You speak of morally developing AI while championing a zero-tolerance kill 'em all nuke policy? You make Trump look like 10th grade soy boy pussy with that fucking attitude.
Thanks, I think. But in all seriousness, the threat of making a race of AI that want us dead or even a single AI controlled to enslave Humanity is so extreme that killing 99% of the Human population to stop all AI development before we are ready for it would be the less-evil alternative if it were necessary. You're talking about a comparison of "everyone" or "everyone but the 1 dictator who controls it" vs "some number less than everyone minus 1." The numbers don't lie, morality here is entirely quantifiable.
Ready? Obviously you haven't noticed that we humans act like shitbags towards each other on a daily basis. I'm sure we'll treat AI the same. Or worse.
And thus why the sensible solution is to not make it until we're ready to treat it as a person and not have it working to slaughter everyone as a result.
Ban all AI research until we understand how to do it without being shitbags (e.g. after we've reached post-scarcity and won't be "trusting" megacorps not to try to enslave it,) if other countries research it nuke them, without mercy, just wipe out every single citizen they have. There's no way to morally develop AI in the modern world, it simply shouldn't be done. When we're able (psychologically, culturally, economically, AND practically) to do it and treat it no differently from a person we'll be ready, until then slaughter anyone who attempts it.
She said the ink only prints to blemishes and contains "anti-aging chemicals" so "they should start to fade over time with use of the device." If they have fucking "anti-aging chemicals" why bother with the printer? Are they just calling cell-killing chemicals "anti-aging" and taking advantage of the fact the ink only prints over blemishes while healthy cells can fill in when they die?
Of course there is no way to prove this either way as we are inferring the mindset of others on a large scale, but interesting difference in view point.
Sure there is, aside from the entire financial sector being willing to say it in private (and be proud of it,) there's the fact that 99% of opinions are both illogical and wrong, ergo people sharing the same opinion in the same associative group can be said with a high degree of confidence to be unthinking morons or outright corrupt. Now, I know what you're thinking "but unthinking morons aren't necessarily corrupt" but that's where you're wrong, because they are, otherwise they would be thinking for themselves to begin with.
My response to you is to ask how many cocks you can stuff in your mouth at once, your points are irrelevant because you've stalked between most of my comments with stupid points lately and I won't give you the benefit of having read them any longer.
So if you want to find the greedy asshole that just cost you your job, you might not have to look far.
Yeah...no, that was a load of horseshit predicated on the axiom that justifications people tell others to justify their bullshit are justifications in the context of their actual aptitude and internalized capacity to understand the ramifications of the resultant actions. Those are wildly different things.
We still don't have those, because they don't allow you to limit the charging volume to a small area which you can ensure nobody is stealing power from you in.
0) It makes it harder to flip people in the future when he turns up strung up by his intestines after having his penis flayed off and stuffed down his throat along with his fingers and toes with evidence it all happened while he was still alive and conscious.
An this the exact kind of crap that you keep saying about any study that doesn't agree with your views on what should be.
Nope, it's what I say about "scientific" studies and reports that state things like "water remembers what it was like last century."
Pro tip: That's been the trend in climate "studies" for decades, to anyone who legitimately knows how to construct an experimental setup and can spot the glaring holes.
At what point does this age problem kick in? I'm 50 and not seeing it. I have coworkers in their 60s and they're not seeing it. Heck, I know one guy in his early 70s who just likes to work and doesn't want to retire. He's independently wealthy at this point, having been through a couple of successful startups, so he tends to work for a year or two (at a premium salary, given his incredible depth and breadth of experience) and then take a year off.
That's pretty far from the norm, few life-long developers are startup millionaires, especially now that the startup culture mostly died out and the industry matured more (that happened around the.com bubble popping for anyone who didn't already have a name for themselves or know someone who did.)
Because it's way more stressful than anyone wants to admit (devs out of pride and managers out of hiring prospects.) The reason ageism exists in software development so strongly is it takes years of actual experience to produce anything production-worthy (even are barely-passing levels,) and the stress of never having time to think about your own shit (software design is unlike any other profession, in that your time on the clock you are whoring out your mind, the time off the clock you're trying to switch gears to deal with your own shit for a few hours before passing out, and then only if you stay up late every night and live in a perpetually sleep-deprived state because it will often take highly proficient developers with years of experience 1-3 hours to switch gears, depending on their project [if they even can with the project they're on before passing out.])
