Can someone please explain how Cox's resignation will help the cause? Whouldn't it be more effective if he remained in his position and used it to promote the cause?
I am not being sarcastic; I really don't understand--can anyone clear it up?
I recently transferred my domain from Network Solutions to another registrar. I was alarmed by how easy it was--there didn't seem to be very many checks in place that would have prevented someone else from fraudulently transferring my domain away from NetSol. As displeased as I was with NetSol, I have to say I agree with them that there should be some more barriers to prevent forged or fraudulent transfer requests.
Look who conducted the "studies" (4th paragraph)--the Interactive Advertising Bureau (a Web advertising industry trade group), DoubleClick, and MSN. These organizations have a vested interest in selling this type of advertising to advertisers. Shame on the Washington Post for not reporting this "research" more skeptically.
If I remember right, Searle was one of the original advocates of the position that computers could never play chess. Oops. I would not choose to quote him as an authority.
Just because a person is wrong about a single thing does not invalidate all of his ideas. And anyway, I was citing Searle as an example of one person who is more skeptical in this debate, not as the utmost authority on the topic.
Clearly the trend favors the notion that one day we will have intelligent machines.
Well, we have also been able to build faster and faster vehicles. So by your reasoning, "the trend favors the notion" that one day we will have faster-than-light travel. I admit it's a bad analogy; what I'm trying to say is that just because computers are completing tasks that appear more and more like intelligence to observers, but still fall short of true intelligence, doesn't mean that one day machines will actually attain true intelligence.
However, I was not claiming that we will never, ever have intelligent machines. I said that given today's technology, intelligent machines are so far off in the future that they are not a matter for practical debate, as Katz claims they are.
You're exactly right that technology need not be "intelligent" to pose a risk to society. But Katz was not suggesting we need to have a debate about whether the machines we rely on are too prone to abuse, failure, etc. He was specifically proposing that society should debate the implications of artificially created intelligence.
Of course you need not take my word for it. For some of the debate, consult the writings of people like John Searle.
As for my contention about the (non-)feasibility of AI with current technology, it's impossible to prove a negative. The burden is on the other side to prove that it is possible. I have yet to see examples or evidence based on current technology of true intelligence of the sort that Katz says we should be worried about.
None of your examples are evidence enough for me:
chess--chess playing programs work in a single context (all they can do is play chess) and they work by heavy number-crunching and calculations. They don't understand the game, aspire to anything outside the game, or realize they are even playing a game.
speech recognition, translation, summarizing business documents--these are basically computational/algorithmic parlor tricks. There is no understanding. MS Word doesn't understand the business document. It just calculates which words are the most frequent etc.
conjecture/prove mathematical theorems--I'm not familiar enough with this field to comment on this one
promising projects that might bear fruit--Things that "might" work are a far cry from things that "do work". At the moment, these projects, while very interesting, don't demonstrate what I would call intelligence, nor has any of them produced some leap that I think might eventually lead to intelligence.
You can certainly disagree about what constitutes "intelligence"; like I said, there is a great deal of healthy debate about this. But I have yet to see evidence of anything that looks like the kind of A.I. I would worry might take over the world as Katz describes.
A.I. experts, cognitive scientists, etc. still disagree about whether it would be possible to create true "intelligence" using even a super-advanced form of any technology that is feasible today (specifically, digital technology). Even if it is possible, it is so far from reality today that A.I. is still a more suitable subject for science fiction and parlor conversation than for political debate.
If George Bush starts talking about how we need to have a worldwide dialogue on whether the machines will take over, we will really know he has gone off the deep end.
possible that this is because Adobe had not hired the law firm to do this job.
It seems that in Germany law firms can write cease and desist letters to businesses they think are infringing another company's trademarks, without being employed by the latter.
So I guess while we were savaging Adobe for this attack, Adobe had nothing to do with it all along. Question is, are there analogues to this strange legal quirk in other countries (like the US?) Are there good reasons to end the practice in Germany, and if so, is anyone trying to do so?
