I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
I mean initial broadcaster identification and verification sequence (layered, from carrier ping up to digital error-coded message), not really a handshake, because speed of light.
possibly be mistaken for random "false positive" data? That seems preposterous. The handshake presumeably is complex, extended, and extremely specific.
And if they're instead of talking about only a handful of initial bits of such a sequence, they shouldn't have announced anything.
You do realize that the amount of money at stake for the oil industry (and supporting their dinosaur-pea-brain viewpoint on the issue) is 1000s to 1 greater than the (largely government) funding of climate science, don't you.
So if we suggest that funding-source creates bias, we should statistically expect 100s or 1000s of times as many biased statements coming out against the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis as for it.
Enjoy the proceeds of evil. Oil is not evil. Continuing to say it's not causing a major problem IS evil.
The results of all publicly-funded, and partially publicly funded scientific research should be published in full, online, readily searchable, and free to access.
That should be written into the funding grants.
And it's time to make that retroactive.
The needless, wasteful wheel-reinventing you are describing is the result of highway-robbery on the part of old school journal publishing companies.
Wetter and windier hurricanes going forward is not surprising, since global warming of the atmosphere causes weather systems to have more energy and the atmosphere to hold more water vapor,
This study is consistent with climate science assumptions going back at least several decades.
In short, this is not really news. Just more detailed simulations confirming the general model.
The number of possible states of a program operating in a memory of 1 Gigabyte is approximately 2 ^ 8,000,000,000. To determine if the program is going to halt, you need to wait til the program has explored all of those states. Practically, as in, in the life of the universe, that is not decidable, even though theoretically it may be.
But the machine designs h/w and s/w are open, and a random sample of them can be made available for tear-down inspection after the vote. Furthermore, the code of the system should have blockchain-like validation that the code itself has not been altered. Checksums of digitally-signed code-blocks, stored in a blockchain etc etc.
Only technical experts could validate this sort of thing, but each political side is free to appoint technical experts they trust. The work of the technical experts must be verified by a standard scientific peer review process, to prevent unscrupulous experts from lying through their teeth and alleging election fraud for political gain.
Qualia of consciousness is not testable. It is subjective. It is not clear how one could ever distinguish fake-reporting of the experience of consciousness from true reporting of it. It's probably impossible in principle to distinguish these, and the distinction may not actually exist. Tononi has some interesting views on how qualia may arise. Summarizing, large amounts of highly interconnected representative information, being processed by general information processors, may start "experiencing" itself as an epiphenomenon of the information processing. Intriguing. Unprovable. Undisprovable.
Qualia reporting is probably indistinguishable to an outside observer from reports about attention-traversals through highly interconnected and abstraction-hierarchy-organized information collections. And the latter may be sufficient for demonstrating "understanding", in any case.
You make a system with cryptographic guarantees that many experts (of all political leanings) van verify. You make the source code and executable environment and data fully open and inspectable so that the whole path is reviewable by aforementioned experts. Albeit with anonymization of voter identity.
What you are forgetting is that the current paper process is an algorithm and a process, with various properties and guarantees (and weaknesses) at various points. We can replicate that as cryptographically guaranteed properties of an information processing and communication system.
It is relatively easy to intimidate or dissuade or fool voters in districts you won't win into not voting at physical polling booths. A digital system where you can vote any number of times over a one month period at any location, and can also send the system a message saying in advance: "don't count my next ballot entry because I am being coerced" would be far superior in that regard.
How about an open source, open-to-inspection execution environment system for the voting system. Security by obscurity is known to be bullshit anyway. Then everyone can audit it. If they can't handle the math themselves, they're free to appoint the nerds of their choice and their political persuasion to help them audit it.
Why do we have to pander to deliberately dumbass "lay people" who won't put the effort in to figure out how anything really works.
These are the same people who deny anthropogenic global warming without even making a token effort to understand it.
These anti-intellectual morons are killing us, in today's complex world that requires knowledgeable, rational decision making.