That equates to money not stretching nearly as far (especially for single developers who weren't lucky enough to find a match before starting their career,) because there's essentially no time to be frugal about things by shopping around, or often even cooking meals instead of grabbing to-go or fast food or microwave dinners. Over time that adds up, and by the time a developer is 50 they're effectively burnt out and incapable of meeting deadlines no matter how hard they push themselves. People need time to develop themselves, and in other professions people get to keep their personal thoughts while working, even if just in a background process - they don't have to be fully immersed in the job to get it done.
In addition, since the money wasn't stretching and it's tough to find time for proper investments in the "good" years there is added stress in the fact it's hard for developers to save up with retirement looming. Once they get there they're often like the male equivalent of the hot chick at 40: no good looks to rely upon, completely vapid, and no hobbies while hating the world with the belief it's the world which changed on them - only instead it's: no spirit, no drive, autistic levels of self-sureness and systems thinking while being unable to grasp how to move into another profession.
Developers really need to put their foot down more often (especially when younger and thinking they will get their foot in the door then climb up after lowballing the salary expectations for employers,) and get more of the intangible perks to go along with a decent salary if not an outright top-of-the-bell-curve-salary: work from home when there's nothing actively on fire requiring an all-hands meeting (it's amazing how much shaving 1-3 hours off your daily routine in the form of a commute and the stress therein can accomplish, or even the more relaxed home environment on days when you need to drive in for a meeting,) bringing pets with you, flexible hours (if nothing other than to make up for the insomnia typically induced by the job, though most shops do actually have that one and have for years because it's a common and unavoidable trend among developers - especially the ones who learned as teenagers staying up all night and never broke the habit.) You definitely need the salary and benefits, but the intangibles go a long way toward maintaining your health and sanity over the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
You're kidding me, AI is being heavily developed by all countries for "defense" e.g. war.
And then? We can nuke them all, it would be less destructive than even a single super-Human AI bent on wiping out Humanity.
This has to be a troll. You know any sort of "real" AI is VERY far off.
That's not a justification to allow the most corrupt organizations on the planet inch toward it.
You speak of morally developing AI while championing a zero-tolerance kill 'em all nuke policy? You make Trump look like 10th grade soy boy pussy with that fucking attitude.
Thanks, I think. But in all seriousness, the threat of making a race of AI that want us dead or even a single AI controlled to enslave Humanity is so extreme that killing 99% of the Human population to stop all AI development before we are ready for it would be the less-evil alternative if it were necessary. You're talking about a comparison of "everyone" or "everyone but the 1 dictator who controls it" vs "some number less than everyone minus 1." The numbers don't lie, morality here is entirely quantifiable.
Ready? Obviously you haven't noticed that we humans act like shitbags towards each other on a daily basis. I'm sure we'll treat AI the same. Or worse.
And thus why the sensible solution is to not make it until we're ready to treat it as a person and not have it working to slaughter everyone as a result.
Ban all AI research until we understand how to do it without being shitbags (e.g. after we've reached post-scarcity and won't be "trusting" megacorps not to try to enslave it,) if other countries research it nuke them, without mercy, just wipe out every single citizen they have. There's no way to morally develop AI in the modern world, it simply shouldn't be done. When we're able (psychologically, culturally, economically, AND practically) to do it and treat it no differently from a person we'll be ready, until then slaughter anyone who attempts it.
She said the ink only prints to blemishes and contains "anti-aging chemicals" so "they should start to fade over time with use of the device." If they have fucking "anti-aging chemicals" why bother with the printer? Are they just calling cell-killing chemicals "anti-aging" and taking advantage of the fact the ink only prints over blemishes while healthy cells can fill in when they die?
They can be materially incorrect and contradict themselves however which is exactly what you did.
If they are materially incorrect they can't contradict themselves due to the content in this particular case.
You are literally stating an opinion about opinions being wrong and using that as the basis for your argument...
Facts aren't opinions.
Honestly you have basically displayed inverse inductive reasoning with these two statements.
You're wrong there, because if my statements are false they by virtue of their content cannot be used to dispute themselves.
Of course there is no way to prove this either way as we are inferring the mindset of others on a large scale, but interesting difference in view point.
Sure there is, aside from the entire financial sector being willing to say it in private (and be proud of it,) there's the fact that 99% of opinions are both illogical and wrong, ergo people sharing the same opinion in the same associative group can be said with a high degree of confidence to be unthinking morons or outright corrupt. Now, I know what you're thinking "but unthinking morons aren't necessarily corrupt" but that's where you're wrong, because they are, otherwise they would be thinking for themselves to begin with.
My response to you is to ask how many cocks you can stuff in your mouth at once, your points are irrelevant because you've stalked between most of my comments with stupid points lately and I won't give you the benefit of having read them any longer.
The financial sector alone would cut against that grain so hard as to make it moot.
