Hubert Dreyfus had a lot to say about a specific approach to artificial intelligence (namely, the symbol-oriented approach), but that isn't a blanket condemnation of AI as a whole.
Plus, he came off as something of a tool in the way he presented himself, leading to many people writing him off as just another Luddite.
There is a great deal of debate as to when, or if, the singularity will occur.
As for AI, it's been my experience that many people "shift the goalposts" in whatever way is needed so as to yield their desired outcome.
If people can't accept the idea of AI (strong AI, that is... human-like intelligence), they'll point to every advance and say "But, that's not really AI."
Meanwhile, algorithms are written, computer games present challenging opponents, and the research goes on, regardless of which label gets pasted on.
It's not as if simulations of rat brains (or cortical columns) will advance our understanding of how brains work, and help us work towards a theory of intelligence...
Oh, wait...
It makes no good sense, IMO, to think that a "downsized" (just which components would you omit or simplify, and, if the latter, just how does one go about finding a simplified structure that retains the characteristics one is interested in in the first place?) human brain makes a better starting point than a rat neocortical column.
I was wondering the same. The last time I checked, a Flash memory cell was good for about 10^6 read/write cycles. I've heard of schemes that distribute the memory load (so that no one cell gets continually re-written), but I would like to see this issue explicitly addressed when it comes to a flash drive substitute for a hard drive.
The idea that private gun ownership is what stands between us and tyranny is a fantasy brought on by too many viewings of "Red Dawn." If this is all you can imagine as being an effective instantiation of "we can get things done as a community", then it would appear that your imagination died and you simply failed to notice.
On second thought, you said "There is only one solution...", which pretty much proves you have no imagination worth mentioning...
What stands between us and tyranny is an informed, aware, politically involved populace. If you don't have that, shotguns and pistols aren't going to magically solve your problem.
If the job of public schools is to prepare kids for the world of 1970, you'd have a point.
Instead, these kids will need to learn how to deal with the world of 2007+, a world neck deep in networked computers.
As for your anti-Wikipedia bias, that's what it is... a bias, and not a rational one. I use Wikipedia regularly for technical subjects, and have no problems at all with bogus data.
Sure, there is definitely a problem with kids googling an assload of data, and not knowing how to knit it into a coherent whole, or knowing how to judge just how much confidence they should put in any one source or piece of data. The solution isn't to run a backhoe through the school's internet connection... the solution is to teach them how to use this resource to further their ends. Likewise with bad teachers or bad teaching methodologies.
Finally, I would hope that schools were funded in an effort to enhance education, rather than used as a weapon to coerce schools into, of all things, denying students access to information. How much more backward and counter-productive could they be?
It truly mystifies me that some people can believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that there was a worldwide flood from which two of "every animal" were rescued by riding it out in a giant ark, or that all humans are descended from two humans (and the genetic bottleneck presented by the few humans who survived the aforementioned flood).
Honestly, I don't see how one can look at our modern understandings of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and still believe that these events actually happened.
In short, how do you reconcile your beliefs with modern knowledge and evidence?
I recently spent a day installing Debian for an AMD64 machine that was fricking HUGE. It completely fell on it's ass when it came time to support the video card. It turns out that the video card problem wasn't the fault of Debian but NVidia. No drivers available for AMD64 for that newer card completely roasted the installation. I accidentally picked up the 32-bit version of the card and also affected teh NVidia drivers for the network connections. So when I toasted the video, I also toasted all the network connectivity.
Eh? What do you mean by "32-bit version of the card" ?
Also, how did you resolve the problem? I'll be building an AMD64 system in the near future, and it will no doubt have an NVidia graphics card.
"In case you haven't noticed, we are still arguing whether ours are evolved bodies or intelligently designed bodies."
Well, it's an argument in that there are some people who, due to a lack of understanding or a passionate need to believe their religious texts are literal truth (or both), are vehemently clinging to the idea that life didn't evolve.