I think Junkyard Wars would be much better if it weren't rigged (junkyard stocked in advance with useful parts, etc.) Yes, it would be difficult if not impossible to make these great machines without providing parts, hey could still make it an interesting show by simplifying the assignments (have the contestants make less complicated machines) or by being more up front about the rigging (give each team a working engine and other necessary parts at the start, and say exactly what they have been given)
I take exception. Slashdot doesn't make occasional errors of this sort, they make them regularly.For example, from yesterday:
MS, CNET On 7-Day Messenger Outage--Slashdot misidentifies a ZDNet story as a CNet story, and misdentifies a ZDNet-written story posted on MSNBC as an MSNBC story.
Or from last week, MSNBC on Slashdot, where Slashdot mistakes an Inside.com story for an MSNBC story.
I'm not asking for perfection, just a genuine effort--Slashdot doesn't even seem to try to get this stuff right. And by the way, I do make sure to let other news sources know when they make mistakes. You should, too.
The article appears on MSNBC, but it is clearly labeled "Associated Press," meaning it was written by the Associated Press and published on MSNBC (and who knows how many other outlets).
It is my hope and dream that one day Slashdot will start properly attributing news stories to the organizations that originally produced them. I'm not holding my breath, though.
The story is on ZDNet, not CNet (even though I think CNet owns ZDNet nowadays).
And that "story on MSNBC" is a ZDNet story that was republished by MSNBC--not a story written by MSNBC.
Re:Now One Won't Be Able To Try Before One Buys...
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 2
I agree that this could radically change the publishing industry, but I don't think it will eliminate the bookstore in the foreseeable future. Video rentals and pay-per-view have yet to eliminate movie theaters, and paperback books have not yet eliminated hardback books.
Re:Now One Won't Be Able To Try Before One Buys...
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 2
Only if publishers stop making printed books. It's likely that they will only use the machines for certain titles (e.g. unpopular or "backlist" books) and sell other books the old-fashioned way.
If so, the machines would be selling the kind of books that you already can't try before buying. These would be books that you would otherwise have to special-order (on the Web or through a bookstore), or that you couldn't get your hands on at all.
I can see how this would be useful. E-books and the Web are great, but they suck for most kinds of prolonged "serious" reading. LED and e-ink technology is likely to improve electronic reading, but I doubt they will match printed books anytime within the next decade.
I do worry about whether this will push high-quality printed books out of the market, but the history of the publishing industry suggests that it won't. Publishers can use this technology to time-shift, e.g. sell an expensive hardback book, then go to paperback, then distribute the title to bookmaking machines.
I wonder how Slashdot readers would respond if Microsoft decided to release a new, closed-source product called Microsoft Graphical Image Manipulation Program, Microsoft GIMP.
The phrase "image manipulation program" is no more unique than the word "illustrator." Adobe's case is slightly questionable, but it's wrong to conclude out of hand that they are on the wrong side of things.
Why do Slashdotters find it so hard to believe that there might be journalists out there (freelance or staff) that are in it for the public good, not just to deliver some corporate line? Surely there are unethical journalists and organizations out there, but there are also many that work night and day to do good. Everyone knows there are good programmers and evil programmers, so what makes you think there are only evil journalists and no good journalists?
I don't see how Microsoft's license, or their lack of a true open source license, is at all "unfair." Some will argue that not releasing source freely impinges on the rights of end users, but what about the rights of the person who created the software? Open source is good, but the best part about it is that it is a matter of choice--an author opens his or her code freely without being compelled to do so.
I agree that computer graphics *can* be an effective tool or medium for creating great art. But you can't seriously call those "Van Gogh-like" filtered photographs art. It's just a little trick of image processing. No one is likely to mistake those ugly images for a real Van Gogh painting or even a passably good non-Van Gogh painting.
Hubbard says "Darwin is substantially based on FreeBSD 3.2." But I had thought Darwin was based on the generic BSD code. Every time someone said Darwin is based on FreeBSD, I cursed them under my breath, saying, "Don't you understand? FreeBSD and BSD are not the same thing?"
