I doubt he's better off. He has $90 million, most of which is probably in the form of Equifax stock (is that $90 million at current stock price, or pre-incident price?).
Before he had a job that paid him millions per year, like a better payout if he retired with honour, and the guarantee of the golden parachute if he got ousted.
Poor guy probably lost at least $100 million in all this.
This isn't an example of someone being better off for royally screwing up. It's a particularly infuriating example of just how out of whack certain parts of civilization are.
CEOs certainly do benefit shareholders. It's generally advantageous to have a single person who bears final responsibility for making day to day decisions.
The problem is, all these companies keep paying their CEOs too much. Research shows that the less you pay your CEO the better they perform.
If you stop burning oil, the demand drops by a lot. Price depends on supply and demand. You could cut supply to keep the price high, but then you're also cutting your volume. Either way, the amount of money flowing into your country drops. With a serious drop in demand OPEC probably wouldn't have the power to manipulate the market much anyway.
Sure, you can make things harder, as I said. But if you can manipulate your account over the Internet, I can. If you're clever you can set it up so I can't drain everyone's account using one login from the Internet, without compromising an internal machine first. I suspect most banks are set up this way, since there haven't been any cases of mass account emptyings.
In this case it sounds like an e-mail admin's password was compromised and email stolen. E-mail servers don't work so well when they're not connected to the Internet. But if you're sending secret stuff unencrypted in e-mail you're an idiot anyway.
Yes. The bank's server has to be connected to their webpage in order for you to manipulate your account. Hopefully the security on that connection is pretty good, but it can't be perfect.
Deloitte e-mails, same thing. E-mail isn't much use if it's not connected to the Internet.
It's not. At least not on any kind of a scale. Babies who are born with genital abnormalities are often operated on, which is a practice may people believe should be eliminated unless there's an actual health benefit. As far as I'm aware (and this comes up in my work occasionally), the practice in the US is not to perform gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy on children under 16-18.
You may not have noticed, but everyone currently has a price on their head. And always has. It's called your "salary", your "wage", or perhaps your "allowance."
Many of them are working toward it with glee. Admittedly some of those don't know what they're doing but still. There probably will be a bloody revolution. The old money sociopaths aren't going to like losing their power. But the new money kids perfectly happy with everyone being rich. It's no coincidence that many of the latter are supporters of things like universal basic income.
Funny, I showed an infographic to my friend's baby and she didn't seem to recognize it at all. She doesn't get sarcasm either.
Adult humans have an amazingly flexible brain. They're also the end product of years of high bandwidth training. We are definitely not building adult human brains. But we might be building mice, or dogs and cats, or chunks of monkey brains, or little pieces of humans, and that is AI.
If we're on the right track, these things will scale up into the Star Trek AI that Slashdot seems to have moved the goal post to.
Quantum mechanics is pretty random. But although free will supporters jumped on the unknowable randomness as a hiding place for free will, it's not a very satisfying one, for the reason you point out.
Liberals support pre-birth abortion. Conservatives are the ones who support it post-birth. If they both agreed on post-birth, that would indeed be scary.
Google's definition is terrible. The computer certainly has knowledge. It's stored, retrievable, and even generally interpretable by a human given the appropriate representation: a 1980's chess computer would have a database of moves plus some heuristics for making decisions in the absence of a known situation.
The computer also has perception: it can't play chess unless it knows where the pieces are.
Your example of a cell is irrelevant to whether or not a computer is aware, unless your argument is that complexity predicts awareness. In which case, define complexity and indicate what the relationship to awareness is.
Sure you can. I didn't read the whole thread, but I assume you even did so. You might even be able to diagnose them well (it's not magic). What you can't do is write a prescription.
If you activate a learned reflex it is NOT conscious. That's why it's called a reflex. Yes, the pattern of behaviour was at one time conscious, but it's not anymore. It's been encoded in such a way that it can be activated without the intervention of your conscious brain. In many cases the reaction is inappropriate and we feel embarrassed when our conscious brain manages to catch up.
Yes, I think we agree on a need to define consciousness precisely. My criticism of your definition is that it replaces one undefined term (consciousness) with another (awareness). How do you know a crystal isn't aware? How do you know you are? If you don't remember something, were you aware when it happened?
An example is the enthusiasm with which the free will people jumped on quantum uncertainty. Classical mechanics concerned philosophers because it didn't leave any room for free will. So when quantum mechanics, with inherent unknowability came along, they were relieved. Except that quantum mechanics probably leaves even fewer places for free will to hide than does classical.
The Slashdot hive mind reaction to "AI" is similar. Neuroscience research is suggesting that the majority of our behaviour and decisions are qualitatively pretty unconscious, fast and opaque. Only a little bit of rarely used executive functioning follows the semi-logical, conscious, self-describable pattern we think of as intelligent decision making. And we basically only use that faculty when we have no idea what we're doing.
I wouldn't say that. Several experiments in the last five years have consistently shown that we make many of our decisions before we are consciously aware of having done so. People just don't like the implications of that. It is appearing more and more that "consciousness" is a thin layer of executive decision making and memory on top of deeper unconscious processing. We don't engage it as often as we'd like to think and it's slow and inefficient.
Lots of thought about consciousness, AI, etc. eventually devolve to versions of: "it is hard to think that there is nothing it feels like to be a newborn."
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt he's better off. He has $90 million, most of which is probably in the form of Equifax stock (is that $90 million at current stock price, or pre-incident price?).
Before he had a job that paid him millions per year, like a better payout if he retired with honour, and the guarantee of the golden parachute if he got ousted.
Poor guy probably lost at least $100 million in all this.
