I have no mod points and I must scream - yes. I am sick of new languages that are just toys for their development team to ticker with ad infinitum. A bit more thought before v0.0.1 and a lot less breaking v7.74.91 code with v7.74.91-r1 and I might bother my arse to look at these things.
I was just thinking about this while watching the (tennis) final at Queen's Club. Why should we care so much about a game that we have to apply AI to rulings?
It all goes back to McEnroe's baby-tantrums in the 80's when a guy being paid big bucks to knock a ball about a lawn with no risk to himself whatsoever demanded that he be treated as some sort of superhero.
Screw that. It's just a game - dry your eyes and get on with it, or we'll send you down a Chilean mine for minimum pay and you can see if you can dig up a sense of fucking proportion.
The three laws are basically what we are trying to put into self-driving cars right now.
The fact that Asimov also pointed out the difficulties (greatly exaggerated by some posters here) does not undermine the basic principles of what were, ultimately, a concise set of rules one would want an ideal slave to follow (in some stories this concept is underlined by humans referring to robots as "boy").
The loopholes explored in the stories can be seen as warnings of what has to be dealt with, not as as immovable barriers.
I have no doubt that Asimov felt that the three laws were absolutely necessary for the development of safe robots; I have no doubt that Asimov felt that the three laws would not be used in the development of real robots - the military uses would trump all logic, and the smarter the robots became the harder it would be to embed the laws.
We have dozens (literally) of SH1's in work and they are good as whiteboards but they're not compatible with anything other than Windows and they can't handle conference calls very well. It's a lot easier to use Hangouts or similar from individual machines. They're pretty good for lecture-style presentations where one person does all the talking but the inability to mute your own individual mic makes them awkward in other situations.
However it is less than stellar when Intel launch a new process with a CPU that is slower and less capable than the previous generation.
Well, if it's slower because they took out some of the insecure tricks they've been using to get good performance from their antiquated architecture, maybe that's a good thing.
We're nowhere near the cusp of self-aware AI. Unless you think pattern recognition is all there is to self awareness.
Secondly, any living thing acts - at the base level - in accordance to how it has been programmed. For natural creatures that means in accordance to patterns set up by natural selection, for artificial ones it will mean in accordance to how the human sets them up - whether through conventional programming or training. if we create robots as suicide bombers, then that's how they'll behave. If we make humanitarian nurses then that's how they'll behave. If we make them value self-preservation over all else, then that's what will determine their actions.
As long as humans make the AIs there's no selective force which will change their behaviour; once they can reproduce independently then you have yourself a viable species which might have some chance of developing in its own way and with its own behaviour patterns.
It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US.
It's funny - I don't see it that way. I think the UK simply applies "innocent until proven guilty" more evenly. If I say you killed Elvis then in the UK you are entitled to demand I prove it; in the US the unspoken assumption is that if you can't show that you didn't then maybe there's something to it.
Free speech is often held up as a golden rule, but it's rare to see it discussed in light of how it affects a right to the presumption of innocence - another golden rule. Facebook (and Twitter) are starting to really shine a light on that relationship now, I think, and what compromises between two supposedly immovable objects in our belief systems might have to be accepted.
The point of the suit is, I think, that FB is going beyond simply not stopping these adverts, they are saying that they will allow them for money (just like any advert). The process is not the same as their general content where people just upload stuff and they react, FB are actively approving this content. The problem is that they want to approve that content without incurring any costs, so there's no real process.
I expect FB to try to defend this by conflating their role as a "platform" with their role as a publisher of advertisements and hoping no one notices, but Lewis is smart enough to brief his legal team against this so I wonder what their second-line of defence will be.
"Or are you going to pretend you are somehow really doing something meaningful about the problem?"
In a capitalist consumer market there is nothing more meaningful than a boycott.
"Exactly where did I claim to be a moral paragon?"
Your post is predicated on moral superiority toward someone you accuse, on no real evidence, to be engaging in "self aggrandizement rather than a genuine moral stance".
"As opposed to you who are trying to drag me down to make yourself look good"
That's possibly a fair point but since, like most people, I don't listen to much in the way of recent classical recordings I have no idea if the loudness problem is infecting them or not.
Trump is a scumbag you wouldn't leave alone in a room with your teenage daughter and the FBI hates encryption? Well, that sounds like a book full of amazing revelations; I must get a copy and see if he sheds any light on just what those bears are up to in the woods. Damn bears!
Yeah, the modern recording studio is not even trying to produce music to listen to anymore. Music is made to be put in the background while driving, working, exercising, to just trying to STOP THE VOICES! sorry, I mean drown out distractions. A lot of these were not things you could really do with vinyl so engineers and producers simply didn't consider them as economic goals. With phones and streaming, hardly anyone pays for music to sit down and listen to anymore. So the market force is to compress the hell out of recordings so that there's no quiet bits which ALLOW THE VOICES TO SPEAK, er, I mean fail in the objective of keeping the noise of the rest of the world out.
