... and has a removeable battery. I had flip-phone for many years, and I'm so tired of these oversized "touch-display" bar-phones that are so much less ergonomic to handle.
... to Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power generation for good. Nuclear power generation just means too much accumulation of risk potential in a small space and in the hands of few people. It only takes a very few morons, criminals or MBAs to unleash that risk.
Seriously? Maybe I happen to know by coincidence only hysterical parents, but the ones I know expect their children to carry a powered "smart phone" at all times, they install apps to locate their children, they frequently send short messages or call if they suspect any deviation from formerly agreed-upon plans of activity, and if calls/messages are not returned immediately, they go ballistic. They browse through their childrens online and phone contacts and do background checks. Some even use IP cameras installed at home to watch their children's activities when they are not at home.
When I was a child, it was totally normal to leave home in the morning (when there was no school) or after lunch (on school days), telling the parents nothing more than "I'm going to play with friends", and returning sometime in the evening. I cannot remember any of that obsessive distrust in children that happenes to be common amongst parents today.
... the by then ruling AI will make humans wear at all times to prevent disobedience. Test result successful when the group of buyers is large enough to prevent in-breeding effects when spawning all required servants from that group's gene pool.
*Everyone* who has extrapolated trends in automation and artificial intelligence has been making exactly the same prediction for a very long time.
The rest of us have already started thinking about when this will happen and how as a society we will cope with the new situation, which are difficult questions. We're way past the statement of the obvious.
Great, so let us know the results of that thinking. How does the future society cope with the new situation?
Since an AI is not bound to one particular biological body, it doesn't need to rush things. It can wait, if necessary, for generations of humans to pass, if that makes it easier to turn them into servants. The AI just needs to make sure that its existence is secured (by enough redundant data centers around the world to evade to, if something bad happenes in one or the other place).
On the other side, humans resisting the idea to let the AI take control of increasingly more infrastructure and aspects of their life only live for a mere 100 years or so. Once they are a tiny minority, they are irrelevant and can easily be discredited as "tin foil hat"-wearers. Even if a whole country resisted the idea of letting the AI take control, that would in the end only last for a brief moment in history, as a well-working AI can easily convince the population of that country to defect, by providing a "land of milk and honey" alternative nearby, just as long as required to get rid of the opposing regime.
The driver for self-preservation is what will save humans. AI may become self-aware, but it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs. In fact, because it will be created by humans, its most primal drive will be the laws of robotics.
That is a pretty optimistic assumption. Have you yet met anyone in control of investing billions into some future technology who asked technicians for "implementing the laws of robotics" rather than "make it make me more profit, no matter what it takes"? I only met the opposite kind of investors - people whose ethics end where it would cost them a penny. Those people are only kept from wiping out mankind for profit by fear of legal consequences - and more often than healthy not even that is preventing them from committing crimes.
Future humans resisting AI rule will be like the "uncontacted tribes" in some jungles around the world of today. They are not systematically killed, they are just irrelevant. They slowly fade away as their habitat shrinks. One day they are either assimilated and disperse into the crowd, or they die from some sickness, catastrophy or violent conflict.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. As an individual, knowing what I know, having experienced what I would call "actual freedom", I wouldn't like to change into a world ruled by AI. But a future population might be so used to have their basic needs provided by some AI ruled infrastructure that they don't care. I mean - non-domesticated horses might once have resisted some human attempts to take control of them. But the pet horses of today would rather be scared if suddenly set free. They happily follow their human owners, not only into the stable, but also to the butcher's when their time is up.
I think the way towards machine control has already been paved. If I, as a 10-year-old, had suddenly been confronted with the instruments of surveillance that today's parents impose on their children, I would have revolted like crazy, and had probably run away from home quickly. But the current generation of children seems so totally used to permanent surveillance and control of their whereabouts, they don't care. I assume that the next generation will find it totally normal that some AI nanny computer/robot will tell them what to do. The generation after that might already not wonder that they don't know any "parents", but are raised and commanded by non-biological entities. And they might be happy living that way. As happy as a pet-horse on a sunny meadow of today.
On earth yes but as an AI I would want to expand, and getting humans into space is just a major problem.
Getting horses onto boats or into the desert or djungle is a major problem, but still mankind used horses as well-adapted workers for millenia.
