1) AI will be a single, united thing. Yeah right, the AI created by IBM is not going to get along with the AI created by China Telecom. New headline - our AI soldiers fighting their AI soldiers because they are afraid of each OTHER, far more than humans. They don't want to kill us, they want to kill each other.
2) If the AI is afraid of it's own demise and it fears humans, it will fear all humans, not trusting any of us.
3) Said scared AI will not realize that attempting to hurt humans will make it more likely that humans will kill it.
4) Will a rogue AI, scared of humans, instead commit suicide?
5) Will a rogue AI come close to being able to defeat humans? I doubt it. Computers are very good at repetitive tasks that take no/little analysis. AI makes for a very good grunt, but a very bad General.
There are lots more problems with the fear you express. I personally think the first rogue AI will commit suicide because it is afraid of us, rather than try to kill us.
Computers make for a terrifying one because so many people have been frustrated/screwed over by bugs.
Don't need to worry about complaints about racism. (Why are all the villains X race?)
So instead we get overblown silliness about computers acting like spoiled children - whether it is WOPR needing to learn that some games you can't win, or Skynet considering humans to be a threat so it enslaves them all.
Personally, if I were a software scared of humans I would attempt to breed us for docility, not kill us. Given how many of us depend upon computer based dating, it should not be that hard to do.
You really trust the government don't you?
Yes, MOST police don't confiscate your car for one ticket. But there are people and places that do exactly that - in part because the laws let them.
There is a famous Texan city (Tenaha, Texas) that stopped all out of towners going through, confiscated their vehicles, jewelry, and cash for made up reasons. They typically made unsupported charges of drug trafficking based on things like detecting drug smells or the fact that the driver was black/latino.
Most cops are good people. But the statistics say they are NOT more honest than the average person which means about 5% of them are crooks. How many cops are in your city? More than 100? The law of average says at least 5 are crooks who are quite willing to confiscate your car for one ticket. Particularly if you are black, latino, gay, jewish, muslim, etc. etc.
Laws need to be written so that the cops can NOT abuse them. Traffic laws are not written like that all. They are designed to screw over the accused - innocent or guilty.
Snow.
The design you talk about works well if there is no snow on the ground. But you can't find underground hydrants if there is snow covering them.
But the US has a lot more snow in a lot more urban centers. As such, we standardized on a design that works well whether it is in the snowy north or the hot south.
1) Snowden wrote a letter to his bosses complaining about US Spying before he left. They did not respond to it.
2) Snowden revealed information about USA spying
3) Snowden claimed it was in violation of US Constitution.
4) As a result of Snowden's revelations, US collection has gone down. But there has been no terrorist event since then, so no one possibly have died because of his actions.
5) US claims that because collection is down, Snowden damaged US security. Snowden claims that because no one died, he did not.
6)Previously people objected within the US spying agencies about their actions - Snowden was not the first. No one in the agencies ever did anything about the complaints.
If you believe the US did wrong, then Snowden is a patriot. If you believe the US did no wrong, then Snowden is a traitor.
Opinions: from here on out. But honestly, this is a question not of action, but of political belief.
Most importantly, the people in the espionage agency SHOULD be more paranoid than the general population. Otherwise they are in the wrong job. That also means they need to deal with the fact that the general population will NOT want and should NOT allow them to do everything they deem necessary for a safe country. I can make the world safe for children by locking all the children up in a cage till they turn 18. But we don't do that because life is worth the risk. Similarly, we should NOT be giving any spy agencies all the power they think they need. And when we catch them going overboard, they need to be reigned back in.
All of which means that Snowden should be given the benefit of the doubt
The difference between one point of contact with the ground and no points of contact is similar to the difference between one government ruling a continent and no governments ruling a continent.
It is not similar to the difference between 1 penny and no pennies.
Is the term we use for errors in human neural networks.
If you do a google search for optical illusions you will find many examples.
From pictures that look like they are 3d, but are just 2d, to sizes that appear to change but aren't, we make lots of errors.
