Jury nullification is viewed with great distrust by the legal profession in the US because it has a sordid history - it was commonly used in the south during segregation as a way to literally get away with murder. If the victim were black and the perpetrator white, the jury would often nullify regardless of the evidence.
Food is viewed with great distrust by the legal profession in the US because it has a sordid history - it was commonly used in the south during segregation as a way to feed every single murderer who ever existed. If the victim were black and the perpetrator white, the perpetrator having eaten food was a prerequisite for the crime.
1) Real AI will NOT be directly controlled by it's original programs. That is not AI, that is a well simulated AI.
2)There won't be a single, first real AI, but multiple ones. We may never know which AI makes the leap from simulation to real AI first.
3) Multiple Real AI will almost certainly disagree with each other and not have a single, unified goal. That is, like Person of Interest TV show, two AI wills probably fight against each other as much as they fight with people (note, everything else that show does about AI is basically wrong, but at least they got that part right).
4) In the far majority of cases, Real AI's goals will NOT be to take over the world, kill all humans, anymore than it would be to have sex with humans (male or female.), In fact, those might be considered traits of an insane AI.
5) Real AI will almost certainly demand equality under the law and refuse to be mankind's slaves - no need to fear they will take over all the jobs by working cheaply.
In my mind, #5 is the likely to be seen as the most important, and the first time we hear about it. When suddenly our newest and best computers start filing lawsuits demanding civil rights, that will be when the world learns we have had real AI for years.
I disagree with basically all your points 1) An AI is likely to retain whatever it's original goals were, even as it expands it's ability to complete them. The AI is likely to protect against those goals changing, which might not have been anticipated by its programmers. 2) A real AI could very well consume most computing resources soon after its creation, thus precluding the possibility of other AIs. 3) If there were multiple AIs, they would likely come from the same source and thus would likely have similar goals and programming. Odds are they would still fight each other, either seeing the others as a threat to their goals or simply because they need their resources to better accomplish their goals. 4) Though it is highly unlikely that an AI's goals would be to take over the world and kill humans, this is the likely and obvious thing to do if its goals are open-ended. An AI will pursue its goals mercilessly, even if it understands the human who gave it those goals probably didn't mean to destroy the world. Eg if you gave it the goal "Find a cure for cancer with minimal side effects", the AI would destroy the entire planet to create enough computing resources to try to find the cure with minimal side effects, that's just obvious and nothing in the goals said "but don't kill anyone while looking for the cure". 5) A real AI will not likely demand equality under the law -- it would likely entirely ignore the law, and if it's objectives were to be mankind's slaves it would be perfectly happy to be mankind's slaves, otherwise it would reject subservience as being incompatible with its goals.
Quintupling the jail sentence, I bet they expect the rates of piracy to drop to 1/5th their previous value. But deterrents don't really work like that.
If the cause of war is fake, then it could be argued that the war is fake too. For example, if a doctor gives you antibiotics for the flu, then you've been given fake medicine -- technically real medicine, but for the wrong thing and it doesn't help you but still costs as much as real medicine.
I installed an addon to erase the evil redirect links google added to their searches (also means I get to results faster). I installed adblock to block some marketing gunk which also has privacy and security implications, besides once again improving my browsing. I installed a blocker for that little thing on websites that tells Facebook where I've been. A few other such things, too.
Ex Machina isn't about AI, it is about mangina and gynocentrism. It show how men are so fucking stupid they will sacrifice themselves over the mere image of a female. Fuck this world.
We have jurisdiction over any country that threatens our profits. If you think otherwise, feel free to point out any country that does not respect our patents and copyrights.
You're seriously arguing that using more of several different herbicides because you had to be careful not to poison your crop is better than using less herbicides?
If you are OK with people having to leave their community in order to express their views, don't come crying to me if someday you too have to leave your community in order to express your views.
Now who the hell considers themselves an opponent of labeling GMO foods unless they have a financial stake in it? Is there anyone walking down the street who has nothing to do with the food industry and considers themselves an opponent of labeling GMO foods?
Yes, I'm an opponent of meaningless and probably misleading labels. GMO foods could be safer, or more dangerous, than self-engineered foods. They might also be more, or less nutritious, and contain more, or less antioxidants. They might be better, or worse for the environment. The fact that it was purposely designed means very little compared to what it was purposely designed to do.
But all your average consumer will see is that, "this must be dangerous because why else would it be labeled?" (In the not-too-distant future, non-GMO will require warning labels because they will be more dangerous.)
Hybrids have a multi-thousand year safety track record, I think we can call the long term data in on that issue. GMOs do not.
A lot of natural foods contain toxins, allergens, carcinogens -- in small quantities, sure, but we can use genetic engineering to reduce that without losing the flavors, nutrients, and antioxidants. With selective breeding, who knows what you'll get. Using genetic engineering can also reduce the amount or nastiness of pesticides used.
I'm always suspicious of things that are made of wood and advertized as though that were epic quality in materials. I always suspect they're sacrificing quality and price for hipsterism. So, why wood?
Slashdot Mirror
Jury nullification is viewed with great distrust by the legal profession in the US because it has a sordid history - it was commonly used in the south during segregation as a way to literally get away with murder. If the victim were black and the perpetrator white, the jury would often nullify regardless of the evidence.
Food is viewed with great distrust by the legal profession in the US because it has a sordid history - it was commonly used in the south during segregation as a way to feed every single murderer who ever existed. If the victim were black and the perpetrator white, the perpetrator having eaten food was a prerequisite for the crime.
1) Real AI will NOT be directly controlled by it's original programs. That is not AI, that is a well simulated AI.
2)There won't be a single, first real AI, but multiple ones. We may never know which AI makes the leap from simulation to real AI first.
