Right, because anyone who has a problem with potentially/allegedly ill-gotten gain can only be motivated by jealousy. A good thing like an objection to unscrupulous or at least questionable business methods can only come from a bad, petty thing like envy of someone else's money.
That's completely false, of course. However, that's really how a lot of people think. I suppose their own lust for money makes them think that everyone else operates as they do.
Ahh Slashdot. The nexus of the universe where clever witticism and intellectual humor meets satirical irony in the form of dry sarcasm.
The 'artificial' in artificial intelligence implies intelligence that is not natural in origin; ie. fabricated intelligence, in the sense of a construct. This is distinct from 'artificial' in the sense of faux intelligence; artificial intelligence is still genuinely intelligence. When any man-made object exhibits intelligence it is, a priori, artificial intelligence.
This is only true if we assume that intelligence is not natural, and that we can somehow (despite a lack of understanding emergent systems) create our own system and end up with intelligence.
What if intelligence is both emergent and a natural state?
Used in this way, the word "artificial" refers to the origin of the intelligence, not the intelligence itself.
In essence, generally speaking, if something sounds silly by one interpretation, you should probably consider another one...
You missed my point, or didn't see my other reply. We don't know the what the origin of intelligence is. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that mimicking a human brain will indeed create intelligence.
By your reasoning, artificial limbs are also incorrect, they are either limbs or they are not. The point here is that artificial in these cases means 'constructed by human beings using tools, not grown from some natural phenomenon'. It's just the naming.
Now if you wanna get all philosophical about the concept of intelligence, there's a whole other can of worms. I just refuse to let philosophers have a say in the naming of technical advancements. (unless the philosophers know were involved in the design...)
Humans have intelligence. Computers process information. It may be discovered that information processing is key to having intelligence, but we currently lack the knowledge of what fully comprises intelligence. The most interesting debates on the subject suggest that intelligence is an emergent quality, but again we currently lack the knowledge to design emergent qualities.
You incorrectly infer flawed logic in my reasoning. By your logic, humans are natural, so everything humans do/create is also natural. That logic is flawed.
Am I the only one who thinks all these motion controllers are a passing fad that we will one day look back on and laugh about? All the console makers seem to be jumping onboard, but it just makes my arms tired.
Obligatory Back to the Future 2 quote:
Kid A: You mean you have to use your hands?
Kid B: That's like a baby's toy!
Gimmie a break. I'm all for innovative UIs and input, but calling it a brain is a joke and insulting to those who actually work in fields that contribute to AI research. Natal seems really cool, but lets not get out of hand.
I posit there is no such thing and never will be such a thing as artificial intelligence. Someone either has intelligence or they don't. Computers do not. Not even the most sophisticated ones can defeat human opponents unless customized to defeat that one specific opponent. Everyone always forgets that Kasparov defeated Deep Blue, and puts a twist on the unfairness of Deep Blue's win against him.
Perhaps someday in the future computers will advance to such levels of sophistication that they will acquire intelligence. When that day comes, hopefully those of us around will have the sense to know that it's intelligence is not artificial.
Not even close is right! While the color of your language is appreciable, your mastery of it is in doubt. You see, the word "it's" is a contraction of the words "it is." You obviously intended to use the possessive of it, which is spelled "its." If you don't like to see "the US bending over and taking it in the ass," perhaps you could try to do the same for the words we depend on to preserve our cherished freedoms.
Nice troll! Made me laugh hard that you can't see passed one misplaced (obviously typoed) quotation mark to get the point of my post.
As the government relies on foreign entities, mainly China, to finance the massive federal deficit, that would result in America becoming bankrupt over night.
Not even close. I've actually been an advocate of the US wiping it's own debt slate clean with an eraser instead of giving in to foreign ownership. It would have the exact opposite effect of what you claim, and Americans would actually benefit.
Now, since China has a standing army of 1 million+, they may be forced to face some unpleasant options:
1) Shut up and deal with it.
2) Negotiate.
3) Declare war and attempt to take it from us.
Not that I think any global superpower is immune to defeat/collapse (I do read history); I just think that at this point in time, the US is seriously ready to fight a huge global war again. Most of the people I know are sick of the US bending over and taking it in the ass from the foreigners because of some shit that happened before most of us were born and now for unknown reasons we need to make amends *cough*Obama*cough*.
No one will like WW3, but there are plenty of us who are ready, willing, able, and actually waiting for it to happen so we can get back to progressing humankind.
The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory.
By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless. If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose. The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.
Was that a long winded post for "The US is facilitating a Ponzi scheme, with China being the the bottom rung contributors."?
Sorry, I don't think that's quite right. If you're a US citizen and you break a US law outside the country, I think the government can still go after you.
