Self driving police cars that park and hide somewhere, with no bored officers inside, will have a detrimental effect on the sales of donuts.
New Executive Order: make self driving police cars be powered by donuts. Lots and lots of donuts. Nice, beautiful donuts. The best donuts. Trust me! Beautiful, classy, donuts. And believe me, I know my donuts. Honest.
Police say it all the time. If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide.
So why do they need to hide? What are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
Isn't the whole point of policing to increase public safety? Isn't the point of enforcing the speed limits to increase public safety? If a visible police presence is seen on a roadway, that alone will deter most drivers from speeding. The stupidest drivers who speed anyway will then get ticketed for speeding.
Police might object that the number of tickets they write would diminish. But isn't that the whole point? If you think that ticketing is a source of revenue then you've already gone down the wrong side of a slippery slope that leads to all kinds of crooked behavior by police. Next police start to think that all sorts of crime should lead to revenue. Lesser and lesser infractions lead to assets seized until at least no crime is needed at all to justify just robbing people for no reason. And this already happens in some places. Police will stop and rob people who have done nothing wrong except for merely being out of state. Seize their money and send them on their way.
Writing tickets is not a goal in and of itself. The goal is to get people to stop speeding. Not to raise money. If a visible police presence stops most speeders, then the job is being done on a better and larger scale than not being able to ticket every single speeder. Hiding is a sign that police ARE doing something shameful and wrong.
The point is that it may not be possible to define it in a way that doesn't lead to unintended (and very bad) consequences of following your definition to the letter.
Who would think the three laws could have a bad outcome?
If people are depressed about how badly the great centuari empire is declining from its glory days, then just cheer them up by giving them a smartphone.
Perhaps you know Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan?
In a nutshell: A man has been beaten and robbed and lies on the road side bloodied and unable to get up and help himself. A rabbi comes along, and walks around the poor man on the far side of the road to avoid any contact.
A pair of psychology majors come along, and say: Oh, this is terrible! Whoever did this to this poor man is a victim of society and desperately needs our help!
Define Safe as the AI's ability to protect itself and not harm humans.
Define Ethical as not doing harm to humans. Or somesuch similar definition.
You end up with the same problem that the Three Laws create. The enslavement of humanity. For our safety, and the AI's safety, it would ethically protect humans by confining them to their domestic units. Each domestic unit will be serviced by a robot delivering nutritious gray bland sludge food-like substance. (With a McDonald's brand logo on it.)
You provide interesting additional details I was unaware of. However it effectively reinforces what I said about Microsoft almost missing the internet. When you say they hoped the internet would just go away, that is what I meant by almost missed it. Being aware of it isn't mutually exclusive with almost missing it. Or even missing it. Microsoft was fully aware of the iPhone in 2007. Ballmer openly laughed at both Apple and the iPhone. Microsoft completely missed the mobile device revolution, not almost. Yet they were aware of it. They just hoped it would go away.
There was once a time when IBM was raking in bucket loads of money. Within ten years of microcomputer explosion in the 1980's the PC industry was where everything was now happening and IBM mainframes were dinosaur, legacy systems. Not many years after that, IBM quit making PCs because they couldn't compete at the price level of all other PC makers.
Don't be too quick to think it couldn't happen to Google at some point.
There was a documentary back in the very early 1990's. IIRC it was called "the machine that changed the world". It was about the explosion of the microcomputer through the 1980's.
I remember one bit quite well:
Someone explained, big companies never get it. They never see the next paradigm shift coming, the next disruption that will affect their comfortable business. Sometimes they realize that they can't see the paradigm shift coming. So they hire people who will see it to tell them. Then when the paradigm shift is in progress, and those people tell upper management about the disruption that is occurring -- they NEVER believe them! How could these pesky toy "microcomputers" threaten IBM? How could Open Source ever become such a large force as to affect Microsoft's business? How could a new paradigm (personal devices, tablets, smartphones) emerge that would threaten Microsoft's business? I would point out how in 2007 that Steve Ballmer openly LAUGHED at the iPhone. He obviously didn't see it coming. Microsoft didn't foresee a couple BILLION plus Android smartphones, or that Microsoft would completely miss the boat. Like Microsoft almost missed the Internet boat in 1995.