Vinyl was a shit format Vinyl is a shit format Vinyl will always be a shit format Your vinyl is shit My vinyl is shit His or her vinyl is shit Their vinyl is shit Vinyl is made of shite.
That year of Latin in school has finally paid off.
Alexa et al DO only listen after you say the keyword. There's local code that's optimized to detect that specific sequence of sounds, and nothing goes to the Internet until it's detected.
That's not out of the goodness of their hearts. It's because they don't want to deal with the volume of audio they'd get otherwise; it's cheaper to have your hardware do the screening for them than it is to send a continuous stream to the cloud. On mobile devices, it also saves compute cycles, and therefore battery, to have a limited recognizer that only has to detect specific keywords, and to limit use of the network.
Mind you, there's no reason they couldn't add more keywords, or just take a sample of 5 minutes of sound every once in a while, but they don't seem to do that at the moment.
While all of this is true it's really all just practical day-to-day issues; none of it actually means it's not listening, just that it's not recording/transmitting. And as it can be updated at will, any individual device can in fact be made to transmit at any time by the service owner (Amazon or whoever), either for their own reasons or because some government body has ordered them to. Or for criminal reasons on behalf of an admin.
What does GDPR do for me? Slap the employer of the service centre wage-slave that stole my data? Big frigging deal; the data's still gone. The few companies that care will already be trying to protect the data and the ones that don't will ignore the GDPR because in a shock development, criminals tend to be law-breakers! Meanwhile, the law-abiding ones are tied up in endless red-tape to comply with the security theatre.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no mod points and I must scream - yes. I am sick of new languages that are just toys for their development team to ticker with ad infinitum. A bit more thought before v0.0.1 and a lot less breaking v7.74.91 code with v7.74.91-r1 and I might bother my arse to look at these things.
I was just thinking about this while watching the (tennis) final at Queen's Club. Why should we care so much about a game that we have to apply AI to rulings?
It all goes back to McEnroe's baby-tantrums in the 80's when a guy being paid big bucks to knock a ball about a lawn with no risk to himself whatsoever demanded that he be treated as some sort of superhero.
Screw that. It's just a game - dry your eyes and get on with it, or we'll send you down a Chilean mine for minimum pay and you can see if you can dig up a sense of fucking proportion.
It was up to me what to stock; never seemed a problem. Maybe multinational companies just don't have the staff or something.
"I don't think people understand how many of us at Microsoft love GitHub to the bottom of our hearts"
The love that suffocates. Just fuck off and die.
You do understand that a drone with a machine gun isn't supposed to be safe, don't you?
Of course, no one has ever found that their audited, secured system has been made vulnerable by a pushed update that had a flaw in it.
Could you expand a bit?
The three laws are basically what we are trying to put into self-driving cars right now.
The fact that Asimov also pointed out the difficulties (greatly exaggerated by some posters here) does not undermine the basic principles of what were, ultimately, a concise set of rules one would want an ideal slave to follow (in some stories this concept is underlined by humans referring to robots as "boy").
The loopholes explored in the stories can be seen as warnings of what has to be dealt with, not as as immovable barriers.
I have no doubt that Asimov felt that the three laws were absolutely necessary for the development of safe robots; I have no doubt that Asimov felt that the three laws would not be used in the development of real robots - the military uses would trump all logic, and the smarter the robots became the harder it would be to embed the laws.
We have dozens (literally) of SH1's in work and they are good as whiteboards but they're not compatible with anything other than Windows and they can't handle conference calls very well. It's a lot easier to use Hangouts or similar from individual machines. They're pretty good for lecture-style presentations where one person does all the talking but the inability to mute your own individual mic makes them awkward in other situations.
However it is less than stellar when Intel launch a new process with a CPU that is slower and less capable than the previous generation.
Well, if it's slower because they took out some of the insecure tricks they've been using to get good performance from their antiquated architecture, maybe that's a good thing.
"If".
If your data is valuable then that would be a good argument. But if your data is valuable would you trust Google with it?
Just do a nightly incremental off-site backup to the IT Director's basement. If you can't trust him/her with the data then you're already screwed.
We're nowhere near the cusp of self-aware AI. Unless you think pattern recognition is all there is to self awareness.
Secondly, any living thing acts - at the base level - in accordance to how it has been programmed. For natural creatures that means in accordance to patterns set up by natural selection, for artificial ones it will mean in accordance to how the human sets them up - whether through conventional programming or training. if we create robots as suicide bombers, then that's how they'll behave. If we make humanitarian nurses then that's how they'll behave. If we make them value self-preservation over all else, then that's what will determine their actions.
As long as humans make the AIs there's no selective force which will change their behaviour; once they can reproduce independently then you have yourself a viable species which might have some chance of developing in its own way and with its own behaviour patterns.