So it seems I was wrong all this time. What's the real story? How much of Darwin is based on parts of FreeBSD that are not part of BSD?
I have a hard time believing people are so dismissive of the possibility that computer graphics can be art. A urinal can be art (Marcel Duchamp); a set of instructions for drawing lines on a wall can be art (Sol LeWitt). It's not really a practical exercise to try to draw lines that separate what can be art and what cannot be art.
Whether the art is any *good*--whether the art you were showing is good, and if not, whether computer graphics can be "good" art--is another question altogether.
I'm saying GAIM's creators should have foreseen that AOL would try to protect its trademark, and should not have used a name that incorporates "AIM" in a way that might make some people think it is a product related to AIM.
From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/bas ic_facts.html
Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) stating that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress. (See below, under "Types of Applications," for a discussion of what is meant by the terms commerce and use in commerce.) Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration can secure benefits beyond the rights acquired by merely using a mark. For example, the owner of a federal registration is presumed to be the owner of the mark for the goods and services specified in the registration, and to be entitled to use the mark nationwide.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not being sarcastic; I really don't understand--can anyone clear it up?
I recently transferred my domain from Network Solutions to another registrar. I was alarmed by how easy it was--there didn't seem to be very many checks in place that would have prevented someone else from fraudulently transferring my domain away from NetSol. As displeased as I was with NetSol, I have to say I agree with them that there should be some more barriers to prevent forged or fraudulent transfer requests.
Look who conducted the "studies" (4th paragraph)--the Interactive Advertising Bureau (a Web advertising industry trade group), DoubleClick, and MSN. These organizations have a vested interest in selling this type of advertising to advertisers. Shame on the Washington Post for not reporting this "research" more skeptically.
Just because a person is wrong about a single thing does not invalidate all of his ideas. And anyway, I was citing Searle as an example of one person who is more skeptical in this debate, not as the utmost authority on the topic.
Clearly the trend favors the notion that one day we will have intelligent machines.
Well, we have also been able to build faster and faster vehicles. So by your reasoning, "the trend favors the notion" that one day we will have faster-than-light travel. I admit it's a bad analogy; what I'm trying to say is that just because computers are completing tasks that appear more and more like intelligence to observers, but still fall short of true intelligence, doesn't mean that one day machines will actually attain true intelligence.
However, I was not claiming that we will never, ever have intelligent machines. I said that given today's technology, intelligent machines are so far off in the future that they are not a matter for practical debate, as Katz claims they are.
You're exactly right that technology need not be "intelligent" to pose a risk to society. But Katz was not suggesting we need to have a debate about whether the machines we rely on are too prone to abuse, failure, etc. He was specifically proposing that society should debate the implications of artificially created intelligence.
As for my contention about the (non-)feasibility of AI with current technology, it's impossible to prove a negative. The burden is on the other side to prove that it is possible. I have yet to see examples or evidence based on current technology of true intelligence of the sort that Katz says we should be worried about.
None of your examples are evidence enough for me:
You can certainly disagree about what constitutes "intelligence"; like I said, there is a great deal of healthy debate about this. But I have yet to see evidence of anything that looks like the kind of A.I. I would worry might take over the world as Katz describes.
If George Bush starts talking about how we need to have a worldwide dialogue on whether the machines will take over, we will really know he has gone off the deep end.
So I guess while we were savaging Adobe for this attack, Adobe had nothing to do with it all along. Question is, are there analogues to this strange legal quirk in other countries (like the US?) Are there good reasons to end the practice in Germany, and if so, is anyone trying to do so?
I think Junkyard Wars would be much better if it weren't rigged (junkyard stocked in advance with useful parts, etc.) Yes, it would be difficult if not impossible to make these great machines without providing parts, hey could still make it an interesting show by simplifying the assignments (have the contestants make less complicated machines) or by being more up front about the rigging (give each team a working engine and other necessary parts at the start, and say exactly what they have been given)
MS, CNET On 7-Day Messenger Outage--Slashdot misidentifies a ZDNet story as a CNet story, and misdentifies a ZDNet-written story posted on MSNBC as an MSNBC story.