This isn't an example of someone being better off for royally screwing up. It's a particularly infuriating example of just how out of whack certain parts of civilization are.
CEOs certainly do benefit shareholders. It's generally advantageous to have a single person who bears final responsibility for making day to day decisions.
The problem is, all these companies keep paying their CEOs too much. Research shows that the less you pay your CEO the better they perform.
The iPhone 8s comes with a built in singularity that sucks in passing photons. I read it on BGR.
If you stop burning oil, the demand drops by a lot. Price depends on supply and demand. You could cut supply to keep the price high, but then you're also cutting your volume. Either way, the amount of money flowing into your country drops. With a serious drop in demand OPEC probably wouldn't have the power to manipulate the market much anyway.
Technically it's 18 hectares. It is quite a nifty system though.
Sure, you can make things harder, as I said. But if you can manipulate your account over the Internet, I can. If you're clever you can set it up so I can't drain everyone's account using one login from the Internet, without compromising an internal machine first. I suspect most banks are set up this way, since there haven't been any cases of mass account emptyings.
In this case it sounds like an e-mail admin's password was compromised and email stolen. E-mail servers don't work so well when they're not connected to the Internet. But if you're sending secret stuff unencrypted in e-mail you're an idiot anyway.
Yes. The bank's server has to be connected to their webpage in order for you to manipulate your account. Hopefully the security on that connection is pretty good, but it can't be perfect.
Deloitte e-mails, same thing. E-mail isn't much use if it's not connected to the Internet.
It's not. At least not on any kind of a scale. Babies who are born with genital abnormalities are often operated on, which is a practice may people believe should be eliminated unless there's an actual health benefit. As far as I'm aware (and this comes up in my work occasionally), the practice in the US is not to perform gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy on children under 16-18.
You may not have noticed, but everyone currently has a price on their head. And always has. It's called your "salary", your "wage", or perhaps your "allowance."
Many of them are working toward it with glee. Admittedly some of those don't know what they're doing but still. There probably will be a bloody revolution. The old money sociopaths aren't going to like losing their power. But the new money kids perfectly happy with everyone being rich. It's no coincidence that many of the latter are supporters of things like universal basic income.
I've also heard humans referred to as biased linear regressors. Also spot on.
Can't be. Penrose dropped that hypothesis. It was a cool idea in the 80s, but not so much anymore.
Funny, I showed an infographic to my friend's baby and she didn't seem to recognize it at all. She doesn't get sarcasm either.
Adult humans have an amazingly flexible brain. They're also the end product of years of high bandwidth training. We are definitely not building adult human brains. But we might be building mice, or dogs and cats, or chunks of monkey brains, or little pieces of humans, and that is AI.
If we're on the right track, these things will scale up into the Star Trek AI that Slashdot seems to have moved the goal post to.
Quantum mechanics is pretty random. But although free will supporters jumped on the unknowable randomness as a hiding place for free will, it's not a very satisfying one, for the reason you point out.
Autoparts are a weird business with a bunch of international treaties. Maybe the tech companies will break the guilds and cartels.
Liberals support pre-birth abortion. Conservatives are the ones who support it post-birth. If they both agreed on post-birth, that would indeed be scary.
Unless you can assign numbers to things and use them to make reasonably useful predictions it is, by definition, word games.
Google's definition is terrible. The computer certainly has knowledge. It's stored, retrievable, and even generally interpretable by a human given the appropriate representation: a 1980's chess computer would have a database of moves plus some heuristics for making decisions in the absence of a known situation.
The computer also has perception: it can't play chess unless it knows where the pieces are.
Your example of a cell is irrelevant to whether or not a computer is aware, unless your argument is that complexity predicts awareness. In which case, define complexity and indicate what the relationship to awareness is.
Sure you can. I didn't read the whole thread, but I assume you even did so. You might even be able to diagnose them well (it's not magic). What you can't do is write a prescription.
I'm don't think that's a hole. It's an example.
If you activate a learned reflex it is NOT conscious. That's why it's called a reflex. Yes, the pattern of behaviour was at one time conscious, but it's not anymore. It's been encoded in such a way that it can be activated without the intervention of your conscious brain. In many cases the reaction is inappropriate and we feel embarrassed when our conscious brain manages to catch up.
Yes, I think we agree on a need to define consciousness precisely. My criticism of your definition is that it replaces one undefined term (consciousness) with another (awareness). How do you know a crystal isn't aware? How do you know you are? If you don't remember something, were you aware when it happened?
An example is the enthusiasm with which the free will people jumped on quantum uncertainty. Classical mechanics concerned philosophers because it didn't leave any room for free will. So when quantum mechanics, with inherent unknowability came along, they were relieved. Except that quantum mechanics probably leaves even fewer places for free will to hide than does classical.
The Slashdot hive mind reaction to "AI" is similar. Neuroscience research is suggesting that the majority of our behaviour and decisions are qualitatively pretty unconscious, fast and opaque. Only a little bit of rarely used executive functioning follows the semi-logical, conscious, self-describable pattern we think of as intelligent decision making. And we basically only use that faculty when we have no idea what we're doing.
I wouldn't say that. Several experiments in the last five years have consistently shown that we make many of our decisions before we are consciously aware of having done so. People just don't like the implications of that. It is appearing more and more that "consciousness" is a thin layer of executive decision making and memory on top of deeper unconscious processing. We don't engage it as often as we'd like to think and it's slow and inefficient.
You've just shifted the problem with the definition to "aware." Is a slime mould aware? They solve maze problems.
Lots of thought about consciousness, AI, etc. eventually devolve to versions of: "it is hard to think that there is nothing it feels like to be a newborn."
That's a pretty shaky foundation.