Look at past large companies, especially monopolies. They don't keep their eye on the ball any more. They do a lot of things, but nothing really remarkably well. In 1980 IBM was considered unassailable. The microcomputers were gaining popularity. IBM released its own PC which was expected to set a new standard and crush the existing competitors. It did mostly crush most competitors except for most notably Apple. Then along came Compaq and then other PC compatibles. Along with a standard OS: MS-DOS. Once the universe of software developers could develop to a standard platform built by multiple hardware manufacturers, the whole industry became ablaze with competition. IBM attempted to regain control again in 1987 with the incompatible PS/2, but the whole rest of the industry "just said no". Think about it. As a software developer you could rework your software for the PS/2, or simply do nothing and be compatible with many millions of installed existing PCs. Hmmmmm. Which to do? Eventually IBM threw in the towel on PCs.
In the 1990s Microsoft was considered unassailable. Open source began growing and growing. Slowly. Gaining a toehold, then a foothold then a beachhead into everything that was NOT a desktop PC. Anything that wasn't a desktop PC ran Linux and open source by the 2000's. Today here we are with Microsoft trying to embrace, mimic, and copy open source. Offering SQL Server and a counterpart for SQL Server Management Studio on Linux seems to me to be an admission that their once monopoly wasn't safe any longer. Servers everywhere run Linux and it's simply too big to ignore. Offering Windows Subsystem For Linux is also an attempt to draw developers back to Microsoft. Who would have ever thought that Microsoft would need to draw in developers to their platform. I'm not saying Microsoft is dying. But it's monopoly pricing days are surely in the past.
A few decades ago I heard an interesting saying.
Once a company exceeds a certain size it is run by MBAs.
Then once it exceeds another certain size it is run by lawyers.
Why is this? Because at some point, the company is so big that the results of failure would be unthinkable. So the company becomes risk averse. And there is the pressure of always increasing shareholder value, even if you cripple yourself in the long run. Everything becomes short term focused. Then the lawyers take this to the next level because the organization is now so big it is a target of all kinds of meritless and maybe also legitimate lawsuits.
Even ten years ago people were saying that eventually we would see this all happen to Google.
Res-Killing:
There was a guy who worked in the coal mine. Then the coal mine closed down.
So he got a job working on an automobile assembly line. Then his job was taken by a robot.
So he got a job driving trucks. Because those trucks aren't going to drive themselves!
(and if they do, I hear that we're going to bring back clean coal.)
It's not being a Luddite to complain about something that is only being changed to enhance a single company's profits and for no other good justifiable reason. Oh, I've heard Apple's rationalization for why they removed the headphone jack.
Sort of like the "notch". Let rant about that for a sec . . . how about instead of a notch just have a little bit of bezel gap at the top AND bottom of the phone, and place fantastic stereo speakers there! (Oh, like some Android phones do.)
Apple had the courage to remove a decades old, industry standard headphone jack.
But industry standard is an understatement. This jack was used by much more than smartphones and tablets. It was the standard on PCs. Old stereo equipment back to the early 1980's had this jack. Walkman cassette players. Car entertainment systems use this jack. MP3 players and personal video pod type players. I can just barely describe how widely used this jack was and for how long. This jack was used everywhere on the entire planet. It was way more standard than electrical outlets which vary by country.
But . . . Apple!
The king of ever changing non standard connectors that have "premium priced" cables, dongles, etc. Do you see a pattern yet?
The moon gets blamed for everything. People blame the moon for causing the ocean tides. Warewolf attacks. Increased crime. Now people blame the moon for bitcoin slumps.
I've got news for you: It is the ocean tides that are to blame for causing the moon! Proof is their direct correlation.
I couldn't do my homework because . . . . the moon! (Because Windows 8 my homework no longer works.)
As for McDonalds and Velveeta, the gelatinous cheese-like substance that McDonalds serves certainly tastes better than Velveeta's gelatinous cheese-like substance.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed another obvious thing.
Self driving police cars that park and hide somewhere, with no bored officers inside, will have a detrimental effect on the sales of donuts.
New Executive Order: make self driving police cars be powered by donuts. Lots and lots of donuts. Nice, beautiful donuts. The best donuts. Trust me! Beautiful, classy, donuts. And believe me, I know my donuts. Honest.
More patents hinder innovation. Especially stupid patents. Or patents not supported by innovation or actual invention.
And people wonder why the US has dropped off the list of most innovative countries.
The point of being human is that humans have true consciousness, freewill and can make choices using novel creativity.
Either service the machines or become fuel for their operation. Your choice. Be as creative as you want in choosing. You have ten seconds to decide.
