What you want is not Artificial Intelligence, but Artificial Humanity. Your post also reminds me of something Douglas Hofstadter wrote in Godel Escher Bach (paraphrase incoming): every time the field of AI develops a system that can do something that used to be only be able to be performed by a human being, it instantly no longer counts as an example of 'real' intelligence. Examples include playing chess, doing calculus, translation, and now playing Jeopardy. As I've said, I agree that Watson is not HAL, but that doesn't mean it's not artificial intelligence, nor that the relation between Watson and 'Real AI' is the same as the relation between an amoeba and 'a good pet'.
Wolves blowing over wooden houses is physically impossible, strong AI is not. Therefore, strong AI can have real world implications that should be carefully considered (such as whether Asimov's three laws of robotics are coherent, make sense, could be improved upon, etc.) whereas Big Bad Physics Defying Wolves do not. (A wolf with lungs of a sufficient volume and the required muscle strength to operate them would be crushed under his own weight due to the square cube law).
There is plenty of AI going around these days that is not morally responsible. Deep Blue, for example. Or google translate. True, it's not AI in the 2001 HAL sense, but it is AI nevertheless.
Robots that are not responsible for their own actions are ethically not different from guns. They are both machines designed to kill others that need a human being to operate them, with whom the responsibility for their operation lies.
I first wanted to write something about how morally autonomous robots would make the question more interesting, but the relation between a human creating an autonomous robot is no different from a parent giving birth to a child. Parents are not responsible for the crimes their children commit, and neither should the creators of such robots be. Up to a certain age children can't be held responsible in the eyes of the law, and up to a certain level of development neither should robots be.
"May" does not describe what the Polynesians did, but confidence in the evidence obtained about and the existence of possible counter-evidence for what the Polynesians did.
Rather than talking about these molecules in terms of Artificial Intelligence I think it would be more accurate to say that the molecules instead have some very rudimentary if-then logic designed into them. At this stage it doesn't sound *that* much more advanced than a reagent that turns blue in substance A and green in substance B.
I don't know why I need to point this out, but the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine are not the same thing. Schekman has only won the latter, not the former.
There are an infinite amount of ways of not stabbing me to death. There are only several alternatives to fossil fuels. It has as much to do with global warming as an alibi has to do with murder. It only becomes important once an investigation is started.
Solar power is a source of energy that does not affect the climate the way burning fossil fuels does, which is what it has "to do with global warming."
And then I expanded upon my conception of truth as I used it there later with the part about achieving greater accuracy. However, since I realize that this is not necessarily the standard idea of The Truth as others might conceive of it, I then made my views explicit in the follow-up by distinguishing those two conceptions of truth.
That's true, which is why I'm not making it. I don't adhere to Popper's views on the philosophy of science in the main, but I think the idea of verisimilitude (we're only ever approaching reality closer and closer, but may never get 100% accurate descriptions) is spot on. Science is for claims about accuracy, and predictive and explanatory power. The Truth is in the domain of metaphysics.
Science is the systematic observation of everything in our world and universe; it is the best and most successful way we have discovered for determining what is true and what is not. That does not mean that it cannot make mistakes, but it does mean that mistakes can be noticed, making it a self-correcting process, trudging ever forward towards greater accuracy and understanding. Pointing out that science makes mistakes is pointing out a part of how the scientific process works and achieves progress; it's not a bane, it's a boon.
But it does test our existing hypothesis. It disconfirms that at a scale of 10 billion light years, matter in the universe is uniformly distributed. If you're into Bayesian epistemology, this means confidence in the Cosmological principle has just been adjusted downwards because of the evidence that has been discovered.
It is of course also important in the formulation of new hypotheses, as you rightly point out, but to imply the one is more important than the other is simply untrue.
Slashdot Mirror
What you want is not Artificial Intelligence, but Artificial Humanity. Your post also reminds me of something Douglas Hofstadter wrote in Godel Escher Bach (paraphrase incoming): every time the field of AI develops a system that can do something that used to be only be able to be performed by a human being, it instantly no longer counts as an example of 'real' intelligence. Examples include playing chess, doing calculus, translation, and now playing Jeopardy. As I've said, I agree that Watson is not HAL, but that doesn't mean it's not artificial intelligence, nor that the relation between Watson and 'Real AI' is the same as the relation between an amoeba and 'a good pet'.