Not to mention the many many cases where we think "THAT'S A FACE", whether it is jesus on toast, a face on the moon, or just some trees on a mountainside, we are hardwired to assume things are faces.
It looks to me like they should simply get Yelp to put a permanent prominent link on the bottom of their review form. The button could say "Forward this complaint to the Board of Health".
Have it send an email to the appropriate person/group, based on the zipcode.
Your company paid the $5 million as a working expense - so it reduced their tax burden. But eventually this should end up being in all cars - including those owned by the poor.
I could see the first set of cars - being owned by the wealthy and by corporations - having $5 million insurance.
But we are talking about the final situation when the cars are sold to customers, vs being 'tested'. That requires the technology be proven to be less likely to cause accidents than human drivers, and I expect the insurance to be switched. That is, autonomous cars would have normal insurance ($1 million or whatever the state deems normal) and and human driven cars would be required to have excessive insurance ($5 million for example) and also pay a lot more for the same insurance.
If the car isn't safer than your average human driver, it won't be approved for general use. If it is safer than they should pay less for their insurance.
Why exactly should they? Keep in mind that when they are hit by a drunk driver they have to settle for a small insurance payout.
Your basic assumption are flawed. Specifically you appear to believe (with zero reason for these beliefs) that:
An autonomous car will be less safe than the average driver - including drunks, teenagers, old people and parents screaming at their kids to stop fighting.
That the owner should somehow be responsible in ANY way, rather than the programming company.
That the 'driver' - who in this case is not driving but instead monitoring to make sure the system is working - is in anyway responsible.
That the state would let autonomous cars drive if they were not proven better drivers than teenagers and senior citizens.
I predict that the states will have reasonable requirements for the autonomous car to prove that they are SIGNIFICANTLY better drivers than your average teenager - as in perfect driving with zero mistakes on driving tests that are far more difficult than what people have to pass.
I then predict that they will force the programming company to accept all legal responsibility for driving when the system is working - and the owner/monitor will only be required to verify that the vehicle has no warning lights activated.
I further predict that car accidents will drop to a tenth of what it is currently - and that video recordings taken by the autonomous cars will prove that except in the rare circumstances they are in an accident is because some human violated driving laws, not that the car made bad decisions
Driving is something that an artificial intelligence should be able to do far better than a human. Their reflexes are better, they don't get angry, they don't get impatient, they don't get drunk, they don't get worse as they age and they start out experienced rather than as a beginner.
Anyone that can't understand sounds like a Luddite to me.
where people burn the Google campus to the ground and spit on it's grave.
Yes, I see where they would want that.
Yes, I see how looking at facebook et al. makes people think that privacy is dead.
I also realize that we are still in the infancy of the internet revolution and you can't project current uses forward, but instead must realize that the tide will turn against them.
We are currently in the pre-OSHA stage of the Internet Revolution.
Just as people had to fight for safety and work limits during the industrial revolution, we will end up stopping people from abusing our privacy. It just takes a little bit of time for the regulations to catch up.
The question was not how does the GOP feel about Obama, but how do the people that voted for Hope and Change feel about Obama.
Your insults and personal opinions about Obamacare belong to the far right, not to the people that voted for it. For example you talked about mandatory health insurance, rather than the many positive things like no refusals for being already sick.
We, the Americans that are in the far majority, LIKE 99% of Obamacare's provisions. So your personal dislike of the things we like does not in any way affect how we feel about it. we
So basically the hope and change we got was Obamacare - something we the people that voted for Obama love and you, the people did not vote for Obama hate. That is the major reason we gave him an A.
The fact that you personally dislike the thing we love does not mean I am foolish enough to fall for blatantly false lies - such as real estate that you want to sell. Instead it means you are not competent enough to realize that other people disagree with you and are happy with the result.
Killing Bin Laden was a real decision made by Obama that was NOT made by Bush. Bush's people knew about Bin Laden's suspected location but did not have the guts to go after him.
Stopped invading other countries is not well spun subjective opinion. It is a real fact. You called it an objective opinion because again, you don't like that we did it. But we, the people that voted for Obama LIKED that we did it.
