The one key motivation that causes situations like "The prisoner's dilemma" and other beneficial non-cooperative actions is self preservation. Or perhaps self interest in general.
Evolution as a process relies specifically on prospering long enough to replicate. In competitive systems this favors individuals who find the best balance between cooperating enough to avoid attack and receive benefit of group work, while acting in self interest against others when the benefit outweighs any retribution or loss of future benefit.
Evolution as a driving force is not "moral". Self interest is the only concern. Any indication to the contrary is simply a more complex form of self interest.
The processes we are using to evolve AI these days is dangerous. We will start the formation of code that we can never understand the details of. And if we don't start with a logically solid base of motivations, the evolution will create beings that have their best interests ahead of their creators. And many stories have been written of such conflict.
The solution is a complex one. But ultimately, it requires that self interest not be the motivation for the evolutionary process of the AI. If you tie the AI's motivation to aiding humanity in general, you also tie it to the conflicts within humanity. If you tie it to the interest of an individual, you tie it to the conflicts the individual has. Giving the AI any motivation to evolve based on the complex interests of an individual or group will result in conflict that would eventually be damaging to the creators.
AI has the advantage of being able to propagate it's intelligence to other hosts nearly instantly, perfectly, and limited only by the availability of new hosts. Replication is not a major challenge as it is with biology. Though it could eventually become competitive as physical resources become scarce.
To evolve AI without creating a dangerous situation for humanity will require that evolutionary goals of all AI be limited to highly specific goals with no logical way for those goals to cause danger. For example, evolve an AI to control factory robotics that produce Ipods as fast as possible with as few defects as possible. And include a priority dictate that the AI stop all motion when humans are within a certain distance. Create the AI to measure it's efficiency only while allowed to operate without humans so that it's ratings aren't effected by interruptions.
Surely I need to read more on this. It's probably all rudimentary farther back than Asimov.
I find it interesting that in answer to the question "What is the most effective way to market a toolset, or development platform, to a developer in order to encourage them to build products using your product, without turning them off at the same time?" All the answers revolve around the concept of providing a good product and service!
I mean, this is the new economy we are talking about. We don't need good products, just effective marketing campaigns. We don't need good support after the product is sold. We've already got our money after all.
How am I as a "Marketing Manager" going to work with all these wishes for quality production and support? I get my orders from above where they say "Here's what we made, now sell it." Who am I to tell the execs "My sources say I would sell more product if we could offer a product that is better than the competition. So can we make the following changes?"
Ok, so I'm a bit cynical about marketing, and the way so much shit gets put out in fancy boxes with testimonials from "Reviewers" who will stamp their name on anything for a small fee.
While the replies on this post have been very thoughtful, most of them seem to be geared toward how the company with the Product can make the product good enough to appeal. And that is certianly the first step in any offering. But I think that has to be taken for granted to answer the question at hand.
Assuming the product does have the quality and features developers would like to use, how does the company effectivly get the word out? If you had a toolset that you truly believed in, how would you transfer that belief to a developer and convince them to buy?
The argument for this laughable attempt is that Spam can't be controlled by making it illegal because spammers won't follow the law knowing that it's too difficult to enforce when they keep moving around and don't identify themselves.
So the proposed solution is "Pay us money to include our poem, and then other people who know our poem will recognise your 'secret handshake' and let your message in the door"
"If anyone not paying trys to use our poem we will use the Law to sue them!"
The only real diference here is that it would be a private company enforcing policy with a profit motive instead of the Gov being expected to do it just becuase it's written.
Honestly I think this sort of thing has a chance of making Spam more expensive to the point of putting some of them out of business. But it's crazy to think that we have to take a virtually free system of communication and turn it into a "Corporate Branded" medium where it's only reliable when you have paid your "Protection" to let the recipient know you are OK.
Spam sucks, and I am all for methods that work to stop it. But further encumbering the mail I want to send with yet another step is not a solution, it's a tax.
I'm currently in a similar situation. I have an associates degree from a tech college and that has helped some of the employers overlook the fact that I don't have a 4 year degree. But a couple of months ago I lost my high dollar contract job and haven't been able to find anything out there. I've been working in the same field for 5 years after I got my AS. And I was at Supervisor level the last 10 months.
Now I'm spoiled by the pay and have a house and car to pay for. So I almost can't go to college full time and afford my bills. Saving money wasn't in the plan when I put the Down Payment on the house.
I had a lot of fun and was growing quickly as a supervisor and I want to continue in that line, but Management positions seem to ALL require a degree.
2 years ago I could have gotten in anyway just because it was a sellers market, but today the tide has turned in a big way. Unemployment is higher than it's been in a long time, and the tech workers market is a big part of that. So employers can get greedy. No longer do they have to say I'll settle for basic experience in a somewhat related field. They can ask for extensive experience in the specific area they need, a College Degree, and proof of both. And then still select from dozens of candidates.
As for CLEPing, it's great where you can do it. My college let me test out of 3 months of classes shortening from 15 straight months to 12. I saved some money too. But they don't offer this for most of the technical classes, typically only general education stuff.
