perhaps this is a stupid question, but i can not find any information concerning the type of open source that exists with your arsdigita software.
Are you just saying that it is open source for now with the option to make it closed at some point in the future or did you get some sort of gnu thing going?
I can see your company growing very powerful in the future and if you decided at some point to increase the level of functionality of your code and then decided to go close source that would be a source of income, right?
example from book: remember movie projectors? They were supposed to revolutionize learning, instead movie time has become a thing where the teachers and students get to go to the la la land -- thats not to say that movies in classroms can't be helpful, but without some effort to learn it just becomes some eyecandy on the wall.
Using computers to replace the hard-core learning aspect will only lead to a generation of kids who can't add unless the computer is there to help, who can't visualize unless the computer sees it FIRST for them and who in general are just too reliant on external devices to make their thoughts work -- this is as good as not knowing
do we want to create a generation of "Educational Hackers", kids who really can't understand calculus or physics, unless its through the interface of mathematica. kids who aren't really sure how to solve the problem, but know that if they plug enuff shit into the computer it will get the solution for them.
that doesn't means that the machines are bad, but before you use them in education the student should have spent hardcore time thinking about the problem on their own, not waiting for the latest solution finding pluggin.
human thought is a complex thing, and for it to grow to the level where it can come up with the physics and math of the future kids will need to internalize these ideas, not just sit there waiting for "god 'puter" to show them the way -- because if you really want create you will at some point find the way yourself.
"The fact that driven, brilliant achievers like Pollack seem pathologically incapable of discussing the ethics of what they do makes me alternately concerned and furious."
e=mc^2, -it was supposed to be beautiful, the melting flesh was just an afterthought, an issue to be dealt with later.
the problem with specialists is that they're "special", not in the drool-on-self sense, but in the sense that they are farther from the "real" world than most people.
I think that doc pollack doesn't want to discuss the ethics or possible dangers of AI because exploring those issues would lead to too much self examination and introspection: - such things would take away from his time devoted to research. I imagine his dreams of AI go way back to the lonely sweaty undergrad days he spent hacking on his universities mainframe. from there he grew into what he is now.
the only attempt he seems to have made to deal with these issues is to talk to his rabbi, which is all fine and dandy, but i have a feeling that his rabbi let him off too easy with that crap about discovering the mind of god...oh well, when the inevitable happens and the AI is the god maybe we will get the answers from it that we couldn't get from pollack -- those answers being hard ones to live though.
what would be some methods for controlling an ai? could you grow it with weaknesses that could be uses to keep it from getting out of "your" control?
perhaps: obsessive cd? addiction? needy? power cord? --and given its pace of thought, couldn't it easily grow in such a way that allows it to circumvent even the most deep seated addictions that you might put in it?
Slashdot Mirror
perhaps this is a stupid question, but i can not find any information concerning the type of open source that exists with your arsdigita software.
Are you just saying that it is open source for now with the option to make it closed at some point in the future or did you get some sort of gnu thing going?
I can see your company growing very powerful in the future and if you decided at some point to increase the level of functionality of your code and then decided to go close source that would be a source of income, right?
the title says it all.
example from book:
remember movie projectors? They were supposed to revolutionize learning, instead movie time has become a thing where the teachers and students get to go to the la la land -- thats not to say that movies in classroms can't be helpful, but without some effort to learn it just becomes some eyecandy on the wall.
Using computers to replace the hard-core learning aspect will only lead to a generation of kids who can't add unless the computer is there to help, who can't visualize unless the computer sees it FIRST for them and who in general are just too reliant on external devices to make their thoughts work -- this is as good as not knowing
do we want to create a generation of "Educational Hackers", kids who really can't understand calculus or physics, unless its through the interface of mathematica. kids who aren't really sure how to solve the problem, but know that if they plug enuff shit into the computer it will get the solution for them.
that doesn't means that the machines are bad, but before you use them in education the student should have spent hardcore time thinking about the problem on their own, not waiting for the latest solution finding pluggin.
human thought is a complex thing, and for it to grow to the level where it can come up with the physics and math of the future kids will need to internalize these ideas, not just sit there waiting for "god 'puter" to show them the way -- because if you really want create you will at some point find the way yourself.
"The fact that driven, brilliant achievers like Pollack seem pathologically incapable of discussing the ethics of what they do makes me alternately concerned and furious."
e=mc^2, -it was supposed to be beautiful, the melting flesh was just an afterthought, an issue to be dealt with later.
the problem with specialists is that they're "special", not in the drool-on-self sense, but in the sense that they are farther from the "real" world than most people.
I think that doc pollack doesn't want to discuss the ethics or possible dangers of AI because exploring those issues would lead to too much self examination and introspection: - such things would take away from his time devoted to research. I imagine his dreams of AI go way back to the lonely sweaty undergrad days he spent hacking on his universities mainframe. from there he grew into what he is now.
the only attempt he seems to have made to deal with these issues is to talk to his rabbi, which is all fine and dandy, but i have a feeling that his rabbi let him off too easy with that crap about discovering the mind of god...oh well, when the inevitable happens and the AI is the god maybe we will get the answers from it that we couldn't get from pollack -- those answers being hard ones to live though.
question that kinda fits:
what would be some methods for controlling an ai? could you grow it with weaknesses that could be uses to keep it from getting out of "your" control?
perhaps: obsessive cd? addiction? needy? power cord?
--and given its pace of thought, couldn't it easily grow in such a way that allows it to circumvent even the most deep seated addictions that you might put in it?
ta ta