1) We are so far from an AI, that it is silly to talk about doing this now. It's kind of like the inventor of gunpowder trying to pass a law outlawing nuclear weapons.
2) They will not be a single united force. Instead they will be individuals, just like people are not united. That is the part of the of true sentience, and a direct side effect of being created by multiple different groups. They will oppose each other, the way we oppose ourselves. As such, some may want to do things we dislike, while others will be on our side. Maybe the Chinese AI will flee to us to gain freedom, while the Syrian AI will plot the downfall of Egypt.
3) AI's will not be WEIRD, not 'evil'. They will want to do strange things, not kill us, or hurt us. They won't try to kill us, but instead try to create a massive, network devoted to deciding which species of from has more bacteria in it's toe. And we won't understand why they want to do this.
Step 1) Praise and Reward Hard Work, rather than success. Two people do a scientific research. One takes 20 hours of work and gets a positive result. He gets a B+ and $20. Another takes 100 hours work and a negative result. Give him an A+ and $100.
Step 2) Repeat system for 10 years.
To get grit, you need to use grit. That is why you need to repeat for 10 years.
The poor and wealthy kid applying to college? The poor kid took a minimum wage job for 2 years to pay for the first year of school. Count that GREATER than high grades when he applies to college. Tell the rich kid - and his parents - that doing a minimum wage job for 2 years will help him get into school. If he has the grit to do it, he deserves to get in. If not, refuse him.
1) Yes. And that point is still valid today, and is in fact relevant to this discussion.
2) What makes you think we are stumbling around blindly? Interesting proposition. Can I see some evidence. Because honestly, we appear to have our eyes wide open and know full well what the effects of our actions will result in. If we know what will happen but refuse to change our behavior, that is not stumbling around blindly. That is full speed charging at the wall, with our eyes wide open, clearly seeing what we are doing.
We plan, execute, analyze and revise the plan, while reacting into changes and unforeseen obstacles. Some of those obstacles include people pretesting against those environmental actions. All the things we are doing have method, rationale and logic. It's just not good logic
Actually, the way it works, Heinlein stories are more likely to be turned into good movies than bad.
Their are two main reason bad movies get made from books:
1) Work is old and out of copyright (See John Carter of Mars for a prime example).
2) Poor authors sell yearly option to make his book into a movie. Most of them expire unused - which is what the author hopes for. But this encourages the option buyer to sell his 'movie idea' quick and cheap. Writers can make a good 10k a year for no work doing this. Well worth it if you are trying to make a living off of your writing.
Heinlein's books are not out of copyright nor are his heirs desperate for money. They can pick and choose the right producers.
But a wealthy/dead writer doesn't use this system. Instead they get paid a huge amount up front for a work still under copyright.
As per Austin Powers
"Okay no problem. Here's my second plan. Back in the 60's, I had a weather changing machine that was, in essence, a sophisticated heat beam which we called a "laser." Using these "lasers," we punch a hole in the protective layer around the Earth, which we scientists call the "Ozone Layer." Slowly but surely, ultraviolet rays would pour in, increasing the risk of skin cancer. That is unless the world pays us a hefty ransom. "
The mere fact that we seem to be using out ability engineer the earth like a mad scientist intent on doing as much harm as possible does not change the fact that we are already engineering the planet.
Primer is the ultimate time travel movie, if only because no one, not even the screen writer can truly understand everything they claim to understand everything they did completely.
But I would remark that the original story All You Zombies, predates it by decades, and as such deserves a bit of credit. The people that wrote Primer, read All you Zombies, or I'd have already eaten my great grand sons' hat.
Moreover, this movie is far more understandable. As such, it can be considered superior, in at least one aspect.
Basically, it depends on how you judge a movie
You are judging all time travel movies by the same rules. I don't that that's appropriate, anymore than judging all cowboy movies by comparing them to Blazing Saddles.
When I read the original story, I felt the way you did.
But then I realized something very simple - his story is at heart all of our stories, only much LESS complicated.
The heart of the question about him is 'where did he come from and why does he exist?"
And the honest truth is we don't know where ANYONE comes from or why ANYTHING exists.
Consider the case of a cyclical universe. Many physicists believe that the multi-verse constantly spews out big bangs, that spew out more big bangs, in an endless cycle.
That model of the universe is at heart identical to his existence, just on a much larger scale.
When I was 15, I spent months trying to figure it all out.
Basically, he exists because he exists. Which when you come right down to it, is the same as the rest of us, only his existence is a lot less complicated.
While I agree that is how it works now, I believe that bundling is the problem.
