Software tackling certain problems which are easy for humans but hard for computers,
That's the most "moving goalposts" definition of something I've read all day. You do realize that chess used to be (relatively) easy for humans, and extremely hard for computers, and nowadays, you can download free chess programs that run on commodity computers and can be all but the most exceptional human chess players? When computers can do something that was hard for them before, and then it becomes commonplace for computers to do it, is it no longer AI?
Please, tell us a substantial definition if you have problems with how everyone is using the term. This weird subjective thing you've presented has no place as a CS definition.
What, specifically, does "AI" mean, and how does it differ from any software which uses an "if" statement? If you use other non-obvious terms, such as "think," please define them, as well.
Why don't you look at a crowd-sourced definition, and fight your weird little "bad mood" thing in the discussion page there? Face it, in a very real sense, AI is used in the world around us, and the fact that it is used in UAVs by the military should come as no surprise to any person interested in general technology (i.e. slashdot user).
Not everyone subscribes to the materialist worldview, and not everyone is willing to make the assumptions that are needed in order to honestly believe in it.
Assumptions? By assumptions I'm *assuming* you mean lack of assumptions. Materialists say, "We'll believe it when we see it". Dualists say, "We don't understand it so it must be unexplainable physically". The dualist *assumes* that somethings will *never* be explained via the physical world. That seems like the height of egocentric foolishness, especially as we have seen science explain the "unexplainable" time and time again.
Re:A little story in how this is dangerous
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
My main argument though is the lack of genetic diversity which I think would be very worrying.
Which is, albeit a pessamistic viewpoint in my opinion, one that can be justified. That's why I didn't comment on that, and just commented that your fear of a lack of street sweepers and janitors is both technologically and socially cynical. Statements like what you lead with here continue in that cynical vein.
Really? Then why is it the UK and the US have large numbers of immigrants entering the country to perform jobs that the un-modified local population will not do?
What evidence can you present of jobs that are done *exclusively* by immigrants, and never by the population that has forgotten they are immigrants? People do what needs to be done when they need money. Even if robotics can't sweep streets (and man is not meant to go to the moon, so we never will), people will continue to do the jobs that need to be done because they will be paid to do those jobs. Or do you live in a world where everyone does whatever they want, and they can still pay rent, utilities, food costs, medical fees, entertainment costs, and so on, whether or not they get a pay check?
Re:A little story in how this is dangerous
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Amazingly I have heard of robotics. I've never yet heard of a robotic road sweeper or janitor that can perform all the tasks of a human one though (and no a Roomba does NOT count!). I'm not saying that we'll never get there it just that I don't know when we will.
It's pretty pessimistic of you to freely speculate about future possible problems from genetic changes, and then be unwilling to look at the direction that robotics is clearly headed in. I know I tend to be optimistic, but I think you've jumped onto a cynical train here.
Frankly, your claim that genetically selected people won't be willing to do what work needs to be done is highly suspect, and so is your solution that we must keep humanity from becoming too good to do the basic service jobs, as if we could never figure out another way to clean streets or offices.
Re:A little story in how this is dangerous
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the social problems of trying to find a road sweeper or janitor when we are all giving birth to baby Einsteins.
With 4 tens, I get every friday off. As far as being pulled in on other days, it depends on whether your manager is an ethical person who respects their employees or not. You are the only one who knows enough to tell that, and a bunch of slashdot pundits won't help.
Seriously, you think mammoth meat probably smelled and tasted like Limburger cheese because a guy stuck horsemeat in a pond for months, and then it smelled and tasted like Limburger? A couple of clues as to where you might have gone wrong - fresh horsemeat does not taste or smell like Limburger, and mammoth meat probably did not require long term pond storage before it could be eaten.
You win the award for being the writer of the dumbest post I've read all day. The GP post's point was that he *can* trust ATMs, but *can't* trust voting machines, even though they deal with technically similar problems of trust, privacy, and accountability.
