But does causing problems and pain result in more homeostasis within complexity, which is really what the measure being proposed seeks to optimize? No.
Causing problems and pain would in general reduce life expectancy, unless it is in some kind of a training scenario, where the goal is to increase the future ability to overcome bigger problems.
The word complexity is very tricky.
In general, anything involving a high degree of randomness may be considered complex, but we only care about particular complex forms, those which manage to conserve (embody) a large degree of embodied information. Note that it does not count for a complex form to be conserving a different long bitstring in each moment. That's just a highly entropic state by any other name. The complex form has to be conserving (embodying) precisely the SAME sequence of bits i.e. the same information, over time, to meet the "bit-seconds of free entropy" value test.
With a semantic network which reflects how humans relate various concepts together, and what topics and relationships humans care about.
Yes it will be biased and partial and rough, but it's a good start.
More formal reasoning and association techniques, such as bayesian stuff, logic, etc will be also be needed for general AI, but for the knowledge base to be grounded in human concerns and human perceptions; that's a key to an ai we can relate to and which can relate to us.
I imagine this kind of semantic network will be usable for google 2.0 "pre-emptive search" or "my virtual social planner and concierge".
What would you say to a measure of moral value that ran something like:
"bit-seconds of negentropy/free entropy"
so the general moral rule is "maximize bit-seconds of negentropy/free entropy".
Definitions:
"negentropy" or "free entropy" is defined for present purposes as a level of organization of matter and energy in a region which is beyond that organization which would be statistically expected in the region, given the free-energy levels in the region, and given the tendency of things to reach thermodynamic equilibrium or a lowest free-energy state.
"Amount of organization of matter and energy" is defined as: A correct and comprehensive informational representation of the state of the matter and energy requires at least a certain number of bits of information. (Or a program generating a correct representation of the state of the matter and energy requires at least a certain number of bits of information.) The more complex the state of the matter and energy, the more bits are required to describe that state and/or to express a program of changes that create that state from simpler states of the same amount of matter and energy. (Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity theory, loosely paraphrased.)
Statistically, we would not expect complex states of matter and energy to persist, if there is sufficient free-energy in the environment to break down the complexity over time via spontaneous entropic processes.
If the complex state of matter and energy is resistant (because of its particular form) to being broken down at the thermodynamically statistically expected rate, then perhaps we should call the state of matter and energy a special and valuable state. The most straightforward examples of such states are what we would call living systems, and the more complex the life-form or society of life forms, the higher it rates on the complexity conserving scale of "bit-seconds of negentropy/free entropy".
So we should value life, and more particularly complex life, and more particularly we should avoid reducing it and avoid actions/inactions which increase the probability that the amount or complexity of complex life persisting will be reduced, or increase the probability that the persistence time will be reduced.
Via game theory etc this covers all the usual rules such as "thou shall not kill" ---especially babies and young females (with lots of future bit-seconds to look forward to / generate), ---especially whole societies / species / ecosystems, which all embody massive amounts of sustained excess complexity (information).
"the golden rule - do unto others" --- a basic requirement for additional societal layers of emergent persistent complex order.
between single-line multi-server queue and multiple queues.
This occurs in fast food restaurants with the row of cashiers.
This is because some people are "blind" to the fact that there is a single line situation in effect. These people can be divided into: 1. The generally oblivious. Mindless automatons or cellphone talkers. 2. The socially clueless. Somewhere on the autism spectrum, they don't understand that queuing is a complex social interaction with rules and etiquette. 3. The obnoxious. Sees the situation but overtly butts in front to stand in front of one of the cashiers directly, thus forcing others to break rank and sneak in behind him, since the discipline is shot. 4. The "will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes" devious, who form their own line like #3 but do it by carefully assessing the situation then actively pretending that they are in category 1.
So it goes to multiple queues for a while, then some opportunist realizes they can line up ambiguously in between two cashiers to snag whichever comes open first, and we're back to single-line til a type 1 to 4 person arrives.
