the problem is that this approach omits the human from the beginning...
human medics would face the *exact same* factors in this decision situation...how would humans decide???
oh man...
I usually love it when mainstream culture learns more about tech, smarter customers make my business work better, but having to listen to 1000 idiot "ethicists" and whatnot running their head-holes ad infinitum about the "implications" and I just...arrrggghhh!!!
machines are programmed by humans to execute instructions
you can call what we program them to do "ethics" if you want, but it all absolutely and with total certainty boils down to conditional instructions.
input>output
the problem is the notion that this dilema, a medic-bot on its way to help someone finds someone else (note it would have to be out of comm range for this scenario to be valid)...
robot or human the decision is based on the same factors
why not have the robot tell the new injured person **what its current mission is** and let the human decide?
I know it seems I'm being reductive but let me bring it around...
there *will* be times when decisions will need to be made autonomously that will affect human lives...the way to do this is twofold:
1. game it out as best as humanly possible 2. allow for humans to monitor and change the mission
that's what a human medic would do...communicate with the new injured soldier and ***together*** both humans would decide the best course of action
not against women...the stereotypes about how "tech" work has to be autism-inducing, basement dewelling, spaghetti coding, geek competition
1. Culturally: Tech jobs, even coding, involves directly working with the people in your workplace. Even if you telecommute you still do tons of human interaction...furthermore, all tech is ultimately for the *human user*
2. Geeky Culture: "geek culture" has never been more popular among women, especially smart younger women who would be the logical next cadre of tech new hires. The problem is stereotypes and systemic dead weight...not 'geek culture' or women's access to it...also: more women gamers now than ever
3. Catch 22: Men who tend to make assumptions will tend to assume the wrong causes for women's behavior...especially men in tech who don't usually work with women
4. Peer pressure: Everything in our media tells women that if they want to get married they have to **look like a pornstar** and be permiscous but not "slutty" and find the right man before they turn 30...when a woman says she thinks she can have a career, party, look good AND have a family their friends will try to dissuade them.
get a clue...everyone...all techies....everywhere....talk to women about this...not just the opinionated ones...ask them how they feel and you'll seem I'm right
tech alienates women...it's a dorky version of a Country Club mentality
DRM only affects copyrighted stuff if the copyright holders use it. It does nothing to stifle competition.
this shows you're essentially taking the industry view...you're taking the label's side when they sued John Fogerty for "plaigarizing himself"
that's your position...it has been dispelled ad infinitum here on/. so just go away and never post again
Remember iTunes music with DRM? What allowed Apple to ditch the DRM was the Amazon store that came along without DRM.
this shows your ignorance
Steve Jobs was a brilliant technology *marketer* because he had whateverthefuck genius is required to let labels put their music on iTunes.
it was a snow job...the DRM on itunes purchased songs has been cicumvented and torrented all over the world
copyright is fine...the **creators** have the right to control their art (not the bullshit capital-hogging idiots biz people at labels) bottlenecking technology with "DRM" because you don't understand scalability in digital media
this is because you don't understand technology...that's the problem here...you and ignorant people like you
What, specifically, about my original comment do you think is actually *wrong* not a misperception or misphrasing?
You can point out pedantic differences between drones & piloted craft but the bottom line is just criticizing "drones" is fucking stupid...so we should use a more expensive piloted craft instead?
I was in the AF myself and I rabidly defend manned craft in the "manned craft vs drones" debate for future development pipelines, but this is about killing or not killing not whether to keep the A-10
It's two different discussions...i'm talking about the kill decision...drones or piloted craft or piloted craft *converted* to drone...all the same decision to kill or not kill
So based on your original comment, which ignored one of my points I wrote *specifically* b/c I anticipated your criticism, and how you've responded (rhetoric w/ no content) why would I want to debate you? ***YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MADE A COHERENT COUNTERPOINT***
you're fucking trolling b/c you were upset at how I stated things...it makes you mad b/c you know I'm right...