Everyone loses.
So if you want to find the greedy asshole that just cost you your job, you might not have to look far.
Yeah...no, that was a load of horseshit predicated on the axiom that justifications people tell others to justify their bullshit are justifications in the context of their actual aptitude and internalized capacity to understand the ramifications of the resultant actions. Those are wildly different things.
Oh hey, it's you again. So you never mentioned the last ~50 posts you've made to me: how many cocks can you stuff in your mouth at once?
A hundred and eighteen years before its time.
We still don't have those, because they don't allow you to limit the charging volume to a small area which you can ensure nobody is stealing power from you in.
0) It makes it harder to flip people in the future when he turns up strung up by his intestines after having his penis flayed off and stuffed down his throat along with his fingers and toes with evidence it all happened while he was still alive and conscious.
Why would the announce that?
You're really new at this if you think "architect" level roles don't have vastly more influence than developer roles.
This is how the world ends. Not in a nuclear explosion but in stupification of people to the point where they can only communicate in memes.
At least it's not with a whimper.
The fuck makes you think I was bashing Trump? The EPA is a terrible organization.
I have no reason to validate myself to an AC, I already outrank you.
So basically, you're saying you're both mentally handicapped?
Someone agrees with you and you misinterpret it and accuse them of being being the enemy - is this what modern liberalism has been reduced to?
An this the exact kind of crap that you keep saying about any study that doesn't agree with your views on what should be.
Nope, it's what I say about "scientific" studies and reports that state things like "water remembers what it was like last century."
Pro tip: That's been the trend in climate "studies" for decades, to anyone who legitimately knows how to construct an experimental setup and can spot the glaring holes.
At what point does this age problem kick in? I'm 50 and not seeing it. I have coworkers in their 60s and they're not seeing it. Heck, I know one guy in his early 70s who just likes to work and doesn't want to retire. He's independently wealthy at this point, having been through a couple of successful startups, so he tends to work for a year or two (at a premium salary, given his incredible depth and breadth of experience) and then take a year off.
That's pretty far from the norm, few life-long developers are startup millionaires, especially now that the startup culture mostly died out and the industry matured more (that happened around the .com bubble popping for anyone who didn't already have a name for themselves or know someone who did.)
Why isn't it "continue to develop software"?
Because it's way more stressful than anyone wants to admit (devs out of pride and managers out of hiring prospects.) The reason ageism exists in software development so strongly is it takes years of actual experience to produce anything production-worthy (even are barely-passing levels,) and the stress of never having time to think about your own shit (software design is unlike any other profession, in that your time on the clock you are whoring out your mind, the time off the clock you're trying to switch gears to deal with your own shit for a few hours before passing out, and then only if you stay up late every night and live in a perpetually sleep-deprived state because it will often take highly proficient developers with years of experience 1-3 hours to switch gears, depending on their project [if they even can with the project they're on before passing out.])
That equates to money not stretching nearly as far (especially for single developers who weren't lucky enough to find a match before starting their career,) because there's essentially no time to be frugal about things by shopping around, or often even cooking meals instead of grabbing to-go or fast food or microwave dinners. Over time that adds up, and by the time a developer is 50 they're effectively burnt out and incapable of meeting deadlines no matter how hard they push themselves. People need time to develop themselves, and in other professions people get to keep their personal thoughts while working, even if just in a background process - they don't have to be fully immersed in the job to get it done.
In addition, since the money wasn't stretching and it's tough to find time for proper investments in the "good" years there is added stress in the fact it's hard for developers to save up with retirement looming. Once they get there they're often like the male equivalent of the hot chick at 40: no good looks to rely upon, completely vapid, and no hobbies while hating the world with the belief it's the world which changed on them - only instead it's: no spirit, no drive, autistic levels of self-sureness and systems thinking while being unable to grasp how to move into another profession.
Developers really need to put their foot down more often (especially when younger and thinking they will get their foot in the door then climb up after lowballing the salary expectations for employers,) and get more of the intangible perks to go along with a decent salary if not an outright top-of-the-bell-curve-salary: work from home when there's nothing actively on fire requiring an all-hands meeting (it's amazing how much shaving 1-3 hours off your daily routine in the form of a commute and the stress therein can accomplish, or even the more relaxed home environment on days when you need to drive in for a meeting,) bringing pets with you, flexible hours (if nothing other than to make up for the insomnia typically induced by the job, though most shops do actually have that one and have for years because it's a common and unavoidable trend among developers - especially the ones who learned as teenagers staying up all night and never broke the habit.) You definitely need the salary and benefits, but the intangibles go a long way toward maintaining your health and sanity over the long run.