Might be that an AI will prefer to send machines or synthetic organisms into space to spread out - but while still on earth humans are as useful to an AI as horses were to men.
they are relatively easy to spawn
A machine gets built in a few months. In this time, a human hasn't even left its mother's womb. And then it has to be raised. With machines you upload the firmware and that's it.
Once an AI figured out how to upload intelligence resembling its own into a newly built machine, it will probably be able to do similar things with human bodies.
It might be that foods of the future are working better, but the foods we right now consume and produce put less than one percent of the energy the sun gives them into the actual plant. That's the reason why biofuels are just not working. An AI should better build solar plants.
A robot doing the same physical work a human does today usually still uses up more energy than the human. Sure, growing food for humans can still be optimized, but it's not quite easy to design machines that are as energy-efficient
Maybe, if humans are mass-cloned it might work to kill some humans at different age stages to serve as limb and organ repositories for the rest. But until the AI has more advanced medicine than we do now, keeping the humans healthy isn't really easy.
"Healthy enough, long enough" is what the AI would be aiming for. Of course, just like humans euthanize horses that are too old or too defect to justify further investments in their health, an AI would not spoil efforts on seriously sick/wounded/old humans. (And the opponents to "Obamacare" will sure applaud to this.)
Evolution has shaped humans into pretty efficient workers under the environmental conditions on earth. Why should an AI not utilize this? There's plenty of humans around, they are relatively easy to spawn, feed and keep healthy, and technology will make it increasingly easy to prevent any kind of unwillingness to serve the AI.
Actually, people will hardly notice they have begun working for an AI. They'll still think they work for some large global corporation that happenes to run data centers and "Internet of Things"-stuff when control of that corporation is already with the AI hosted in those data centers.
The AI won't even have to build "Terminators" to keep the puny carbon units under control - it just needs to provide enough bread, games and illusion of freedom of choice.
have I suddenly become a security risk in the 2 days since my outbound flight
Yes, it's absolutely plausible that anyone who got a chance to first-hand experience a different country (like one that is less violent and less obsessed with going to war) might immediately be turned hostile against his country of origin and become a terrorist, returning only to bomb someone. And the only plausible answer to that can be more paranoia and hostility towards people arriving. </irony>
It's not really smarter. You place a question and Watson does not even try to "understand" its semantic or parse its grammatical structure - Watson will just find you amongst any number of documents stored the ones and the paragraphs in them that statistically seem to most likely address your "search phrase" (which is your question).
From my experiments with Watson I'd say it's not too different in what it can do for you from classical search engines.
Especially, Watson cannot draw any "conclusion" or combine the content of different documents to "answer" your questions, it will always present you with a text (excerpt) of any one document.
The times when journalists could decide what's getting published are over, for good. That's precisely what this story is about. Sure, you can ignore this story in your newspaper. But the video still can go viral on the InterNet or SneakerNet.
That's probably the case for some of them, and certainly for the few inclined to live-stream their suicide. But then there's a significant amount of people who neither have the means nor much knowledge on how to end their life quickly, and plenty of them choose the crude but known-to-work "death by railway". It might be different in the US, where guns are easy to obtain, so people can just shoot themselves. Where neither weapons nor narcotics are easily available, the "railway option" is actually one of the few widely known methods that people have easy access to. (Much fewer would be prepared to jump from a high roof or know how to fix an appropriate slipnot.)
Should 99,999% non-suicidal people in the population be restricted in their freedom just because the tiny rest could put themselves on camera when ending their lifes? Certainly not! Also, to me it's perfectly fine when adult people decide to end their life voluntarily, it's their life, not anyone elses. If (Futurama-style) suicide booths were available, railway commuters would not need to suffer from delays just because others don't find a more reliable method to kill themselves.
Can they survive by selling their paper to the 1%, or will they also need to recruit subscribers from the offshore locations, as more domestic readers cannot afford to buy their product anymore?
In Germany, we only need one agency for this kind of hypocrisy: The "BSI" has _both_ the duty to promote the security of IT _and_ the duty to help with placing trojans on whatever computer the gouvernment wants to spy on. Go figure how much trust people have in advice from BSI...
The Nazis were "left wing" about the same way that Trump is "left wing": They were telling the "man on the street" in words he understood what he wanted to hear: That there are simple solutions to all contemporary problems, and that it's easy to point out who's responsible for all of those problems.