because you deserved it...just because you can form paragraphs with proper sentence structure doesn't mean your arguments aren't any less shit
this is about people's lives in war
it's obviously an abstract concept to you, like playing Starcraft or inventing a fictional narrative...
killing people is really, really bad...no ammount of actuarial science or spreadsheet analysis can justify an innocent death...it harms the person who pulls the trigger as well...IMHO we should probably all be 100% pacifists but that's not how I act in real life...and really it's not realistic but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise
if you take these ideas beyond abstractions your ideas really do look silly
you're an idiot...it's obvious you barely read my post and that you have no concept of what 'war' actually means
There hasn't been a formal declaration of war in many (any??) of these countries
i already addressed this from my original post: 3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The person in an airplane is there live.....
None of those things you mentioned are salient factors in the decision to use lethal force...they are ancillary and do not in any way put forward a coherent theory of actual rules for engagement...just a list of characteristics that make it a good weapon...
*The neural network of human brain can be atomized down to neurons and their connections. It is not magic
but that doesn't explain it's function, it only **describes** the mechanism...and we have **barely scratched the surface**
you don't know nearly what you think you know about how you know what you know b/c none of us knows
think of it this way...
is getting laid a perfectly copyable process?
of course not...even if you pay for it...no way...if you get laid on a one-night-stand it was certainly a ***definable series of events*** but replicating those events ***in no way*** guarantees a similar outcome
we know the component parts...hell, whole **companies** make products dedicated to just a *part* of the process (condoms for ex)
but no way, no how, never can anyone claim 100% success rate with some formula when it relates to human behavior
the notion that everything is computable is foolish and unprovable b/c it's only half a premise...it's illogical and you need to do yourself a favor and ditch the notion forever
ditching 'computability function' Turing bullshit actually won't hurt you or take any effort...it's like removing a heavy backback...
If someone says "X president is wrong because he ordered military action that killed civilians"
but then criticize another president for **not** using military action in a **virtually identical scenario** then you're not just wrong you're actively hurting actual discourse
you can't criticize one person for doing something, then in the next breath praise another person for doing the exact same thing
your criticisms have to be informed and consistent otherwise it's not just 'noise' it actually makes people more stupid for having read your comment
1. Here's a way to head off alot of pointless banter on this issue:You're either a full pacifist or it's a question of **when** to use deadly force...that's first in any conversation about military action. You can't criticize just *one* military decision to kill without any context or comparison unless you are a 100% pacifist for all situations...because if you're not a total pacifist, then it's just a question of what conditions your think justify lethal force.
2. In war, we kill on all kinds of imperfect data...**it's all we ever have**
3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
4. Both drones & piloted craft shoot missiles at enemies that cause collateral deaths, and any criticism of the use of either is a criticism of the use of both
I'm sick of the banter & want real discussion on this issue
2024 is not a date or time. In the multiverse it is a place.
That year, 2024, is the point in space/time where the natural progression of human consciousness & technology & science converge and we will take a step forward equivalent to the first humans to make artwork or speak language...only this is not an inward step, but an outward one.
Conspiracy theorists talk about "predictive programming" and it's bunk of course, but humanity has known this all along. The parallel is all humans who will be alive during the coming transition & all humanity..."we" have always known something was coming. Books like Childhood's End and films like 2001-A Space Odyssey or Contact are really a primer, like an introduction. Those works intentionally prepare our minds for 2024, even though the people who made it may not be conscious of it!
If you can understand intentionality of will without consciousness then you're on your way to becoming a Pleiadians;)
simulate human behaviour enough to beat a Turing test.
the whole "Turing Test" notion is ruining our industry
it's bullshit...litterally, it's a demonstration of programmed bullshit
it's not science, because "passing as human" depends ***ENTIRELY ON CONTEXT*** including the person you're trying to fool
it's not testable b/c it's not falsifiable...or really it's impossible to tell if it is falsifiable or not because every instance is dependent on too many variables...each instance of human interaction
fooling some dumbass that a computer is a person is not a scientific test
get Turing out of your brain forever...if you're a coder it will help your performance
So only mathematicians should ponder and discuss their own mind?
