I'm not sure I agree that AI is a software problem because I don't see where regular human intelligence is a software problem. There is no software that comes with a new-born. A new-born is a complex system that comes out of the womb ready to learn. It's already thinking. You could argue that it has an OS - instincts, genetic instructions, but really what if there were a hardware copy of a baby only made with silicon (or whatever). If it was constructed properly it should pop out of the vat ready to learn.
I guess I'm arguing that intelligence is a function of pathway complexity and self-referentiality (real word?). Maybe if we build it right - complex enough circuitry/pathways and enough self-referential ability, can modify itself and external environment, e.g. alter it's own version of programmable logic controllers and move a coke bottle with a robotic arm, [Yes I did say "programmable" but I didn't say "fully pre-programmed".] - maybe, like a new-born, if we build it right, and simulate a little evolution along the way, the intelligence will come.
I think the challenge is not coding intelligence which sounds impossible to me, but building something that facilitates intelligence developing on it's own, again, like a new-born.
Not software, but hardware that has the "complex adaptive ability of the human brain".
Granted the first one would be no more intelligent than a rabid gerbil, but that's a good start.
All this talk about about IP and scarcity of resources is great, but what about privacy?
That scares the hell out of me. Just as they can currently run "random" drug tests, DUI checkpoints, etc, what's going to stop the sniffer and snooper nanites from randomly searching your home/car/body/desk at work?
Won't it be in the best shareholder interest to have little nano-trackers keeping tabs on ALL the company's resources, including human? How would The Law stop this? Why would they really want to if they're using the same tech. to ferret out law-breakers?
>someone wants to stop us from stealing commercial stuff
A better analogy would be National Record Mart. Imagine if a judge decreed that NRM could only sell music if they could guarantee 0% shoplifting.
Same exact product, same principle, except Judges lose their sanity when dealing with magikul computers.
>We need more time to decide if we've really screwed it up or not.
More time before what? Before we stop the doubtful practices? So we should just keep doing what we're doing and if we are screwing the planet up, we'll find the proof that much more solid? Forgive me for saying so but that's just nuts.
Can they really make that safe enough to withstand your average 3 car pile-up? Headlines: "Brakes fail on speeding semi, small town obliterated, no film at 11."
Even if they do make it safe "enough", the marketing effort required to overcome public fear and doubt would have to be incredible. I don't even want to think about the insurance rates. Though the crash tests would be pretty impressive.
So this doesn't mean that all environmental laws are bad. we should be very careful that the costs of an environmental law is not larger than the benefit
Does this still apply if you consider the environment priceless and humans a dime a dozen? I don't want to live on a giant spherical farm called Earth where nothing is wild and all resources are being cleverly managed by people motivated by hunger and a need to breed. I would happily halve the population with a button-click if it meant I could find an unpolluted, unpopulated, never-logged, wild place to visit. I've been to one twice. Nothing better. I think it's gone now.
Trying to preserve any piece of nature is like trying to preserve a thunderstorm. The whole system will be tended, or it won't be.
> I alone should be the judge of what I do with the things I own.
That has obviously not been thought out. You own a car so that means you can drive it through the aqua-zoo at 70mph? You own a ball point pen so you can shove it into my neck when you want? If you own shares of a corporation you should treat them like owning a gun that has no safety-switch and can't be locked up. Lest you be responsible for driving toxins up the noses of our children, pouring mercury into our fisheries, and producing the Spice Girls.
Maybe instead of regulating corporations the gov't. should regulate shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I agree that AI is a software problem because I don't see where regular human intelligence is a software problem. There is no software that comes with a new-born. A new-born is a complex system that comes out of the womb ready to learn. It's already thinking. You could argue that it has an OS - instincts, genetic instructions, but really what if there were a hardware copy of a baby only made with silicon (or whatever). If it was constructed properly it should pop out of the vat ready to learn.
I guess I'm arguing that intelligence is a function of pathway complexity and self-referentiality (real word?).
Maybe if we build it right - complex enough circuitry/pathways and enough self-referential ability, can modify itself and external environment, e.g. alter it's own version of programmable logic controllers and move a coke bottle with a robotic arm, [Yes I did say "programmable" but I didn't say "fully pre-programmed".] - maybe, like a new-born, if we build it right, and simulate a little evolution along the way, the intelligence will come.
I think the challenge is not coding intelligence which sounds impossible to me, but building something that facilitates intelligence developing on it's own, again, like a new-born. Not software, but hardware that has the "complex adaptive ability of the human brain".
Granted the first one would be no more intelligent than a rabid gerbil, but that's a good start.
All this talk about about IP and scarcity of resources is great, but what about privacy? That scares the hell out of me. Just as they can currently run "random" drug tests, DUI checkpoints, etc, what's going to stop the sniffer and snooper nanites from randomly searching your home/car/body/desk at work?
Won't it be in the best shareholder interest to have little nano-trackers keeping tabs on ALL the company's resources, including human? How would The Law stop this? Why would they really want to if they're using the same tech. to ferret out law-breakers?
>someone wants to stop us from stealing commercial stuff
A better analogy would be National Record Mart. Imagine if a judge decreed that NRM could only sell music if they could guarantee 0% shoplifting. Same exact product, same principle, except Judges lose their sanity when dealing with magikul computers.
>We need more time to decide if we've really screwed it up or not. More time before what? Before we stop the doubtful practices? So we should just keep doing what we're doing and if we are screwing the planet up, we'll find the proof that much more solid? Forgive me for saying so but that's just nuts.
Can they really make that safe enough to withstand your average 3 car pile-up?
Headlines:
"Brakes fail on speeding semi, small town obliterated, no film at 11."
Even if they do make it safe "enough", the marketing effort required to overcome public fear and doubt would have to be incredible. I don't even want to think about the insurance rates. Though the crash tests would be pretty impressive.
So this doesn't mean that all environmental laws are bad. we should be very careful that the costs of an environmental law is not larger than the benefit
Does this still apply if you consider the environment priceless and humans a dime a dozen? I don't want to live on a giant spherical farm called Earth where nothing is wild and all resources are being cleverly managed by people motivated by hunger and a need to breed. I would happily halve the population with a button-click if it meant I could find an unpolluted, unpopulated, never-logged, wild place to visit. I've been to one twice. Nothing better. I think it's gone now.
Trying to preserve any piece of nature is like trying to preserve a thunderstorm. The whole system will be tended, or it won't be.
> I alone should be the judge of what I do with the things I own.
That has obviously not been thought out. You own a car so that means you can drive it through the aqua-zoo at 70mph? You own a ball point pen so you can shove it into my neck when you want? If you own shares of a corporation you should treat them like owning a gun that has no safety-switch and can't be locked up. Lest you be responsible for driving toxins up the noses of our children, pouring mercury into our fisheries, and producing the Spice Girls.
Maybe instead of regulating corporations the gov't. should regulate shareholders.