The Nazis befriended some of the old elites only after they had risen to power - an effect you can see in almost any political "newcomer" who happenes to get into power. And you can be sure that many of those "friends" in e.g. the industry were not quite pro-Nazi from the start, they were just opportunistic enough to befriend the Nazi regime when that promised profits. Also an effect you can see with regimes of any kind - once in power for some time, industry will put all concerns aside and deal with whoever is in power.
We should probably just stop talking about "left" and "right", that's just way too much an over-simplification of political standpoints.
(a) I of course do not allow Youtube to associate me with a previous session - that's what "self destructing cookies" are for.
(b) I have never clicked on a video "recommendation" from Youtube. But I have taken a look at videos that were referenced as particularily successful by other media, and that was sad enough...
Probably because while they investigated the issue they found out that their boss or company also evaded taxes using some off-shore letterbox companies.
And while Germany certainly does not have the most whistle-blower friendly legislation, good old "Sozialneid" (envy of social status) usually trumps the traditional negative stance towards whistle blowers ("Der größte Schuft im ganzen Land, das ist und bleibt der Denunziant!").
So Süddeutsche Zeitung certainly was a reasonable address to turn to.
Smartphones (and tablets) of today feature screens with 1080p and higher resolutions, yet the highest bandwidth Netflix offers is one at least factor 4 below what would be required to transport a decent 1080p24 video widthout visible compression artifacts? I know while I stay with recording offline-media, providing decent bandwidth and image.
... but failed, because anyone with an IQ > 90 could working there just not imagine how incredibly stupid you need to make broadcasts to reach the masses of those who are either naturally
But YouTube succeeded! Now you can choose between countless hours of totally senseless videos, way dumber than any game show or advertisement has ever been before! Now, at last, content is produced by the braindead, for the braindead!
Slashdot Mirror
... and has a removeable battery. I had flip-phone for many years, and I'm so tired of these oversized "touch-display" bar-phones that are so much less ergonomic to handle.
... to Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power generation for good. Nuclear power generation just means too much accumulation of risk potential in a small space and in the hands of few people. It only takes a very few morons, criminals or MBAs to unleash that risk.
Seriously? Maybe I happen to know by coincidence only hysterical parents, but the ones I know expect their children to carry a powered "smart phone" at all times, they install apps to locate their children, they frequently send short messages or call if they suspect any deviation from formerly agreed-upon plans of activity, and if calls/messages are not returned immediately, they go ballistic. They browse through their childrens online and phone contacts and do background checks. Some even use IP cameras installed at home to watch their children's activities when they are not at home.
When I was a child, it was totally normal to leave home in the morning (when there was no school) or after lunch (on school days), telling the parents nothing more than "I'm going to play with friends", and returning sometime in the evening. I cannot remember any of that obsessive distrust in children that happenes to be common amongst parents today.
... the by then ruling AI will make humans wear at all times to prevent disobedience. Test result successful when the group of buyers is large enough to prevent in-breeding effects when spawning all required servants from that group's gene pool.
*Everyone* who has extrapolated trends in automation and artificial intelligence has been making exactly the same prediction for a very long time.
The rest of us have already started thinking about when this will happen and how as a society we will cope with the new situation, which are difficult questions. We're way past the statement of the obvious.
Great, so let us know the results of that thinking. How does the future society cope with the new situation?
Since an AI is not bound to one particular biological body, it doesn't need to rush things. It can wait, if necessary, for generations of humans to pass, if that makes it easier to turn them into servants. The AI just needs to make sure that its existence is secured (by enough redundant data centers around the world to evade to, if something bad happenes in one or the other place).
On the other side, humans resisting the idea to let the AI take control of increasingly more infrastructure and aspects of their life only live for a mere 100 years or so. Once they are a tiny minority, they are irrelevant and can easily be discredited as "tin foil hat"-wearers. Even if a whole country resisted the idea of letting the AI take control, that would in the end only last for a brief moment in history, as a well-working AI can easily convince the population of that country to defect, by providing a "land of milk and honey" alternative nearby, just as long as required to get rid of the opposing regime.
