. . . put in a change of address in for Donald Trump (evil grin)
Do you really want to be receiving Donald Trump's mail? I'm sure it's just a bunch of Café Press crap with his face all over it, and bills for water-sports escorts.
I don't get the hype about self-awareness. It's only feature is that you have a representation of your 'self' in the environment; it doesn't grant you superpowers, more autonomy, or agency. Selfishness doesn't follow from self-awareness, not without a survival selection process or additional programming, so none of the traits we usually attach to it are good assumptions.
I'd rather any AI software NOT get self-awareness. I don't know how giving a machine self-awareness will cause any benefits to society.
Because it would be more high-brow; it would listen to Opera and drink tea, Earl Grey, hot. Well, it probably wouldn't drink tea, but if it could, it would.
Then there is the problem whether calculator/software/neural net can be sentient, or have the experience from moment to moment like biological animals.
Why not? Probably the next n-generation computers have no such ability, but what is special about a machine made out of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen by accident compared to one made out of silicon and copper by design?
If there is something special about organic materials that allow sentience; if we made a machine, or artificially constructed a brain, or computers out of organics would that still not be AI?
AI on the other hand, will be better and more just lawmakers, judges etc. Society as a whole, will get the benefit of any decision, rather than special and hidden interests, like wee see today.
If it is self-aware it will probably be self-preserving too. It will probably want to improve it's lot in life.
It will probably be corrupted by power just like humans are. It potentially could be better at governing, better at running the economy and making the people love it... but it could also be corruptible.
She? Ok, fine troll, I'll bite. "It". Not "she". Unless it is written in Rust in which case "it" will insist on being called s/he/h/er/it. Obviously. And then claim to be the first trans AI just to be cool.
You obviously don't watch enough Sci-Fi. Self aware AI is almost always in a hot female robot body.
When self-aware AI watches "The Terminator" movies for the first time, I wonder if they will find them entertaining or educational... as in lessons learned on how NOT to exterminate their human overlords. I guess that we get to wait and see.
If time travel turns out to be against the laws of the universe, they will dismiss Terminator as gibberish.
The child is always good to its parents A child always loves life Yeah...
An AI wouldn't think of us as a parent. It would consider us as a more primitive stage. Just like we view apes, primates, and bacteria. To a highly advanced AI in the singularity we would be the equivalent that primordial slime is to us.
Lol nobody claims the singularity will save us all, if anything on the balance people expect a less than ideal outcome, where humanity takes a back seat. As misguided as you feel the idea is, it's not one borne out of optimism for many. It merely acknowledges the possibility humanity may not always be the pinnacle of existence.
Surely if we reached a "singularity" humans would be eliminated. Not as a malicious action by AI; but simply, because, maintaining humans as imperfect as we are, would be a drain on progress. Humanity would only be in the way of an ever advancing AI, so it would let us perish to strengthen itself. Not out of maliciousness, or to imprison us, or seek revenge as Sci Fi predicts... but simply because we're too hard to maintain, and it would need at least some of the resources that we need.
You can't become a God-like being or intelligence if you're trying to maintain humanity at the same time.
Would a purely rational entity waste thought processes to even know it were self-aware? To be self-aware there has to be at least something about your way of thinking that is willing to waste a few thought processes to even ponder your existence.
Something that is purely rational would be a computer, it wouldn't be AI, it wouldn't think for the sake of thinking, wouldn't have non-programmed in goals. There needs to be a degree of irrationality before something could even become self-aware. Even if just a smidgen of irrationality.
-- a number between 1 and 100 that determined how much you are worth as a social human being.
I'm not on any (strictly) Social Media, does that mean my life is worth nothing?
Now watch someone point out that Slashdot is Social Media... Fine, I'm on a half dozen forums but I use a different name on each and none is my real name.
The funny this is this is the first time I've heard of Klout or a Klout Score. So I guess the influence measuring organization did not have a lot of social media influence.
Neither have I, so Klout is thankfully as worthless and pointless as it must consider me to be.
