Honestly not wanting to troll on this, but is it not possible that the definition of 'good' depends on the locale they are operating in? The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad' is not necessarily a universal truth?
I agree about a lack of universal ethics and all that, but if you take it too far you'll be left with "When in Nazi Germany, do as the Nazis do."
There aren't a lot of judges who'll go along with that, and this is precisely why the constitution separates the judiciary from the legislature and the executive.
IIRC, last time this was tried, the judge did go along with that.
Not only that, but I've noticed many pages loading much quicker with this extension - most likely due to all those ad scripts being blocked from doing their thing.
In related news, Dateline NBC had to cancel it's hit "To Catch a Predator" series since pedophilia chatrooms started to demand proof of credentials for chatters claiming to be "lonely 13 year-old girl, really curious, LOLZ."
The solution would seem to be kamakazi nanobots created out of anti-matter. They're smart enough to recognize a cancer cell, and once they do they go give it a big hug!
Dogs and cats are not sentient creatures (as far as we know).
We really need a clear definition for "sentience". I think "self-awareness" is the important part, and I'm pretty sure dogs and cats have that.
A robot that has a goal of "help and obey humans" will not decide that humans are a waste of resources because it doesn't care about resources beyond their use to help and obey humans.
Be very sure you define "help", "obey", and "humans" properly in the programming. And all the definitions that those definitions are based on.
Pascal's Wager basically says that if there's no god then it doesn't matter what you believe, but if there is a god then you had better believe in him. Even though Pascal's wager may be invalid when it comes to belief in a particular god, it may be reasonable when applied to a meaning for the universe as a whole. In other words, if the universe is pointless then it doesn't matter what you do, but if there is a purpose to the universe then it does matter what you do. If you don't know what the purpose is then I guess the first step is to figure out what the purpose is.
To me, that's a pretty invalid argument. Why should I give a rat's ass what the universe's "purpose", if any, is for me. I only care what purpose I give myself. Even should the universe have a purpose for me and I learn what that purpose is, if it turns out to be something that I don't agree with, too bad for the universe. And yes, if God exists this applies to Him/Her/It as well.
I remember a short scifi story, I think it was in Clifford Simak's "Strangers in the Universe" collection. There humans on some planet spent millenia on building a computer that could answer any question. The questions were "What's the purpose of the Universe" and "What's the meaning of life." The answers were something like "The Universe has no purpose, the Universe just happened" and "Life has no meaning, life is an accident." After learning this, the humans abandoned all their technology and settled to an Amish-like lifestyle. Which as far as I'm concerned is fine if that's what they really wanted to do, but I see no reason why people should give up just because something higher than them doesn't assign them a purpose.
In other words, if God exists and he created humanity for no purpose other than to have someone to worship Him, would you accept that purpose, or would you attempt make your life have a meaning beyond that?
Any machine that mimics human behaviour could also mimic questioning its own existence. Besides, as I mentioned in another post, as I'm concerned, all mammals are most likely sentient. To me, sentience has to do with self-awareness, not intelligence or free will.
Is there a difference? For humans even? What if in the process of creating sentient robots we find that we aren't really all that free thinking (I'm not implying any kind of design here but someone is going to raise that issue as well).
Self-awareness is what counts, free will doesn't even enter the picture. If free will is an illusion (as I personally believe it to be), that doesn't mean that I should have any less rights.
It's all about the concept of "I". I only really know that I am self-aware, but I assume that other humans, as well as the rest of the higher life-forms on this planet, are self-aware as well. Beyond that - who knows? For all I know trees could be self-aware. Could a sufficiently complex AI system that's not designed to be self aware gain the concept of "I"? Probably, but that's only a guess, and short of the development of general telepathy I don't know how we'd have any way of telling when that happens.
If that was the case he'd already have been fired for gross incompetence and his name would be mud. That's why you have to tread really carefully. If your boss (or the person you tell) is in on it they're gonna frame you.
Heh, this reminds me of Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys where the main character's boss keeps an incredibly high turnover rate at his company just so that nobody can figure out that all the rich clients are being embezzled from. As soon as the boss thinks his employee figured him out, the employee gets framed for the embezzlement.
So instead of doing something valuable like finding killer asteroids that actually exist and have hit the world in the last 100 years, we send a mission to Mars, send up commercial satellites on government paid for shuttles?
I don't think any asteroids that have hit the world in the last 100 years are likely to hit it again any time soon....
Slashdot Mirror
We'll have some proof once we're able to travel at the speed of lint.
That's because dark matter is God!
OMG, you're right! Dark Matter - just look at the initials! How much more proof could we possibly need?
And how many of these tiny black holes in the atmosphere have we detected so far?
Honestly not wanting to troll on this, but is it not possible that the definition of 'good' depends on the locale they are operating in? The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad' is not necessarily a universal truth?
I agree about a lack of universal ethics and all that, but if you take it too far you'll be left with "When in Nazi Germany, do as the Nazis do."
Goooooooo Godwin!
There aren't a lot of judges who'll go along with that, and this is precisely why the constitution separates the judiciary from the legislature and the executive.
