Actually, I think automated cars would solve some traffic issues. Around here, most freeway jams are caused by people not knowing how to merge and fucking the whole freeway over when they try to enter at 35 mph. Automated cars would be much better at merging.
They would also take interchange ramps at speed instead of slowing down too, which is the primary cause of fucking up a particular five mile stretch of freeway around here. So yes, traffic would get better with automated cars.
Amazing, I didn't know until you expressed the actual problem. Fucking. The whole problem is caused by too much fucking. Less fucking, fewer people, things get better.
theres somthing called carpooling too which can help.
Good point, and indeed, carpooling is encouraged in Paris on smog days: although they ban half of the cars (those with odd-numbered license plates one day, even-numbered the next), cars that transport 3 people or more are exempt from the ban.
Many people drive a car in order not to use public transportation... And people having a car don't really care about saving a couple of euros to travel within Paris/suburbs.
Here's the thing. Reducing fares for transit in general everywhere would encourage usage and point out the need for more buses. An anonymous tracking app or transponder can be designed so that people can each have one, thereby illuminating where they like to go - the transit system can optimize routes to make the experience better (minimizing the pain). Overall, with more people in the buses, the roads become less congested and work better for people who have suboptimal trips. Using transit a lot does save people money, so they can afford better cars, perhaps hybrids and electric. Taking all measures to maximize transit usage worldwide would make a big difference in pollution.
The big question is how to pay for it. It's a bit of a catch 22. If people want to use transit more tax revenue could drop as people spend less on cars and carry less stuff out of the stores (how much can you carry from the bus stop?). However, smart retailers might hire strong teenagers or perhaps people who need exercise to be mules.
Retailers and road planners have made it easy for many car users to get from A to B in a fraction of an hour. Almost paradoxically the problem is being exacerbated by many people choosing to live in suburbs because of the great convenience of transportation. What could entice and accommodate people to live closer to work? The suburbs offer larger and more affordable homes, for one thing. I suggest that family-friendly neighborhoods with large multistory residential be built near the places where vast numbers of people work because that is the source of traffic. Land costs an arm and a leg in these places so the buildings have to be tall - not like Paris, more like Dubai. However, there has to be enough supply to make the homes affordable - not like Dubai.
Another thing is that the industry and hence the populace has to be diverse and flexible. Numerous, multistory but affordable residential neighborhoods require big money to kickstart. Many large cities have little houses relatively close to the city centre full of people believing one day they can sell their little gold mines yet they are still living there because developers are not into losing money. There needs to be foresight to rebuild the residential and move people closer to work.
In my city I see this happening here and there because the economy was strong at the time of the rebuild. Indeed, many rebuilds across the world can kill a couple of birds with one rock, paper, or scissors. The economy would be stimulated while pollution will be reduced. More people even save time on their commutes. A no-outsourcing job creation idea, Mr. Trump or Mr. Obama. How nice is that?
This method could be a game-changer, but I wonder about factors that would degrade the integrity of the system, especially the distance between the two plates (punctures, blunt force, flexibility) and the shelf life of the insulators.
Hobbyist reporting in, and this is exactly what I was curious about. That better be a damn good insulator, otherwise we are in for a whole new ballgame of Note 7s.
I very much want better battery technology, but that also invites some very destructive failure modes.
In the light that capacitors are being used, the way to alleviate the battery's distress is to build a sensor that detects the battery wants to dump core, and also build a device that responds, when the detector goes into the red, by shooting two prongs... no, just a minute, that's how to make a taser.
I'm not being dis-ingenuous, I'm prioritizing. I think NASA should focus on space, and leave the earths climate to NOAA and the earths geology to USGS. I think NASA is so unfocused right now, we have to turn to a super-power we already beat in space to help us get our astronauts to a station we largely paid for. And the saddest part: thats the most exciting thing happening above our atmosphere for me to tell my children about.
Well, Mr. Trump, I'll remind you that both space exploration and climate change are political up the yin yang. They're both big things that people have on their minds but individual companies for the most part don't have the wherewithal to tackle.
If you want to make America great, may I suggest going the extra mile to get right to the bottom of the climate change question. Find out the definitive answer as to whether there will be climate change due to mankind's ways. Now that would be a big-spending stimulative effort sure to spin off a bunch of technological advances.