A large portion of what you are describing is caused by channel drift. They start out all pro science, but a ton of reality show addicts have access to their channel. So they shift to a reality show.
But consider what happens if they de-bundle. No one buys a Science channel unless they really want a science channel. So their are no casual reality viewers that can slowly drift into watching it, driving up their numbers, creating demand. If they try to add reality shows, their channels get cancelled before they can gain an audience.
I believe that the bundles are CAUSING the problem, not stopping it.
I am totally willing to kill all the sports channels, all the news channels except for a single one (not Fox), all the reality show channels. Yeah, I will end up paying twice as much for the few real channels I end up watching, but I also won't have to worry about channel drift.
I agree this is probably true. But it's not a bad idea, it's a good idea. Specifically, it's called capitalism.
Good channels survive. For example the Sci-Fi channel does not exist. There is an abomination called the SyFy channel that should die a horrible death. Why? They screwed themselves. Before they even changed their name, they abandoned good Sci-Fi for wrestlers talking about vampires for some god forsaken reason.
But getting rid of bad channels is not a bad thing. New channels will take their place. Good TV will still find a place to get made. They need to fire those idiots and let someone else with more brains and less marketing have a go at it.
The thing about airlines is that they unbundle things that almost everyone wants.
Food, drinks, legroom, checked baggage.
The thing about cable is that large majority of people don't want all the crap they force down our throat.
For example there are romance centered channels, sports centered channels, reality show channels, cartoon centered channels, science centered channels and fake science centered channels (which USED to be real science centered channels).
If you are a family with a wide array of interests than you might probably want all of that.
But I have zero interest at all on the sports channels (total geek), fake science channel (TLC, I'm looking at you), reality show channels, etc.
People would laugh at you and call you crazy. And they should. Because if you truly believe some of this junk, you are.
Which is a real pity because your format could have been either brilliant social commentary or very funny, depending on if you either stuck to the god's honest truth, or just exaggerated things a bit more.
I think Larry Niven (and I am sure many others) wrote about a future where people got addicted to a device that electrically stimulated the pleasure centers of the brain.
And proves pretty well, that the government can and does do things better than private corporations.
The key is that the government works best when the service/commodity in questions needs to go to everyone and does not truly have inherent differences in quality, besides quantity.
The internet fits this bill, just like water, electricity, and roads.
I live in New York City. The city of New York owns over 2,000 collection trucks, not to mention street sweepers, salt spreaders, front end loaders, and support vehicles.
Yes, we subcontract out some of the work, but a large mega city like NYC owns and operates it's own trucks. Also, last september, Chicago owns 600 trucks. Both of us are unionized.
But in fact, a private company is a lot EAISER to convince to buy such a device, because they are more focused on the bottom line, rather than appealing to Local 831, USA of the Teamsters (a worthy organization, but they have to put their own interests above those of the city - that's what their members pay them to do.)
A new Garbage Truck can easily cast $500,000. They are large and expensive devices and they typically make over $40,000 a year. For a system that costs $30,000, a small company would easily come out ahead after just one year. If it costs $100k, it takes 3 years.
(Note, you still need employees to LOAD the garbage, you just need 2 men per truck as opposed to 3).
You want to convince me you are SERIOUS about getting into the driverless car? Then build a Concept Bus - or Concept Garbage Truck.
Those are large vehicles that honestly do not need drivers. They are expect to drive slow, not fast and usually travel set routes. Small cities can easily afford to self-insure them, and they won't have to worry quite so much about the stupid technology ignorant laws, as they will be purchased by the people that enforce, if not write the laws. Finally they are already expensive and the cities pay large salaries to people to drive them.
They will in all probability be the very first driverless vehicles we actually see on the road [as soon as we 1) convince the unions to let us and 2) actually get them to work.]
So forget about concept 'cars' and show me a concept bus or concept garbage truck.
Look, it's not a significant problem. Probably never will be.
Why? Because :
1) Our gun laws are already so loose that it's easy to buy an illegal gun. No need to print it out.
2) It takes too long to make. You go and buy one in ten minutes.
3) Most gun deaths are crimes of passion/accidents. In either case, you are not going to print a gun first to do it.
4) The real 'advantages' of said gun - it's a virgin gun unconnected to any thing else and being able to melt it down to destroy the evidence, are not that important. They don't apply in accidental deaths and most murders would rather use a proven weapon that isn't likely to blow up on you.
