A pacific island paradise for offshore banking is a pretty cool idea, but I'm wondering when we'll see data havens in the strictest sense of the word.
Though it seems like a lot of the need for data storage in a legally-neutral locale could be alleviated by strong crypto, I still suspect that one day, we'll see something along the lines of vast server farms operating in jurisdictions largely untouchable by traditional institutions of law and order. What might some of the applications be? Aside from the obvious use indicated by the subject;)
Perhaps when coupled with highly secure (and secret) financial transactions, the black market might find itself with a whole new dimension...
Sigh... Something went wrong, and necessitated this repost. Sorry.
I'm wondering what threats, exactly, might be posed to humanity by a new breed of artifical intelligences. Off the top of my head, I can see two major possibilities:
One is that we build self-replicating, locomotive AI's, they get together and decide that we (humans) suck, and they claim the planet as theirs, a la The Matrix. That's all well and good (though probably unlikely, why don't they find a new, unsullied planet and mold it in their own image?), but I don't think I quite see why college level literacy will save you from that fate.
The second type of threat I see AI's posing to humanity is of a more psychological nature. An AI decides it wants something but lacks the means to do it own its own, and subtly influences a susceptible human to perform that task, a la Wintermute in Neuromancer. I would expect this to be the more probable danger and I can also see how increased education might provide a measure of prevention. However, if an AI had the ability to somehow or another influence one's entire worldview, I'm not sure any measure of education is going to save him.
I personally think artificial intelligence is an incredibly exciting field, and one that is probably inevitable. If we could theoretically build a human brain molecule by molecule, there's no reason that it wouldn't be as concious as any of us; why can't we do the same thing with silicon? I also think that if it ever does get off the ground, artificial intelligence will be a discipline that requires one part philosophy and one part computer engineering.
It should be an exciting time, to say the least. I'm just not sure if I want it to hurry up and get here.
I'm wondering what threats, exactly, might be posed to humanity by a new breed of artifical intelligences. Off the top of my head, I can see two major possibilities:
One is that we build self-replicating, locomotive AI's, they get together and decide that we (humans) suck, and they claim the planet as theirs, a la The Matrix. That's all well and good (though probably unlikely, why don't they find a new, unsullied planet and mold it in their own image?), but I don't think I quite see why college level literacy will save you from that fate.
The second type of threat I see AI's posing to humanity is of a more psychological nature. An AI decides it wants something but lacks the means to do it own its own, and subtly influences a susceptible human to perform that task, a la Wintermute in Neuromancer. I would expect this to be the more probable danger and I can also see how increased education might provide a measure of prevention. However, if an AI had the ability to somehow or another influence one's entire worldview, I'm not sure any measure of education is going to save him.
I personally think artificial intelligence is an incredibly exciting field, and one that is probably inevitable. If we could theoretically build a human brain molecule by molecule, there's no reason that it wouldn't be as concious as any of us; why can't we do the same thing with silicon? I also think that if it ever does get off the ground, artificial intelligence will be a discipline that requires one part philosophy and one part computer engineering.
It should be an exciting time, to say the least. I'm just not sure if I want it to hurry up and get here.
William Gibson had a very good piece in Wired on the same subject at http://www.wired.com/wired/archiv e/7.01/ebay.html. It also (very successfully and poetically, I thought) brought eBay addiction into a more far-reaching context. Plus it convinced me that he could do much, much more than sci-fi.
So "Neuromancer: The Movie" has the potential to be great. With a faithful director who actually gets what the book is about, the right actors and at least some input from Gibson, if not an entire screenplay (so Gibson may have been less-than-impressive with his "Johnny Mnemonic" screenplay; however, having Keanu Reeves and Henry Rollins reading his lines didn't help anything), and we've got one hell of a movie on our hands. But what are the odds? I just don't think there is any way Hollywood (or any of its overseas brethren) can get this right. We're either going to see too much flash, or not enough of the technology, a screenplay that doesn't even begin to measure up to Gibson's prose or have a film that misses the point altogether. Personally, I would rather have Gibson's world go unrealized than risk having his universe as I currently imagine it become tainted with memories of an ill-conceived film.
I'm not saying that the movie world should avoid Gibson entirely; I just want to make sure that it is done right, and I'm not sure that "Neuromancer," in its current incarnation, will be what I want to see. A Gibson-based project that did intrigue me was an adaptation of Count Zero called "The Zen Differential." What excited me about that was the alleged director, Michael Mann. As a director, I trust Mann. He gave us one of the top crime films of the last few decades (and the most underrated movie of this one) in "Heat." At one point, I had even heard that this movie was nearing a premiere at a film festival, but since then, it's disappeared entirely from the IMDb.
Look. Gibson can write. If the Sprawl trilogy didn't convince you of that, check out "My Obsession," and article he wrote for Wired a few months back. Let the man produce a screenplay that he feels embodies the essence of his work. Then let him find a director that shares his vision. Please, please, don't sell out what could be a great movie to the Hollywood mainstream. They'll only screw it up.
Slashdot Mirror
A pacific island paradise for offshore banking is a pretty cool idea, but I'm wondering when we'll see data havens in the strictest sense of the word.