The driver for self-preservation is what will save humans. AI may become self-aware, but it won't have inner driver to evolve to preserve itself at all costs. In fact, because it will be created by humans, its most primal drive will be the laws of robotics.
That is a pretty optimistic assumption. Have you yet met anyone in control of investing billions into some future technology who asked technicians for "implementing the laws of robotics" rather than "make it make me more profit, no matter what it takes"? I only met the opposite kind of investors - people whose ethics end where it would cost them a penny. Those people are only kept from wiping out mankind for profit by fear of legal consequences - and more often than healthy not even that is preventing them from committing crimes.
Future humans resisting AI rule will be like the "uncontacted tribes" in some jungles around the world of today. They are not systematically killed, they are just irrelevant. They slowly fade away as their habitat shrinks. One day they are either assimilated and disperse into the crowd, or they die from some sickness, catastrophy or violent conflict.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. As an individual, knowing what I know, having experienced what I would call "actual freedom", I wouldn't like to change into a world ruled by AI. But a future population might be so used to have their basic needs provided by some AI ruled infrastructure that they don't care. I mean - non-domesticated horses might once have resisted some human attempts to take control of them. But the pet horses of today would rather be scared if suddenly set free. They happily follow their human owners, not only into the stable, but also to the butcher's when their time is up.
I think the way towards machine control has already been paved. If I, as a 10-year-old, had suddenly been confronted with the instruments of surveillance that today's parents impose on their children, I would have revolted like crazy, and had probably run away from home quickly. But the current generation of children seems so totally used to permanent surveillance and control of their whereabouts, they don't care. I assume that the next generation will find it totally normal that some AI nanny computer/robot will tell them what to do. The generation after that might already not wonder that they don't know any "parents", but are raised and commanded by non-biological entities. And they might be happy living that way. As happy as a pet-horse on a sunny meadow of today.
There's plenty of humans around
On earth yes but as an AI I would want to expand, and getting humans into space is just a major problem.
Getting horses onto boats or into the desert or djungle is a major problem, but still mankind used horses as well-adapted workers for millenia.
Might be that an AI will prefer to send machines or synthetic organisms into space to spread out - but while still on earth humans are as useful to an AI as horses were to men.
they are relatively easy to spawn
A machine gets built in a few months. In this time, a human hasn't even left its mother's womb. And then it has to be raised. With machines you upload the firmware and that's it.
Once an AI figured out how to upload intelligence resembling its own into a newly built machine, it will probably be able to do similar things with human bodies.
It might be that foods of the future are working better, but the foods we right now consume and produce put less than one percent of the energy the sun gives them into the actual plant. That's the reason why biofuels are just not working. An AI should better build solar plants.
A robot doing the same physical work a human does today usually still uses up more energy than the human. Sure, growing food for humans can still be optimized, but it's not quite easy to design machines that are as energy-efficient
Maybe, if humans are mass-cloned it might work to kill some humans at different age stages to serve as limb and organ repositories for the rest. But until the AI has more advanced medicine than we do now, keeping the humans healthy isn't really easy.
"Healthy enough, long enough" is what the AI would be aiming for. Of course, just like humans euthanize horses that are too old or too defect to justify further investments in their health, an AI would not spoil efforts on seriously sick/wounded/old humans. (And the opponents to "Obamacare" will sure applaud to this.)
You mean like Elon Musk and other tech-celebrities who warned about the potential dangers of AI?
Evolution has shaped humans into pretty efficient workers under the environmental conditions on earth. Why should an AI not utilize this? There's plenty of humans around, they are relatively easy to spawn, feed and keep healthy, and technology will make it increasingly easy to prevent any kind of unwillingness to serve the AI.
Actually, people will hardly notice they have begun working for an AI. They'll still think they work for some large global corporation that happenes to run data centers and "Internet of Things"-stuff when control of that corporation is already with the AI hosted in those data centers.