From a scientific perspective, there is no real argument... the evidence is inescapable.
The rest of your post appears to contradict this statement.
"If gays want to fuck each other in the ass - that's their business."
Sigh... Anal Sex 101: Some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and like it. Some same-sex couples don't engage in anal sex, because they don't like it. Marriage is about far more than one's preferred sexual activity.
"My only issue with the whole thing is that I think same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt/raise kids. A kid needs both mother and father, IMO. Otherwise you're just messing him/her up."
All of the research to date directly contradicts your assumptions. From a scientific standpoint, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"Once we close this threshold - I will do whatever I can to help ban gay marriage for this reason alone."
Your reason has just evaporated in a puff of logic. Now what?
Yeah. Both are promoting sexual attraction to a wrong target.
Letting John marry Bob because "he loves him" and not letting M. Jackson love one of his kids even though "they love each other" means an inequality within the law. If you allow homosexual marriages, you are obliged to allow: * zoophilia * necrophilia * group marriages (including ones with under-age kids (Utah!)) * kill-and-eat-me relations
What a fetid load of dingo's kidneys.
zoophilia: sex with an animal (that can't give consent) necrophilia: there are public health issues as to what you do with dead bodies, not to mention your going against the wishes of the deceased or their families group marriages: I have no problem with those whatsoever... if the group is willing to live up to the economic and social responsibilities of marriage, more power to them cannibalism: you must be a troll
"This is a slippery path on which I wouldn't want to tread."
By your "logic", we can't raise the speed limit by 5 MPH, because then we won't be able to stop until we reach the speed of light.
We have an institution of marriage for a number of reasons. We don't restrict it to only fertile heterosexual couples, or two couples who are or guarantee they will raise children. We open marriage to all heterosexual couples.
Homosexual couples do all, all of the things that heterosexual couples do, including raise children (and bear and raise children in the case of lesbian couples). Why prevent them from marrying as well? There are good reasons for allowing same-sex marriage. If you have equally good arguments for allowing necrophilia, bestiality, cannibalism (I gotta hand it to you... that's a new one), etc., then present them.
The only reason we forbid homosexual couples from marrying is simple knuckle-dragging bigotry, nothing more.
"Making concensual sex legal..."
If this is all you think marriage is, then you are deeply, profoundly ignorant of the matters of which you speak.
"... is fine _as long_ as it doesn't give one extra rights: the right to adopt children, marry and receive tax exemptions."
So, it isn't about marriage after all... just money.
"Otherwise, I demand a tax refund for the time I lived together with several male friends: we didn't have sex with each other, but you can't discriminate against platonic relationships, can you? If the rights you are promoting would be applied, we could have made a fake group marriage"
If you are willing to live up to the legal, economic and social obligations of marriage with your roommate or a group, then get married, with my blessing.
"I used to be very pro-science, but not so much anymore."
What does it mean to be "pro-science"? Do you see less validity in the scientific method than you did before? Do you disdain the products of scientific research that you once used?
"I still like and support science, however what I no longer do, is I no longer let science define my worldview for me."
Why would you ever let a tool define your worldview?
"The problem for me was that science was teaching me that I was just a bag of meat, and not really a person."
You are a bag of meat. You are also a person. You are self-aware, and conscious, and can decide for yourself what value to place on your existence, or on anyone or anything else. You get to decide what "being a person" means.
"Since I am just a bio-robot, there is nothing in me that's any better than, say a chicken, or a clod of earth."
You're right, there isn't. But, you can come up with whatever criteria you wish such that you are "better" than something else, for whatever value of "better" you care to choose.
"If I have an issue, instead of thinking my problem through, I could theoretically swallow just the right kind of pill and my issue would go away, since pretty much any negative life perceptions these days are considered brain imbalance."