I'm curious. Let's say ChoicePoint decides they'd like to do more business. So what they decide to do is establish a website called ReportOnConsumers.com. Where anyone can upload a document about anyone. Of course they want to make it possible for people to properly police their information and control who gets access to it, so they provide a nice email where all you have to do is drop them a line proving that you're the person identified in a particular posting and they'll go ahead and remove it. Of course anyone can reupload it immediately. All you have to do to control it is continually review every posted report and submit a proper takedown request.
Still think like the idea of the responsibility being yours? Worst analogy ever. Are you honestly comparing Viacom's ability to monitor content and the grandparent poster's ability as a single person? You lose your analogy card. If you want it back, you need pay a fee and go back to Rhetoric School.
the Holy Roman Empire. (Which wasn't holy, roman, nor had more than a forgery as a claim to call itself an empire Was your high school World History teacher named Gillette, or is this just a really common history teacher/history buff phrase about the Holy Roman Empire?
The fan turns with the wind. The cable is wound around the pole as the wind direction changes. The direction that the wind changes in doesn't guarantee that it will reverse this winding.
We use analogies to explain something people don't understand by using something they are familiar with. If you hate arguments by analogy, you simply hate people who don't have the same knowledge set as you.
Now, arguments by analogy can and are often abused, and analogies are easy to overextend, but basic logic and common sense are tools in preventing these problems. Maybe you hate logic and common sense, too. I don't know. Understanding your position is like...
Why are there so many Luddites on slashdot? Computers do certain things extremely well, people! And no, I don't want to hear about this or that piece of consumer electronics failing, or some past improbable failing - that type of argument does not dissuade me from knowing that systems can be made rigorously and work in critical situations. As a matter of fact, computers routinely handle all sorts of critical systems continuously, without failure. Critical computer failures are the exception in rigorously engineered applications, not the norm. Conversely, human have a much higher failure rate.
"Can he produce energy from the closed system and charge a batter? " Usually the batter charges the pitcher. Wait. We either have electric cake, or cake that electrifies the juice?
3. There should be an ICANN website where you veto typosquatters - that is, the squatter sites would be removed from the TLD as soon as they get enough votes. How many votes does the botnet have to place before a targeted site is dropped?
It's cheap, sounds cheap, but it won't die. it's been dropped (hard) numerous times, exposed to harsh conditions, nothing seems to stop it. Worst it gets is needing a little bit of pot cleaning every few years.
Also, my Kenwood KR-4130 Stereo Reciever - I don't know how old it is, I just know I got it second hand 12 years ago, and I've dropped it, left it outside for months, and then left it powered on for years to drive speakers, headphones, whatever. It's heavier than air, but it still works and sounds heavenly!
Re:My top annoyance with Vista? It ain't in the OS
on
Windows Vista Annoyances
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I dunno - there's at least three magic copies, then, because I'm running a pain-free one at home (Ultimate), and at work (Business), which I use heavily, and I haven't run into any big annoyances at all.
Oh, and to all you UAC haters, I actually like it. You all probably surfed the net with admin privileges on XP and thought you were secure because you use firefox. Not so, pineapple man! UAC works well, and is not intrusive. I only get prompts with (un)installs and serious configuration changes, but not in my daily use.
Ok, let's review the discussion. A poster points out that you vote for electors, who behave and vote according to the mandate of those who elected them to the college. Anything else would be flagrant and obvious. Alright, we'll review, (please don't take this the wrong way...) since your reading comprehension is low today - the original post I responded to:
While the EC may do the actual voting, I sincerely doubt they would actively vote against the populace of the state. So long as the votes of the citizens is accurate, any countermanding by the EC would be blatant and visible, and (hopefully) swiftly corrected. Then you say:
You respond that the poster is naive, and seem to think that there is some systemic chicanery in the electoral college. So, for the sake of clarity, I will quote my whole previous post:
You're right where they want you.
I mean, you still think votes count! That's amazing enough, but even more astounding is that you think there are good faith actors in power who would be willing to risk their own necks to refranchise the masses.