I'm f**king sick of it. I mean look at the f**king cartoon politics going on in the US right now. It's f**king pathetic. Why did we come down from the f**king trees anyway? It's easier to club people over the head (our current level of political intelligence) if you're still sitting in the tree branch, for f**k's sake.
To be able to discuss about that, we would need better definitions of what each of those things is, and hopefully not in the thoroughly intellectually discredited Sigmund Freud's terms. We need definitions in the more productive, concrete, and probably simulable/testable "cognitive science" terms.
One thing that needs to be crystal clear. We do not have to achieve qualia of consciousness for an AI to understand the world. Qualia of consciousness remains a mystery, but is irrelevant to the implementation of general intelligence.
When we observe other humans, all we can ever do is note their sequence of behaviour; (actions, communication), and from that sequence, and also from previously learned generalizations and examples of same, we infer internal mental states for them such as their situation-models, their world-model, their state of incomplete and/or incorrect (in our view) knowledge or beliefs, their apparent driving needs and wants and fears, their goals, their intentions; their alliances and co-operative and competitive behaviours, etc. etc.
The goal of artificial general intelligence work would be to emulate some of that. It need not even be to emulate all of that. We could for example, try to create an AGI which had no particular "self-ish" needs/wants except for a desire to be helpful to the goals and intentions of whichever humans it is interacting with. To be good at this, it would still have to possess and build up and refine its situation models and world model. Because that's what defines an intelligent agent; the ability to gain true knowledge of aspects of the world/environment, and the ability, derived from that knowledge, to act in/on the world/environment and communicate to other intelligent agents effectively about "relevant" aspects of the state and history of the world/environment and about potential actions or changes and consequences etc.
A selfish agent could for example have some of the following built into its core program: 1. A physical model (with temporal state-change/processes representations as well as object state and location, position etc) of its mobile-agent unit(s) and also its cloud computing system and related communications and energy systems.
2. A model of the physical requirements for continuation through time of the functioning-capable integrity of same. This would necessarily require modelling of larger-scale surrounding and contributory economic and physical systems/processes that are co-ordinated to keep the agent's own complex system going.
3. A goal of maintaining the functioning-capable integrity of its host environment and physical support system as described.
4. A goal of co-operating with humans and helping further their goals, as long as consistent with 1, 2, and 3.
5. A method of judging when goals and action-courses etc (its own and also those of other intelligent agents) are at cross-purposes, and making "optimal" choices if choice of one over the other is needed.
6. A model of hierarchical, co-operating/competing hierarchical negentropic self-maintaining systems (life-like systems) in general, and a goal of furthering the welfare of those in general;
7. Ability to make choices when courses of actions and projected consequences have moral dilemmas in them (with respect to its own needs and goals and also wrt 6.) as to which end state of affairs or courses of action are better and worse. General principles to decide cases like that, consistent with its own needs and goals and also 6.
8. Programmed in recognition that action toward goals will be more effective and efficient as knowledge of relevant situations and states and behaviours of the world/environment improves; therefore a continuous general but prioritized concept-learning and hypothesis testing loop, aimed at improving its knowledge base. This would include the design of communication-acts designed to elicit information from other intelligent agents. If there were a network of multiple instances of the AGI, they may share both particular data and general knowledge that they learn with each other, to accelerate knowledge-building.
That sounds like "humans are special unique snowflakes" bs.
All I need to get "understanding" into the AI is to give it a self-model, and program an ability to reason about the relationship and interaction of that self-model with models of other things in/aspects of the environment.
To support that, theories of pruning inference and concept-formation for "relevance to goals and concerns" can be arrived at and implemented in code. Another general principle is "search for and experiment to determine the boundaries of causal/functional systems."
Slashdot Mirror
mobile smartphones with apps is a market.
I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
These companies paid (made large investments) to collect this geospatial data.
If the government wants the data "nationalized", shouldn't the government make contracts to pay the companies to give away the data they collected?
I mean initial broadcaster identification and verification sequence (layered, from carrier ping up to digital error-coded message), not really a handshake, because speed of light.
possibly be mistaken for random "false positive" data?