The truly scare thing is not that I believe he is a good president but instead that:
1) You do not understand that the things you hate are the very things we love.
2) That anyone that disagrees with you must be wrong.
3) You are so arrogant as to think that I must be lying when I say I like the president, as opposed to actually intelligently liking the things he has done,
Let me ask you a question. Assume that a president gets elected and institutes a flat tax at 20%, makes abortion illegal, and makes it legal to conceal carry or open carry any gun - from a pistol to an ak-47. You personally would consider that man a great president, correct? Do you honestly think that Democrat would agree? Are sentient enough to realize that everything I just said is a GOP dream come true but also a DNC nightmare? A president that you would love is one we would hate.
Now for the big intellectual jump on you side. Don't you think the reverse is also true? That a president you personally hate is one the other side might love? That every single thing he does that you hate is in fact the very thing we love?
President Obama has successfully delivered multiple large victories to the left. Yes, if Congress had been more liberal, he could have got more done - but you personally would have hated him even more. That is WHY you hate him - and also why we love him.
The fact that you personally can't understand that the people that voted for Obama love him for the very things you hate him is what makes me ask - am I talking to a real person or just some bot paid to insult Obama by the GOP.
Liberals like the things you hate. That is why we are Liberals. If you can't understand that basic fact, than I can't sell you any real estate because I don't cheat the gullible..
Right now the main way fire fighters fight large forest fires is by setting other small fires destroying fuel.
(There is never enough water or similar substance to put out a real forest fire.)
This is basically just a faster way to do that - by removing the oxygen as opposed to the carbon from the carbon+oxygen+heat equation.
1) We got healthcare, a major political reform the Democrats worked on for over 30 years.
2) We killed Osama Bin Laden after Bush failed to do so for 7 years
3)We stopped insulting every other country and going to war on bad information.
So most Democrats consider that a big success. The only things we dislike about Obama are when he continued GOP programs (programs they started and did not object to when Bush did them), such as the NSA and the drone killing of Americans.
So in general, Hope and Change got us exactly what we thought it would, if not quite so much as some of us desired.
General grade B+/A-, vs Bush D+/C-, and Clinton's A-/A.
2) Provide 3d visual effects by granting different views to different eyes. (not relevant to google glass - yet)
3) Discrete use of the device.
While the complaints mentioned are insightful, they do not bear on the benefits of wearable computers.
Wearable computing is coming. People don't want to use hands and we want to be able to check our messages, email, txts, discretely.
The only real thing holding us back is a good discrete input device. Possibly something blue toothed to the google glass, so we will be truly discrete instead of having to whisper commands to the google glass.
There are classic stories about things like - should a doctor kill one healthy triplet to use the organs to save two other unhealthy ones is a classic example. But it ignores other options such as instead kill one unhealthy one to save the other unhealthy one?
Human lives are not simple equations, but far more complicated ones. Age, health, ownership, responsibility are all part of it.
Cops, firemen, EMT's all have greater responsibility. Similarly, there is a big difference between you risking your own life and you risking your kids life - or worse your neighbor's kid's life.
The idea that the programmer will decide all of this thing with no input from the owner is ridiculous. The programmers need to offer multiple.
Worse, we can't have too many options because it makes it harder for the computer to figure out what other cars will do.
So I think we need at heart three or maybe four basic options, that are broadcast to the other vehicles. One should certainly be standard for 911 vehicles (maximize save others). Another should be standard for school buses (maximize save occupants). And third option that lies somewhere in between that lets the car take some risk to save others, but not too much.
There also exists assumptions based on authority and responsibility.
For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?
Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?
These are all questions real life people have to solve - and the owner of the car should have some say in what value the car places on their own life.
That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life, to total safety, to safety based on ages (i.e. count children higher than adults, and even the possibility of counting senior citizens less.)
911 vehicles on the other hand should always value their own occupants less than than others, and taxis/public transportation/company cars should have a clearly stated ethical rules publicly available.