Or from last week, MSNBC on Slashdot, where Slashdot mistakes an Inside.com story for an MSNBC story.
I'm not asking for perfection, just a genuine effort--Slashdot doesn't even seem to try to get this stuff right. And by the way, I do make sure to let other news sources know when they make mistakes. You should, too.
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?SLUG=MICROSOFT %2dLICENSING
It is my hope and dream that one day Slashdot will start properly attributing news stories to the organizations that originally produced them. I'm not holding my breath, though.
The story is on ZDNet, not CNet (even though I think CNet owns ZDNet nowadays).
And that "story on MSNBC" is a ZDNet story that was republished by MSNBC--not a story written by MSNBC.
I agree that this could radically change the publishing industry, but I don't think it will eliminate the bookstore in the foreseeable future. Video rentals and pay-per-view have yet to eliminate movie theaters, and paperback books have not yet eliminated hardback books.
Only if publishers stop making printed books. It's likely that they will only use the machines for certain titles (e.g. unpopular or "backlist" books) and sell other books the old-fashioned way.
If so, the machines would be selling the kind of books that you already can't try before buying. These would be books that you would otherwise have to special-order (on the Web or through a bookstore), or that you couldn't get your hands on at all.
I can see how this would be useful. E-books and the Web are great, but they suck for most kinds of prolonged "serious" reading. LED and e-ink technology is likely to improve electronic reading, but I doubt they will match printed books anytime within the next decade.
I do worry about whether this will push high-quality printed books out of the market, but the history of the publishing industry suggests that it won't. Publishers can use this technology to time-shift, e.g. sell an expensive hardback book, then go to paperback, then distribute the title to bookmaking machines.
I wonder how Slashdot readers would respond if Microsoft decided to release a new, closed-source product called Microsoft Graphical Image Manipulation Program, Microsoft GIMP. The phrase "image manipulation program" is no more unique than the word "illustrator." Adobe's case is slightly questionable, but it's wrong to conclude out of hand that they are on the wrong side of things.
Why do Slashdotters find it so hard to believe that there might be journalists out there (freelance or staff) that are in it for the public good, not just to deliver some corporate line? Surely there are unethical journalists and organizations out there, but there are also many that work night and day to do good. Everyone knows there are good programmers and evil programmers, so what makes you think there are only evil journalists and no good journalists?
I don't see how Microsoft's license, or their lack of a true open source license, is at all "unfair." Some will argue that not releasing source freely impinges on the rights of end users, but what about the rights of the person who created the software? Open source is good, but the best part about it is that it is a matter of choice--an author opens his or her code freely without being compelled to do so.
I agree that computer graphics *can* be an effective tool or medium for creating great art. But you can't seriously call those "Van Gogh-like" filtered photographs art. It's just a little trick of image processing. No one is likely to mistake those ugly images for a real Van Gogh painting or even a passably good non-Van Gogh painting.
A simple, cheap, effective solution that will work for most home users: Unplug your computer during lightning storms.
So it seems I was wrong all this time. What's the real story? How much of Darwin is based on parts of FreeBSD that are not part of BSD?
I have a hard time believing people are so dismissive of the possibility that computer graphics can be art. A urinal can be art (Marcel Duchamp); a set of instructions for drawing lines on a wall can be art (Sol LeWitt). It's not really a practical exercise to try to draw lines that separate what can be art and what cannot be art. Whether the art is any *good*--whether the art you were showing is good, and if not, whether computer graphics can be "good" art--is another question altogether.
I'm saying GAIM's creators should have foreseen that AOL would try to protect its trademark, and should not have used a name that incorporates "AIM" in a way that might make some people think it is a product related to AIM.
From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/bas ic_facts.html
Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) stating that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress. (See below, under "Types of Applications," for a discussion of what is meant by the terms commerce and use in commerce.) Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration can secure benefits beyond the rights acquired by merely using a mark. For example, the owner of a federal registration is presumed to be the owner of the mark for the goods and services specified in the registration, and to be entitled to use the mark nationwide.