Using political clout to meddle in climate change research ironically is actually the epitome of politicized science, wouldn't you say? Instead, a demonstration of greatness would be to use the immense scientific know how to come to an elegant answer. Surely in this age of technological and science there is a solution right around the corner. If there is any political crackdown to be made, it would be find out what's taking so long to get the information that fully convinces the public one way or the other.
Isn't it nuts? The terrorists are still winning. To stop the fear, the uncertainty, the doubt, we don't need a no fly zone. A no mosquito zone should do nicely.
A new bitcoin algorithm, written in Beginners' All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Coconut.
10 c = speed of lite beer 20 accelerate my ass to c 30 gosub and return to Earth just in time for no new coins being min(t)able 40 sell junk on ebay for bitcoin 50 ? "profit!" 60 REM Never spend bitcoin 70 go to 40 until I gots them all
When the no-new-bitcoins era comes, and you are greeted by a homeless guy who tells you he "gave" away everything for all the bitcoins in the world...
Eventually, no new coins... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.
Wait a minute, set it up to have infinitely many potential coins. At the end of the day people are just trading one thing for another thing virtually, and the coin is just a medium. Market forces will always keep prices correct, so no one will be the owner of the universe. Hyperinflation? Computers can handle scientific notation. Mostly it comes down to whether the majority even want to use this technology
That doesn't contradict anything he said. The "offending rate" is based off convictions. There is no such thing as ground truth in this case.
The differential is so large that smoke fire falls close enough to the tree.
But y? If anything needs to be fixed, fix the reason behind it all.
Well here's my 2 cents. It seems that increasingly people lives matter less and less, not just black lives. Technology taking away jobs is not the reason though, not quite. I watched the heyday of Moore's law when people anticipated the dawn of a new age. Computers ran faster, did more, and computer makers tried to outdo each other. Now there is a reversed trend, mainly because the need for speed has fallen. Case in point, the Top 500 has stagnated. China showed up with a brand new supercomputer ass kicker, yet again for crying out loud, but no one else seems to want to move the needle. What is going on? I bought a faster laptop a couple years ago. I don't think I'm even going to try to buy a faster laptop for another couple of years because it would only be a teensy weensy faster. However, that's kind of beside the point because laptops are limited in size. It's desktops that should be widening the gap massively massively massively over laptops. I have 3 or 4 hr of battery life on an i7 laptop and it's almost as fast as my i7 desktop, which was a nice leap itself all of 4 years ago, but desktops should kick up at least a half horse to a full horsepower of CPU usage and do something.
Do what? Is there anything _useful_ to do while consuming 1 horsepower? The average joe wouldn't even consider it.
Oh, well, that just shows how useless people are. People lives don't matter, at least not in the perspective of the people in power. To people who have power, the masses are asses. So people are suffering here and there, what does that matter to someone with power? The days just keep going by regardless. Trump can talk but he can't do much about anything either. It's people who have to stop bitching and moaning so Trump won't have any more to say.
If people want to matter, they have to try harder. Can't just be another rat in the rat race. If people tried harder, desktop speeds would pick up way more bang for the buck. I really want to save on my next upgrade, ok, people?
It is quite difficult for a country to reach the top of the world in a particular technology because the people there have to be motivated to do the research and build the facilities for R&D. This is a struggle classified as "uphill". Competition is a good motivator. It seems that China's R&D is motivated, at any rate.
#1 Suppose time just exists in the mind. There seems to have been a past and there seems to be a now. In this mind there is hope of a future. In this mind there appears to be a world, there appears cause and there appears effect. A part of the universe having existed in the past could be constructed meticulously, for example, a cell phone that I had that died and became disconnected. If I built a functioning copy and turned it on, it would see that a network exists, but it wouldn't let me use it because I stopped paying for it. In a way this phone leaped from the past. If the phone that was working in the past leaped to the now, it would be in the same situation. So this is what we think of time.
But who can say what time is really like? Suppose that the past and the future always exists in the now. Perhaps, even, each past instant is a static slice of spacetime you can traverse spatially, static in the sense of being stuck at the same time on the clock. But perhaps each past or future instant is not static, i.e., traverse it spatially, yes, but every time you look at the clock at that instant, the clock is different, implying you might not even recognize a clock, and what you found at a particular coordinate does not stay the same even though the time does not change.