Police say it all the time. If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide.
So why do they need to hide? What are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
Isn't the whole point of policing to increase public safety? Isn't the point of enforcing the speed limits to increase public safety? If a visible police presence is seen on a roadway, that alone will deter most drivers from speeding. The stupidest drivers who speed anyway will then get ticketed for speeding.
Police might object that the number of tickets they write would diminish. But isn't that the whole point? If you think that ticketing is a source of revenue then you've already gone down the wrong side of a slippery slope that leads to all kinds of crooked behavior by police. Next police start to think that all sorts of crime should lead to revenue. Lesser and lesser infractions lead to assets seized until at least no crime is needed at all to justify just robbing people for no reason. And this already happens in some places. Police will stop and rob people who have done nothing wrong except for merely being out of state. Seize their money and send them on their way.
Writing tickets is not a goal in and of itself. The goal is to get people to stop speeding. Not to raise money. If a visible police presence stops most speeders, then the job is being done on a better and larger scale than not being able to ticket every single speeder. Hiding is a sign that police ARE doing something shameful and wrong.
The point is that it may not be possible to define it in a way that doesn't lead to unintended (and very bad) consequences of following your definition to the letter.
Who would think the three laws could have a bad outcome?
If people are depressed about how badly the great centuari empire is declining from its glory days, then just cheer them up by giving them a smartphone.
Perhaps you know Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan?
In a nutshell: A man has been beaten and robbed and lies on the road side bloodied and unable to get up and help himself. A rabbi comes along, and walks around the poor man on the far side of the road to avoid any contact.
A pair of psychology majors come along, and say: Oh, this is terrible! Whoever did this to this poor man is a victim of society and desperately needs our help!
Define Safe as the AI's ability to protect itself and not harm humans.
Define Ethical as not doing harm to humans. Or somesuch similar definition.
You end up with the same problem that the Three Laws create. The enslavement of humanity. For our safety, and the AI's safety, it would ethically protect humans by confining them to their domestic units. Each domestic unit will be serviced by a robot delivering nutritious gray bland sludge food-like substance. (With a McDonald's brand logo on it.)
> If she runs out of nonsense to spout . . .
. . . she can turn to Trump for inspiration.
> we already have AI designed to lie, pit people against each other, and in general display malevolence.
Facebook is still subject to legislation. That's like saying an existing polluter cannot be stopped from dumping toxic waste into our air and water.
You provide interesting additional details I was unaware of. However it effectively reinforces what I said about Microsoft almost missing the internet. When you say they hoped the internet would just go away, that is what I meant by almost missed it. Being aware of it isn't mutually exclusive with almost missing it. Or even missing it. Microsoft was fully aware of the iPhone in 2007. Ballmer openly laughed at both Apple and the iPhone. Microsoft completely missed the mobile device revolution, not almost. Yet they were aware of it. They just hoped it would go away.
There was once a time when IBM was raking in bucket loads of money. Within ten years of microcomputer explosion in the 1980's the PC industry was where everything was now happening and IBM mainframes were dinosaur, legacy systems. Not many years after that, IBM quit making PCs because they couldn't compete at the price level of all other PC makers.
Don't be too quick to think it couldn't happen to Google at some point.
Hubris is one of the first signs.
There was a documentary back in the very early 1990's. IIRC it was called "the machine that changed the world". It was about the explosion of the microcomputer through the 1980's.
I remember one bit quite well:
Someone explained, big companies never get it. They never see the next paradigm shift coming, the next disruption that will affect their comfortable business. Sometimes they realize that they can't see the paradigm shift coming. So they hire people who will see it to tell them. Then when the paradigm shift is in progress, and those people tell upper management about the disruption that is occurring -- they NEVER believe them! How could these pesky toy "microcomputers" threaten IBM? How could Open Source ever become such a large force as to affect Microsoft's business? How could a new paradigm (personal devices, tablets, smartphones) emerge that would threaten Microsoft's business? I would point out how in 2007 that Steve Ballmer openly LAUGHED at the iPhone. He obviously didn't see it coming. Microsoft didn't foresee a couple BILLION plus Android smartphones, or that Microsoft would completely miss the boat. Like Microsoft almost missed the Internet boat in 1995.
> Correct: A field invented by _gay_ white men.
Bzzzzzt. Gay white men did not invent the field. They invented the "feeled".