Not having net neutrality is kind of like if different sections of the Interstate Freeways were owned by a few large corporations who each owned all the major roads in a particular geographic area. Now if you were a rich top-level drug dealer, you could pay the monopoly a substantial cut of the proceeds to set aside a private fast lane which would be restricted to carrying only your organization's Escalades. Other peoples' un-pimped rides (and of course all commuter buses) would be stuck in massive traffic jams around you.
This would work even better for you if you could pay the freeway monopolist (note the oxymoron) to provide a series of protective tubes around your private lane.
I would prefer to risk server hosts being (bandwidth hogging) jerks (who are going to pay for it in bandwidth/transfer costs anyway) than to risk ISPs being jerks systematically in order to limit my Internet-use freedom and foist their preferred commercial partners/content on me.
IPv6 provides a way for applications to request handling without delay throughout the WAN. Packets have priority levels. Applications not needing top priority, e.g. email, can voluntarily downgrade their priority. Video and audio applications could upgrade their packet priority.
The key word here is applications, not ISPs.
Both content sources and recipients are already paying ISPs differentially for bandwidth capability differences and or data transferred amounts, so why is anything other than application-volunteered packet prioritizing needed?
If various applications (e.g. someone's web server implementation) are cheating and saying all their traffic is video, there is a rather large and sometimes effective tech community shunning mechanism in place.
Or.... Haven't you heard the expression "He who dies with the most debt wins!"
For in-debt superpowers, you could go with... Let's get into the maximum amount of international debt possible so we can keep consuming all this stuff.
Then, since we used that borrowed money to buy military toys for the boys, we'll just invade the hell out of anyone who complains when we welch on paying it back.
That too, strangely, seems like a republican strategy.
I gave up my TV over 10 years ago and have since discovered that...while TV and its relentless ad madness and vapid programming are soul-sucking like an upside-down Kansas tornado,...with the Net you have the freedom to leap into the pit of hell from whatever part of the rim you choose, thereby retaining some measure of control of which rocks you hit on your way to rock bottom.
"There may be such an argument, but you haven't made it" Its a prima facie case. The world wide web is both tautologically and self-evidently a global entity created and used by persons worldwide prior to its ordinary use having been regulated in any meaningful sense nationally.
The onus is on national legislatures to write law that explicitly takes away rights to use the WWW as it was self-evidently intended (by virtue of its design) to be used. Such laws must define what kind of act linking is compared to other previously regulated activities, and must stipulate under what circumstances it is illegal.
In the absence of such specific countervailing law, the de facto standards of usage of the medium should be considered normative, and presumed to be legal.
IANALBIPOOTI I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On The Internet
I think there's a good argument that:
1. The WWW is supra-national. 2. Its defining technical standards (adherence to them), and common conventional use of those standards in the contrstruction of and participation in the world wide web constitute the basis of a global-in-scope COMMON LAW that should be given serious weight in adjudications of such matters by lower (narrower than global in scope) courts.
"Neither IETF nor W3C have any authority to dictate what is legal and what is not legal."
No but they could give authoritative guidance to the courts about what the assumed intent is when one is publishing content on a publicly accessible portion of the world wide web.
They can state that there exists a legal entity called the "World Wide Web", whose incarnation is the sum total of content accessible directly or indirectly by hyperlinks which have themselves been made publicly known by the publisher.
They could state that the World Wide Web entity relies for its existence on the right for people and software web client programs to freely traverse the web, freely view and process the content, and freely link in new pages to the content that constitutes the World Wide Web.
I wonder if the Drudge report just linked to the image. If so, that should definitely be legal.
The HTML spec and or http spec should make it clear (are they even licensed?) that it is always de-facto legal to create a link (anywhere) to content that has been published and is publicly accessible on the world wide web, so long as the content is legal to view. i.e. re-linking to child porn could still be illegal, as it is collaborating in the crime, but everything else is legal.
Those that wish to restrict access to their content can use some other technical measure such as requiring a user login. Such content is by definition not on the public world wide web, so the right does not apply.