I'm tired of it all. Electronic, paper, centralized counting or decentralized counting, it can all be secure and auditable, or insecure and fraud-riddled. Guess which type benefits the people in power more? If you think secure and auditable, you're scoring pretty high on the naivometer. See, the crux of your confusion is that you think I'm talking specifically about the EC. When I say systemic, I refer to the "democratic" process, top to bottom. I was responding to all three points by the original poster:
1.So long as the votes of the citizens is accurate,
2. any countermanding by the EC would be blatant and visible, 3. and (hopefully) swiftly corrected. And my response was to all three things: 1. I don't think the powerful will ever put secure and auditable voting into place, whether via paper or digital, so I don't think that the votes of the citizens will be accurately counted and reported to the general public. 2. I think that the EC is just one tool in a long chain of vote laundering machinery that *ensures* that if the powerful countermand the vote of the citizenry it would not be blatant and visible. 3. I do not think there are any good faith actors who know about the corruption who are willing to risk their own power, lives, and all that, to expose any chicanery.
I'm ignoring everything after the first four sentences of your post, because I honestly don't believe what you seem to think I believe in your statements from sentence 5 on.
You assume a lot. In addition to your assumption that I will provide proof for a specific scenario laid out according to your interesting rules, you assume that such events will be flagrant and singular (that is, not systemic). I don't consider those to be safe assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Those of us who are creators are very alarmed by statements like this.
How many of us creators have you talked before making blanket statements about how we feel about things?
Correction, should be
can beat all but the most exceptional human chess players
That's the most "moving goalposts" definition of something I've read all day. You do realize that chess used to be (relatively) easy for humans, and extremely hard for computers, and nowadays, you can download free chess programs that run on commodity computers and can be all but the most exceptional human chess players? When computers can do something that was hard for them before, and then it becomes commonplace for computers to do it, is it no longer AI?
Please, tell us a substantial definition if you have problems with how everyone is using the term. This weird subjective thing you've presented has no place as a CS definition.
Why don't you look at a crowd-sourced definition, and fight your weird little "bad mood" thing in the discussion page there? Face it, in a very real sense, AI is used in the world around us, and the fact that it is used in UAVs by the military should come as no surprise to any person interested in general technology (i.e. slashdot user).
Not everyone subscribes to the materialist worldview, and not everyone is willing to make the assumptions that are needed in order to honestly believe in it.
Assumptions? By assumptions I'm *assuming* you mean lack of assumptions. Materialists say, "We'll believe it when we see it". Dualists say, "We don't understand it so it must be unexplainable physically". The dualist *assumes* that somethings will *never* be explained via the physical world. That seems like the height of egocentric foolishness, especially as we have seen science explain the "unexplainable" time and time again.
Which is, albeit a pessamistic viewpoint in my opinion, one that can be justified. That's why I didn't comment on that, and just commented that your fear of a lack of street sweepers and janitors is both technologically and socially cynical. Statements like what you lead with here continue in that cynical vein.
What evidence can you present of jobs that are done *exclusively* by immigrants, and never by the population that has forgotten they are immigrants? People do what needs to be done when they need money. Even if robotics can't sweep streets (and man is not meant to go to the moon, so we never will), people will continue to do the jobs that need to be done because they will be paid to do those jobs. Or do you live in a world where everyone does whatever they want, and they can still pay rent, utilities, food costs, medical fees, entertainment costs, and so on, whether or not they get a pay check?
It's pretty pessimistic of you to freely speculate about future possible problems from genetic changes, and then be unwilling to look at the direction that robotics is clearly headed in. I know I tend to be optimistic, but I think you've jumped onto a cynical train here.
Frankly, your claim that genetically selected people won't be willing to do what work needs to be done is highly suspect, and so is your solution that we must keep humanity from becoming too good to do the basic service jobs, as if we could never figure out another way to clean streets or offices.
You've never heard of robotics, have you? This guy name Asimov coined the term, but I'm sure it will never work out in the real world, so never mind.
I'm intrigued. How will this concept scale?
My coworker points out that this idea doesn't have any legs to stand on.
Oh - my boss said that this bites.
With 4 tens, I get every friday off. As far as being pulled in on other days, it depends on whether your manager is an ethical person who respects their employees or not. You are the only one who knows enough to tell that, and a bunch of slashdot pundits won't help.