No.
It's bad when theorists who are only philosophers who ponder and discuss their own mind try to use mathematics.
If you are talking about technology you need to *learn how it works*
A coder, a person who writes instructions with symbols to automate machine behavior, would be equally invalid to claim that his technical knowledge allows him to claim that, say, Kirkegard is right about metaphysics over all others because of code
Slashdot Mirror
I saw the ***exact same thing***
fsking CIA criminals & their aristocrat/illuminati overlords
Jeb Bush 2016!
the problem is that this approach omits the human from the beginning...
human medics would face the *exact same* factors in this decision situation...how would humans decide???
oh man...
I usually love it when mainstream culture learns more about tech, smarter customers make my business work better, but having to listen to 1000 idiot "ethicists" and whatnot running their head-holes ad infinitum about the "implications" and I just...arrrggghhh!!!
machines are programmed by humans to execute instructions
you can call what we program them to do "ethics" if you want, but it all absolutely and with total certainty boils down to conditional instructions.
input>output
the problem is the notion that this dilema, a medic-bot on its way to help someone finds someone else (note it would have to be out of comm range for this scenario to be valid)...
robot or human the decision is based on the same factors
why not have the robot tell the new injured person **what its current mission is** and let the human decide?
I know it seems I'm being reductive but let me bring it around...
there *will* be times when decisions will need to be made autonomously that will affect human lives...the way to do this is twofold:
1. game it out as best as humanly possible
2. allow for humans to monitor and change the mission
that's what a human medic would do...communicate with the new injured soldier and ***together*** both humans would decide the best course of action
but why can't we just ditch "teh singularity" crap when discussing it?
"AI" is so obnoxious now...
"a simple conversation could take thousands of years"
give me a fsking break...this is almost as bad as the whole "what if we're brains in a jar" thing that people call a theory
yeah, and my point is, why bother even making as distinction for my point?
why bother to disagree at all when either way it's the same directive: DO BOTH
so you've just proven that the only reason you typed that post (and continue still) is to make a bullshit counterpoint so you could feel special
we can DO BOTH NOW and suggesting otherwise, for any reason, is stupid
This is a disgusting application of this technology, a continuance of the "big data" fallacy.
More data is only helpful if you know how to analyze & factor it into a theory that allows for prediction.
This data only serves to give beuarcrats & incompetent middle managers some "number" abstraction to "hit" so they can justify their existence.
Gates is doing this too...these people should not be allows anywhere **near children**
why does it matter if you rank DRM above Net Neutrality in importance?
that's like saying, in your humble opinion, death by hanging would be better than death by lethal injection
it's a completely and utterly pointless distinction and you waste everyone's time by making it
*both* opposing DRM'ed HTML like the W3C & firefox support AND supporting net neutrality are necessary and can both be done simultaneously
not against women...the stereotypes about how "tech" work has to be autism-inducing, basement dewelling, spaghetti coding, geek competition
1. Culturally: Tech jobs, even coding, involves directly working with the people in your workplace. Even if you telecommute you still do tons of human interaction...furthermore, all tech is ultimately for the *human user*
2. Geeky Culture: "geek culture" has never been more popular among women, especially smart younger women who would be the logical next cadre of tech new hires. The problem is stereotypes and systemic dead weight...not 'geek culture' or women's access to it...also: more women gamers now than ever
3. Catch 22: Men who tend to make assumptions will tend to assume the wrong causes for women's behavior...especially men in tech who don't usually work with women
4. Peer pressure: Everything in our media tells women that if they want to get married they have to **look like a pornstar** and be permiscous but not "slutty" and find the right man before they turn 30...when a woman says she thinks she can have a career, party, look good AND have a family their friends will try to dissuade them.
get a clue...everyone...all techies....everywhere....talk to women about this...not just the opinionated ones...ask them how they feel and you'll seem I'm right
tech alienates women...it's a dorky version of a Country Club mentality
this shows you're essentially taking the industry view...you're taking the label's side when they sued John Fogerty for "plaigarizing himself"
that's your position...it has been dispelled ad infinitum here on /. so just go away and never post again
this shows your ignorance
Steve Jobs was a brilliant technology *marketer* because he had whateverthefuck genius is required to let labels put their music on iTunes.