Could you provide some evidence for this assertion? It's a rather bold one, that any issue can be adequately dealt with by you changing your brain chemistry. This sounds like nonsense, but perhaps you have some evidence that I am unaware of.
"Depressed? Brain imbalance."
I know people who have benefited from anti-depressants. Shouldn't they have? Do you have the same attitude towards diabetics and insulin injections?
Do you understand the difference between clinical depression and unhappiness? Do you understand that anti-depressants won't make an otherwise non-depressed person happy, and, hence, do not qualify as "happy pills" ?
"NO! I said, no, that's not what I am, and I refuse to seek solely physical means to solve every problem in my life. I am not a bio-robot. I am not a meat machine."
That's up to you to decide, but you won't create a valid worldview by closing your eyes to unpalatable facts.
"I am not telling you the whole story here. It's not that I just didn't like how science made me feel and rejected it based on some sentimental reason. Not at all. My feelings caused me to examine the issues seriously and I came to realize that the hinging point is the issue of identity and the nature of cognition."
Somehow, I doubt your clarity of thought on this issue.
"Essentially science and maths take identity as an axiom, but it's not an axiom."
Which definition of the word "identity" are you trying to use, here?
"If examined, one can see how and why it doesn't make any sense."
See above.
"But this can be difficult to explain because most people are not used to questioning axiomatic beliefs, and so react negatively and aggressively to such ideas (thus no useful discussion can take place)."
Indeed. Do you apply this to your own thinking as well?
"Briefly put, science is dehumanising."
Sigh... Facts do not dehumanize or humanize. Humans do that. It's up to you to decide what your reaction should be to the facts presented to you.
"If scientists could somehow address that, I feel that science would experience a revival."
Science does not exist to make you feel better... that's your responsibility. Science exists to make sense of the world. What you do with the resulting knowledge is up to you.
"However, I am affraid that it's not going to happen, because scientists pretty much refuse to challenge the "everything is matter and energy and mind is just an illusion" view of materialism."
If you have some contrary evidence, please present it.
"(yes I am accusing the scientific community of being aggress
"Do we have sufficient real estate and energy sources such that each and every person on the planet who wants one can have a free standing home, and drive whenver and wherever they want? If not, then who gets a slice of that limited pie?"
Also, while supply may well exceed demand for "free standing homes in Death Valley", I very much doubt that is the case for "free standing homes on the Mendocino coast"... not to mention the deleterious effects of increased population density on those choice spots.
Sure, not everyone wants to live the same way... but a hell of a lot of people would live in a choice spot if they could. The "tragedy of the commons" applies here... lots of people building houses in choice locations can make those locations a lot less choice.
Right now, the limiting factors on "choice spots" are local regulations on when and where one can build, and cost. Do you object to the concept of regulations telling you you can't build where you want to?
Can you give me any reason to believe that these "utopianists" exist anywhere besides within your own imagination? Your claims are the first time I've seen any sign of any such phenomena.
"Nobody will have their own free standing home and nobody will have the freedom to choose to drive their own car, on their own terms, whenever and wherever they like."
Do we have sufficient real estate and energy sources such that each and every person on the planet can have a free standing home, and drive whenver and wherever they want? If not, then who gets a slice of that limited pie?
I'm guessing that you are assuming that you, of course, will be one of the lucky ones. It's what I call the Libertarian Conceit: "Yes, our proposed economic system will result in a dog eat dog, king of the hill world, but I'm better than the rest of you, so I, of course, will end up the King of the Mountain... and the rest of you can go to hell for all I care."
Slashdot Mirror
Hubert Dreyfus had a lot to say about a specific approach to artificial intelligence (namely, the symbol-oriented approach), but that isn't a blanket condemnation of AI as a whole.
Plus, he came off as something of a tool in the way he presented himself, leading to many people writing him off as just another Luddite.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
"The first true artificial intelligence won't be designed... it will be evolved."
There is a great deal of debate as to when, or if, the singularity will occur.