IIRC, last time this was tried, the judge did go along with that.
It would require a special type of liar to receive funding from both the corporations and the environmentalists....
Road rage has more to do with urban stress than anything else.
Really? I always thought road rage had more to do with people being assholes than anything else. That or working in a DSL office.
Not only that, but I've noticed many pages loading much quicker with this extension - most likely due to all those ad scripts being blocked from doing their thing.
In related news, Dateline NBC had to cancel it's hit "To Catch a Predator" series since pedophilia chatrooms started to demand proof of credentials for chatters claiming to be "lonely 13 year-old girl, really curious, LOLZ."
The solution would seem to be kamakazi nanobots created out of anti-matter. They're smart enough to recognize a cancer cell, and once they do they go give it a big hug!
Um, what about the CEOs who make it all possible?
Dogs and cats are not sentient creatures (as far as we know). We really need a clear definition for "sentience". I think "self-awareness" is the important part, and I'm pretty sure dogs and cats have that.
A robot that has a goal of "help and obey humans" will not decide that humans are a waste of resources because it doesn't care about resources beyond their use to help and obey humans.
Be very sure you define "help", "obey", and "humans" properly in the programming. And all the definitions that those definitions are based on.
Pascal's Wager basically says that if there's no god then it doesn't matter what you believe, but if there is a god then you had better believe in him. Even though Pascal's wager may be invalid when it comes to belief in a particular god, it may be reasonable when applied to a meaning for the universe as a whole. In other words, if the universe is pointless then it doesn't matter what you do, but if there is a purpose to the universe then it does matter what you do. If you don't know what the purpose is then I guess the first step is to figure out what the purpose is.
To me, that's a pretty invalid argument. Why should I give a rat's ass what the universe's "purpose", if any, is for me. I only care what purpose I give myself. Even should the universe have a purpose for me and I learn what that purpose is, if it turns out to be something that I don't agree with, too bad for the universe. And yes, if God exists this applies to Him/Her/It as well.
I remember a short scifi story, I think it was in Clifford Simak's "Strangers in the Universe" collection. There humans on some planet spent millenia on building a computer that could answer any question. The questions were "What's the purpose of the Universe" and "What's the meaning of life." The answers were something like "The Universe has no purpose, the Universe just happened" and "Life has no meaning, life is an accident." After learning this, the humans abandoned all their technology and settled to an Amish-like lifestyle. Which as far as I'm concerned is fine if that's what they really wanted to do, but I see no reason why people should give up just because something higher than them doesn't assign them a purpose.
In other words, if God exists and he created humanity for no purpose other than to have someone to worship Him, would you accept that purpose, or would you attempt make your life have a meaning beyond that?
Any machine that mimics human behaviour could also mimic questioning its own existence. Besides, as I mentioned in another post, as I'm concerned, all mammals are most likely sentient. To me, sentience has to do with self-awareness, not intelligence or free will.
Is there a difference? For humans even? What if in the process of creating sentient robots we find that we aren't really all that free thinking (I'm not implying any kind of design here but someone is going to raise that issue as well).
Self-awareness is what counts, free will doesn't even enter the picture. If free will is an illusion (as I personally believe it to be), that doesn't mean that I should have any less rights.
It's all about the concept of "I". I only really know that I am self-aware, but I assume that other humans, as well as the rest of the higher life-forms on this planet, are self-aware as well. Beyond that - who knows? For all I know trees could be self-aware. Could a sufficiently complex AI system that's not designed to be self aware gain the concept of "I"? Probably, but that's only a guess, and short of the development of general telepathy I don't know how we'd have any way of telling when that happens.
It really wouldn't be "robot rights" as much as "AI" rights. A physical body should not be necessary for any rights.
But we all know where this will end up.
With a lethally radioactive Earth and a telepathic robot who controls human existance from behind the scenes for tens of thousands of years?
but that begs the question, why give real human emotion to something you want to abuse?
Must be nice to be so naive.
Nah, he was probably talking about this model.
Mod parent down, the link is to Goatse.
In most of America, I can shoot anybody who threatens me or my property, and be pretty safe from lawsuits
In most of America, if you shoot someone carrying off your TV set you'll be prosecuted for murder, or at the very least manslaughter.
If that was the case he'd already have been fired for gross incompetence and his name would be mud. That's why you have to tread really carefully. If your boss (or the person you tell) is in on it they're gonna frame you.
Heh, this reminds me of Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys where the main character's boss keeps an incredibly high turnover rate at his company just so that nobody can figure out that all the rich clients are being embezzled from. As soon as the boss thinks his employee figured him out, the employee gets framed for the embezzlement.
4,200 hours of independent/local music sounds good though.
Now divide this by the number of radio stations owned by the broadcasters....
So instead of doing something valuable like finding killer asteroids that actually exist and have hit the world in the last 100 years, we send a mission to Mars, send up commercial satellites on government paid for shuttles?
I don't think any asteroids that have hit the world in the last 100 years are likely to hit it again any time soon....