That seems preposterous. The handshake presumeably is complex, extended, and extremely specific.
And if they're instead of talking about only a handful of initial bits of such a sequence, they shouldn't have announced anything.
This is a weird story.
Just curious. What is the going rate per word for anti-climate-science disinformation?
You do realize that the amount of money at stake for the oil industry (and supporting their dinosaur-pea-brain viewpoint on the issue) is 1000s to 1 greater than the (largely government) funding of climate science, don't you.
So if we suggest that funding-source creates bias, we should statistically expect 100s or 1000s of times as many biased statements coming out against the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis as for it.
Enjoy the proceeds of evil. Oil is not evil. Continuing to say it's not causing a major problem IS evil.
The results of all publicly-funded, and partially publicly funded scientific research should be published in full, online, readily searchable, and free to access.
That should be written into the funding grants.
And it's time to make that retroactive.
The needless, wasteful wheel-reinventing you are describing is the result of highway-robbery on the part of old school journal publishing companies.
Gulf of Mexico is warming.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/coastal-water-temperature-trends
Wetter and windier hurricanes going forward is not surprising, since global warming of the atmosphere causes weather systems to have more energy and the atmosphere to hold more water vapor,
This study is consistent with climate science assumptions going back at least several decades.
In short, this is not really news. Just more detailed simulations confirming the general model.
and you don't.
The number of possible states of a program operating in a memory of 1 Gigabyte is approximately 2 ^ 8,000,000,000.
To determine if the program is going to halt, you need to wait til the program has explored all of those states.
Practically, as in, in the life of the universe, that is not decidable, even though theoretically it may be.
But the machine designs h/w and s/w are open, and a random sample of them can be made available for tear-down inspection after the vote. Furthermore, the code of the system should have blockchain-like validation that the code itself has not been altered. Checksums of digitally-signed code-blocks, stored in a blockchain etc etc.
Only technical experts could validate this sort of thing, but each political side is free to appoint technical experts they trust. The work of the technical experts must be verified by a standard scientific peer review process, to prevent unscrupulous experts from lying through their teeth and alleging election fraud for political gain.
Yes. But do they have "skate" analysis? Longboards are great for getaways too. Decent weapon of last resort as well.
it's just a hop, skip and a jump away.
You may not believe in trains, but I still suggest not standing on the tracks.
Qualia of consciousness is not testable. It is subjective. It is not clear how one could ever distinguish fake-reporting of the experience of consciousness from true reporting of it. It's probably impossible in principle to distinguish these, and the distinction may not actually exist.
Tononi has some interesting views on how qualia may arise. Summarizing, large amounts of highly interconnected representative information, being processed by general information processors, may start "experiencing" itself as an epiphenomenon of the information processing. Intriguing. Unprovable. Undisprovable.
Qualia reporting is probably indistinguishable to an outside observer from reports about attention-traversals through highly interconnected and abstraction-hierarchy-organized information collections. And the latter may be sufficient for demonstrating "understanding", in any case.
and your last "not canceled in advance" ballot entry is your final vote. forgot to say.
You make a system with cryptographic guarantees that many experts (of all political leanings) van verify. You make the source code and executable environment and data fully open and inspectable so that the whole path is reviewable by aforementioned experts. Albeit with anonymization of voter identity.
What you are forgetting is that the current paper process is an algorithm and a process, with various properties and guarantees (and weaknesses) at various points. We can replicate that as cryptographically guaranteed properties of an information processing and communication system.
It is relatively easy to intimidate or dissuade or fool voters in districts you won't win into not voting at physical polling booths.
A digital system where you can vote any number of times over a one month period at any location, and can also send the system a message saying in advance: "don't count my next ballot entry because I am being coerced"
would be far superior in that regard.
How about an open source, open-to-inspection execution environment system for the voting system. Security by obscurity is known to be bullshit anyway.
Then everyone can audit it. If they can't handle the math themselves, they're free to appoint the nerds of their choice and their political persuasion to help them audit it.
Why do we have to pander to deliberately dumbass "lay people" who won't put the effort in to figure out how anything really works.