Light that leaves but is not intercepted is an example of something in the universe that does not go back in time.
#2 Pear shaped or not, what is the shape of the aggregate consisting of these atoms having pear shaped nuclei? On the whole is the entire mass also pear shaped or is it just as well balanced as ever?
The shape of the nucleus arises from a balance of all the forces. The question is whether asymmetry exists at smaller and more fundamental scales.
I suppose so. Technology makes it easier to stay home.
But technology also makes shooting easier. The hardest work is what prevents shootings. But technology will make that work much easier, alas. There are three activities involved in a shooting. Ancient technology has already made the shooting part quite doable for your typical but lazy madman. New inventions are on their way to helping with the more difficult tasks, shoveling and shutting up.
the problem with that is cultural and ideological not a problem with AI, Capitalism *requires* scarcity in order for certain business models to work and this is why AI makes people nervous, It removes scarcity of labor,
Particularly, it is not the scarcity of grunt labor but rather the scarcity of decision making labor that will be reduced. Machines that take in more and more information and output better and better decisions will be allocated greater and greater resources. This does not mean people will be out of jobs, as people are still usable as resources that have less authority to make decisions. Indeed, if better decisions are made by someone or something, there may be clearer motivation to strive to achieve greater challenges. For example it may become much more plausible to colonize Mars or look for a cure to the common cold. The actual problem may be that we become awash with machines working on these challenges. The question becomes are _my_ challenges being resolved?
In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time
We end up with is the masses being commoditized out of jobs and the wealthy reaping all of the benefits
What happened to get us all to sell ourselves out so cheaply and willingly accept the idea that a few bastards should end up with the bulk of the nations wealth while our children are faced with a future with no jobs and parents whose retirement funds cannot pay to take care of them?
Dystopia? We are living it and don't even see it
Not that cheap. Sure, a single tech worker might make next to nothing compared to the entire computer industry, but the industry itself has seen its share of risk and reward, failure and success. None of the achievements were guaranteed. Any company or person is still vulnerable no matter how far ahead they are.
You make it sound as though the alternative is palatable. Look at the societies where technology isn't available to threaten jobs. They still have forces that threaten jobs. If a very select few people set things up so that wealth can be created, it may happen that a lot of people become employed and it may happen that some people get rich.
The thing is, in some societies the door is still open for some people to achieve
There's always a better idiot to beat your safety system.
The deeper issue regards Azimov's safety rules - self-driving cars are tantamount to weapons. The things are not smart enough to stop themselves from hurting someone somehow, so some idiot will try to hurt someone with this blunt instrument.
Is superintelligence vs normal intelligence really key? I think not. For one thing, the intelligence of a human may well be considered superintelligence. The mere chemistry of a brain is so incredibly able to counter the second law of thermodynamics - who can say this is not superintellect?
That aside, is a superintelligent machine dangerous? The answer is look at whether a human can be dangerous. A human can be dangerous. The problem is that one human cannot fully prepare to defend against the nefariousness of another. And that's just the peril posed by one human. What if there is a gang of humans, or perhaps one fast computer, or even a Beowulf cluster for the sake of extrapolation? Long before the transistor age we have tried to build defense systems, and it doesn't even take a superintellect to predict that we'll always need defense systems. Banning or fearing superintelligent machines probably does not improve the risk because there already exist superintelligent entities.
He and his wife were unfortunately not wearing seat belts. I really don't understand intelligent people not wearing a safety belt. Particularly in a cab.
But this is John Nash at 86 years old. So you have to ask Is this true or did he fake his death and what would that mean? Agent 86, what does he know that the rest of us do not?
Where I live it's been warmer than it should be for several weeks, and some cliches are coming home to roost. People are waking up and starting to smell the coffee burning. Maybe people are the kind of boiling frogs that can't stand the heat and want to get out of the kitchen.
I can't help but wonder that the economic doldrums are caused partly by environmental problems such as pollution in China reversing any economic gains by raising health costs. You would only run so long on a treadmill. If you didn't realize it was a treadmill you might run as far as you can but once you find out the ground just rolls back, well....
The problem with Big Data as I see it: information is not the same as knowledge.