Let me ask you this? What happens to me if I wander around Washington broadcasting over a loudspeaker (and upload it to Youtube for good measure) messages inciting people to kill Barack Obama?
I think you are being a little hypocritical if you think that kind of free speech is just fine and dandy in Venezuela but not in the States.
In case you're wondering, I would be charged with a Federal Offense, and thrown in jail or the loonie bin, most likely.
In my country what you just wrote constitutes the criminal code offense called incitement to murder.
- Who is the lower form, one who takes a strong principled political stand that protects the poor in his country, or one who thinks murder is a justifiable means to win a political argument?
When you read the details on what is proposed by the Venezuelan government, it doesn't sound that unreasonable. Makes you wonder why it's being spun as totalitarian and evil.
"The bill proposes applying limits on content in "electronic media" according to the time of day, with adult content reserved for programing after midnight.
Such limitations already are in place for TV and radio programing. It was not clear how they would be applied to the Internet
The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him."
Order it from the Japanese, if you need it to play guitar or make a car, or from that company that makes the disturbing headless-horse military robot. They know what they're doing.
I mean seriously. What do you want a robot for?
Sounds like its to satisfy a tinkering itch.
My advice is don't build any hardware til you have the entire thing functioning perfectly in a software sim. And even then, don't build any hardware. The silly mechanical problems and non-linear force issues will defeat you and eat all your time. For what? For what?
Slashdot Mirror
So it can never be trusted.
So let me get this straight.
The problem is not that bad shit is happening,
but that we now know it's happening.
May I suggest a set of horse's blinkers and noise-cancelling headphones,
to ensure blissful living.
Of course, then, you'd have to sue your own imagination.
But does causing problems and pain result in more homeostasis within complexity, which is really what the measure
being proposed seeks to optimize? No.
Causing problems and pain would in general reduce life expectancy, unless it is in some kind of a training scenario,
where the goal is to increase the future ability to overcome bigger problems.
The word complexity is very tricky.
In general, anything involving a high degree of randomness may be considered complex, but we only care about particular
complex forms, those which manage to conserve (embody) a large degree of embodied information. Note that it does not count
for a complex form to be conserving a different long bitstring in each moment. That's just a highly entropic state by any other
name. The complex form has to be conserving (embodying) precisely the SAME sequence of bits i.e. the same information,
over time, to meet the "bit-seconds of free entropy" value test.
With a semantic network which reflects how humans relate various concepts together, and what topics and relationships humans care about.
Yes it will be biased and partial and rough, but it's a good start.
More formal reasoning and association techniques, such as bayesian stuff, logic, etc will be also be needed for general AI, but for the
knowledge base to be grounded in human concerns and human perceptions; that's a key to an ai we can relate to and which can
relate to us.
I imagine this kind of semantic network will be usable for google 2.0 "pre-emptive search" or "my virtual social planner and concierge".
What would you say to a measure of moral value that ran something like:
"bit-seconds of negentropy/free entropy"
so the general moral rule is "maximize bit-seconds of negentropy/free entropy".
Definitions:
"negentropy" or "free entropy" is defined for present purposes as a level of organization of matter and energy in a region which is beyond that organization
which would be statistically expected in the region, given the free-energy levels in the region, and given the tendency of things
to reach thermodynamic equilibrium or a lowest free-energy state.
"Amount of organization of matter and energy" is defined as:
A correct and comprehensive informational representation of the state of the matter and energy requires at least a certain number of bits of information.
(Or a program generating a correct representation of the state of the matter and energy requires at least a certain number of bits of information.)
The more complex the state of the matter and energy, the more bits are required to describe that state and/or to express a program of changes that
create that state from simpler states of the same amount of matter and energy. (Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity theory, loosely paraphrased.)
Statistically, we would not expect complex states of matter and energy to persist, if there is sufficient free-energy in the environment to break
down the complexity over time via spontaneous entropic processes.