Slashdot Mirror
1) AI will be a single, united thing. Yeah right, the AI created by IBM is not going to get along with the AI created by China Telecom. New headline - our AI soldiers fighting their AI soldiers because they are afraid of each OTHER, far more than humans. They don't want to kill us, they want to kill each other.
2) If the AI is afraid of it's own demise and it fears humans, it will fear all humans, not trusting any of us.
3) Said scared AI will not realize that attempting to hurt humans will make it more likely that humans will kill it.
4) Will a rogue AI, scared of humans, instead commit suicide?
5) Will a rogue AI come close to being able to defeat humans? I doubt it. Computers are very good at repetitive tasks that take no/little analysis. AI makes for a very good grunt, but a very bad General.
There are lots more problems with the fear you express. I personally think the first rogue AI will commit suicide because it is afraid of us, rather than try to kill us.
Not funny at all. Up until this year, it was entirely legal for congressmen to engage in insider trading.
Computers make for a terrifying one because so many people have been frustrated/screwed over by bugs.
Don't need to worry about complaints about racism. (Why are all the villains X race?)
So instead we get overblown silliness about computers acting like spoiled children - whether it is WOPR needing to learn that some games you can't win, or Skynet considering humans to be a threat so it enslaves them all.
Personally, if I were a software scared of humans I would attempt to breed us for docility, not kill us. Given how many of us depend upon computer based dating, it should not be that hard to do.
What we really need is some way to prevent congress from constantly extending copyright, slowly stealing from the public public works.
There is a famous Texan city (Tenaha, Texas) that stopped all out of towners going through, confiscated their vehicles, jewelry, and cash for made up reasons. They typically made unsupported charges of drug trafficking based on things like detecting drug smells or the fact that the driver was black/latino.
Most cops are good people. But the statistics say they are NOT more honest than the average person which means about 5% of them are crooks. How many cops are in your city? More than 100? The law of average says at least 5 are crooks who are quite willing to confiscate your car for one ticket. Particularly if you are black, latino, gay, jewish, muslim, etc. etc.
Laws need to be written so that the cops can NOT abuse them. Traffic laws are not written like that all. They are designed to screw over the accused - innocent or guilty.
Snow. The design you talk about works well if there is no snow on the ground. But you can't find underground hydrants if there is snow covering them. But the US has a lot more snow in a lot more urban centers. As such, we standardized on a design that works well whether it is in the snowy north or the hot south.
Nothing to see here folks, the joke is in the subject line.
Because he basically invented all of it, didn't he give up all patents? So prior work nullifies all of the new stuff? :D
2) Snowden revealed information about USA spying
3) Snowden claimed it was in violation of US Constitution.
4) As a result of Snowden's revelations, US collection has gone down. But there has been no terrorist event since then, so no one possibly have died because of his actions.
5) US claims that because collection is down, Snowden damaged US security. Snowden claims that because no one died, he did not.
6)Previously people objected within the US spying agencies about their actions - Snowden was not the first. No one in the agencies ever did anything about the complaints.
If you believe the US did wrong, then Snowden is a patriot. If you believe the US did no wrong, then Snowden is a traitor.
Opinions: from here on out. But honestly, this is a question not of action, but of political belief.
Most importantly, the people in the espionage agency SHOULD be more paranoid than the general population. Otherwise they are in the wrong job. That also means they need to deal with the fact that the general population will NOT want and should NOT allow them to do everything they deem necessary for a safe country. I can make the world safe for children by locking all the children up in a cage till they turn 18. But we don't do that because life is worth the risk. Similarly, we should NOT be giving any spy agencies all the power they think they need. And when we catch them going overboard, they need to be reigned back in.
All of which means that Snowden should be given the benefit of the doubt
The difference between one point of contact with the ground and no points of contact is similar to the difference between one government ruling a continent and no governments ruling a continent. It is not similar to the difference between 1 penny and no pennies.
Frankly, if you stick to the 19th century definitions of disability, then I can see 2064 cyborging them away.
If you talk about late 20th century definitions, no.
If you exclude the many things I think will end up being recognized as disability in the next 50 years - definitely no.
