I don't find it hard to blame the mom. An accident is a foreseeable consequence of letting a 4 year old ride a bike unattended. 87 year old ladies don't spring out of nowhere.
However, traditionally in our court system young minors cannot have responsibility for their actions because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Their brains simply haven't developed enough, it's not a case of 'parents didn't teach them right', it's just plain-old physically impossible. Now I could understand holding the parents responsible: they should have ensured there was a safe play environment, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.
Unless the parent aimed that 4 year old at the old lady, there wasn't anyone responsible. A 4 year old simply doesn't have the brain complexity to form a criminal level of intent.
That's fine. I only objected to rejecting the case based on the age of the victim. Rejecting a case based on the age of the perpetrator is perfectly fine.
Gives some details on how people are working on this, and a lot of people have ideas for refinement of the process. Based on what I've seen, I don't see any reason we won't have a complete neuron map within 5 years, 10 at the outside. It certainly seems likely to come sooner than we'll have the computer power to execute it in real time.
No need to do it on a living brain, a dead one will do just fine. There are laser system that can slice the brain into very thin sheets, and combine that with an fmri system to figure out the connection map.
The structural part can be solved, though, using existing technology, and the 20 years are what are needed to get a supercomputer up to the speed where it will be able to simulate all of a human brain.
Why would you say that? Nearly everything they make they can spend on whatever they want because others typically provide their food, clothing, and shelter?
Indeed, the 12-18 block has the most intense levels of urges, the least developed skills for satisfying them, and often substantial disposable income. In the years before unfathomable volumes of porn were completely free, there would have been a huge market to sell to them.
Yes, I'm talking about simulating neurons at the chemical flow level, not at a higher electrical level. If that's not sufficiently accurate to produce AI that will be a huge surprise because it will imply that something that happens at the atomic level matters to intelligence. That would be a huge shock in the field because all of the animal behaviors we've been able to simulate so far have been above that level, and we assume intelligence operates in the same way. Still, it is possible that could prove to be the case, in which case our simulators would then be about 3 orders of magnitude too slow again.
Not to anyone in the field. 20 years ago it was clearly not 20 years in the future that we would be able to accurately simulate the human brain. I was working on neuron simulations at the time, and it was obvious that even with perfect adherence to Moore's law that we were further out than that.
Someone had to be first, but the first should have happened a billion+ years ago. That WE would be first is preposterous. Had we come about 3 billion years ago and been first, we could have a more serious discussion over whether we might have won the race.
There's almost no way that strong AI can be very difficult. We are fast closing in on an accurate cognitive simulation of the brain from the neuron level up. Give us 20 more years (at worst) and we will have a computer that can accurately simulate a human brain. If that simulation is not AI, we have some serious misunderstanding of physics/chemistry.
Give us 50 years after that and it will be in a box sufficiently small that we can ship to another star system for a very low price.
They don't support it on principle, they support it on financing, and since this was started under GWB, I'm sure they can find a way to explain voting for it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't send people who are sued to jail regardless of age. That requires a criminal proceeding, not a civil one.
I don't find it hard to blame the mom. An accident is a foreseeable consequence of letting a 4 year old ride a bike unattended. 87 year old ladies don't spring out of nowhere.
However, traditionally in our court system young minors cannot have responsibility for their actions because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Their brains simply haven't developed enough, it's not a case of 'parents didn't teach them right', it's just plain-old physically impossible. Now I could understand holding the parents responsible: they should have ensured there was a safe play environment, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.
Unless the parent aimed that 4 year old at the old lady, there wasn't anyone responsible. A 4 year old simply doesn't have the brain complexity to form a criminal level of intent.
Right. It's based on the age of the perpetrator, not the victim.
Duh.
That's fine. I only objected to rejecting the case based on the age of the victim. Rejecting a case based on the age of the perpetrator is perfectly fine.
So as long as I only murder sufficiently old people, I really shouldn't be held accountable by the legal system?
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28842.wss
Gives some details on how people are working on this, and a lot of people have ideas for refinement of the process. Based on what I've seen, I don't see any reason we won't have a complete neuron map within 5 years, 10 at the outside. It certainly seems likely to come sooner than we'll have the computer power to execute it in real time.
No need to do it on a living brain, a dead one will do just fine. There are laser system that can slice the brain into very thin sheets, and combine that with an fmri system to figure out the connection map.
I was thinking of substantial as being in the $20/wk range. That would be plenty to drive a multi-billion dollar porn industry.
The structural part can be solved, though, using existing technology, and the 20 years are what are needed to get a supercomputer up to the speed where it will be able to simulate all of a human brain.
Why would you say that? Nearly everything they make they can spend on whatever they want because others typically provide their food, clothing, and shelter?
Indeed, the 12-18 block has the most intense levels of urges, the least developed skills for satisfying them, and often substantial disposable income. In the years before unfathomable volumes of porn were completely free, there would have been a huge market to sell to them.
Sure, guarantee limited to original purchaser of advice, and not heirs or estate.
I don't know, it seems like that's a question for the courts to decide.
It's not impossible, it's just not a likely explanation. Probability suggests looking to other explanations first.
Yes, I'm talking about simulating neurons at the chemical flow level, not at a higher electrical level. If that's not sufficiently accurate to produce AI that will be a huge surprise because it will imply that something that happens at the atomic level matters to intelligence. That would be a huge shock in the field because all of the animal behaviors we've been able to simulate so far have been above that level, and we assume intelligence operates in the same way. Still, it is possible that could prove to be the case, in which case our simulators would then be about 3 orders of magnitude too slow again.
Not to anyone in the field. 20 years ago it was clearly not 20 years in the future that we would be able to accurately simulate the human brain. I was working on neuron simulations at the time, and it was obvious that even with perfect adherence to Moore's law that we were further out than that.
Someone had to be first, but the first should have happened a billion+ years ago. That WE would be first is preposterous. Had we come about 3 billion years ago and been first, we could have a more serious discussion over whether we might have won the race.
That sentient network communicates using magic? We'd have noticed such a thing, even if its communication was amazingly low power.
There's almost no way that strong AI can be very difficult. We are fast closing in on an accurate cognitive simulation of the brain from the neuron level up. Give us 20 more years (at worst) and we will have a computer that can accurately simulate a human brain. If that simulation is not AI, we have some serious misunderstanding of physics/chemistry.
Give us 50 years after that and it will be in a box sufficiently small that we can ship to another star system for a very low price.
The trunk has powers of taxation, and can do plenty to stop it, like jailing the people involved.
They don't support it on principle, they support it on financing, and since this was started under GWB, I'm sure they can find a way to explain voting for it.
Sell it to Kraft so they can work on unseating that Doritos buying habit you have?
Probably only Americans care. Legacy of puritanism. Root out your ineffective memes.