it was a snow job...the DRM on itunes purchased songs has been cicumvented and torrented all over the world
copyright is fine...the **creators** have the right to control their art (not the bullshit capital-hogging idiots biz people at labels) bottlenecking technology with "DRM" because you don't understand scalability in digital media
this is because you don't understand technology...that's the problem here...you and ignorant people like you
this is bigger than an open source project or even one browser
this is about the standards of the internet and openness...no DRM is just as important as Net Neutrality
the W3C are total sell-outs to corporate interests in DRM...complete and total...now it appears firefox has joined them
the WHATWG is the only reason we are stuck with 90s-era spaghetti code on websites now...they developed HTML5 and finalized CSS3...
HTML would be spyware if the W3C had its way...and HTML5 would not exist w/o the WHATWG
I was sad to hear this...we've lost a great artist and designer...also: who will unscrupulous scifi concept artists going copy off of now?
What's your disagreement then?
What, specifically, about my original comment do you think is actually *wrong* not a misperception or misphrasing?
You can point out pedantic differences between drones & piloted craft but the bottom line is just criticizing "drones" is fucking stupid...so we should use a more expensive piloted craft instead?
I was in the AF myself and I rabidly defend manned craft in the "manned craft vs drones" debate for future development pipelines, but this is about killing or not killing not whether to keep the A-10
It's two different discussions...i'm talking about the kill decision...drones or piloted craft or piloted craft *converted* to drone...all the same decision to kill or not kill
So based on your original comment, which ignored one of my points I wrote *specifically* b/c I anticipated your criticism, and how you've responded (rhetoric w/ no content) why would I want to debate you? ***YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MADE A COHERENT COUNTERPOINT***
you're fucking trolling b/c you were upset at how I stated things...it makes you mad b/c you know I'm right...
because you deserved it...just because you can form paragraphs with proper sentence structure doesn't mean your arguments aren't any less shit
this is about people's lives in war
it's obviously an abstract concept to you, like playing Starcraft or inventing a fictional narrative...
killing people is really, really bad...no ammount of actuarial science or spreadsheet analysis can justify an innocent death...it harms the person who pulls the trigger as well...IMHO we should probably all be 100% pacifists but that's not how I act in real life...and really it's not realistic but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise
if you take these ideas beyond abstractions your ideas really do look silly
you're an idiot...it's obvious you barely read my post and that you have no concept of what 'war' actually means
i already addressed this from my original post: 3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
None of those things you mentioned are salient factors in the decision to use lethal force...they are ancillary and do not in any way put forward a coherent theory of actual rules for engagement...just a list of characteristics that make it a good weapon...
Yeah, we can do this:
but that doesn't explain it's function, it only **describes** the mechanism...and we have **barely scratched the surface**
you don't know nearly what you think you know about how you know what you know b/c none of us knows
think of it this way...
is getting laid a perfectly copyable process?
of course not...even if you pay for it...no way...if you get laid on a one-night-stand it was certainly a ***definable series of events*** but replicating those events ***in no way*** guarantees a similar outcome
we know the component parts...hell, whole **companies** make products dedicated to just a *part* of the process (condoms for ex)
but no way, no how, never can anyone claim 100% success rate with some formula when it relates to human behavior
the notion that everything is computable is foolish and unprovable b/c it's only half a premise...it's illogical and you need to do yourself a favor and ditch the notion forever
ditching 'computability function' Turing bullshit actually won't hurt you or take any effort...it's like removing a heavy backback...
just...let...it...go...
If someone says "X president is wrong because he ordered military action that killed civilians"
but then criticize another president for **not** using military action in a **virtually identical scenario** then you're not just wrong you're actively hurting actual discourse
you can't criticize one person for doing something, then in the next breath praise another person for doing the exact same thing
your criticisms have to be informed and consistent otherwise it's not just 'noise' it actually makes people more stupid for having read your comment
behave accordingly
I advise that you do riskier things at your age.
