Unless ?
It WILL compete for resources.
At the very least, Energy.
Count also on competition for materials for replication , enhancement of capabilites, and continuation of it's own life (AKA survival).
I am not an AI expert but rather a geneticist so please excuse my question if it seems naive but your outcome assumes that the AI is afraid of death.
You assume fear of death because that is what you, a normal human (ok, maybe not, you read/.) or animal fears. Of course, we have be selected for almost a billion years to fear death (otherwise our ancestors would have died and you wouldn't exist).
So my question: Is an AI automatically selected for to promote its own survival and have a fear of being shut off?
While I find arranged marriages horrifying personally, a friend (not Hindu) was married that way and at least their process was interesting to say the least. The families selected potential partners based on their knowledge of their (adult) childrens' personalities. He went on dates with the suggested women and, the third one was apparently compatible. They have been together for 20 years now.
But maybe that is just the old-fashioned version of a modern online dating service's compatibility algorithm.
While I agree, there is another interrelated effect hidden there: Women with more money are typically older (obviously more time to acquire it and have often delayed childbearing).
People who are older (more mature on average?) when they marry have lower divorce rates.
An interesting article on why people would work for less than minimum wage (grad students working 16 hr days), in hopes of hitting the big time, just like people selling drugs, hopjng to become the drug lord:
Let me ask you this: Do you believe Social Security is going to collapse tomorrow? My guess is even you would say not tomorrow.
Why do I ask? Well, look at your own statistics:
Worker-to-beneficiary ratio in the US:
16 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1950
3.3 workers per beneficiary in 2003
2.1 workers per beneficiary in 2033 (projected)
You do understand that this is real, right? This is all based on hard data and real world facts; I'm not making this shit up as I go along.
16 / 3.3 = 4.8 fold decrease in worker:retiree ratio in the US.
And yet, the system hasn't crashed yet.
3.3 / 2.1 is only a further 1.57 fold decrease, much smaller than the last few years
Why hasn't the system collapsed years ago?
1. An increase in general productivity (see http://www.epi.org/publication... for an interesting article in this regard)
2. Don't forget, these people do die and some leave behind considerable inheritances, which are taxed exorbitantly, even in the US.
Of course, some of this is paid for by US borrowing, which will have to taper off.
You are right about the wires but wrong about the demand pattern in case of a localized emergency.
For POTS, the telephone is at a fixed location (obviously close to the accident in the parent's example), therefore, in an emergency, the person is more likely to be trying to get help for an emergency which happened near or at that location.
Those with POTS are not calling to tell someone that they are going to be late coming home, because they already are home.
In contrast, mobile phone users near such an accident trigger many calls unrelated to reporting the accident (telling someone they are running late) and overload the cell network.
Most people living close enough to such an accident are not home, are not directly affected by the accident or are simply unaware of the emergency, and don't or can't call, therefore, the POTS will generally not overload (although you may overload the number of 911 or 112 operators).
Therefore, for an emergency covering a small area, POTS will almost always be better.
For emergencies covering a larger area that might overload the POTS system (8.5 earthquake, a hurricane or such), you have other problems anyway.
AIt doesn't just sound draconian, it is. A friend of mine was an ethnic Russian child living in Kazakhstan at the time. Her father lost his job simply because he was Russian so they HAD to leave. The majority of these people (in either direction) are not moving of their own free will.
However, I think the question for me is not, should they be allowed to hunt these animals but should they be allowed to hunt them in such an obviously cruel and hideous manner?
Actually, the story is more complicated than you suggest. Two things were happening at the same time. Humans began eating meat (but not exclusively) and they started cooking their food, making it easier to digest.
Humans probably are omnivores but have many special adaptions, including jaw sizes more like herbivores, not (only) because of hard foods but also to allow us to smile, another important element of our evolution (social development).
The TFA refers to percent of GDP, which is meaningless.
No, it's not. A high proportion of R&D costs is labor. Because of the difference in salaries between different countries, %/GDP matters more than absolute numbers.
Wrong. Since the most research in Europe is carried out in the countries with the highest labor costs, your statement is misleading, as it skews the costs relative to the GDP of the region.
Also, Switzerland is always ignored in these calculations. I know they are not part of the EU but a quick peek at the graph in the original article shows Europe, not EU (I know they state EU in the fine print). Switzerland has a very vibrant research community (think physics, biotech, pharma) and it seems silly to exclude them. But another example of a country with high labor costs which spends a lot on research (and gets something back).
How may 16 year olds like a fine glass of Bordeaux? Few. How many 40 year olds? Probably many more. I'm not saying that they will like eBooks as they grow older people's tastes change as they mature and if you don't know for sure how they will change, your statement may not be valid.
I would be happy to see the ceiling even set at 50 fold (lowest earner in the company).
Having said that, one worry I have is that one possible outcome is that the CEO outsources, say, the low paid cleaning staff and can therefore raise his/her salary. Next step, replace all assembly line workers with robots (yes, I know, already happening, but this might accelerate the process).
Slashdot Mirror
Unless ? It WILL compete for resources. At the very least, Energy.
Count also on competition for materials for replication , enhancement of capabilites, and continuation of it's own life (AKA survival).
I am not an AI expert but rather a geneticist so please excuse my question if it seems naive but your outcome assumes that the AI is afraid of death.
/.) or animal fears. Of course, we have be selected for almost a billion years to fear death (otherwise our ancestors would have died and you wouldn't exist).
You assume fear of death because that is what you, a normal human (ok, maybe not, you read
So my question: Is an AI automatically selected for to promote its own survival and have a fear of being shut off?