Sure, there is a lot of data, as more and more information feeds are made available, but there are still a lot of hidden data. The amount of work put into hiding data is huge. Also, the amount of work put into generating data is huge too, which creates a lot of noise. The point is, a typical decision involves tiny little microscopic bits of _knowledge_, and only a small sample from the masses of information that could be waded through but is rather avoided for lack of time and energy. As far as decision making goes, that's worked well.
In some ways, data is hardly static. It changes as quickly as dominoes cascading. A single "impulse" such as an announcement or event can cause huge shifts in decision making. One can only hope to jump on a trend between impulses or right after an impulse. Analyzing the relationship between impulses and dominoes, i.e., the way data changes, could be illuminating. The challenge is to have the probes in place to get the data. You can't watch dominoes that you aren't looking at.
Does it make any sense to do that? Here's a theoretical question. Take a person who works hard to earn what it takes to live. Some savings for retirement and deferred spending make sense, but if that person has earned enough to live while not earning, why bother continuing to go to work (never mind those who would go nuts doing nothing)?
A person with dreams might save big time in order to some day be able to realize something bigger. But all these companies hoarding cash seem to have no outlet to try anything with their money. So it's time to ask, are there no more challenges? Or are the challenges so daunting that the risk-reward ratio is too much? Well, maybe it's just a timing issue after all, as there are plenty of ventures that show promise and companies get purchased all the time.
Nevertheless, the large cash hoards will prompt governments to prod these companies to do something. The US looks to be the one to start the pebble rolling down the hill. The companies have been put on notice to start spending.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think automated cars would solve some traffic issues. Around here, most freeway jams are caused by people not knowing how to merge and fucking the whole freeway over when they try to enter at 35 mph. Automated cars would be much better at merging.
They would also take interchange ramps at speed instead of slowing down too, which is the primary cause of fucking up a particular five mile stretch of freeway around here. So yes, traffic would get better with automated cars.
Amazing, I didn't know until you expressed the actual problem. Fucking. The whole problem is caused by too much fucking. Less fucking, fewer people, things get better.
Good point, and indeed, carpooling is encouraged in Paris on smog days: although they ban half of the cars (those with odd-numbered license plates one day, even-numbered the next), cars that transport 3 people or more are exempt from the ban.
Yo, register your car twice, even the odds.
Many people drive a car in order not to use public transportation... And people having a car don't really care about saving a couple of euros to travel within Paris/suburbs.
Here's the thing. Reducing fares for transit in general everywhere would encourage usage and point out the need for more buses. An anonymous tracking app or transponder can be designed so that people can each have one, thereby illuminating where they like to go - the transit system can optimize routes to make the experience better (minimizing the pain). Overall, with more people in the buses, the roads become less congested and work better for people who have suboptimal trips. Using transit a lot does save people money, so they can afford better cars, perhaps hybrids and electric. Taking all measures to maximize transit usage worldwide would make a big difference in pollution.
The big question is how to pay for it. It's a bit of a catch 22. If people want to use transit more tax revenue could drop as people spend less on cars and carry less stuff out of the stores (how much can you carry from the bus stop?). However, smart retailers might hire strong teenagers or perhaps people who need exercise to be mules.
Retailers and road planners have made it easy for many car users to get from A to B in a fraction of an hour. Almost paradoxically the problem is being exacerbated by many people choosing to live in suburbs because of the great convenience of transportation. What could entice and accommodate people to live closer to work? The suburbs offer larger and more affordable homes, for one thing. I suggest that family-friendly neighborhoods with large multistory residential be built near the places where vast numbers of people work because that is the source of traffic. Land costs an arm and a leg in these places so the buildings have to be tall - not like Paris, more like Dubai. However, there has to be enough supply to make the homes affordable - not like Dubai.
Another thing is that the industry and hence the populace has to be diverse and flexible. Numerous, multistory but affordable residential neighborhoods require big money to kickstart. Many large cities have little houses relatively close to the city centre full of people believing one day they can sell their little gold mines yet they are still living there because developers are not into losing money. There needs to be foresight to rebuild the residential and move people closer to work.