As for AI, it's been my experience that many people "shift the goalposts" in whatever way is needed so as to yield their desired outcome.
If people can't accept the idea of AI (strong AI, that is... human-like intelligence), they'll point to every advance and say "But, that's not really AI."
Meanwhile, algorithms are written, computer games present challenging opponents, and the research goes on, regardless of which label gets pasted on.
BAH^2...
I started grad school in 1989. I graduated high school in 1980 (and have been programming computers since my TRS-80 Model I days in 1978).
What "makes no sense" is your post.
People protest to effect change. One way of effecting change is to draw attention to a problem.
In this case, people are protesting China's actions by protesting at the Olympics.
I'd say those protesters have pubes a' plenty... assuming you mean "guts" when you say "pubes."
Speak for yourself. Please.
No, I damned well do NOT want censorship... at any time... of any kind.
*I* will decide what I do and do not want to look at, hear, or otherwise experience.
When I want you making that decision, I'll let you know... and that "when" will be NEVER.
Yeah!
It's not as if simulations of rat brains (or cortical columns) will advance our understanding of how brains work, and help us work towards a theory of intelligence...
Oh, wait...
It makes no good sense, IMO, to think that a "downsized" (just which components would you omit or simplify, and, if the latter, just how does one go about finding a simplified structure that retains the characteristics one is interested in in the first place?) human brain makes a better starting point than a rat neocortical column.
I was wondering the same. The last time I checked, a Flash memory cell was good for about 10^6 read/write cycles. I've heard of schemes that distribute the memory load (so that no one cell gets continually re-written), but I would like to see this issue explicitly addressed when it comes to a flash drive substitute for a hard drive.
The idea that private gun ownership is what stands between us and tyranny is a fantasy brought on by too many viewings of "Red Dawn." If this is all you can imagine as being an effective instantiation of "we can get things done as a community", then it would appear that your imagination died and you simply failed to notice.
On second thought, you said "There is only one solution...", which pretty much proves you have no imagination worth mentioning...
What stands between us and tyranny is an informed, aware, politically involved populace. If you don't have that, shotguns and pistols aren't going to magically solve your problem.
The name of the toy is "Newton's Ladder."
Bleah... that was too knee-jerky of me...
If the job of public schools is to prepare kids for the world of 1970, you'd have a point.
Instead, these kids will need to learn how to deal with the world of 2007+, a world neck deep in networked computers.
As for your anti-Wikipedia bias, that's what it is... a bias, and not a rational one. I use Wikipedia regularly for technical subjects, and have no problems at all with bogus data.
Sure, there is definitely a problem with kids googling an assload of data, and not knowing how to knit it into a coherent whole, or knowing how to judge just how much confidence they should put in any one source or piece of data. The solution isn't to run a backhoe through the school's internet connection... the solution is to teach them how to use this resource to further their ends. Likewise with bad teachers or bad teaching methodologies.
Finally, I would hope that schools were funded in an effort to enhance education, rather than used as a weapon to coerce schools into, of all things, denying students access to information. How much more backward and counter-productive could they be?
It truly mystifies me that some people can believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that there was a worldwide flood from which two of "every animal" were rescued by riding it out in a giant ark, or that all humans are descended from two humans (and the genetic bottleneck presented by the few humans who survived the aforementioned flood).
Honestly, I don't see how one can look at our modern understandings of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and still believe that these events actually happened.
In short, how do you reconcile your beliefs with modern knowledge and evidence?
If by "story" you mean "fanciful tale that shows no signs of having actually happened", then I agree.
Eh? What do you mean by "32-bit version of the card" ?
Also, how did you resolve the problem? I'll be building an AMD64 system in the near future, and it will no doubt have an NVidia graphics card.
"..., I have no problem with the first part, and neither should most rational people."
Does this mean that people who disagree with you are therefore irrational? Can't someone be rational and disagree with you?