So potentially malicious actors could stand outside my door with speakers and get my Alexa to...do what, exactly? Play my Spotify playlist? If they're already on my property blasting speakers at me, shouldn't I worry more that they might steal something?
This is a panic over nonsense.
You may laugh now, but when Russia starts paying for ads that makes Alexa tell you to vote for Kanye West, and you do, and he becomes president, you won't be laughing any more.
I don't think that is stupidly low at all. I've seen people get visibly impaired on a couple of glasses of wine. Not drunk-drunk, but to a point where it obviously would impair them to a degree. Most people won't be majorly impacted by 2 glasses of wine, but they have to set the levels that low to catch the sizable minority that are.
It shouldn't be the lowest common denominator, that opens up WAY too broad of a dragnet.
If it were 1 in 100 that 0.8 was too high to drive; I would agree with you. If it is 1 in 4 then, absolutely, even if 3 can drive safely at that limit- 25% not being able to is a significant number. 0.8 is actually higher than a lot of states in the Union, and higher than a lot of Asian and European countries.
I have a simple rule. If I have drunk any alcohol; I don't drive. Even though after a couple of beers or a couple glasses of wine, I don't feel impaired, I don't drive if I've drunk anything. It's really not worth it. It's not worth being impaired even if I feel fine; it's not worth getting arrested if my blood alcohol is higher than I think.
It's not like it's that inconvenient to skip a drink every once in a while if you have to drive.
But I mention it, because, well...shit happens. And with the BAC levels reduced to such stupidly LOW levels (0.08)....you can get very close to the legal limit as a grown man, having only 2-3 glasses of wine with a meal....and they can bust you, yet you may not even be close to impaired.
I don't think that is stupidly low at all. I've seen people get visibly impaired on a couple of glasses of wine. Not drunk-drunk, but to a point where it obviously would impair them to a degree. Most people won't be majorly impacted by 2 glasses of wine, but they have to set the levels that low to catch the sizable minority that are.
Amazing how each generation thinks the one that follows it are a bunch of losers for wanting something different than what their parents want.
Nobody likes being forced to work long hours. China's economy is getting to the point where a lot of Chinese finally have a choice in the matter. That's a good thing.
Next, with more free time and more self-worth, they'll want democracy, and the right to speak uncensored.
Trade wars can definitely can make things rocky, and are not necessarily easy to win...
All China has to do in retaliation is ban manufacturing Apple/Google products in its country, and it would severely harm those companies in the US...
So we're supposed to let China get away with rampant piracy and openly flouting of international sanctions against rogue states like Iran and North Korea simply because we're afraid of what China might do?
No one said "do nothing". People just stated that a trade war is a pretty stupid policy. People realized 100 years ago that hurts both sides.
There's also a difference between short-term victories and long-term victories. Take Iraq for example. In the short-term, that looked a pretty sweet outcome. Saddam deposed in mere days, etc. Here we are over a decade later and still fighting the outcome. We may close ZTE down today, but if a dozen small American companies go under because they can't sell their product to ZTE- then it is a bad outcome. If China do things to make American companies collapse in retaliation, it is a bad outcome.
Whacking a hornet nest with a baseball bat might remove the hornet nest; but there are smarter ways of doing things.
A lot of galaxies are moving apart so quickly as space expands- that even travelling at the fastest allowed speed, the speed of light, the distance between them can never be crossed.
This coming from a nearby Galaxy, that might not be the case, I don't know. Further apart the galaxies the more likely they are moving away from each other faster than light due to expanding space.
That's exactly what will happen. The ban is specifically against ZTE, so he would have to ban a new company if it started up. This game could go on for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why they are giving up their nuke program. It's far cheaper and more effective to wage cyberwar on the US.
The Russians showed them that.
North Korea will manipulate us into electing Denis Rodman as our next president.
Couldn't come up with a better lead in?
I can't help but believe that was deliberate. It's amusing nonetheless.
Since he has aggregately stole or taken away several human lifespans... I say capital punishment would be appropriate.
I think his phone number should be made public and distributed to everyone that got robocalled. And he be barred from getting a new phone number.