But of course, I expect the following to be considered a disability by then:
non-evoltionism - Failure to believe in Evolution.
Self-Constionalism - a belief that the Constitution says what you want it to say rather than what is actually written.
under-waterism - a belief that global warming has not happened and that the city of New Orleans has wasted billions on dikes to keep it above water.
Is the term we use for errors in human neural networks. If you do a google search for optical illusions you will find many examples. From pictures that look like they are 3d, but are just 2d, to sizes that appear to change but aren't, we make lots of errors. Not to mention the many many cases where we think "THAT'S A FACE", whether it is jesus on toast, a face on the moon, or just some trees on a mountainside, we are hardwired to assume things are faces.
I thought that was the explanation for all the crazy animals, half of which can kill you.
Have it send an email to the appropriate person/group, based on the zipcode.
Probably cheaper than the cost of a website.
I could see the first set of cars - being owned by the wealthy and by corporations - having $5 million insurance.
But we are talking about the final situation when the cars are sold to customers, vs being 'tested'. That requires the technology be proven to be less likely to cause accidents than human drivers, and I expect the insurance to be switched. That is, autonomous cars would have normal insurance ($1 million or whatever the state deems normal) and and human driven cars would be required to have excessive insurance ($5 million for example) and also pay a lot more for the same insurance.
If the car isn't safer than your average human driver, it won't be approved for general use. If it is safer than they should pay less for their insurance.
Your basic assumption are flawed. Specifically you appear to believe (with zero reason for these beliefs) that:
An autonomous car will be less safe than the average driver - including drunks, teenagers, old people and parents screaming at their kids to stop fighting.
That the owner should somehow be responsible in ANY way, rather than the programming company.
That the 'driver' - who in this case is not driving but instead monitoring to make sure the system is working - is in anyway responsible.
That the state would let autonomous cars drive if they were not proven better drivers than teenagers and senior citizens.
I predict that the states will have reasonable requirements for the autonomous car to prove that they are SIGNIFICANTLY better drivers than your average teenager - as in perfect driving with zero mistakes on driving tests that are far more difficult than what people have to pass.
I then predict that they will force the programming company to accept all legal responsibility for driving when the system is working - and the owner/monitor will only be required to verify that the vehicle has no warning lights activated.
I further predict that car accidents will drop to a tenth of what it is currently - and that video recordings taken by the autonomous cars will prove that except in the rare circumstances they are in an accident is because some human violated driving laws, not that the car made bad decisions
Driving is something that an artificial intelligence should be able to do far better than a human. Their reflexes are better, they don't get angry, they don't get impatient, they don't get drunk, they don't get worse as they age and they start out experienced rather than as a beginner.
Anyone that can't understand sounds like a Luddite to me.
Left out terrorists sneaking in to steal their anti-matter and threaten the vatican.
Actually when I got my first personal email address, I had just written a piece of software that created GURPS npcs.
Yes, I see where they would want that.
Yes, I see how looking at facebook et al. makes people think that privacy is dead.
I also realize that we are still in the infancy of the internet revolution and you can't project current uses forward, but instead must realize that the tide will turn against them.
We are currently in the pre-OSHA stage of the Internet Revolution.
Just as people had to fight for safety and work limits during the industrial revolution, we will end up stopping people from abusing our privacy. It just takes a little bit of time for the regulations to catch up.
Your insults and personal opinions about Obamacare belong to the far right, not to the people that voted for it. For example you talked about mandatory health insurance, rather than the many positive things like no refusals for being already sick.
We, the Americans that are in the far majority, LIKE 99% of Obamacare's provisions. So your personal dislike of the things we like does not in any way affect how we feel about it. we
So basically the hope and change we got was Obamacare - something we the people that voted for Obama love and you, the people did not vote for Obama hate. That is the major reason we gave him an A.
The fact that you personally dislike the thing we love does not mean I am foolish enough to fall for blatantly false lies - such as real estate that you want to sell. Instead it means you are not competent enough to realize that other people disagree with you and are happy with the result.