In my city I see this happening here and there because the economy was strong at the time of the rebuild. Indeed, many rebuilds across the world can kill a couple of birds with one rock, paper, or scissors. The economy would be stimulated while pollution will be reduced. More people even save time on their commutes. A no-outsourcing job creation idea, Mr. Trump or Mr. Obama. How nice is that?
This method could be a game-changer, but I wonder about factors that would degrade the integrity of the system, especially the distance between the two plates (punctures, blunt force, flexibility) and the shelf life of the insulators.
Hobbyist reporting in, and this is exactly what I was curious about. That better be a damn good insulator, otherwise we are in for a whole new ballgame of Note 7s.
I very much want better battery technology, but that also invites some very destructive failure modes.
In the light that capacitors are being used, the way to alleviate the battery's distress is to build a sensor that detects the battery wants to dump core, and also build a device that responds, when the detector goes into the red, by shooting two prongs ... no, just a minute, that's how to make a taser.
I'm not being dis-ingenuous, I'm prioritizing. I think NASA should focus on space, and leave the earths climate to NOAA and the earths geology to USGS. I think NASA is so unfocused right now, we have to turn to a super-power we already beat in space to help us get our astronauts to a station we largely paid for. And the saddest part: thats the most exciting thing happening above our atmosphere for me to tell my children about.
Well, Mr. Trump, I'll remind you that both space exploration and climate change are political up the yin yang. They're both big things that people have on their minds but individual companies for the most part don't have the wherewithal to tackle.
If you want to make America great, may I suggest going the extra mile to get right to the bottom of the climate change question. Find out the definitive answer as to whether there will be climate change due to mankind's ways. Now that would be a big-spending stimulative effort sure to spin off a bunch of technological advances.
Using political clout to meddle in climate change research ironically is actually the epitome of politicized science, wouldn't you say? Instead, a demonstration of greatness would be to use the immense scientific know how to come to an elegant answer. Surely in this age of technological and science there is a solution right around the corner. If there is any political crackdown to be made, it would be find out what's taking so long to get the information that fully convinces the public one way or the other.
> so the terrorists win
Isn't it nuts? The terrorists are still winning. To stop the fear, the uncertainty, the doubt, we don't need a no fly zone. A no mosquito zone should do nicely.
bought in 2015 for less than half of its msrp
ghost of christmas future - an exercise in extrapolation: buy new for less than msrp, compute price by extrapolating from the used prices
And what could be more natural than bitcoin, a construct of mind?
Even the universe itself, all of nature, does not boast philosophical intuition for being necessary to exist, at least to us bumheads.
A new bitcoin algorithm, written in Beginners' All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Coconut.
10 c = speed of lite beer
20 accelerate my ass to c
30 gosub and return to Earth just in time for no new coins being min(t)able
40 sell junk on ebay for bitcoin
50 ? "profit!"
60 REM Never spend bitcoin
70 go to 40 until I gots them all
When the no-new-bitcoins era comes, and you are greeted by a homeless guy who tells you he "gave" away everything for all the bitcoins in the world ...
How does that story play out?
> you could get in now
Deal me in on a Ponzi scheme anyone? Anyone?
Eventually, no new coins ... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.
Wait a minute, set it up to have infinitely many potential coins. At the end of the day people are just trading one thing for another thing virtually, and the coin is just a medium. Market forces will always keep prices correct, so no one will be the owner of the universe. Hyperinflation? Computers can handle scientific notation. Mostly it comes down to whether the majority even want to use this technology
That doesn't contradict anything he said. The "offending rate" is based off convictions. There is no such thing as ground truth in this case.
The differential is so large that smoke fire falls close enough to the tree.
But y? If anything needs to be fixed, fix the reason behind it all.
Well here's my 2 cents. It seems that increasingly people lives matter less and less, not just black lives. Technology taking away jobs is not the reason though, not quite. I watched the heyday of Moore's law when people anticipated the dawn of a new age. Computers ran faster, did more, and computer makers tried to outdo each other. Now there is a reversed trend, mainly because the need for speed has fallen. Case in point, the Top 500 has stagnated. China showed up with a brand new supercomputer ass kicker, yet again for crying out loud, but no one else seems to want to move the needle. What is going on? I bought a faster laptop a couple years ago. I don't think I'm even going to try to buy a faster laptop for another couple of years because it would only be a teensy weensy faster. However, that's kind of beside the point because laptops are limited in size. It's desktops that should be widening the gap massively massively massively over laptops. I have 3 or 4 hr of battery life on an i7 laptop and it's almost as fast as my i7 desktop, which was a nice leap itself all of 4 years ago, but desktops should kick up at least a half horse to a full horsepower of CPU usage and do something.