Wolves blowing over wooden houses is physically impossible, strong AI is not. Therefore, strong AI can have real world implications that should be carefully considered (such as whether Asimov's three laws of robotics are coherent, make sense, could be improved upon, etc.) whereas Big Bad Physics Defying Wolves do not. (A wolf with lungs of a sufficient volume and the required muscle strength to operate them would be crushed under his own weight due to the square cube law).
There is plenty of AI going around these days that is not morally responsible. Deep Blue, for example. Or google translate. True, it's not AI in the 2001 HAL sense, but it is AI nevertheless.
Robots that are not responsible for their own actions are ethically not different from guns. They are both machines designed to kill others that need a human being to operate them, with whom the responsibility for their operation lies.
I first wanted to write something about how morally autonomous robots would make the question more interesting, but the relation between a human creating an autonomous robot is no different from a parent giving birth to a child. Parents are not responsible for the crimes their children commit, and neither should the creators of such robots be. Up to a certain age children can't be held responsible in the eyes of the law, and up to a certain level of development neither should robots be.
"May" does not describe what the Polynesians did, but confidence in the evidence obtained about and the existence of possible counter-evidence for what the Polynesians did.
Rather than talking about these molecules in terms of Artificial Intelligence I think it would be more accurate to say that the molecules instead have some very rudimentary if-then logic designed into them. At this stage it doesn't sound *that* much more advanced than a reagent that turns blue in substance A and green in substance B.
Sometimes I have dreams about code Nightmare Green. I hope that doesn't make me a sensitive.
From the multiple ad hominems I take it you disagree. But then in the one sentence not containing an unwarranted attack, you write
People generally understand that an intelligent criminal has greater capacity to cause harm than does a stupid criminal.
which seems sympathetic to my point. I'm not sure why you are so angry, but I'm glad that you agree.
It is interesting how much more intelligence is feared than malice and stupidity.
Or you lack the ability to read.
Neither I nor the article's summary imply anything about simultaneity.
"Only" here limiting the number of Nobel prizes won, not modifying the perceived prestige of the prize.
Well, I can't tell whether your a chatterbot or schizophrenic, so I guess you just passed a test for the first time in your life.
I don't know why I need to point this out, but the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine are not the same thing. Schekman has only won the latter, not the former.
So wise, so learned, and then you made up a word instead of using 'identity.'
All language is convention, that's why and how it works.
There are an infinite amount of ways of not stabbing me to death. There are only several alternatives to fossil fuels. It has as much to do with global warming as an alibi has to do with murder. It only becomes important once an investigation is started.
Solar power is a source of energy that does not affect the climate the way burning fossil fuels does, which is what it has "to do with global warming."
I don't know about you, but I divest of
they'll have their freedom to do what they want restricted, so of course they're outraged. That's really the only issue here.
And then I expanded upon my conception of truth as I used it there later with the part about achieving greater accuracy. However, since I realize that this is not necessarily the standard idea of The Truth as others might conceive of it, I then made my views explicit in the follow-up by distinguishing those two conceptions of truth.
That's true, which is why I'm not making it. I don't adhere to Popper's views on the philosophy of science in the main, but I think the idea of verisimilitude (we're only ever approaching reality closer and closer, but may never get 100% accurate descriptions) is spot on. Science is for claims about accuracy, and predictive and explanatory power. The Truth is in the domain of metaphysics.
Science is the systematic observation of everything in our world and universe; it is the best and most successful way we have discovered for determining what is true and what is not. That does not mean that it cannot make mistakes, but it does mean that mistakes can be noticed, making it a self-correcting process, trudging ever forward towards greater accuracy and understanding. Pointing out that science makes mistakes is pointing out a part of how the scientific process works and achieves progress; it's not a bane, it's a boon.
But it does test our existing hypothesis. It disconfirms that at a scale of 10 billion light years, matter in the universe is uniformly distributed. If you're into Bayesian epistemology, this means confidence in the Cosmological principle has just been adjusted downwards because of the evidence that has been discovered.
It is of course also important in the formulation of new hypotheses, as you rightly point out, but to imply the one is more important than the other is simply untrue.
And then correct it for average income