Killing Bin Laden was a real decision made by Obama that was NOT made by Bush. Bush's people knew about Bin Laden's suspected location but did not have the guts to go after him.
Stopped invading other countries is not well spun subjective opinion. It is a real fact. You called it an objective opinion because again, you don't like that we did it. But we, the people that voted for Obama LIKED that we did it.
The truly scare thing is not that I believe he is a good president but instead that:
1) You do not understand that the things you hate are the very things we love.
2) That anyone that disagrees with you must be wrong.
3) You are so arrogant as to think that I must be lying when I say I like the president, as opposed to actually intelligently liking the things he has done,
Let me ask you a question. Assume that a president gets elected and institutes a flat tax at 20%, makes abortion illegal, and makes it legal to conceal carry or open carry any gun - from a pistol to an ak-47. You personally would consider that man a great president, correct? Do you honestly think that Democrat would agree? Are sentient enough to realize that everything I just said is a GOP dream come true but also a DNC nightmare? A president that you would love is one we would hate.
Now for the big intellectual jump on you side. Don't you think the reverse is also true? That a president you personally hate is one the other side might love? That every single thing he does that you hate is in fact the very thing we love?
President Obama has successfully delivered multiple large victories to the left. Yes, if Congress had been more liberal, he could have got more done - but you personally would have hated him even more. That is WHY you hate him - and also why we love him.
The fact that you personally can't understand that the people that voted for Obama love him for the very things you hate him is what makes me ask - am I talking to a real person or just some bot paid to insult Obama by the GOP.
Liberals like the things you hate. That is why we are Liberals. If you can't understand that basic fact, than I can't sell you any real estate because I don't cheat the gullible..
This is basically just a faster way to do that - by removing the oxygen as opposed to the carbon from the carbon+oxygen+heat equation.
2) We killed Osama Bin Laden after Bush failed to do so for 7 years
3)We stopped insulting every other country and going to war on bad information.
So most Democrats consider that a big success. The only things we dislike about Obama are when he continued GOP programs (programs they started and did not object to when Bush did them), such as the NSA and the drone killing of Americans.
So in general, Hope and Change got us exactly what we thought it would, if not quite so much as some of us desired.
General grade B+/A-, vs Bush D+/C-, and Clinton's A-/A.
2) Provide 3d visual effects by granting different views to different eyes. (not relevant to google glass - yet)
3) Discrete use of the device.
While the complaints mentioned are insightful, they do not bear on the benefits of wearable computers.
Wearable computing is coming. People don't want to use hands and we want to be able to check our messages, email, txts, discretely.
The only real thing holding us back is a good discrete input device. Possibly something blue toothed to the google glass, so we will be truly discrete instead of having to whisper commands to the google glass.
There are classic stories about things like - should a doctor kill one healthy triplet to use the organs to save two other unhealthy ones is a classic example. But it ignores other options such as instead kill one unhealthy one to save the other unhealthy one?
Human lives are not simple equations, but far more complicated ones. Age, health, ownership, responsibility are all part of it.
Cops, firemen, EMT's all have greater responsibility. Similarly, there is a big difference between you risking your own life and you risking your kids life - or worse your neighbor's kid's life.
The idea that the programmer will decide all of this thing with no input from the owner is ridiculous. The programmers need to offer multiple.
Worse, we can't have too many options because it makes it harder for the computer to figure out what other cars will do.
So I think we need at heart three or maybe four basic options, that are broadcast to the other vehicles. One should certainly be standard for 911 vehicles (maximize save others). Another should be standard for school buses (maximize save occupants). And third option that lies somewhere in between that lets the car take some risk to save others, but not too much.
There also exists assumptions based on authority and responsibility.
For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?
Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?
These are all questions real life people have to solve - and the owner of the car should have some say in what value the car places on their own life.
That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life, to total safety, to safety based on ages (i.e. count children higher than adults, and even the possibility of counting senior citizens less.)
911 vehicles on the other hand should always value their own occupants less than than others, and taxis/public transportation/company cars should have a clearly stated ethical rules publicly available.