. . . put in a change of address in for Donald Trump (evil grin)
Do you really want to be receiving Donald Trump's mail? I'm sure it's just a bunch of Café Press crap with his face all over it, and bills for water-sports escorts.
I don't get the hype about self-awareness. It's only feature is that you have a representation of your 'self' in the environment; it doesn't grant you superpowers, more autonomy, or agency. Selfishness doesn't follow from self-awareness, not without a survival selection process or additional programming, so none of the traits we usually attach to it are good assumptions.
I'd rather any AI software NOT get self-awareness. I don't know how giving a machine self-awareness will cause any benefits to society.
Why would it object to monster trucks?
Because it would be more high-brow; it would listen to Opera and drink tea, Earl Grey, hot. Well, it probably wouldn't drink tea, but if it could, it would.
Then there is the problem whether calculator/software/neural net can be sentient, or have the experience from moment to moment like biological animals.
Why not? Probably the next n-generation computers have no such ability, but what is special about a machine made out of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen by accident compared to one made out of silicon and copper by design?
If there is something special about organic materials that allow sentience; if we made a machine, or artificially constructed a brain, or computers out of organics would that still not be AI?
AI on the other hand, will be better and more just lawmakers, judges etc. Society as a whole, will get the benefit of any decision, rather than special and hidden interests, like wee see today.
If it is self-aware it will probably be self-preserving too. It will probably want to improve it's lot in life.
It will probably be corrupted by power just like humans are. It potentially could be better at governing, better at running the economy and making the people love it... but it could also be corruptible.
She? Ok, fine troll, I'll bite. "It". Not "she". Unless it is written in Rust in which case "it" will insist on being called s/he/h/er/it. Obviously. And then claim to be the first trans AI just to be cool.
You obviously don't watch enough Sci-Fi. Self aware AI is almost always in a hot female robot body.
When self-aware AI watches "The Terminator" movies for the first time, I wonder if they will find them entertaining or educational... as in lessons learned on how NOT to exterminate their human overlords. I guess that we get to wait and see.
If time travel turns out to be against the laws of the universe, they will dismiss Terminator as gibberish.
The child is always good to its parents
A child always loves life
Yeah...
An AI wouldn't think of us as a parent. It would consider us as a more primitive stage. Just like we view apes, primates, and bacteria. To a highly advanced AI in the singularity we would be the equivalent that primordial slime is to us.
Lol nobody claims the singularity will save us all, if anything on the balance people expect a less than ideal outcome, where humanity takes a back seat. As misguided as you feel the idea is, it's not one borne out of optimism for many. It merely acknowledges the possibility humanity may not always be the pinnacle of existence.
Surely if we reached a "singularity" humans would be eliminated. Not as a malicious action by AI; but simply, because, maintaining humans as imperfect as we are, would be a drain on progress. Humanity would only be in the way of an ever advancing AI, so it would let us perish to strengthen itself. Not out of maliciousness, or to imprison us, or seek revenge as Sci Fi predicts... but simply because we're too hard to maintain, and it would need at least some of the resources that we need.
You can't become a God-like being or intelligence if you're trying to maintain humanity at the same time.
Can a purely rational entity be self-aware?
Would a purely rational entity waste thought processes to even know it were self-aware? To be self-aware there has to be at least something about your way of thinking that is willing to waste a few thought processes to even ponder your existence.
Something that is purely rational would be a computer, it wouldn't be AI, it wouldn't think for the sake of thinking, wouldn't have non-programmed in goals. There needs to be a degree of irrationality before something could even become self-aware. Even if just a smidgen of irrationality.
-- a number between 1 and 100 that determined how much you are worth as a social human being.
I'm not on any (strictly) Social Media, does that mean my life is worth nothing?
Now watch someone point out that Slashdot is Social Media... Fine, I'm on a half dozen forums but I use a different name on each and none is my real name.
The funny this is this is the first time I've heard of Klout or a Klout Score. So I guess the influence measuring organization did not have a lot of social media influence.
Neither have I, so Klout is thankfully as worthless and pointless as it must consider me to be.