If the complex state of matter and energy is resistant (because of its particular form) to being broken down at the thermodynamically statistically
expected rate, then perhaps we should call the state of matter and energy a special and valuable state. The most straightforward examples of
such states are what we would call living systems, and the more complex the life-form or society of life forms, the higher it rates on the complexity
conserving scale of "bit-seconds of negentropy/free entropy".
So we should value life, and more particularly complex life, and more particularly we should avoid reducing it and avoid actions/inactions which
increase the probability that the amount or complexity of complex life persisting will be reduced, or increase the probability that the persistence
time will be reduced.
Via game theory etc this covers all the usual rules such as
"thou shall not kill"
---especially babies and young females (with lots of future bit-seconds to look forward to / generate),
---especially whole societies / species / ecosystems, which all embody massive amounts of sustained excess complexity (information).
"the golden rule - do unto others"
--- a basic requirement for additional societal layers of emergent persistent complex order.
"Right now, there're hundreds of
different languages being spoken around the world - you think one more is going to destroy communication forever?"
between single-line multi-server queue and multiple queues.
This occurs in fast food restaurants with the row of cashiers.
This is because some people are "blind" to the fact that there is a single line
situation in effect. These people can be divided into:
1. The generally oblivious. Mindless automatons or cellphone talkers.
2. The socially clueless. Somewhere on the autism spectrum, they don't
understand that queuing is a complex social interaction with rules and etiquette.
3. The obnoxious. Sees the situation but overtly butts in front to stand in front
of one of the cashiers directly, thus forcing others to break rank and sneak in
behind him, since the discipline is shot.
4. The "will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes" devious, who
form their own line like #3 but do it by carefully assessing the situation then actively
pretending that they are in category 1.
So it goes to multiple queues for a while, then some opportunist realizes they
can line up ambiguously in between two cashiers to snag whichever comes open
first, and we're back to single-line til a type 1 to 4 person arrives.
Seriously though.
Internet = (Road Network)
Critical infrastructure moving information (stuff) around the country and world.
Do you want it neutral or discriminating against some traffic in favor of other traffic?
Not having net neutrality is kind of like if different sections of the Interstate Freeways were owned by a few large corporations who each owned all the major roads in a particular geographic area. Now if you were a rich top-level drug dealer, you could pay the monopoly a substantial cut of the proceeds to set aside a private fast lane which would be restricted to carrying only your organization's Escalades. Other peoples' un-pimped rides (and of course all commuter buses) would be stuck in massive traffic jams around you.
This would work even better for you if you could pay the freeway monopolist (note the oxymoron) to provide a series of protective tubes around your private lane.
Can't migrate til that is compatible.
(Yeah I heard the news.)
I would prefer to risk server hosts being (bandwidth hogging) jerks (who are going to pay for it in bandwidth/transfer costs anyway)
than to risk ISPs being jerks systematically in order to limit my Internet-use freedom and foist their preferred commercial
partners/content on me.
You people afraid of government (in general) make me laugh.
I have to imagine you are built like an unlimited fighting champion
and know how to handle an AK.
Otherwise, you're really going to "enjoy" anarchy.
IPv6 provides a way for applications to request handling without delay throughout the WAN.
Packets have priority levels. Applications not needing top priority, e.g. email, can voluntarily downgrade their priority.
Video and audio applications could upgrade their packet priority.
The key word here is applications, not ISPs.
Both content sources and recipients are already paying ISPs differentially for bandwidth capability differences and or data transferred
amounts, so why is anything other than application-volunteered packet prioritizing needed?
If various applications (e.g. someone's web server implementation) are cheating and saying all their traffic is video, there is a rather large
and sometimes effective tech community shunning mechanism in place.
Or....
Haven't you heard the expression "He who dies with the most debt wins!"
For in-debt superpowers, you could go with... Let's get into the maximum amount of international debt possible so we can
keep consuming all this stuff.
Then, since we used that borrowed money to buy military toys for the boys,
we'll just invade the hell out of anyone who complains when we welch on paying it back.
That too, strangely, seems like a republican strategy.