;)
Though it seems like a lot of the need for data storage in a legally-neutral locale could be alleviated by strong crypto, I still suspect that one day, we'll see something along the lines of vast server farms operating in jurisdictions largely untouchable by traditional institutions of law and order. What might some of the applications be? Aside from the obvious use indicated by the subject
Perhaps when coupled with highly secure (and secret) financial transactions, the black market might find itself with a whole new dimension...
-jay
Sigh... Something went wrong, and necessitated this repost. Sorry.
I'm wondering what threats, exactly, might be posed to humanity by a new breed of artifical intelligences. Off the top of my head, I can see two major possibilities:
One is that we build self-replicating, locomotive AI's, they get together and decide that we (humans) suck, and they claim the planet as theirs, a la The Matrix. That's all well and good (though probably unlikely, why don't they find a new, unsullied planet and mold it in their own image?), but I don't think I quite see why college level literacy will save you from that fate.
The second type of threat I see AI's posing to humanity is of a more psychological nature. An AI decides it wants something but lacks the means to do it own its own, and subtly influences a susceptible human to perform that task, a la Wintermute in Neuromancer. I would expect this to be the more probable danger and I can also see how increased education might provide a measure of prevention. However, if an AI had the ability to somehow or another influence one's entire worldview, I'm not sure any measure of education is going to save him.
I personally think artificial intelligence is an incredibly exciting field, and one that is probably inevitable. If we could theoretically build a human brain molecule by molecule, there's no reason that it wouldn't be as concious as any of us; why can't we do the same thing with silicon? I also think that if it ever does get off the ground, artificial intelligence will be a discipline that requires one part philosophy and one part computer engineering.
It should be an exciting time, to say the least. I'm just not sure if I want it to hurry up and get here.
I'm wondering what threats, exactly, might be posed to humanity by a new breed of artifical intelligences. Off the top of my head, I can see two major possibilities:
One is that we build self-replicating, locomotive AI's, they get together and decide that we (humans) suck, and they claim the planet as theirs, a la The Matrix. That's all well and good (though probably unlikely, why don't they find a new, unsullied planet and mold it in their own image?), but I don't think I quite see why college level literacy will save you from that fate.
The second type of threat I see AI's posing to humanity is of a more psychological nature. An AI decides it wants something but lacks the means to do it own its own, and subtly influences a susceptible human to perform that task, a la Wintermute in Neuromancer. I would expect this to be the more probable danger and I can also see how increased education might provide a measure of prevention. However, if an AI had the ability to somehow or another influence one's entire worldview, I'm not sure any measure of education is going to save him.
I personally think artificial intelligence is an incredibly exciting field, and one that is probably inevitable. If we could theoretically build a human brain molecule by molecule, there's no reason that it wouldn't be as concious as any of us; why can't we do the same thing with silicon? I also think that if it ever does get off the ground, artificial intelligence will be a discipline that requires one part philosophy and one part computer engineering.
It should be an exciting time, to say the least. I'm just not sure if I want it to hurry up and get here.
William Gibson had a very good piece in Wired on the same subject at http://www.wired.com/wired/archiv e/7.01/ebay.html. It also (very successfully and poetically, I thought) brought eBay addiction into a more far-reaching context. Plus it convinced me that he could do much, much more than sci-fi.
"[five years from now] we're going to need biotechnologists"
Damn. Exactly the time I'll be graduating with my degree in Computer Engineering. I knew I was born ten years too late.
-jay
p.s. I'm not stupid, just a double major.
So "Neuromancer: The Movie" has the potential to be great. With a faithful director who actually gets what the book is about, the right actors and at least some input from Gibson, if not an entire screenplay (so Gibson may have been less-than-impressive with his "Johnny Mnemonic" screenplay; however, having Keanu Reeves and Henry Rollins reading his lines didn't help anything), and we've got one hell of a movie on our hands. But what are the odds? I just don't think there is any way Hollywood (or any of its overseas brethren) can get this right. We're either going to see too much flash, or not enough of the technology, a screenplay that doesn't even begin to measure up to Gibson's prose or have a film that misses the point altogether. Personally, I would rather have Gibson's world go unrealized than risk having his universe as I currently imagine it become tainted with memories of an ill-conceived film.
I'm not saying that the movie world should avoid Gibson entirely; I just want to make sure that it is done right, and I'm not sure that "Neuromancer," in its current incarnation, will be what I want to see. A Gibson-based project that did intrigue me was an adaptation of Count Zero called "The Zen Differential." What excited me about that was the alleged director, Michael Mann. As a director, I trust Mann. He gave us one of the top crime films of the last few decades (and the most underrated movie of this one) in "Heat." At one point, I had even heard that this movie was nearing a premiere at a film festival, but since then, it's disappeared entirely from the IMDb.
Look. Gibson can write. If the Sprawl trilogy didn't convince you of that, check out "My Obsession," and article he wrote for Wired a few months back. Let the man produce a screenplay that he feels embodies the essence of his work. Then let him find a director that shares his vision. Please, please, don't sell out what could be a great movie to the Hollywood mainstream. They'll only screw it up.