Do what? Is there anything _useful_ to do while consuming 1 horsepower? The average joe wouldn't even consider it.
Oh, well, that just shows how useless people are. People lives don't matter, at least not in the perspective of the people in power. To people who have power, the masses are asses. So people are suffering here and there, what does that matter to someone with power? The days just keep going by regardless. Trump can talk but he can't do much about anything either. It's people who have to stop bitching and moaning so Trump won't have any more to say.
If people want to matter, they have to try harder. Can't just be another rat in the rat race. If people tried harder, desktop speeds would pick up way more bang for the buck. I really want to save on my next upgrade, ok, people?
> And that matters why?
It is quite difficult for a country to reach the top of the world in a particular technology because the people there have to be motivated to do the research and build the facilities for R&D. This is a struggle classified as "uphill". Competition is a good motivator. It seems that China's R&D is motivated, at any rate.
Two ideas
#1 Suppose time just exists in the mind. There seems to have been a past and there seems to be a now. In this mind there is hope of a future. In this mind there appears to be a world, there appears cause and there appears effect. A part of the universe having existed in the past could be constructed meticulously, for example, a cell phone that I had that died and became disconnected. If I built a functioning copy and turned it on, it would see that a network exists, but it wouldn't let me use it because I stopped paying for it. In a way this phone leaped from the past. If the phone that was working in the past leaped to the now, it would be in the same situation. So this is what we think of time.
But who can say what time is really like? Suppose that the past and the future always exists in the now. Perhaps, even, each past instant is a static slice of spacetime you can traverse spatially, static in the sense of being stuck at the same time on the clock. But perhaps each past or future instant is not static, i.e., traverse it spatially, yes, but every time you look at the clock at that instant, the clock is different, implying you might not even recognize a clock, and what you found at a particular coordinate does not stay the same even though the time does not change.
Light that leaves but is not intercepted is an example of something in the universe that does not go back in time.
#2 Pear shaped or not, what is the shape of the aggregate consisting of these atoms having pear shaped nuclei? On the whole is the entire mass also pear shaped or is it just as well balanced as ever?
The shape of the nucleus arises from a balance of all the forces. The question is whether asymmetry exists at smaller and more fundamental scales.
I wouldn't mind one of those ARMv8 in my laptop. I just have a 4 cylinder, and oil is so cheap right now.
Then they'll just use bombs like in Belgium. Same result.
Yep, it's the question that is wrong. Can technology prevent shootings? Answer: wrong question.
Will technology help people overcome injury, that is, heal? Get that going on, and the shootings and the bombings will dwindle a bit.
Can technology prevent shootings?
I suppose so. Technology makes it easier to stay home.
But technology also makes shooting easier. The hardest work is what prevents shootings. But technology will make that work much easier, alas. There are three activities involved in a shooting. Ancient technology has already made the shooting part quite doable for your typical but lazy madman. New inventions are on their way to helping with the more difficult tasks, shoveling and shutting up.
the problem with that is cultural and ideological not a problem with AI, Capitalism *requires* scarcity in order for certain business models to work and this is why AI makes people nervous, It removes scarcity of labor,
Particularly, it is not the scarcity of grunt labor but rather the scarcity of decision making labor that will be reduced. Machines that take in more and more information and output better and better decisions will be allocated greater and greater resources. This does not mean people will be out of jobs, as people are still usable as resources that have less authority to make decisions. Indeed, if better decisions are made by someone or something, there may be clearer motivation to strive to achieve greater challenges. For example it may become much more plausible to colonize Mars or look for a cure to the common cold. The actual problem may be that we become awash with machines working on these challenges. The question becomes are _my_ challenges being resolved?
In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time
We end up with is the masses being commoditized out of jobs and the wealthy reaping all of the benefits
What happened to get us all to sell ourselves out so cheaply and willingly accept the idea that a few bastards should end up with the bulk of the nations wealth while our children are faced with a future with no jobs and parents whose retirement funds cannot pay to take care of them?