Look at past large companies, especially monopolies. They don't keep their eye on the ball any more. They do a lot of things, but nothing really remarkably well. In 1980 IBM was considered unassailable. The microcomputers were gaining popularity. IBM released its own PC which was expected to set a new standard and crush the existing competitors. It did mostly crush most competitors except for most notably Apple. Then along came Compaq and then other PC compatibles. Along with a standard OS: MS-DOS. Once the universe of software developers could develop to a standard platform built by multiple hardware manufacturers, the whole industry became ablaze with competition. IBM attempted to regain control again in 1987 with the incompatible PS/2, but the whole rest of the industry "just said no". Think about it. As a software developer you could rework your software for the PS/2, or simply do nothing and be compatible with many millions of installed existing PCs. Hmmmmm. Which to do? Eventually IBM threw in the towel on PCs.
In the 1990s Microsoft was considered unassailable. Open source began growing and growing. Slowly. Gaining a toehold, then a foothold then a beachhead into everything that was NOT a desktop PC. Anything that wasn't a desktop PC ran Linux and open source by the 2000's. Today here we are with Microsoft trying to embrace, mimic, and copy open source. Offering SQL Server and a counterpart for SQL Server Management Studio on Linux seems to me to be an admission that their once monopoly wasn't safe any longer. Servers everywhere run Linux and it's simply too big to ignore. Offering Windows Subsystem For Linux is also an attempt to draw developers back to Microsoft. Who would have ever thought that Microsoft would need to draw in developers to their platform. I'm not saying Microsoft is dying. But it's monopoly pricing days are surely in the past.
A few decades ago I heard an interesting saying.
Once a company exceeds a certain size it is run by MBAs.
Then once it exceeds another certain size it is run by lawyers.
Why is this? Because at some point, the company is so big that the results of failure would be unthinkable. So the company becomes risk averse. And there is the pressure of always increasing shareholder value, even if you cripple yourself in the long run. Everything becomes short term focused. Then the lawyers take this to the next level because the organization is now so big it is a target of all kinds of meritless and maybe also legitimate lawsuits.
Even ten years ago people were saying that eventually we would see this all happen to Google.
> so we need to bring in immigrants to do the jobs that American robots won't do.
We have always used immigrants to do the jobs that no American will do.
That's why all of Trump's wives are immigrants.
Res-Killing:
There was a guy who worked in the coal mine. Then the coal mine closed down.
So he got a job working on an automobile assembly line. Then his job was taken by a robot.
So he got a job driving trucks. Because those trucks aren't going to drive themselves!
(and if they do, I hear that we're going to bring back clean coal.)
It's not being a Luddite to complain about something that is only being changed to enhance a single company's profits and for no other good justifiable reason. Oh, I've heard Apple's rationalization for why they removed the headphone jack.
Sort of like the "notch". Let rant about that for a sec . . . how about instead of a notch just have a little bit of bezel gap at the top AND bottom of the phone, and place fantastic stereo speakers there! (Oh, like some Android phones do.)
> Would someone tell me how this happened?
Apple had the courage to remove a decades old, industry standard headphone jack.
But industry standard is an understatement. This jack was used by much more than smartphones and tablets. It was the standard on PCs. Old stereo equipment back to the early 1980's had this jack. Walkman cassette players. Car entertainment systems use this jack. MP3 players and personal video pod type players. I can just barely describe how widely used this jack was and for how long. This jack was used everywhere on the entire planet. It was way more standard than electrical outlets which vary by country.
But . . . Apple!
The king of ever changing non standard connectors that have "premium priced" cables, dongles, etc. Do you see a pattern yet?
I'm not going to use 2 factor because I don't want Google to know my gmail address.
Yeah. Only one factor. Not two factor.
If there is only one factor then prime factorization won't work because the single factor is prime.
What if he has only one head to give?
You can only behead them once. if that is what is mint by losing your head.
Build a wall around the bitcoins and make the bitcoins pay for it!
The moon gets blamed for everything. People blame the moon for causing the ocean tides. Warewolf attacks. Increased crime. Now people blame the moon for bitcoin slumps.
I've got news for you: It is the ocean tides that are to blame for causing the moon! Proof is their direct correlation.
I couldn't do my homework because . . . . the moon! (Because Windows 8 my homework no longer works.)
What? Not Jello flavored pizza?
Or: ((Jello flavored pizza) flavored Jello)
As for McDonalds and Velveeta, the gelatinous cheese-like substance that McDonalds serves certainly tastes better than Velveeta's gelatinous cheese-like substance.