"In case you haven't noticed, we are still arguing whether ours are evolved bodies or intelligently designed bodies."
Well, it's an argument in that there are some people who, due to a lack of understanding or a passionate need to believe their religious texts are literal truth (or both), are vehemently clinging to the idea that life didn't evolve.
From a scientific perspective, there is no real argument... the evidence is inescapable.
"I have no issues with gay marriage."
The rest of your post appears to contradict this statement.
"If gays want to fuck each other in the ass - that's their business."
Sigh... Anal Sex 101: Some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and like it. Some same-sex couples don't engage in anal sex, because they don't like it. Marriage is about far more than one's preferred sexual activity.
"My only issue with the whole thing is that I think same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt/raise kids. A kid needs both mother and father, IMO. Otherwise you're just messing him/her up."
All of the research to date directly contradicts your assumptions. From a scientific standpoint, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"Once we close this threshold - I will do whatever I can to help ban gay marriage for this reason alone."
Your reason has just evaporated in a puff of logic. Now what?
How the hell did we get from "Man (woman) marries man (woman) he is committed to and loves" to "anybody marrying anything" ?!?!?!?
What a fetid load of dingo's kidneys.
zoophilia: sex with an animal (that can't give consent)
necrophilia: there are public health issues as to what you do with dead bodies, not to mention your going against the wishes of the deceased or their families
group marriages: I have no problem with those whatsoever... if the group is willing to live up to the economic and social responsibilities of marriage, more power to them
cannibalism: you must be a troll
"This is a slippery path on which I wouldn't want to tread."
By your "logic", we can't raise the speed limit by 5 MPH, because then we won't be able to stop until we reach the speed of light.
We have an institution of marriage for a number of reasons. We don't restrict it to only fertile heterosexual couples, or two couples who are or guarantee they will raise children. We open marriage to all heterosexual couples.
Homosexual couples do all, all of the things that heterosexual couples do, including raise children (and bear and raise children in the case of lesbian couples). Why prevent them from marrying as well? There are good reasons for allowing same-sex marriage. If you have equally good arguments for allowing necrophilia, bestiality, cannibalism (I gotta hand it to you... that's a new one), etc., then present them.
The only reason we forbid homosexual couples from marrying is simple knuckle-dragging bigotry, nothing more.
"Making concensual sex legal..."
If this is all you think marriage is, then you are deeply, profoundly ignorant of the matters of which you speak.
"... is fine _as long_ as it doesn't give one extra rights: the right to adopt children, marry and receive tax exemptions."
So, it isn't about marriage after all... just money.
"Otherwise, I demand a tax refund for the time I lived together with several male friends: we didn't have sex with each other, but you can't discriminate against platonic relationships, can you? If the rights you are promoting would be applied, we could have made a fake group marriage"
If you are willing to live up to the legal, economic and social obligations of marriage with your roommate or a group, then get married, with my blessing.
"I used to be very pro-science, but not so much anymore."
What does it mean to be "pro-science"? Do you see less validity in the scientific method than you did before? Do you disdain the products of scientific research that you once used?
"I still like and support science, however what I no longer do, is I no longer let science define my worldview for me."
Why would you ever let a tool define your worldview?
"The problem for me was that science was teaching me that I was just a bag of meat, and not really a person."
You are a bag of meat. You are also a person. You are self-aware, and conscious, and can decide for yourself what value to place on your existence, or on anyone or anything else. You get to decide what "being a person" means.
"Since I am just a bio-robot, there is nothing in me that's any better than, say a chicken, or a clod of earth."
You're right, there isn't. But, you can come up with whatever criteria you wish such that you are "better" than something else, for whatever value of "better" you care to choose.
"If I have an issue, instead of thinking my problem through, I could theoretically swallow just the right kind of pill and my issue would go away, since pretty much any negative life perceptions these days are considered brain imbalance."