I gave up my TV over 10 years ago and have since discovered that ...while TV and its relentless ad madness and vapid programming are soul-sucking ...with the Net you have the freedom to leap into the pit of hell from whatever part of
like an upside-down Kansas tornado,
the rim you choose, thereby retaining some measure of control of which rocks you
hit on your way to rock bottom.
Progress indeed.
"There may be such an argument, but you haven't made it"
Its a prima facie case. The world wide web is both tautologically and self-evidently
a global entity created and used by persons worldwide
prior to its ordinary use having been regulated in any meaningful sense nationally.
The onus is on national legislatures to write law that explicitly takes away rights
to use the WWW as it was self-evidently intended (by virtue of its design) to be used.
Such laws must define what kind of act linking is compared to other previously
regulated activities, and must stipulate under what circumstances it is illegal.
In the absence of such specific countervailing law, the de facto standards of usage
of the medium should be considered normative, and presumed to be legal.
IANALBIPOOTI I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On The Internet
I think there's a good argument that:
1. The WWW is supra-national.
2. Its defining technical standards (adherence to them), and common conventional use
of those standards in the contrstruction of and participation in the world wide web
constitute the basis of a global-in-scope COMMON LAW that should be given serious
weight in adjudications of such matters by lower (narrower than global in scope) courts.
"Neither IETF nor W3C have any authority to dictate what is legal and what is not legal."
No but they could give authoritative guidance to the courts about what the assumed
intent is when one is publishing content on a publicly accessible portion of the world wide web.
They can state that there exists a legal entity called the "World Wide Web",
whose incarnation is the sum total of content accessible directly or indirectly
by hyperlinks which have themselves been made publicly known by the publisher.
They could state that the World Wide Web entity relies for its existence on the right for
people and software web client programs to freely traverse the web, freely view and process
the content, and freely link in new pages to the content that constitutes the World Wide Web.
I wonder if the Drudge report just linked to the image. If so, that should definitely be legal.
The HTML spec and or http spec should make it clear (are they even licensed?)
that it is always de-facto legal to create a link (anywhere) to content that has been
published and is publicly accessible on the world wide web,
so long as the content is legal to view.
i.e. re-linking to child porn could still be illegal, as it is collaborating in the crime, but
everything else is legal.
Those that wish to restrict access to their content can use some other technical measure
such as requiring a user login. Such content is by definition not on the public world wide
web, so the right does not apply.
If I had the US government, intelligence agencies, and multi-national corporate might aligned against my policies, I'd probably be terrified too.
http://digg.com/news/world_news/Calif_man_arrested_after_threatening_Obama_on_message_board
http://www.alien-earth.org/news/item.php?keyid=2257&category=12
Let me ask you this? What happens to me if I wander around Washington broadcasting over a loudspeaker (and upload it to Youtube for good measure)
messages inciting people to kill Barack Obama?
I think you are being a little hypocritical if you think that kind of free speech is just fine and dandy in Venezuela but not in the States.
In case you're wondering, I would be charged with a Federal Offense, and thrown in jail or the loonie bin, most likely.
In my country what you just wrote constitutes the criminal code offense called incitement to murder.
- Who is the lower form, one who takes a strong principled political stand that protects
the poor in his country, or one who thinks murder is a justifiable means to win a political
argument?
When you read the details on what is proposed by the Venezuelan government, it doesn't sound that unreasonable.
Makes you wonder why it's being spun as totalitarian and evil.
"The bill proposes applying limits on content in "electronic media" according to the time of day, with adult content reserved for programing after midnight.
Such limitations already are in place for TV and radio programing. It was not clear how they would be applied to the Internet
The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him."
Order it from the Japanese, if you need it to play guitar or make a car,
or from that company that makes the disturbing headless-horse military robot.
They know what they're doing.
I mean seriously. What do you want a robot for?
Sounds like its to satisfy a tinkering itch.
My advice is don't build any hardware til you have the entire thing
functioning perfectly in a software sim. And even then, don't build
any hardware. The silly mechanical problems and non-linear force
issues will defeat you and eat all your time. For what? For what?