempts off Scotland that might disagree with that statement. Though perhaps the damage originated above 50 feet, it sure propagated down.
Still, the North Sea, especially East of Denmark, is a LOT calmer. So that consideration may depend on where they intend to deploy it.
IIUC, while they may be pumping water, they're depending on air to run the turbines during the extraction. In the system I heard of before they were pumping air into an underground cavern, and then, similarly, pulling off the compressed air to drive the turbines, but they found it worked better if they mixed it with natural gas and burned it to increase the pressure. (I forget what their primary energy source was, but like this it was something that couldn't generate energy as needed, so they needed to store it when it was available.)
Yep, that quote about sums up the reasonable reaction.
If they plan to use it in salt water, they should be testing it in salt water. The problems aren't the same. It may still be a good idea, but testing it in fresh water worries me. Of course, this may be an early prototype...but they damn well better be testing the pilot in salt water...if it were near where I live I'd say they also need to be testing it in winter storms, but perhaps they're planning on using it in a sheltered area.
I'm not sure it's non-sense, but I think the answer might be "You need to choose pumps carefully designed to handle the job."
I'm more worried about various frictional losses, storm damage, etc. There are some similar land-based systems where the geology is right, and I'm told that though they work well, it's best to combine the air flow with a gas flame that heats the air causing it to expand. Still worth-while, but then they didn't need to build the containment vessel.
I don't think you understand just how difficult what you're proposing is. To start with, how do you tell a program to recognize a human that's cooperating at being recognized? (This can currently be solved, with a few constraints, but it isn't easy.)
Then consider how you construct an intentional stance towards an entity that you have a hard time recognizing. If you're quite successful your robot may go around destroying garbage cans.
The real problem is getting it to act in a generally (as opposed to specifically) useful way, for some definition of useful. I'd be surprised if this can be programmed, I think it's going to need to be learned. But the underlying motives are going to have results that it's quite difficult to predict. (One robot has already started disassembling itself instead of doing something to the car it was supposed to be working on. [Sorry, I never knew the details of the story, I only saw the video of the incident.])
It's pretty simple, but I sure didn't immediately think of the answer, and I'm in a low stress condition.
As for abstract class, I've never needed one. I could easily spout some gibberish about unified descent through to allow common access to methods by instances of derivative classes, but it would be nonsense, as I never do things that way. My real reason for using an abstract class would be something like "I'm stuck using a language that doesn't allow multiple inheritance and also doesn't have interfaces".
To base the definition of "robot" on things that aren't perceptible to humans is probably a mistake. So I don't think that manipulating the flow of electrons would count. Logically I can't fault the argument, but practically English is based on human sensations. Purpose should also be a factor, though, so when talking about a computer the fact that it can eject a CD shouldn't make it a robot, but when talking about a CD Reader, there would be a reasonable argument. But we won't, because there's already a more specific name for the device. (This isn't a good argument, as a Roomba(tm) is clearly a robot, event though we could just call it a roomba, or even an automated vacuum cleaner.)
If you define "activities that requires you to be intelligent" as activities that require the things measured by an IQ test, then you have a valid, if nearly tautological, point. But there are a great many activities that accomplish useful ends which do no correlate well with IQ, and another cluster that only have partial overlap. E.g., changing a tire on a freeway.
So perhaps the problem is that we are using a different definition of which tasks require intelligence.
As for intelligence, I would argue that it requires intelligence to learn to play chess, but that it's not the same intelligence as the one that it takes to learn to deliver a speech. (Even that's too crude a partitioning, but if you finely partition things you start contemplating how intelligent a thermostat is ... not very, but a tiny bit, perhaps the smallest possible amount of intelligence. And this only makes sense in a very restricted set of circumstances.) And notice that neither chess playing nor delivering a speech correlates well with IQ.
I'd disagree about what you're calling a robot, though I'd agree that you're describing a 'bot. But we seem to be arguing about the definitions of words rather than about the thing being described. But this is significant if we each interpret the guy's predictions as being about our own meaning of the words. So with two reasonably common definitions we get either an unreasonable or a reasonable prediction about quantity of "robots", depending on which meaning we think he was using.
No. If it has a timer it has a bit more intelligence than a thermostat connected to a heater. But a robot needs to have the ability to manipulate things. So a toaster is a sort of minimal robot, but not a microwave, unless it opens it's door or pops up a switch (or rotates a knob) or some such.
Now what I'm trying to decide is whether that thermostat connected to a heater counts as a robot. It has internal moving parts, like the fan to blow the air. so it might be a sort of minimal robot.
At this point I feel like I'm trying to decide whether a virus is alive or not. I think by now the consensus is that it is, where it used to be that it wasn't, and what changed was not the virus, or even our knowledge of the virus (though that did change), but rather the definition.
IQ is, indeed, not a good measure of intelligence. In fact, intelligence isn't a unitary thing, but a bunch of separate capabilities, at least one of which handles organizing and communicating with the other parts.
That said, if we're going to talk informally about intelligence, IQ is a reasonable stand-in. It means something pretty reasonable in the area between 80-120, possibly 75-125. I'll grant that in no area is is a really good definition, but it's easily quantified.
Note that the very concept of an IQ of 1000 doesn't make any sense. So accept it as a figure of speech. Accepting it as a figure of speech, I still think he's wrong, because I believe that for every task there is an optimum level of intelligence. If he's approximately correct, then there will be a very few extremely intelligent AIs, but it sure won't be your sneakers. The claim that it *could* be in my sneakers is interesting, and a bit unbelievable. And I've got large feet. (Well, he didn't claim that the super-AI would be in my sneakers, just that it would have more computing power than I did, which is also a bit unbelievable unless you start doing strange things with word definitions. I could manage definitions that would make that a reasonable claim, but they sure aren't the standard ones.)
OTOH, my projection to a human equivalent AI is still around 2030, which is sooner than he is talking about. But I'm not expecting that thing to be mobile or portable. And when I say "human equivalent" I'm not talking about all characteristics. I'm not talking about motivational structure. I'm not talking about built-in sense organs. I'm not talking about computations/watt. Etc. I'm talking mainly about ability to reason about situations with incomplete data of uncertain reliability...which, admittedly, covers a lot of what we do.
For some weird definition of good.
If you were discussing switching away from Apple, I'd at least seriously consider your point. Lots of people seem to like Apple. With MS the most you can say is it's what they're used to...but many actively hate it.