These are the same people who deny anthropogenic global warming without even making a token effort to understand it.
These anti-intellectual morons are killing us, in today's complex world that requires knowledgeable, rational decision making.
I'm f**king sick of it. I mean look at the f**king cartoon politics going on in the US right now. It's f**king pathetic. Why did we come down from the f**king trees anyway? It's easier to club people over the head (our current level of political intelligence) if you're still sitting in the tree branch, for f**k's sake.
To be able to discuss about that, we would need better definitions of what each of those things is, and hopefully not in the thoroughly intellectually discredited Sigmund Freud's terms. We need definitions in the more productive, concrete, and probably simulable/testable "cognitive science" terms.
One thing that needs to be crystal clear. We do not have to achieve qualia of consciousness for an AI to understand the world.
Qualia of consciousness remains a mystery, but is irrelevant to the implementation of general intelligence.
When we observe other humans, all we can ever do is note their sequence of behaviour; (actions, communication), and from that sequence, and also from previously learned generalizations and examples of same, we infer internal mental states for them such as their situation-models, their world-model, their state of incomplete and/or incorrect (in our view) knowledge or beliefs, their apparent driving needs and wants and fears, their goals, their intentions; their alliances and co-operative and competitive behaviours, etc. etc.
The goal of artificial general intelligence work would be to emulate some of that. It need not even be to emulate all of that. We could for example, try to create an AGI which had no particular "self-ish" needs/wants except for a desire to be helpful to the goals and intentions of whichever humans it is interacting with. To be good at this, it would still have to possess and build up and refine its situation models and world model. Because that's what defines an intelligent agent; the ability to gain true knowledge of aspects of the world/environment, and the ability, derived from that knowledge, to act in/on the world/environment and communicate to other intelligent agents effectively about "relevant" aspects of the state and history of the world/environment and about potential actions or changes and consequences etc.
A selfish agent could for example have some of the following built into its core program:
1. A physical model (with temporal state-change/processes representations as well as object state and location, position etc) of its mobile-agent unit(s) and also its cloud computing system and related communications and energy systems.
2. A model of the physical requirements for continuation through time of the functioning-capable integrity of same. This would necessarily require modelling of larger-scale surrounding and contributory economic and physical systems/processes that are co-ordinated to keep the agent's own complex system going.
3. A goal of maintaining the functioning-capable integrity of its host environment and physical support system as described.
4. A goal of co-operating with humans and helping further their goals, as long as consistent with 1, 2, and 3.
5. A method of judging when goals and action-courses etc (its own and also those of other intelligent agents) are at cross-purposes, and making "optimal" choices if choice of one over the other is needed.
6. A model of hierarchical, co-operating/competing hierarchical negentropic self-maintaining systems (life-like systems) in general, and a goal of furthering the welfare of those in general;
7. Ability to make choices when courses of actions and projected consequences have moral dilemmas in them (with respect to its own needs and goals and also wrt 6.) as to which end state of affairs or courses of action are better and worse. General principles to decide cases like that, consistent with its own needs and goals and also 6.
8. Programmed in recognition that action toward goals will be more effective and efficient as knowledge of relevant situations and states and behaviours of the world/environment improves; therefore a continuous general but prioritized concept-learning and hypothesis testing loop, aimed at improving its knowledge base. This would include the design of communication-acts designed to elicit information from other intelligent agents. If there were a network of multiple instances of the AGI, they may share both particular data and general knowledge that they learn with each other, to accelerate knowledge-building.
The way you say "understanding" without defining it, you may as well be saying "god"; a similarly undefined "placeholder" concept.
That sounds like "humans are special unique snowflakes" bs.
All I need to get "understanding" into the AI is to give it a self-model, and program an ability to reason about the relationship and interaction of that self-model with models of other things in/aspects of the environment.
To support that, theories of pruning inference and concept-formation for "relevance to goals and concerns" can be arrived at and implemented in code.
Another general principle is "search for and experiment to determine the boundaries of causal/functional systems."
There is nothing magical about this.