No, see, cause the inventors of the transistor were all people who were actually working to make a profit. They weren't research graduates at a university dicking around and writing press releases about how great they are. Now, if IBM or Intel had written this press release I'd be waiting with baited breath for their next great leap forward..
I don't get it. I live in Australia, and I see 3G video phones on tv all the time. I don't own one because I'm a geek and I don't see why you need a phone to do more than allow you to talk to people, but every second 16-22 year old has one. Maybe the problem with predicting the future is simply that Americans are all living in the past.
I think the flaw in the GP's "logic" is that we must be talking about human intelligence if we're talking about intelligence. It's an easy mistake to make, seeing as human intelligence is that only kind around at the moment.
The people who talk seriously about this stuff realise that super intelligence is probably not going to be anything like human intelligence. And if we get the opportunity to shape what they look like then hopefully we'll choose something that is beneficial to humanity.
It's stupid replies like that which make you wonder if human intelligence really exists. By no definition of the word friendly can the scenario you have quipped be considered a possibility. If you had put 15 seconds of effort into it you could have come up with some much more plausible scenarios.
Will AIs produce AIs, and if so, will they be better, or equally flawed?
The current thinking is that we will make seed AI, i.e., general intelligence for manipulating software, and that it will improve itself, in an incremental fashion, all the way up to and beyond the level of human intelligence. Of course, this will be done with the help and guidance of programmers but the fear is that by giving it free reign to manipulate itself we will no longer be able to understand what it creates. Not only will this mean that we won't learn anything, but we'll also be unable to control it. As such, most people who seriously consider working on this stuff advocate a goal based higher level of functioning with "friendliness" to humans as being the primary goal and improve yourself as a secondary subgoal. That way, even if the beast gets out of control, the worst it will do is solve world hunger.
The hard takeoff concept of a seed AI has as a prerequisit the creation of a computer program that can understand and write source code. I'd probably try to make something like that to make my job as a programmer easier, but there's no way I'd let anyone know I had.. otherwise they wouldn't need me. Which makes you wonder, maybe someone already has one.
Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
In the case of war, no western country will allow a colourblind person to carry a weapon.
Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 0
like dying in wars. (for those who don't know, most colour blind people are exempt from serving in the military.. even though we can see people in camouflage better than anyone else).
Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
You'll get your cure to diabeties around the same time I get my cure for colour blindness.
My whole point is that you should be able to turn on a switch to your C compiler and it actually tries to be helpful. There exists a LOT of C code out there, just saying "use another language" is not practical.
I don't get it. Most all of us these days are writing webapps that spit out xml and have a CSS style sheet that makes that stuff pretty. So what's left, standardizing how the xml should be structured? Maybe instead of dictating how it shall be the Semantic Web proponents should go out and look at what xml people are spitting out and do something useful with it. Then people will see that they too can offer users something useful by making their xml more readable by your tools. Why is it that folks like the W3C seem to try very hard to work against network effects instead of working with them?
if (a == NULL) *a = b; is a common bug. If it's in a part of code that isn't executed often then you might not even notice it. Tools should detect this stuff.
Lot of good that is. I also checked splint which fails to detect the out of bounds array reference in my first example but, thankfully, does detect that p has been assigned NULL and is then dereferenced. However this program:
void foo(char *p) {
if (p == NULL)
*p = '1'; }
int main() {
return 0; }
Elicits no warnings. Which is just pathetic. Maybe this is something I can add, but I honestly thought splint was the shit.
I can't even get gcc's -fbounds-check to do anything. It's not rocket science and yet I still havn't seen a C compiler that does *basic* bounds checking. Example:
int main() {
char tmp[100];
int n = 500;
tmp[n] = 5;
printf("here\n");
return 0; }
GCC happily compiles this code. It also happens to run just fine. Similarly if I write this code:
int main() {
int *p = NULL;
if (p == NULL)
*p = 1;
return 0; }
GCC happily compiles it without a single warning, and then the program promptly crashes when you run it. Is it too much to ask that GCC detect that on no path is p assigned a valid pointer. Is that really that hard? I know it aint! The fact that the compiler doesn't warn me that I have written == when I clearly ment != is just adding insult to injury.
As such, every time I see "research" into developing my fault tolerant hardware or software I have to scratch my head and wonder exactly when research ever gets turned into practice.