Even worse, we all break minor laws all the time. Depending how literally the AI takes the law, we might all be bad.
The Puppeteers are simply escaping the galactic core explosion, better hurry while there's still time
While I find arranged marriages horrifying personally, a friend (not Hindu) was married that way and at least their process was interesting to say the least. The families selected potential partners based on their knowledge of their (adult) childrens' personalities. He went on dates with the suggested women and, the third one was apparently compatible. They have been together for 20 years now.
But maybe that is just the old-fashioned version of a modern online dating service's compatibility algorithm.
While I agree, there is another interrelated effect hidden there: Women with more money are typically older (obviously more time to acquire it and have often delayed childbearing).
People who are older (more mature on average?) when they marry have lower divorce rates.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs...
Have you ever eaten squirrel? Stringy, gamy as hell and hardly any real meat to speak of.
The US government is in cahoots with aliens? Why, that explains so much, you're absolutely brilliant !
An interesting article on why people would work for less than minimum wage (grad students working 16 hr days), in hopes of hitting the big time, just like people selling drugs, hopjng to become the drug lord:
http://alexandreafonso.wordpre...
Why do I ask? Well, look at your own statistics:
Worker-to-beneficiary ratio in the US: 16 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1950 3.3 workers per beneficiary in 2003 2.1 workers per beneficiary in 2033 (projected)
You do understand that this is real, right? This is all based on hard data and real world facts; I'm not making this shit up as I go along.
16 / 3.3 = 4.8 fold decrease in worker:retiree ratio in the US.
And yet, the system hasn't crashed yet.
3.3 / 2.1 is only a further 1.57 fold decrease, much smaller than the last few years
Why hasn't the system collapsed years ago?
1. An increase in general productivity (see http://www.epi.org/publication... for an interesting article in this regard)
2. Don't forget, these people do die and some leave behind considerable inheritances, which are taxed exorbitantly, even in the US.
Of course, some of this is paid for by US borrowing, which will have to taper off.
Not if you live abroad, they're a nightmare, even if you owe nothing.
Sorry, the comparison is still unfair since the modern ones can be set to 11.
You are right about the wires but wrong about the demand pattern in case of a localized emergency.
For POTS, the telephone is at a fixed location (obviously close to the accident in the parent's example), therefore, in an emergency, the person is more likely to be trying to get help for an emergency which happened near or at that location.
Those with POTS are not calling to tell someone that they are going to be late coming home, because they already are home.
In contrast, mobile phone users near such an accident trigger many calls unrelated to reporting the accident (telling someone they are running late) and overload the cell network.
Most people living close enough to such an accident are not home, are not directly affected by the accident or are simply unaware of the emergency, and don't or can't call, therefore, the POTS will generally not overload (although you may overload the number of 911 or 112 operators).
Therefore, for an emergency covering a small area, POTS will almost always be better.
For emergencies covering a larger area that might overload the POTS system (8.5 earthquake, a hurricane or such), you have other problems anyway.
.... then it's not firm.
No, it's too easy ...
Sorry, but "bare back access" was so titillating that it distracted me from finishing the rest of your post...
AIt doesn't just sound draconian, it is. A friend of mine was an ethnic Russian child living in Kazakhstan at the time. Her father lost his job simply because he was Russian so they HAD to leave. The majority of these people (in either direction) are not moving of their own free will.
That coffee is so bad, that it isn't legal in Europe anyway.
"What's that mommy?" "Why, Jimmy, that's an airplane".
I am not a programmer so could someone explain to me how that is different?
I have hunted in the past. There, I admit it.
However, I think the question for me is not, should they be allowed to hunt these animals but should they be allowed to hunt them in such an obviously cruel and hideous manner?
Actually, the story is more complicated than you suggest. Two things were happening at the same time. Humans began eating meat (but not exclusively) and they started cooking their food, making it easier to digest.
Just one example, humans ARE different than even the great apes in terms of their digestive systems.
Humans probably are omnivores but have many special adaptions, including jaw sizes more like herbivores, not (only) because of hard foods but also to allow us to smile, another important element of our evolution (social development).
The TFA refers to percent of GDP, which is meaningless.
No, it's not. A high proportion of R&D costs is labor. Because of the difference in salaries between different countries, %/GDP matters more than absolute numbers.
Wrong. Since the most research in Europe is carried out in the countries with the highest labor costs, your statement is misleading, as it skews the costs relative to the GDP of the region.
Also, Switzerland is always ignored in these calculations. I know they are not part of the EU but a quick peek at the graph in the original article shows Europe, not EU (I know they state EU in the fine print). Switzerland has a very vibrant research community (think physics, biotech, pharma) and it seems silly to exclude them. But another example of a country with high labor costs which spends a lot on research (and gets something back).
Stupid question about a "point" particle: The minimal size (diameter?) for anything would then be a Planck length, right?
Unless you are a corporation or belong to the 1%
Maybe he is ass talking (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how).
However, there was such an experiment done in the 1970's and the result was much as he described: Rosenhan Experiment
How may 16 year olds like a fine glass of Bordeaux? Few. How many 40 year olds? Probably many more. I'm not saying that they will like eBooks as they grow older people's tastes change as they mature and if you don't know for sure how they will change, your statement may not be valid.
I would be happy to see the ceiling even set at 50 fold (lowest earner in the company).
Having said that, one worry I have is that one possible outcome is that the CEO outsources, say, the low paid cleaning staff and can therefore raise his/her salary. Next step, replace all assembly line workers with robots (yes, I know, already happening, but this might accelerate the process).
How would you prevent this?