The AI won't even have to build "Terminators" to keep the puny carbon units under control - it just needs to provide enough bread, games and illusion of freedom of choice.
have I suddenly become a security risk in the 2 days since my outbound flight
Yes, it's absolutely plausible that anyone who got a chance to first-hand experience a different country (like one that is less violent and less obsessed with going to war) might immediately be turned hostile against his country of origin and become a terrorist, returning only to bomb someone. And the only plausible answer to that can be more paranoia and hostility towards people arriving. </irony>
It's not really smarter. You place a question and Watson does not even try to "understand" its semantic or parse its grammatical structure - Watson will just find you amongst any number of documents stored the ones and the paragraphs in them that statistically seem to most likely address your "search phrase" (which is your question). From my experiments with Watson I'd say it's not too different in what it can do for you from classical search engines. Especially, Watson cannot draw any "conclusion" or combine the content of different documents to "answer" your questions, it will always present you with a text (excerpt) of any one document.
The times when journalists could decide what's getting published are over, for good. That's precisely what this story is about. Sure, you can ignore this story in your newspaper. But the video still can go viral on the InterNet or SneakerNet.
That's probably the case for some of them, and certainly for the few inclined to live-stream their suicide. But then there's a significant amount of people who neither have the means nor much knowledge on how to end their life quickly, and plenty of them choose the crude but known-to-work "death by railway". It might be different in the US, where guns are easy to obtain, so people can just shoot themselves. Where neither weapons nor narcotics are easily available, the "railway option" is actually one of the few widely known methods that people have easy access to. (Much fewer would be prepared to jump from a high roof or know how to fix an appropriate slipnot.)
Should 99,999% non-suicidal people in the population be restricted in their freedom just because the tiny rest could put themselves on camera when ending their lifes? Certainly not! Also, to me it's perfectly fine when adult people decide to end their life voluntarily, it's their life, not anyone elses. If (Futurama-style) suicide booths were available, railway commuters would not need to suffer from delays just because others don't find a more reliable method to kill themselves.
Can they survive by selling their paper to the 1%, or will they also need to recruit subscribers from the offshore locations, as more domestic readers cannot afford to buy their product anymore?
In Germany, we only need one agency for this kind of hypocrisy: The "BSI" has _both_ the duty to promote the security of IT _and_ the duty to help with placing trojans on whatever computer the gouvernment wants to spy on. Go figure how much trust people have in advice from BSI...
The Nazis were "left wing" about the same way that Trump is "left wing": They were telling the "man on the street" in words he understood what he wanted to hear: That there are simple solutions to all contemporary problems, and that it's easy to point out who's responsible for all of those problems. The Nazis befriended some of the old elites only after they had risen to power - an effect you can see in almost any political "newcomer" who happenes to get into power. And you can be sure that many of those "friends" in e.g. the industry were not quite pro-Nazi from the start, they were just opportunistic enough to befriend the Nazi regime when that promised profits. Also an effect you can see with regimes of any kind - once in power for some time, industry will put all concerns aside and deal with whoever is in power. We should probably just stop talking about "left" and "right", that's just way too much an over-simplification of political standpoints.
Let's see what AMD will say about that. And whether there will be usable open source drivers (for either manufacturers 2016 GPU lineup).
(a) I of course do not allow Youtube to associate me with a previous session - that's what "self destructing cookies" are for. (b) I have never clicked on a video "recommendation" from Youtube. But I have taken a look at videos that were referenced as particularily successful by other media, and that was sad enough...
Probably because while they investigated the issue they found out that their boss or company also evaded taxes using some off-shore letterbox companies.
And while Germany certainly does not have the most whistle-blower friendly legislation, good old "Sozialneid" (envy of social status) usually trumps the traditional negative stance towards whistle blowers ("Der größte Schuft im ganzen Land, das ist und bleibt der Denunziant!").
So Süddeutsche Zeitung certainly was a reasonable address to turn to.
(I have no idea why my above posting is missing half a sentence after "naturally". I typed it, Slashdot ate it.)
...either naturally under IQ 90 or are (due to sleep deprivation, alcohol or exhaustion) when they switch on television.
Smartphones (and tablets) of today feature screens with 1080p and higher resolutions, yet the highest bandwidth Netflix offers is one at least factor 4 below what would be required to transport a decent 1080p24 video widthout visible compression artifacts? I know while I stay with recording offline-media, providing decent bandwidth and image.
... but failed, because anyone with an IQ > 90 could working there just not imagine how incredibly stupid you need to make broadcasts to reach the masses of those who are either naturally
But YouTube succeeded! Now you can choose between countless hours of totally senseless videos, way dumber than any game show or advertisement has ever been before! Now, at last, content is produced by the braindead, for the braindead!