Or make "Director's Cut" version of a film that doesn't mean "extra long" or "butchered to fuck". I thought The Village was a perfect example of a poorly cut film. If the director had watched some hitchcock before going into editing we would have gotten a totally different film.
Slashdot Mirror
No, see, cause the inventors of the transistor were all people who were actually working to make a profit. They weren't research graduates at a university dicking around and writing press releases about how great they are. Now, if IBM or Intel had written this press release I'd be waiting with baited breath for their next great leap forward..
but won't. Call me when the technology is even remotely ready for commericalization.
You can't redefine the parameters of the argument half way through to justify your poor contribution.
I don't get it. I live in Australia, and I see 3G video phones on tv all the time. I don't own one because I'm a geek and I don't see why you need a phone to do more than allow you to talk to people, but every second 16-22 year old has one. Maybe the problem with predicting the future is simply that Americans are all living in the past.
I think the flaw in the GP's "logic" is that we must be talking about human intelligence if we're talking about intelligence. It's an easy mistake to make, seeing as human intelligence is that only kind around at the moment.
The people who talk seriously about this stuff realise that super intelligence is probably not going to be anything like human intelligence. And if we get the opportunity to shape what they look like then hopefully we'll choose something that is beneficial to humanity.
really fucking smart
Yes... that is what we're talking about.
It's stupid replies like that which make you wonder if human intelligence really exists. By no definition of the word friendly can the scenario you have quipped be considered a possibility. If you had put 15 seconds of effort into it you could have come up with some much more plausible scenarios.
Will AIs produce AIs, and if so, will they be better, or equally flawed?
The current thinking is that we will make seed AI, i.e., general intelligence for manipulating software, and that it will improve itself, in an incremental fashion, all the way up to and beyond the level of human intelligence. Of course, this will be done with the help and guidance of programmers but the fear is that by giving it free reign to manipulate itself we will no longer be able to understand what it creates. Not only will this mean that we won't learn anything, but we'll also be unable to control it. As such, most people who seriously consider working on this stuff advocate a goal based higher level of functioning with "friendliness" to humans as being the primary goal and improve yourself as a secondary subgoal. That way, even if the beast gets out of control, the worst it will do is solve world hunger.
Was this post written by a proto-AI or what? Seriously dude, WTF are you trying to say?
The hard takeoff concept of a seed AI has as a prerequisit the creation of a computer program that can understand and write source code. I'd probably try to make something like that to make my job as a programmer easier, but there's no way I'd let anyone know I had.. otherwise they wouldn't need me. Which makes you wonder, maybe someone already has one.
In the case of war, no western country will allow a colourblind person to carry a weapon.
like dying in wars. (for those who don't know, most colour blind people are exempt from serving in the military.. even though we can see people in camouflage better than anyone else).
You'll get your cure to diabeties around the same time I get my cure for colour blindness.
Go away.
You're so right! Why even have types at all!?
So does Perl.
My whole point is that you should be able to turn on a switch to your C compiler and it actually tries to be helpful. There exists a LOT of C code out there, just saying "use another language" is not practical.
The static type system of C and the dynamic type system of smalltalk, what a great idea that was.
I don't get it. Most all of us these days are writing webapps that spit out xml and have a CSS style sheet that makes that stuff pretty. So what's left, standardizing how the xml should be structured? Maybe instead of dictating how it shall be the Semantic Web proponents should go out and look at what xml people are spitting out and do something useful with it. Then people will see that they too can offer users something useful by making their xml more readable by your tools. Why is it that folks like the W3C seem to try very hard to work against network effects instead of working with them?
if (a == NULL) *a = b; is a common bug. If it's in a part of code that isn't executed often then you might not even notice it. Tools should detect this stuff.
Maybe they should call the GCC extensions that detect obvious errors the --pink-dress options.
Lot of good that is. I also checked splint which fails to detect the out of bounds array reference in my first example but, thankfully, does detect that p has been assigned NULL and is then dereferenced. However this program:
void foo(char *p)
{
if (p == NULL)
*p = '1';
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
Elicits no warnings. Which is just pathetic. Maybe this is something I can add, but I honestly thought splint was the shit.
As such, every time I see "research" into developing my fault tolerant hardware or software I have to scratch my head and wonder exactly when research ever gets turned into practice.
sounds like AI.
Or make "Director's Cut" version of a film that doesn't mean "extra long" or "butchered to fuck". I thought The Village was a perfect example of a poorly cut film. If the director had watched some hitchcock before going into editing we would have gotten a totally different film.