Take a summer and try to build an app with a few of your friends...try to make it be the next "big thing"...do something
Your future in the computing industry is foretold....just read through the pages of /. or valleywag to see what everyday workers say about their jobs.
That's your future.
Take riskier jobs now.
TFA is an off-kilter criticism
1. Here's a way to head off alot of pointless banter on this issue:You're either a full pacifist or it's a question of **when** to use deadly force...that's first in any conversation about military action. You can't criticize just *one* military decision to kill without any context or comparison unless you are a 100% pacifist for all situations...because if you're not a total pacifist, then it's just a question of what conditions your think justify lethal force.
2. In war, we kill on all kinds of imperfect data...**it's all we ever have**
3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
4. Both drones & piloted craft shoot missiles at enemies that cause collateral deaths, and any criticism of the use of either is a criticism of the use of both
I'm sick of the banter & want real discussion on this issue
funny how Deep Injections Fracking wells do essentially the same thing as a theoretical earthquake machine
remember the "US Navy Flood Map"?
http://earthshiftx.com/wp-cont...
Now correlate to where fracking has been alllowed...
Yeah i bet they sure are...
This is a really, really dumb idea...sort of like putting your mailbox on a 4000ft tall pole so it can get "air mail" better
makes sense...I get that companies stage these "user made video" things...and I do think the video is bullshit
what I don't get is **why** whoever put this on would think that this is an attractive or interesting demonstration...
it's like watching VR porn while you have sex in real life
2024 is not a date or time. In the multiverse it is a place.
That year, 2024, is the point in space/time where the natural progression of human consciousness & technology & science converge and we will take a step forward equivalent to the first humans to make artwork or speak language...only this is not an inward step, but an outward one.
Conspiracy theorists talk about "predictive programming" and it's bunk of course, but humanity has known this all along. The parallel is all humans who will be alive during the coming transition & all humanity..."we" have always known something was coming. Books like Childhood's End and films like 2001-A Space Odyssey or Contact are really a primer, like an introduction. Those works intentionally prepare our minds for 2024, even though the people who made it may not be conscious of it!
If you can understand intentionality of will without consciousness then you're on your way to becoming a Pleiadians ;)
really???
because that would be the single biggest discover of neuroscience...that the human brain stores information as a computer does on a disk
it would be the "biggest" because it would overturn everything we know about (which, I must remind you, isn't much!) the way the human brain works
the researchers in TFA are doing real, testable, falsifiable science
the whole "Turing Test" notion is ruining our industry
it's bullshit...litterally, it's a demonstration of programmed bullshit
it's not science, because "passing as human" depends ***ENTIRELY ON CONTEXT*** including the person you're trying to fool
it's not testable b/c it's not falsifiable...or really it's impossible to tell if it is falsifiable or not because every instance is dependent on too many variables...each instance of human interaction
fooling some dumbass that a computer is a person is not a scientific test
get Turing out of your brain forever...if you're a coder it will help your performance
holy crap...I *knew* that "teh singularity" folks were irrational but you just admitted it
you're doing what you claim I'm doing...here's how
there's no such thing as "anti-AI" there is only "anti-bullshit"..."anti-pseudo science"...that's what's in play here
see, here in science land, were not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a 'god' or 'soul' or anything supernatural as you claim...
just because you let your opinions about the supernatural invade your science doesn't mean ***Everyone*** thinks that way
I don't game out my science to see if it proves or disproves a 'god' then adjust accordingly...neither does any real scientist
You're proving that **YOU** do indeed game out your opinions to strategically affect your science
you're doing what you claim I am doing
No.
It's bad when theorists who are only philosophers who ponder and discuss their own mind try to use mathematics.
If you are talking about technology you need to *learn how it works*
A coder, a person who writes instructions with symbols to automate machine behavior, would be equally invalid to claim that his technical knowledge allows him to claim that, say, Kirkegard is right about metaphysics over all others because of code