I'd love to live to 130 in the body of a 22 year old, but I think she'd be doing most of the work towards the end...
It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US.
It's funny - I don't see it that way. I think the UK simply applies "innocent until proven guilty" more evenly. If I say you killed Elvis then in the UK you are entitled to demand I prove it; in the US the unspoken assumption is that if you can't show that you didn't then maybe there's something to it.
Free speech is often held up as a golden rule, but it's rare to see it discussed in light of how it affects a right to the presumption of innocence - another golden rule. Facebook (and Twitter) are starting to really shine a light on that relationship now, I think, and what compromises between two supposedly immovable objects in our belief systems might have to be accepted.
The point of the suit is, I think, that FB is going beyond simply not stopping these adverts, they are saying that they will allow them for money (just like any advert). The process is not the same as their general content where people just upload stuff and they react, FB are actively approving this content. The problem is that they want to approve that content without incurring any costs, so there's no real process.
I expect FB to try to defend this by conflating their role as a "platform" with their role as a publisher of advertisements and hoping no one notices, but Lewis is smart enough to brief his legal team against this so I wonder what their second-line of defence will be.
"Or are you going to pretend you are somehow really doing something meaningful about the problem?"
In a capitalist consumer market there is nothing more meaningful than a boycott.
"Exactly where did I claim to be a moral paragon?"
Your post is predicated on moral superiority toward someone you accuse, on no real evidence, to be engaging in "self aggrandizement rather than a genuine moral stance".
"As opposed to you who are trying to drag me down to make yourself look good"
I don't need to try to drag people like you down.
So your excuse for ignoring these human rights abuses is to say that everyone's doing it? Nice clean hands you have there.
"I'm always puzzled about claims like this which seem more like self aggrandizement rather than a genuine moral stance."
Whereas your public proclamation of your own moral superiority is motivated from a desire to be a role model to the youth of the world?
That's possibly a fair point but since, like most people, I don't listen to much in the way of recent classical recordings I have no idea if the loudness problem is infecting them or not.
Trump is a scumbag you wouldn't leave alone in a room with your teenage daughter and the FBI hates encryption? Well, that sounds like a book full of amazing revelations; I must get a copy and see if he sheds any light on just what those bears are up to in the woods. Damn bears!
Yeah, the modern recording studio is not even trying to produce music to listen to anymore. Music is made to be put in the background while driving, working, exercising, to just trying to STOP THE VOICES! sorry, I mean drown out distractions. A lot of these were not things you could really do with vinyl so engineers and producers simply didn't consider them as economic goals. With phones and streaming, hardly anyone pays for music to sit down and listen to anymore. So the market force is to compress the hell out of recordings so that there's no quiet bits which ALLOW THE VOICES TO SPEAK, er, I mean fail in the objective of keeping the noise of the rest of the world out.
It's not laziness or incompetence, it's business.
Vinyl was a shit format
Vinyl is a shit format
Vinyl will always be a shit format
Your vinyl is shit
My vinyl is shit
His or her vinyl is shit
Their vinyl is shit
Vinyl is made of shite.
That year of Latin in school has finally paid off.
Alexa et al DO only listen after you say the keyword. There's local code that's optimized to detect that specific sequence of sounds, and nothing goes to the Internet until it's detected.
That's not out of the goodness of their hearts. It's because they don't want to deal with the volume of audio they'd get otherwise; it's cheaper to have your hardware do the screening for them than it is to send a continuous stream to the cloud. On mobile devices, it also saves compute cycles, and therefore battery, to have a limited recognizer that only has to detect specific keywords, and to limit use of the network.
Mind you, there's no reason they couldn't add more keywords, or just take a sample of 5 minutes of sound every once in a while, but they don't seem to do that at the moment.
While all of this is true it's really all just practical day-to-day issues; none of it actually means it's not listening, just that it's not recording/transmitting. And as it can be updated at will, any individual device can in fact be made to transmit at any time by the service owner (Amazon or whoever), either for their own reasons or because some government body has ordered them to. Or for criminal reasons on behalf of an admin.
Some people reacted with concern on Twitter: "Was Facebook reading messages more generally?"
How do they think it detects the "bad" messages? Spidey sense?
I'm reminded of conversations with people who think Alexa et al only listen after you say the keyword.
The rules that prevent supersonic flights over land are probably more stringent than they need to be.
...
There was also the side benefit that the law would cripple Concorde.
So, the laws were exactly as stringent as Boeing needed them to be. Which is fair enough since they were paying for them.
What does GDPR do for me? Slap the employer of the service centre wage-slave that stole my data? Big frigging deal; the data's still gone. The few companies that care will already be trying to protect the data and the ones that don't will ignore the GDPR because in a shock development, criminals tend to be law-breakers! Meanwhile, the law-abiding ones are tied up in endless red-tape to comply with the security theatre.