That's nice for those developers, but as a programmer myself, I want to be able to write code for the machine. Where does one get the tools for that without paying a fortune for a developer's kit?
Well, I have some desire to change their beliefs. Not because I like dictating what people believe, but because there's a lot of value in actually understanding how the world really works. Is that unfair?
I take it you never took high school biology, because that was damn sure an experiment we did in mine. Plant seeds at different distances from each other, and observe the impact on their growth.
Spoiler: the result is if they're too close, they likely both die before maturity. Protein is king with respect to plants. Can't even make chlorophyll for new cells(much less complex structures like chloroplasts) without sufficient amino acids(specifically glycine). Plants can only get that from nitrogen-fixing bacteria, decomposing bio-matter, or artificial fertilizers, which are in turn, limited by a host of factors.
There are substantial seasonal variations in sea levels. It's completely trivial to cherry pick data to support that statement without it appearing to be bogus.
If memory serves me right, as water heats from 0 to 4 degrees C, it contracts. I would assume that most of the water on earth is less than 4C. I don't know how density of water changes when it is salt water.
That is an incredibly bizarre assumption. A quick look at a map shows it to be completely wrong even in the dead of winter.
You'd be wrong though. The problem was never ice. It was always thermal expansion. Water takes up slightly more volume as it heats up. with as much depth as the oceans have, that results in huge changes.
Serious answer: the three laws are not very good. Computers are governed by strict logic, and human style AI is driven by doing everything you can to bypass the limitations of strict logic with data structures and algorithms too complex and large to predict. The net effect of a few English language instructions that don't have a hard and clear mechanism for analyzing with strict logic, and a also lack a necessary interpretation with fuzzy logic does very little to solve the problem.
Especially in the face of real-world pressures against the laws in the practical applications of robotics. For example, we want robots that can kill, because, contrary to expectations, it can save lives net. You want robots that can choose to disregard orders, because some people would give malicious orders. You want robots that can destroy themselves, just ask a bomb squad.
1. Train an expert machine on decision making with answers from religious and political leaders who set all our definitions of right and wrong. 2. Do the opposite of what that machine decides.
Says someone who didn't look at the numbers. You take out the tax cuts and the wars, and we wouldn't have had a deficit until the financial crisis hit. If that had been the case, we wouldn't have had an enormous debt sitting over us as we tried to address the worst economic situation in almost a century.
Keynesian economics works, and it's not Obama's fault that all our potential for stimulus was wasted during an expansion.
Note however, that the only countries in a downward spiral now are those that chose or were forced into excessive austerity when the financial crisis hit.
That... would be better if were spelled out explicitly in the article or at least implicitly in the summary. Implicit in the article made it go right over my head this time.
There was a point where I was getting really tired of all the advanced power-user features of google being gone, and duckduckgo was a decent search engine when I needed one.
They're never going to beat google though. Purchasing "duck.com" however is clearly an attempt to suppress competition. I hope the FTC smacks google pretty hard for that.
Almost every post disagrees with you, but I think your point is valid. The problems with trying to do this are:
1. Psychopaths are human, and are not inherently evil or anything of the sort. Treating them differently just because their mind is different is a dangerous road to discrimination. If, and only if, the job requires a particular kind of mental state to perform, I can see requiring that as part of the hiring process. Specifically excluding people for matching some signs of a mental illness is wrong. 2. Psychopathy comes in degrees. There may be a threshold which is harmless. This is not an area where a lot of detailed study has been performed. This could easily block perfectly reasonable candidates from getting a position. 3. Tests can be wrong, or fooled.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice for those developers, but as a programmer myself, I want to be able to write code for the machine. Where does one get the tools for that without paying a fortune for a developer's kit?
Ok, keep eating that terrible bread for $0.05 cheaper because you think the invisible hand is always right.
Well, I have some desire to change their beliefs. Not because I like dictating what people believe, but because there's a lot of value in actually understanding how the world really works. Is that unfair?
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster..
Oh, so you have read the old testament.
To be fair, American breweries have been turning water and beer into watered down beer for decades.
Yeah, you can prevent creationism and lose the "free" part, or allow it and lose the "school" part.