Seriously, you think mammoth meat probably smelled and tasted like Limburger cheese because a guy stuck horsemeat in a pond for months, and then it smelled and tasted like Limburger? A couple of clues as to where you might have gone wrong - fresh horsemeat does not taste or smell like Limburger, and mammoth meat probably did not require long term pond storage before it could be eaten.
Would you still trust the ATM?
You win the award for being the writer of the dumbest post I've read all day. The GP post's point was that he *can* trust ATMs, but *can't* trust voting machines, even though they deal with technically similar problems of trust, privacy, and accountability.
Would mods still mod you insightful?
Well, I hear there are some crazy ones on slashdot. I'm not sure where, though.
Ah, makes sense - it was eerily reminiscent of my high school World History teacher's "Holy Roman Empire" catch phrase.
The fan turns with the wind. The cable is wound around the pole as the wind direction changes. The direction that the wind changes in doesn't guarantee that it will reverse this winding.
We use analogies to explain something people don't understand by using something they are familiar with. If you hate arguments by analogy, you simply hate people who don't have the same knowledge set as you.
...
Now, arguments by analogy can and are often abused, and analogies are easy to overextend, but basic logic and common sense are tools in preventing these problems. Maybe you hate logic and common sense, too. I don't know. Understanding your position is like
Why are there so many Luddites on slashdot? Computers do certain things extremely well, people! And no, I don't want to hear about this or that piece of consumer electronics failing, or some past improbable failing - that type of argument does not dissuade me from knowing that systems can be made rigorously and work in critical situations. As a matter of fact, computers routinely handle all sorts of critical systems continuously, without failure. Critical computer failures are the exception in rigorously engineered applications, not the norm. Conversely, human have a much higher failure rate.
Note to self - avoid slashdotter's kitchens.
It's cheap, sounds cheap, but it won't die. it's been dropped (hard) numerous times, exposed to harsh conditions, nothing seems to stop it. Worst it gets is needing a little bit of pot cleaning every few years. Also, my Kenwood KR-4130 Stereo Reciever - I don't know how old it is, I just know I got it second hand 12 years ago, and I've dropped it, left it outside for months, and then left it powered on for years to drive speakers, headphones, whatever. It's heavier than air, but it still works and sounds heavenly!
I dunno - there's at least three magic copies, then, because I'm running a pain-free one at home (Ultimate), and at work (Business), which I use heavily, and I haven't run into any big annoyances at all.
Oh, and to all you UAC haters, I actually like it. You all probably surfed the net with admin privileges on XP and thought you were secure because you use firefox. Not so, pineapple man! UAC works well, and is not intrusive. I only get prompts with (un)installs and serious configuration changes, but not in my daily use.
I mean, you still think votes count! That's amazing enough, but even more astounding is that you think there are good faith actors in power who would be willing to risk their own necks to refranchise the masses.
I'm tired of it all. Electronic, paper, centralized counting or decentralized counting, it can all be secure and auditable, or insecure and fraud-riddled. Guess which type benefits the people in power more? If you think secure and auditable, you're scoring pretty high on the naivometer. See, the crux of your confusion is that you think I'm talking specifically about the EC. When I say systemic, I refer to the "democratic" process, top to bottom. I was responding to all three points by the original poster:
1.So long as the votes of the citizens is accurate,
2. any countermanding by the EC would be blatant and visible,
3. and (hopefully) swiftly corrected. And my response was to all three things:
1. I don't think the powerful will ever put secure and auditable voting into place, whether via paper or digital, so I don't think that the votes of the citizens will be accurately counted and reported to the general public.
2. I think that the EC is just one tool in a long chain of vote laundering machinery that *ensures* that if the powerful countermand the vote of the citizenry it would not be blatant and visible.
3. I do not think there are any good faith actors who know about the corruption who are willing to risk their own power, lives, and all that, to expose any chicanery.
I'm ignoring everything after the first four sentences of your post, because I honestly don't believe what you seem to think I believe in your statements from sentence 5 on.
You assume a lot. In addition to your assumption that I will provide proof for a specific scenario laid out according to your interesting rules, you assume that such events will be flagrant and singular (that is, not systemic). I don't consider those to be safe assumptions.