Dystopia? We are living it and don't even see it
Not that cheap. Sure, a single tech worker might make next to nothing compared to the entire computer industry, but the industry itself has seen its share of risk and reward, failure and success. None of the achievements were guaranteed. Any company or person is still vulnerable no matter how far ahead they are.
You make it sound as though the alternative is palatable. Look at the societies where technology isn't available to threaten jobs. They still have forces that threaten jobs. If a very select few people set things up so that wealth can be created, it may happen that a lot of people become employed and it may happen that some people get rich.
The thing is, in some societies the door is still open for some people to achieve
There's always a better idiot to beat your safety system.
The deeper issue regards Azimov's safety rules - self-driving cars are tantamount to weapons. The things are not smart enough to stop themselves from hurting someone somehow, so some idiot will try to hurt someone with this blunt instrument.
Is superintelligence vs normal intelligence really key? I think not. For one thing, the intelligence of a human may well be considered superintelligence. The mere chemistry of a brain is so incredibly able to counter the second law of thermodynamics - who can say this is not superintellect?
That aside, is a superintelligent machine dangerous? The answer is look at whether a human can be dangerous. A human can be dangerous. The problem is that one human cannot fully prepare to defend against the nefariousness of another. And that's just the peril posed by one human. What if there is a gang of humans, or perhaps one fast computer, or even a Beowulf cluster for the sake of extrapolation? Long before the transistor age we have tried to build defense systems, and it doesn't even take a superintellect to predict that we'll always need defense systems. Banning or fearing superintelligent machines probably does not improve the risk because there already exist superintelligent entities.
He and his wife were unfortunately not wearing seat belts. I really don't understand intelligent people not wearing a safety belt. Particularly in a cab.
But this is John Nash at 86 years old. So you have to ask Is this true or did he fake his death and what would that mean? Agent 86, what does he know that the rest of us do not?
It requires a big team of senior engineers in mathematics and computer science to create and support something like RenderMan
RenderMan is pretty nice, but check out Slender Man.
> what they are willing to sacrifice
Where I live it's been warmer than it should be for several weeks, and some cliches are coming home to roost. People are waking up and starting to smell the coffee burning. Maybe people are the kind of boiling frogs that can't stand the heat and want to get out of the kitchen.
I can't help but wonder that the economic doldrums are caused partly by environmental problems such as pollution in China reversing any economic gains by raising health costs. You would only run so long on a treadmill. If you didn't realize it was a treadmill you might run as far as you can but once you find out the ground just rolls back, well....
The problem with Big Data as I see it: information is not the same as knowledge.
Sure, there is a lot of data, as more and more information feeds are made available, but there are still a lot of hidden data. The amount of work put into hiding data is huge. Also, the amount of work put into generating data is huge too, which creates a lot of noise. The point is, a typical decision involves tiny little microscopic bits of _knowledge_, and only a small sample from the masses of information that could be waded through but is rather avoided for lack of time and energy. As far as decision making goes, that's worked well.
In some ways, data is hardly static. It changes as quickly as dominoes cascading. A single "impulse" such as an announcement or event can cause huge shifts in decision making. One can only hope to jump on a trend between impulses or right after an impulse. Analyzing the relationship between impulses and dominoes, i.e., the way data changes, could be illuminating. The challenge is to have the probes in place to get the data. You can't watch dominoes that you aren't looking at.
> hoard cash and let it sit idle
Does it make any sense to do that? Here's a theoretical question. Take a person who works hard to earn what it takes to live. Some savings for retirement and deferred spending make sense, but if that person has earned enough to live while not earning, why bother continuing to go to work (never mind those who would go nuts doing nothing)?
A person with dreams might save big time in order to some day be able to realize something bigger. But all these companies hoarding cash seem to have no outlet to try anything with their money. So it's time to ask, are there no more challenges? Or are the challenges so daunting that the risk-reward ratio is too much? Well, maybe it's just a timing issue after all, as there are plenty of ventures that show promise and companies get purchased all the time.
Nevertheless, the large cash hoards will prompt governments to prod these companies to do something. The US looks to be the one to start the pebble rolling down the hill. The companies have been put on notice to start spending.