You don't even need to be a US citizen, and your actions need not be illegal in your homeland; the US can demand your extradition and try you in US criminal court for things that are legal in your homeland but illegal in the US. I forget the guys name, but they are currently doing this to a Canadian politician who also happens to sell weed legally in British Columbia.
Yeah, but how would this help? Instead of eating you would have to go out into the sun (you know, that big, bright, yellowish thing on the eastern horizon when you go to bed).
Which corner of the Earth does this occur on? Where I live the sun sets on the western horizon. Just sayin'.
Because I use my Facebook account to share events in my life, does not mean I am not concealing events in my life.
I have an expectation of privacy. Especially in real life. I do not have the same expectations of privacy in public, or with information I post via internet servers which I do not own or control. There seems to be a lot of attempts to indoctrinate the youth with the concept that their lives are subject to peer review at all times. I disagree with these motives and find them totalitarian in nature.
It's pretty sad that people still get this wrong. It seems like a script could be written to prevent you from submitting articles when your title has such an ugly mistake.
Dude, your arguments are getting weirder and weirder. It's not at all clear what your argument is here.
I went back and looked at the thread, including the older posts from before I butted. Basically, you keep accusing everybody of being misinformed, simply because they conflict with what you "know." But you refuse to look at any evidence that your own assumptions are wrong and you never present any evidence that they're right.
So you'll forgive me if I start ignoring somebody who treats "I know I'm right" as an absolute, undeniable truth.
Is it my fault you are the one making false statements about my country's past? No, it's your fault. The only thing weird I see here is how you warped this into a debate about oil... It really has nothing to do with "I know I'm right", and everything to do with your ideas conflicting with historical truths.
You are severely misinformed if you believe that the US did not sustain growth while being isolationist in its foreign policy before ~1947. Because of that you can't add weight to either side of the "debate" that we tried to have here. Hence why I alluded to your state of delusion.
I don't get your accusations of "generalizations". I've given yon specific facts. You're the one relying on generalities.
Sure we rely on trade more than we used to. That doesn't mean we can just reset the clock and go back to 1955. A lot of things have changed since then. Agriculture is a smaller part of the economy, and much less labor-intensive. Americans are better educated, reducing the number of workers willing to perform manual labor.
And here's the biggie: we used to be the world's biggest exporter of oil. But our oil deposits have depleted even as our dependency on it has skyrocketed. Now we're the biggest importer. How do you propose to pay for that oil without exports?
You want a simple solution to a complicated problem, so you cherry-pick your facts to make it so. And you call me "delusional!"
I agree on the labor. I completely disagree on the oil. We stopped using our domestic oil to reduce foreign assets deliberately. really it's a simple problem, with a simple solution. The sooner you admit that 1st world citizens cannot compete with 3rd world citizens, and therefore should not be forced to; the sooner you will realize the solution is simple.
Characterizing a difference of opinion as a mental disorder is pretty insulting.
Did you look at the links I sent you before? Because they make a case that there was exactly the kind of interdependence I was talking about. (Most economists agree that protectionism helped make the Great Depression as bad as it was.) This goes back to WW I, when American farmers benefited from the sudden drop in agricultural production in Europe. No, further, to the gigantic economic growth of the nation during the 19th century, which simply couldn't home been funded by Americans selling to each other. Hell it goes back to the revolution, which was, in part, about British attempts to prevent American manufacturers from competing with British ones.
Mind you, my opinion of corporate America is not much better than yours. But you can't simply order them to move all those jobs back. Even if you could make such an order stick, the economic cost would be nasty. The idea that it would just make prices a little higher would get you an F in any econ class.
If you disagree with facts, you are delusional. There is no difference of opinion. You keep generalizing my argument to mean that we cut off all ties to the world. That's not at all reflective of the facts about the USA's past. We were isolationist before the years immediately after WW2. Yes we had foreign trade. It was EXTREMELY limited compared to what we have going today. Stop trying to beat around that bush. That is a fact. The other big difference between then and now, is that we didn't have massive agreements with 3rd world countries where the cost of living is pennies a day compared in the 1st world.
Slashdot Mirror
Jealous much?
Right, because anyone who has a problem with potentially/allegedly ill-gotten gain can only be motivated by jealousy. A good thing like an objection to unscrupulous or at least questionable business methods can only come from a bad, petty thing like envy of someone else's money. That's completely false, of course. However, that's really how a lot of people think. I suppose their own lust for money makes them think that everyone else operates as they do.
Ahh Slashdot. The nexus of the universe where clever witticism and intellectual humor meets satirical irony in the form of dry sarcasm.
Making 500k for helping other people share material under copyright? Yea, jealous of the sum, but not of the method, shows a lot about his ethics.
