From the article: "...However, people who accept "terms of service" already distributed with Brilliant's and Kazaa's software are already agreeing to let their computers be used without any payment at all.
"You hereby grant (Brilliant) the right to access and use the unused computing power and storage space on your computer/s and/or Internet access or bandwidth for the aggregation of content and use in distributed computing," the terms of service read. "The user acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation."..."
The first question that comes to my mind is: what if the installer doesn't own the machine being installed to? Kazaa is installed on numerous machines in the PC labs at my University and I'm pretty sure they weren't installed by the school. Do they still have the right to do this? It seems to me as if this would be similar to me renting out my neighbor's car without his permission whenever he wasn't using it. The second question that comes to mind is this: If Brilliant is going to use nearby computers to serve ads, then aren't they passing the cost of serving those ads onto you whether you want them or not?
You have the option of not using Kazaa (I don't) or accepting ridiculous terms of use. I realise I'm ranting, but this is really just symptomatic of a larger problem. It's easy to say 'I won't use it then!' but what happens when you really need the software in question? Your hands are tied by asinine contracts and terms of use. Sometimes, just getting the package open can be an adventure in deceit.
As an example, I purchased a new CD/RW a year ago. Enclosed was a sealed envelope containg Adaptec's CD Creator software. On the outside of the envelope was printed the following:
"Attention:
Adaptec, INC. Licenses the enclosed software to you only upon the condition that you accept all of the terms of the End User License Agreement that is included in the documentation accompanying this software. Please read the terms carefully before opening this package, as opening this package will indicate your assent to those terms. If you do not agree to any of the terms of the End-User License Agreement, the nAdaptec is unwilling to license the software to you, in which event you should promptly return this package unopened."
Here's the catch: The EULA was sealed inside the envelope! That makes it sort of like joining the Army- you can't really know what you're getting into until you've joined and there's nothing you can do about it if you are unhappy.
With software you have the option of not using it, but in some cases you've already paid money for it and, once opened, you cannot return it. The point is this: although Brilliant ( and Adaptec for that matter ) may legally have the right to do what they are doing, they are using trickery through litigation and technicalities in order to make a buck.
I have a hard time agreeing with this. I may not be following your reasoning correctly, but what you seem to be saying is that the programmer has to program in such a way that the AI could never be 'more' than the programmer because the AI would be programmed based on the limits of the programmer's ability.
If we hardcode it's learning ability then, yes, I agree with you in the sense that we will never get anywhere because we have crippled it from the start.
If, however, we create something that has the ability to adjust and even rewrite it's own code and draw conclusions from information that is not directly related ( i.e. infer ) and if we give it a very limited basic set of 'rules' to follow at first, then doesn't the possibility exist that it could eventually 'bootstrap' itself into something more than what we created?
Slashdot Mirror
i wonder if they can slap you with jailtime for 'destruction of government property' if you screw it up?
I'm assuming this isn't an April Fool's joke...
..."
From the article:
"...However, people who accept "terms of service" already distributed with Brilliant's and Kazaa's software are already agreeing to let their computers be used without any payment at all.
"You hereby grant (Brilliant) the right to access and use the unused computing power and storage space on your computer/s and/or Internet access or bandwidth for the aggregation of content and use in distributed computing," the terms of service read. "The user acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation."
The first question that comes to my mind is: what if the installer doesn't own the machine being installed to? Kazaa is installed on numerous machines in the PC labs at my University and I'm pretty sure they weren't installed by the school. Do they still have the right to do this? It seems to me as if this would be similar to me renting out my neighbor's car without his permission whenever he wasn't using it. The second question that comes to mind is this: If Brilliant is going to use nearby computers to serve ads, then aren't they passing the cost of serving those ads onto you whether you want them or not?
You have the option of not using Kazaa (I don't) or accepting ridiculous terms of use. I realise I'm ranting, but this is really just symptomatic of a larger problem. It's easy to say 'I won't use it then!' but what happens when you really need the software in question? Your hands are tied by asinine contracts and terms of use. Sometimes, just getting the package open can be an adventure in deceit.
As an example, I purchased a new CD/RW a year ago. Enclosed was a sealed envelope containg Adaptec's CD Creator software. On the outside of the envelope was printed the following:
"Attention:
Adaptec, INC. Licenses the enclosed software to you only upon the condition that you accept all of the terms of the End User License Agreement that is included in the documentation accompanying this software. Please read the terms carefully before opening this package, as opening this package will indicate your assent to those terms. If you do not agree to any of the terms of the End-User License Agreement, the nAdaptec is unwilling to license the software to you, in which event you should promptly return this package unopened."
Here's the catch: The EULA was sealed inside the envelope! That makes it sort of like joining the Army- you can't really know what you're getting into until you've joined and there's nothing you can do about it if you are unhappy.
With software you have the option of not using it, but in some cases you've already paid money for it and, once opened, you cannot return it. The point is this: although Brilliant ( and Adaptec for that matter ) may legally have the right to do what they are doing, they are using trickery through litigation and technicalities in order to make a buck.
I have a hard time agreeing with this. I may not be following your reasoning correctly, but what you seem to be saying is that the programmer has to program in such a way that the AI could never be 'more' than the programmer because the AI would be programmed based on the limits of the programmer's ability.
If we hardcode it's learning ability then, yes, I agree with you in the sense that we will never get anywhere because we have crippled it from the start.
If, however, we create something that has the ability to adjust and even rewrite it's own code and draw conclusions from information that is not directly related ( i.e. infer ) and if we give it a very limited basic set of 'rules' to follow at first, then doesn't the possibility exist that it could eventually 'bootstrap' itself into something more than what we created?