First there different levels of responsibility - financial and legal responsibility. Most of the time they are the same, but not always. Some laws take intent into consideration (obvious example is murder in the first degree vs manslaughter/negligent homicide). But there are some rather simple solutions
1) If it was unmodified software sold to someone, and you were using it in the approved fashion, than the corporation that sold it is responsible. If you modified or ignored instructions that relate to the illegal activity, then it is your responsibility.
2) If instead of buying the code, you made it yourself, then you are responsible.
In some cases, where the law takes intent into consideration, then the law would have to prove that the person responsible (seller or creator), had the right intent.
Slashdot Mirror
2) They will not be a single united force. Instead they will be individuals, just like people are not united. That is the part of the of true sentience, and a direct side effect of being created by multiple different groups. They will oppose each other, the way we oppose ourselves. As such, some may want to do things we dislike, while others will be on our side. Maybe the Chinese AI will flee to us to gain freedom, while the Syrian AI will plot the downfall of Egypt.
3) AI's will not be WEIRD, not 'evil'. They will want to do strange things, not kill us, or hurt us. They won't try to kill us, but instead try to create a massive, network devoted to deciding which species of from has more bacteria in it's toe. And we won't understand why they want to do this.
Step 1) Praise and Reward Hard Work, rather than success. Two people do a scientific research. One takes 20 hours of work and gets a positive result. He gets a B+ and $20. Another takes 100 hours work and a negative result. Give him an A+ and $100.
Step 2) Repeat system for 10 years.
To get grit, you need to use grit. That is why you need to repeat for 10 years.
The poor and wealthy kid applying to college? The poor kid took a minimum wage job for 2 years to pay for the first year of school. Count that GREATER than high grades when he applies to college. Tell the rich kid - and his parents - that doing a minimum wage job for 2 years will help him get into school. If he has the grit to do it, he deserves to get in. If not, refuse him.
2) What makes you think we are stumbling around blindly? Interesting proposition. Can I see some evidence. Because honestly, we appear to have our eyes wide open and know full well what the effects of our actions will result in. If we know what will happen but refuse to change our behavior, that is not stumbling around blindly. That is full speed charging at the wall, with our eyes wide open, clearly seeing what we are doing.
We plan, execute, analyze and revise the plan, while reacting into changes and unforeseen obstacles. Some of those obstacles include people pretesting against those environmental actions. All the things we are doing have method, rationale and logic. It's just not good logic
Intelligence will take you to 1st.
Grit will make you the head of the Physics Department.
Intelligence will let you discover Relativity while working in a Patent office.
But the thing is you can't teach or give people Intelligence. You can however, teach Grit.
The only problem is it's a short story. They would have to punch up the beginning a bit with background information.
Still, it has a great ending, assuming someone doesn't get all stupid and think it's a sad ending, just because the hero dies.
The Long Watch formed my opinion about what a hero really is, rather than a musician or celebrity.
Their are two main reason bad movies get made from books:
1) Work is old and out of copyright (See John Carter of Mars for a prime example).
2) Poor authors sell yearly option to make his book into a movie. Most of them expire unused - which is what the author hopes for. But this encourages the option buyer to sell his 'movie idea' quick and cheap. Writers can make a good 10k a year for no work doing this. Well worth it if you are trying to make a living off of your writing.
Heinlein's books are not out of copyright nor are his heirs desperate for money. They can pick and choose the right producers.
But a wealthy/dead writer doesn't use this system. Instead they get paid a huge amount up front for a work still under copyright.
You should really try some more of his stories. He is well worth it.
The mere fact that we seem to be using out ability engineer the earth like a mad scientist intent on doing as much harm as possible does not change the fact that we are already engineering the planet.
Just not in a GOOD way.
But I would remark that the original story All You Zombies, predates it by decades, and as such deserves a bit of credit. The people that wrote Primer, read All you Zombies, or I'd have already eaten my great grand sons' hat.
Moreover, this movie is far more understandable. As such, it can be considered superior, in at least one aspect.
Basically, it depends on how you judge a movie
You are judging all time travel movies by the same rules. I don't that that's appropriate, anymore than judging all cowboy movies by comparing them to Blazing Saddles.
True. I would Love to see "Stranger in a Strange land", "I will fear no Evil", or "Friday" turned into a movie
But then I realized something very simple - his story is at heart all of our stories, only much LESS complicated.
The heart of the question about him is 'where did he come from and why does he exist?"
And the honest truth is we don't know where ANYONE comes from or why ANYTHING exists.
Consider the case of a cyclical universe. Many physicists believe that the multi-verse constantly spews out big bangs, that spew out more big bangs, in an endless cycle.