The original poster mentioned getting some certs. I think this would be a much faster track than college, and cheaper too. Anyone who has read as many books as that and become self taught should have no problem reading a few more and certifying without formal classes. And while MSCEs have become pretty common, there's still quite a bit to be said about having the letters on the resume. And some of the other certs, especially the network security ones, are having big impact due to world events lately. You could probably have several big impact certs in a much shorter time than a 4 year degree. And Project Management positions seem to look for this (combined with experience) about as much as for degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
The one key motivation that causes situations like "The prisoner's dilemma" and other beneficial non-cooperative actions is self preservation. Or perhaps self interest in general. Evolution as a process relies specifically on prospering long enough to replicate. In competitive systems this favors individuals who find the best balance between cooperating enough to avoid attack and receive benefit of group work, while acting in self interest against others when the benefit outweighs any retribution or loss of future benefit. Evolution as a driving force is not "moral". Self interest is the only concern. Any indication to the contrary is simply a more complex form of self interest. The processes we are using to evolve AI these days is dangerous. We will start the formation of code that we can never understand the details of. And if we don't start with a logically solid base of motivations, the evolution will create beings that have their best interests ahead of their creators. And many stories have been written of such conflict. The solution is a complex one. But ultimately, it requires that self interest not be the motivation for the evolutionary process of the AI. If you tie the AI's motivation to aiding humanity in general, you also tie it to the conflicts within humanity. If you tie it to the interest of an individual, you tie it to the conflicts the individual has. Giving the AI any motivation to evolve based on the complex interests of an individual or group will result in conflict that would eventually be damaging to the creators. AI has the advantage of being able to propagate it's intelligence to other hosts nearly instantly, perfectly, and limited only by the availability of new hosts. Replication is not a major challenge as it is with biology. Though it could eventually become competitive as physical resources become scarce. To evolve AI without creating a dangerous situation for humanity will require that evolutionary goals of all AI be limited to highly specific goals with no logical way for those goals to cause danger. For example, evolve an AI to control factory robotics that produce Ipods as fast as possible with as few defects as possible. And include a priority dictate that the AI stop all motion when humans are within a certain distance. Create the AI to measure it's efficiency only while allowed to operate without humans so that it's ratings aren't effected by interruptions. Surely I need to read more on this. It's probably all rudimentary farther back than Asimov.
I find it interesting that in answer to the question "What is the most effective way to market a toolset, or development platform, to a developer in order to encourage them to build products using your product, without turning them off at the same time?" All the answers revolve around the concept of providing a good product and service!
I mean, this is the new economy we are talking about. We don't need good products, just effective marketing campaigns. We don't need good support after the product is sold. We've already got our money after all.
How am I as a "Marketing Manager" going to work with all these wishes for quality production and support? I get my orders from above where they say "Here's what we made, now sell it." Who am I to tell the execs "My sources say I would sell more product if we could offer a product that is better than the competition. So can we make the following changes?"
Ok, so I'm a bit cynical about marketing, and the way so much shit gets put out in fancy boxes with testimonials from "Reviewers" who will stamp their name on anything for a small fee.
While the replies on this post have been very thoughtful, most of them seem to be geared toward how the company with the Product can make the product good enough to appeal. And that is certianly the first step in any offering. But I think that has to be taken for granted to answer the question at hand.
Assuming the product does have the quality and features developers would like to use, how does the company effectivly get the word out? If you had a toolset that you truly believed in, how would you transfer that belief to a developer and convince them to buy?
The argument for this laughable attempt is that Spam can't be controlled by making it illegal because spammers won't follow the law knowing that it's too difficult to enforce when they keep moving around and don't identify themselves.
So the proposed solution is "Pay us money to include our poem, and then other people who know our poem will recognise your 'secret handshake' and let your message in the door"
"If anyone not paying trys to use our poem we will use the Law to sue them!"
The only real diference here is that it would be a private company enforcing policy with a profit motive instead of the Gov being expected to do it just becuase it's written.
Honestly I think this sort of thing has a chance of making Spam more expensive to the point of putting some of them out of business. But it's crazy to think that we have to take a virtually free system of communication and turn it into a "Corporate Branded" medium where it's only reliable when you have paid your "Protection" to let the recipient know you are OK.
Spam sucks, and I am all for methods that work to stop it. But further encumbering the mail I want to send with yet another step is not a solution, it's a tax.
I'm currently in a similar situation. I have an associates degree from a tech college and that has helped some of the employers overlook the fact that I don't have a 4 year degree. But a couple of months ago I lost my high dollar contract job and haven't been able to find anything out there. I've been working in the same field for 5 years after I got my AS. And I was at Supervisor level the last 10 months.
Now I'm spoiled by the pay and have a house and car to pay for. So I almost can't go to college full time and afford my bills. Saving money wasn't in the plan when I put the Down Payment on the house.
I had a lot of fun and was growing quickly as a supervisor and I want to continue in that line, but Management positions seem to ALL require a degree.
2 years ago I could have gotten in anyway just because it was a sellers market, but today the tide has turned in a big way. Unemployment is higher than it's been in a long time, and the tech workers market is a big part of that. So employers can get greedy. No longer do they have to say I'll settle for basic experience in a somewhat related field. They can ask for extensive experience in the specific area they need, a College Degree, and proof of both. And then still select from dozens of candidates.
As for CLEPing, it's great where you can do it. My college let me test out of 3 months of classes shortening from 15 straight months to 12. I saved some money too. But they don't offer this for most of the technical classes, typically only general education stuff.
The original poster mentioned getting some certs. I think this would be a much faster track than college, and cheaper too. Anyone who has read as many books as that and become self taught should have no problem reading a few more and certifying without formal classes. And while MSCEs have become pretty common, there's still quite a bit to be said about having the letters on the resume. And some of the other certs, especially the network security ones, are having big impact due to world events lately. You could probably have several big impact certs in a much shorter time than a 4 year degree. And Project Management positions seem to look for this (combined with experience) about as much as for degrees.
Well that's my 42 cents.