"Both" naturally referring to evolution and life coming from really old leftovers.
There is no "both", when you allow for fiction like creationism, there are literally infinite possible fictions to teach.
7 replies, and no one actually addressed the problem the OP mentioned: distractions. Maps distract you more and not less.
Failing to solve the problem is not cleverness. All of you think you're being snarky by being morons.
Yes, and that is somehow less distracting than a gps when you're driving? Does not solve the underlying problem.
Not that I like distractions that raise my risk of death in my car either, but how do you navigate if not with GPS?
Certainly never a funny one by you.
I take it you never took high school biology, because that was damn sure an experiment we did in mine. Plant seeds at different distances from each other, and observe the impact on their growth.
Spoiler: the result is if they're too close, they likely both die before maturity. Protein is king with respect to plants. Can't even make chlorophyll for new cells(much less complex structures like chloroplasts) without sufficient amino acids(specifically glycine). Plants can only get that from nitrogen-fixing bacteria, decomposing bio-matter, or artificial fertilizers, which are in turn, limited by a host of factors.
There are substantial seasonal variations in sea levels. It's completely trivial to cherry pick data to support that statement without it appearing to be bogus.
If memory serves me right, as water heats from 0 to 4 degrees C, it contracts. I would assume that most of the water on earth is less than 4C. I don't know how density of water changes when it is salt water.
That is an incredibly bizarre assumption. A quick look at a map shows it to be completely wrong even in the dead of winter.
Go ahead and keep thinking you don't need a shower. I'm sure you'll keep your job.
You'd be wrong though. The problem was never ice. It was always thermal expansion. Water takes up slightly more volume as it heats up. with as much depth as the oceans have, that results in huge changes.
Serious answer: the three laws are not very good. Computers are governed by strict logic, and human style AI is driven by doing everything you can to bypass the limitations of strict logic with data structures and algorithms too complex and large to predict. The net effect of a few English language instructions that don't have a hard and clear mechanism for analyzing with strict logic, and a also lack a necessary interpretation with fuzzy logic does very little to solve the problem.
Especially in the face of real-world pressures against the laws in the practical applications of robotics. For example, we want robots that can kill, because, contrary to expectations, it can save lives net. You want robots that can choose to disregard orders, because some people would give malicious orders. You want robots that can destroy themselves, just ask a bomb squad.
Asimov's rules were great for fiction.
1. Train an expert machine on decision making with answers from religious and political leaders who set all our definitions of right and wrong.
2. Do the opposite of what that machine decides.
Not by any sort of functional economic model, no.
Says someone who didn't look at the numbers. You take out the tax cuts and the wars, and we wouldn't have had a deficit until the financial crisis hit. If that had been the case, we wouldn't have had an enormous debt sitting over us as we tried to address the worst economic situation in almost a century.
Keynesian economics works, and it's not Obama's fault that all our potential for stimulus was wasted during an expansion.
Note however, that the only countries in a downward spiral now are those that chose or were forced into excessive austerity when the financial crisis hit.
That... would be better if were spelled out explicitly in the article or at least implicitly in the summary. Implicit in the article made it go right over my head this time.
Since July 2, 1890. You shouldn't ask rhetorical questions that have actual answers.
There was a point where I was getting really tired of all the advanced power-user features of google being gone, and duckduckgo was a decent search engine when I needed one.
They're never going to beat google though. Purchasing "duck.com" however is clearly an attempt to suppress competition. I hope the FTC smacks google pretty hard for that.
Almost every post disagrees with you, but I think your point is valid. The problems with trying to do this are:
1. Psychopaths are human, and are not inherently evil or anything of the sort. Treating them differently just because their mind is different is a dangerous road to discrimination. If, and only if, the job requires a particular kind of mental state to perform, I can see requiring that as part of the hiring process. Specifically excluding people for matching some signs of a mental illness is wrong.
2. Psychopathy comes in degrees. There may be a threshold which is harmless. This is not an area where a lot of detailed study has been performed. This could easily block perfectly reasonable candidates from getting a position.
3. Tests can be wrong, or fooled.