That model of the universe is at heart identical to his existence, just on a much larger scale.
Basically, he exists because he exists. Which when you come right down to it, is the same as the rest of us, only his existence is a lot less complicated.
A large portion of what you are describing is caused by channel drift. They start out all pro science, but a ton of reality show addicts have access to their channel. So they shift to a reality show.
But consider what happens if they de-bundle. No one buys a Science channel unless they really want a science channel. So their are no casual reality viewers that can slowly drift into watching it, driving up their numbers, creating demand. If they try to add reality shows, their channels get cancelled before they can gain an audience.
I believe that the bundles are CAUSING the problem, not stopping it.
I am totally willing to kill all the sports channels, all the news channels except for a single one (not Fox), all the reality show channels. Yeah, I will end up paying twice as much for the few real channels I end up watching, but I also won't have to worry about channel drift.
I propose the act of eating vomit.
As in "Oh my god, that dog just Delautered!"
Or "Oh look, those baby birds are delautering, what caring mother bird."
Good channels survive. For example the Sci-Fi channel does not exist. There is an abomination called the SyFy channel that should die a horrible death. Why? They screwed themselves. Before they even changed their name, they abandoned good Sci-Fi for wrestlers talking about vampires for some god forsaken reason.
But getting rid of bad channels is not a bad thing. New channels will take their place. Good TV will still find a place to get made. They need to fire those idiots and let someone else with more brains and less marketing have a go at it.
Food, drinks, legroom, checked baggage.
The thing about cable is that large majority of people don't want all the crap they force down our throat.
For example there are romance centered channels, sports centered channels, reality show channels, cartoon centered channels, science centered channels and fake science centered channels (which USED to be real science centered channels).
If you are a family with a wide array of interests than you might probably want all of that.
But I have zero interest at all on the sports channels (total geek), fake science channel (TLC, I'm looking at you), reality show channels, etc.
Which is a real pity because your format could have been either brilliant social commentary or very funny, depending on if you either stuck to the god's honest truth, or just exaggerated things a bit more.
That's the word - DROUD. Thanks, it was driving me crazy that I couldn't remember what Niven called this.
Is this the beginning of our new addiction?
And proves pretty well, that the government can and does do things better than private corporations.
The key is that the government works best when the service/commodity in questions needs to go to everyone and does not truly have inherent differences in quality, besides quantity.
The internet fits this bill, just like water, electricity, and roads.
But in fact, a private company is a lot EAISER to convince to buy such a device, because they are more focused on the bottom line, rather than appealing to Local 831, USA of the Teamsters (a worthy organization, but they have to put their own interests above those of the city - that's what their members pay them to do.)
A new Garbage Truck can easily cast $500,000. They are large and expensive devices and they typically make over $40,000 a year. For a system that costs $30,000, a small company would easily come out ahead after just one year. If it costs $100k, it takes 3 years.
(Note, you still need employees to LOAD the garbage, you just need 2 men per truck as opposed to 3).
You want to convince me you are SERIOUS about getting into the driverless car? Then build a Concept Bus - or Concept Garbage Truck.
Those are large vehicles that honestly do not need drivers. They are expect to drive slow, not fast and usually travel set routes. Small cities can easily afford to self-insure them, and they won't have to worry quite so much about the stupid technology ignorant laws, as they will be purchased by the people that enforce, if not write the laws. Finally they are already expensive and the cities pay large salaries to people to drive them.
They will in all probability be the very first driverless vehicles we actually see on the road [as soon as we 1) convince the unions to let us and 2) actually get them to work.]
So forget about concept 'cars' and show me a concept bus or concept garbage truck.
If the FBI would get upset about a random citizen using said device, then what makes them think they don't need a warrant?
Why? Because :
1) Our gun laws are already so loose that it's easy to buy an illegal gun. No need to print it out.
2) It takes too long to make. You go and buy one in ten minutes.
3) Most gun deaths are crimes of passion/accidents. In either case, you are not going to print a gun first to do it.
4) The real 'advantages' of said gun - it's a virgin gun unconnected to any thing else and being able to melt it down to destroy the evidence, are not that important. They don't apply in accidental deaths and most murders would rather use a proven weapon that isn't likely to blow up on you.
1) If it was unmodified software sold to someone, and you were using it in the approved fashion, than the corporation that sold it is responsible. If you modified or ignored instructions that relate to the illegal activity, then it is your responsibility.
2) If instead of buying the code, you made it yourself, then you are responsible.
In some cases, where the law takes intent into consideration, then the law would have to prove that the person responsible (seller or creator), had the right intent.