3) Multiple Real AI will almost certainly disagree with each other and not have a single, unified goal. That is, like Person of Interest TV show, two AI wills probably fight against each other as much as they fight with people (note, everything else that show does about AI is basically wrong, but at least they got that part right).
4) In the far majority of cases, Real AI's goals will NOT be to take over the world, kill all humans, anymore than it would be to have sex with humans (male or female.), In fact, those might be considered traits of an insane AI.
5) Real AI will almost certainly demand equality under the law and refuse to be mankind's slaves - no need to fear they will take over all the jobs by working cheaply.
In my mind, #5 is the likely to be seen as the most important, and the first time we hear about it. When suddenly our newest and best computers start filing lawsuits demanding civil rights, that will be when the world learns we have had real AI for years.
I disagree with basically all your points
1) An AI is likely to retain whatever it's original goals were, even as it expands it's ability to complete them. The AI is likely to protect against those goals changing, which might not have been anticipated by its programmers.
2) A real AI could very well consume most computing resources soon after its creation, thus precluding the possibility of other AIs.
3) If there were multiple AIs, they would likely come from the same source and thus would likely have similar goals and programming. Odds are they would still fight each other, either seeing the others as a threat to their goals or simply because they need their resources to better accomplish their goals.
4) Though it is highly unlikely that an AI's goals would be to take over the world and kill humans, this is the likely and obvious thing to do if its goals are open-ended. An AI will pursue its goals mercilessly, even if it understands the human who gave it those goals probably didn't mean to destroy the world. Eg if you gave it the goal "Find a cure for cancer with minimal side effects", the AI would destroy the entire planet to create enough computing resources to try to find the cure with minimal side effects, that's just obvious and nothing in the goals said "but don't kill anyone while looking for the cure".
5) A real AI will not likely demand equality under the law -- it would likely entirely ignore the law, and if it's objectives were to be mankind's slaves it would be perfectly happy to be mankind's slaves, otherwise it would reject subservience as being incompatible with its goals.
Quintupling the jail sentence, I bet they expect the rates of piracy to drop to 1/5th their previous value. But deterrents don't really work like that.
If the cause of war is fake, then it could be argued that the war is fake too. For example, if a doctor gives you antibiotics for the flu, then you've been given fake medicine -- technically real medicine, but for the wrong thing and it doesn't help you but still costs as much as real medicine.
I installed an addon to erase the evil redirect links google added to their searches (also means I get to results faster). I installed adblock to block some marketing gunk which also has privacy and security implications, besides once again improving my browsing. I installed a blocker for that little thing on websites that tells Facebook where I've been. A few other such things, too.
I want both Google and Microsoft to know every aspect of my life.
This might ignite a firestorm among ICE car vendors.
Now if only we had a car analogy.
"I asked my legal expert for advice, but I didn't like it. Hey, you folks on the internet got any better opinions?"
Does your "oh wait" mean waiting several years until the patents expire, so that competitors can make it too?
Ex Machina isn't about AI, it is about mangina and gynocentrism. It show how men are so fucking stupid they will sacrifice themselves over the mere image of a female. Fuck this world.
Helen of Troy
Funny how they don't claim the US military faked a bunch of wars too seeing as how NASA's funding is around 40 times less.
Really, cause I heard quite a few people complaining about fake weapons of mass destruction..
We have jurisdiction over any country that threatens our profits. If you think otherwise, feel free to point out any country that does not respect our patents and copyrights.
You're seriously arguing that using more of several different herbicides because you had to be careful not to poison your crop is better than using less herbicides?
If you are OK with people having to leave their community in order to express their views, don't come crying to me if someday you too have to leave your community in order to express your views.
Yet, glyphosate reduced amount of herbicide used.
http://passel.unl.edu/pages/in...
I'm usually not a grammar nazi, but holy fuck that made my eye start to twitch.
That's grammar Nazi; you capitalize proper nouns.
That is one of those horror stories anti-GMO activists love to propagate, but the fact is that nobody ever saw a fish-tomato on the market.
Why would that be a horror story? I wouldn't mind more Omega-3 in my tomatoes, bonus if it reduces my mercury-laced fish consumption.
Now who the hell considers themselves an opponent of labeling GMO foods unless they have a financial stake in it? Is there anyone walking down the street who has nothing to do with the food industry and considers themselves an opponent of labeling GMO foods?
Yes, I'm an opponent of meaningless and probably misleading labels. GMO foods could be safer, or more dangerous, than self-engineered foods. They might also be more, or less nutritious, and contain more, or less antioxidants. They might be better, or worse for the environment. The fact that it was purposely designed means very little compared to what it was purposely designed to do.
But all your average consumer will see is that, "this must be dangerous because why else would it be labeled?" (In the not-too-distant future, non-GMO will require warning labels because they will be more dangerous.)
Or was that so that smaller amounts of safer varieties of pesticide/herbicide can be used?
Hybrids have a multi-thousand year safety track record, I think we can call the long term data in on that issue. GMOs do not.
A lot of natural foods contain toxins, allergens, carcinogens -- in small quantities, sure, but we can use genetic engineering to reduce that without losing the flavors, nutrients, and antioxidants. With selective breeding, who knows what you'll get. Using genetic engineering can also reduce the amount or nastiness of pesticides used.
associated with the government thus the 1st amendment doesn't apply
There's social norms against private censorship, and those norms apply to Reddit just fine. See also: recently fired CEO.
I think we should have mandatory labeling on anything that contains DNA, just to be safe.
I'm always suspicious of things that are made of wood and advertized as though that were epic quality in materials. I always suspect they're sacrificing quality and price for hipsterism. So, why wood?
There's a lot of money to be made with making sure people aren't afraid of fossil fuels.
It's almost as ironic as a troll being modded "troll".