What exactly does the public library do? Which ethics do public libraries support?
Are you suggesting that we sue libraries out of existence for helping other people access material under copyright?
The 'artificial' in artificial intelligence implies intelligence that is not natural in origin; ie. fabricated intelligence, in the sense of a construct. This is distinct from 'artificial' in the sense of faux intelligence; artificial intelligence is still genuinely intelligence. When any man-made object exhibits intelligence it is, a priori, artificial intelligence.
This is only true if we assume that intelligence is not natural, and that we can somehow (despite a lack of understanding emergent systems) create our own system and end up with intelligence.
What if intelligence is both emergent and a natural state?
note to self: do not vote for ground.zero.612
STFU Donny, the Chinaman is the issue!
Used in this way, the word "artificial" refers to the origin of the intelligence, not the intelligence itself. In essence, generally speaking, if something sounds silly by one interpretation, you should probably consider another one...
You missed my point, or didn't see my other reply. We don't know the what the origin of intelligence is. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that mimicking a human brain will indeed create intelligence.
By your reasoning, artificial limbs are also incorrect, they are either limbs or they are not. The point here is that artificial in these cases means 'constructed by human beings using tools, not grown from some natural phenomenon'. It's just the naming. Now if you wanna get all philosophical about the concept of intelligence, there's a whole other can of worms. I just refuse to let philosophers have a say in the naming of technical advancements. (unless the philosophers know were involved in the design...)
Humans have intelligence. Computers process information. It may be discovered that information processing is key to having intelligence, but we currently lack the knowledge of what fully comprises intelligence. The most interesting debates on the subject suggest that intelligence is an emergent quality, but again we currently lack the knowledge to design emergent qualities.
You incorrectly infer flawed logic in my reasoning. By your logic, humans are natural, so everything humans do/create is also natural. That logic is flawed.
Am I the only one who thinks all these motion controllers are a passing fad that we will one day look back on and laugh about? All the console makers seem to be jumping onboard, but it just makes my arms tired.
Obligatory Back to the Future 2 quote:
Kid A: You mean you have to use your hands?
Kid B: That's like a baby's toy!
Gimmie a break. I'm all for innovative UIs and input, but calling it a brain is a joke and insulting to those who actually work in fields that contribute to AI research. Natal seems really cool, but lets not get out of hand.
I posit there is no such thing and never will be such a thing as artificial intelligence. Someone either has intelligence or they don't. Computers do not. Not even the most sophisticated ones can defeat human opponents unless customized to defeat that one specific opponent. Everyone always forgets that Kasparov defeated Deep Blue, and puts a twist on the unfairness of Deep Blue's win against him.
Perhaps someday in the future computers will advance to such levels of sophistication that they will acquire intelligence. When that day comes, hopefully those of us around will have the sense to know that it's intelligence is not artificial.
Not even close is right! While the color of your language is appreciable, your mastery of it is in doubt. You see, the word "it's" is a contraction of the words "it is." You obviously intended to use the possessive of it, which is spelled "its." If you don't like to see "the US bending over and taking it in the ass," perhaps you could try to do the same for the words we depend on to preserve our cherished freedoms.
Nice troll! Made me laugh hard that you can't see passed one misplaced (obviously typoed) quotation mark to get the point of my post.
It's different than a Ponzi scheme because in this case, no one wins. It's bad all the way around.
Do you consider Bernard Madoff to have won?
As the government relies on foreign entities, mainly China, to finance the massive federal deficit, that would result in America becoming bankrupt over night.
Not even close. I've actually been an advocate of the US wiping it's own debt slate clean with an eraser instead of giving in to foreign ownership. It would have the exact opposite effect of what you claim, and Americans would actually benefit.
Now, since China has a standing army of 1 million+, they may be forced to face some unpleasant options:
1) Shut up and deal with it.
2) Negotiate.
3) Declare war and attempt to take it from us.
Not that I think any global superpower is immune to defeat/collapse (I do read history); I just think that at this point in time, the US is seriously ready to fight a huge global war again. Most of the people I know are sick of the US bending over and taking it in the ass from the foreigners because of some shit that happened before most of us were born and now for unknown reasons we need to make amends *cough*Obama*cough*.
No one will like WW3, but there are plenty of us who are ready, willing, able, and actually waiting for it to happen so we can get back to progressing humankind.
The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory. By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless. If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose. The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.
Was that a long winded post for "The US is facilitating a Ponzi scheme, with China being the the bottom rung contributors."?
Sorry, I don't think that's quite right. If you're a US citizen and you break a US law outside the country, I think the government can still go after you.