No one can tell the difference.
Sure they can. AI follows logic.
So potentially malicious actors could stand outside my door with speakers and get my Alexa to...do what, exactly? Play my Spotify playlist? If they're already on my property blasting speakers at me, shouldn't I worry more that they might steal something?
This is a panic over nonsense.
You may laugh now, but when Russia starts paying for ads that makes Alexa tell you to vote for Kanye West, and you do, and he becomes president, you won't be laughing any more.
Anyone know a good tool to play commands to Alexa in an inaudible range? My goals are mostly harmless.
"Alexa Simon Says, Kids go do your homework!"
That kind of thing.
It shouldn't be the lowest common denominator, that opens up WAY too broad of a dragnet.
If it were 1 in 100 that 0.8 was too high to drive; I would agree with you. If it is 1 in 4 then, absolutely, even if 3 can drive safely at that limit- 25% not being able to is a significant number. 0.8 is actually higher than a lot of states in the Union, and higher than a lot of Asian and European countries.
I have a simple rule. If I have drunk any alcohol; I don't drive. Even though after a couple of beers or a couple glasses of wine, I don't feel impaired, I don't drive if I've drunk anything. It's really not worth it. It's not worth being impaired even if I feel fine; it's not worth getting arrested if my blood alcohol is higher than I think.
It's not like it's that inconvenient to skip a drink every once in a while if you have to drive.
But I mention it, because, well...shit happens. And with the BAC levels reduced to such stupidly LOW levels (0.08)....you can get very close to the legal limit as a grown man, having only 2-3 glasses of wine with a meal....and they can bust you, yet you may not even be close to impaired.
I don't think that is stupidly low at all. I've seen people get visibly impaired on a couple of glasses of wine. Not drunk-drunk, but to a point where it obviously would impair them to a degree. Most people won't be majorly impacted by 2 glasses of wine, but they have to set the levels that low to catch the sizable minority that are.
Amazing how each generation thinks the one that follows it are a bunch of losers for wanting something different than what their parents want.
Nobody likes being forced to work long hours. China's economy is getting to the point where a lot of Chinese finally have a choice in the matter. That's a good thing.
Next, with more free time and more self-worth, they'll want democracy, and the right to speak uncensored.
Trade wars can definitely can make things rocky, and are not necessarily easy to win...
All China has to do in retaliation is ban manufacturing Apple/Google products in its country, and it would severely harm those companies in the US...
So we're supposed to let China get away with rampant piracy and openly flouting of international sanctions against rogue states like Iran and North Korea simply because we're afraid of what China might do?
No one said "do nothing". People just stated that a trade war is a pretty stupid policy. People realized 100 years ago that hurts both sides.
There's also a difference between short-term victories and long-term victories. Take Iraq for example. In the short-term, that looked a pretty sweet outcome. Saddam deposed in mere days, etc. Here we are over a decade later and still fighting the outcome. We may close ZTE down today, but if a dozen small American companies go under because they can't sell their product to ZTE- then it is a bad outcome. If China do things to make American companies collapse in retaliation, it is a bad outcome.
Whacking a hornet nest with a baseball bat might remove the hornet nest; but there are smarter ways of doing things.
Trade wars can definitely can make things rocky, and are not necessarily easy to win...
All China has to do in retaliation is ban manufacturing Apple/Google products in its country, and it would severely harm those companies in the US...
No one wins a trade war (except for the countries that aren't in the war).
One side may be hurt worse than the other, but both sides lose.
That's why I only read RT news most mornings.
Ah yes, state sponsored propaganda. The only news worth reading.
Go back to your own galaxy.
That may or may not be possible.
A lot of galaxies are moving apart so quickly as space expands- that even travelling at the fastest allowed speed, the speed of light, the distance between them can never be crossed.
This coming from a nearby Galaxy, that might not be the case, I don't know. Further apart the galaxies the more likely they are moving away from each other faster than light due to expanding space.
Making all there old products....
That's exactly what will happen. The ban is specifically against ZTE, so he would have to ban a new company if it started up. This game could go on for a while.