Could you provide some evidence for this assertion? It's a rather bold one, that any issue can be adequately dealt with by you changing your brain chemistry. This sounds like nonsense, but perhaps you have some evidence that I am unaware of.
"Depressed? Brain imbalance."
I know people who have benefited from anti-depressants. Shouldn't they have? Do you have the same attitude towards diabetics and insulin injections?
"Unhappy? Brain imbalance. Solution -- "happy pill"."
Do you understand the difference between clinical depression and unhappiness? Do you understand that anti-depressants won't make an otherwise non-depressed person happy, and, hence, do not qualify as "happy pills" ?
"NO! I said, no, that's not what I am, and I refuse to seek solely physical means to solve every problem in my life. I am not a bio-robot. I am not a meat machine."
That's up to you to decide, but you won't create a valid worldview by closing your eyes to unpalatable facts.
"I am not telling you the whole story here. It's not that I just didn't like how science made me feel and rejected it based on some sentimental reason. Not at all. My feelings caused me to examine the issues seriously and I came to realize that the hinging point is the issue of identity and the nature of cognition."
Somehow, I doubt your clarity of thought on this issue.
"Essentially science and maths take identity as an axiom, but it's not an axiom."
Which definition of the word "identity" are you trying to use, here?
"If examined, one can see how and why it doesn't make any sense."
See above.
"But this can be difficult to explain because most people are not used to questioning axiomatic beliefs, and so react negatively and aggressively to such ideas (thus no useful discussion can take place)."
Indeed. Do you apply this to your own thinking as well?
"Briefly put, science is dehumanising."
Sigh... Facts do not dehumanize or humanize. Humans do that. It's up to you to decide what your reaction should be to the facts presented to you.
"If scientists could somehow address that, I feel that science would experience a revival."
Science does not exist to make you feel better... that's your responsibility. Science exists to make sense of the world. What you do with the resulting knowledge is up to you.
"However, I am affraid that it's not going to happen, because scientists pretty much refuse to challenge the "everything is matter and energy and mind is just an illusion" view of materialism."
If you have some contrary evidence, please present it.
"(yes I am accusing the scientific community of being aggress
who glanced at the title and saw "Microsoft to Ship New Malware"... and didn't find the title unusual or remarkable?
The first line of that article reads:
"The following ten tips come from Perl Best Practices, a new book of Perl coding and development guidelines by Damian Conway."
It's an excellent article, and those ten tips are good ideas no matter what language you code in.
All right, I'll rephrase:
"Do we have sufficient real estate and energy sources such that each and every person on the planet who wants one can have a free standing home, and drive whenver and wherever they want? If not, then who gets a slice of that limited pie?"
Also, while supply may well exceed demand for "free standing homes in Death Valley", I very much doubt that is the case for "free standing homes on the Mendocino coast"... not to mention the deleterious effects of increased population density on those choice spots.
Sure, not everyone wants to live the same way... but a hell of a lot of people would live in a choice spot if they could. The "tragedy of the commons" applies here... lots of people building houses in choice locations can make those locations a lot less choice.
Right now, the limiting factors on "choice spots" are local regulations on when and where one can build, and cost. Do you object to the concept of regulations telling you you can't build where you want to?
Can you give me any reason to believe that these "utopianists" exist anywhere besides within your own imagination? Your claims are the first time I've seen any sign of any such phenomena.
"Nobody will have their own free standing home and nobody will have the freedom to choose to drive their own car, on their own terms, whenever and wherever they like."
Do we have sufficient real estate and energy sources such that each and every person on the planet can have a free standing home, and drive whenver and wherever they want? If not, then who gets a slice of that limited pie?
I'm guessing that you are assuming that you, of course, will be one of the lucky ones. It's what I call the Libertarian Conceit: "Yes, our proposed economic system will result in a dog eat dog, king of the hill world, but I'm better than the rest of you, so I, of course, will end up the King of the Mountain... and the rest of you can go to hell for all I care."