You don't even need to be a US citizen, and your actions need not be illegal in your homeland; the US can demand your extradition and try you in US criminal court for things that are legal in your homeland but illegal in the US. I forget the guys name, but they are currently doing this to a Canadian politician who also happens to sell weed legally in British Columbia.
It's not really a joke when it's not funny.
1) Generate big press response to allegations of corporate and government espionage.
2) Issue blanket response to public outcry over spotty functionality.
3) (formerly ?????) Blame China!
4) Profit!
whoosh.
The sun rises on the eastern horizon just as you are going to bed after sitting at your computer all night.
Whoosh.
Yeah, but how would this help? Instead of eating you would have to go out into the sun (you know, that big, bright, yellowish thing on the eastern horizon when you go to bed).
Which corner of the Earth does this occur on? Where I live the sun sets on the western horizon. Just sayin'.
Because I use my Facebook account to share events in my life, does not mean I am not concealing events in my life.
I have an expectation of privacy. Especially in real life. I do not have the same expectations of privacy in public, or with information I post via internet servers which I do not own or control. There seems to be a lot of attempts to indoctrinate the youth with the concept that their lives are subject to peer review at all times. I disagree with these motives and find them totalitarian in nature.
It's pretty sad that people still get this wrong. It seems like a script could be written to prevent you from submitting articles when your title has such an ugly mistake.
Dude, you're repeating yourself, and you're just ignoring my argument. Done wasting my time.
No Yuo!
Dude, your arguments are getting weirder and weirder. It's not at all clear what your argument is here.
I went back and looked at the thread, including the older posts from before I butted. Basically, you keep accusing everybody of being misinformed, simply because they conflict with what you "know." But you refuse to look at any evidence that your own assumptions are wrong and you never present any evidence that they're right.
So you'll forgive me if I start ignoring somebody who treats "I know I'm right" as an absolute, undeniable truth.
Is it my fault you are the one making false statements about my country's past? No, it's your fault. The only thing weird I see here is how you warped this into a debate about oil... It really has nothing to do with "I know I'm right", and everything to do with your ideas conflicting with historical truths.
You are severely misinformed if you believe that the US did not sustain growth while being isolationist in its foreign policy before ~1947. Because of that you can't add weight to either side of the "debate" that we tried to have here. Hence why I alluded to your state of delusion.
You really think there's enough domestic oil left to sustain our economy? Now that is delusional.
You really think we were going to use up all of our domestic oil supplies before depleting those of our competition? That is clearly delusional.
Yes, there are only a handful of LCD manufacturers, one of them being Sony, LG, and Samsung...
I count that as three... does that make me new here?
I don't get your accusations of "generalizations". I've given yon specific facts. You're the one relying on generalities.
Sure we rely on trade more than we used to. That doesn't mean we can just reset the clock and go back to 1955. A lot of things have changed since then. Agriculture is a smaller part of the economy, and much less labor-intensive. Americans are better educated, reducing the number of workers willing to perform manual labor.
And here's the biggie: we used to be the world's biggest exporter of oil. But our oil deposits have depleted even as our dependency on it has skyrocketed. Now we're the biggest importer. How do you propose to pay for that oil without exports?
You want a simple solution to a complicated problem, so you cherry-pick your facts to make it so. And you call me "delusional!"
I agree on the labor. I completely disagree on the oil. We stopped using our domestic oil to reduce foreign assets deliberately. really it's a simple problem, with a simple solution. The sooner you admit that 1st world citizens cannot compete with 3rd world citizens, and therefore should not be forced to; the sooner you will realize the solution is simple.
Characterizing a difference of opinion as a mental disorder is pretty insulting.
Did you look at the links I sent you before? Because they make a case that there was exactly the kind of interdependence I was talking about. (Most economists agree that protectionism helped make the Great Depression as bad as it was.) This goes back to WW I, when American farmers benefited from the sudden drop in agricultural production in Europe. No, further, to the gigantic economic growth of the nation during the 19th century, which simply couldn't home been funded by Americans selling to each other. Hell it goes back to the revolution, which was, in part, about British attempts to prevent American manufacturers from competing with British ones.
Mind you, my opinion of corporate America is not much better than yours. But you can't simply order them to move all those jobs back. Even if you could make such an order stick, the economic cost would be nasty. The idea that it would just make prices a little higher would get you an F in any econ class.
If you disagree with facts, you are delusional. There is no difference of opinion. You keep generalizing my argument to mean that we cut off all ties to the world. That's not at all reflective of the facts about the USA's past. We were isolationist before the years immediately after WW2. Yes we had foreign trade. It was EXTREMELY limited compared to what we have going today. Stop trying to beat around that bush. That is a fact. The other big difference between then and now, is that we didn't have massive agreements with 3rd world countries where the cost of living is pennies a day compared in the 1st world.