As you yourself admit we have large gaps in our knowledge of how these things work. Global warming is bad but can be dealt with. There are many, many worse things you can do to the planet. Like accidentally wiping out most marine lift which this very well could do. Or runaway global cooling that would coat the whole planet in a sheet of ice. It's like saying we should treat a fever by dumping someone outside naked on the south pole. Then maybe dump the person into a pot of boiling water once hypothermia and frostbite starts to kick in.
As any decent engineer knows you do not control a process with positive feedback alone unless you want a very dramatic effect.
If price of land > price of multistory parking than guess what gets built?
In many American cities that's the case, parking structures and multistory buildings in general are expensive so it's not hard to get such a ratio. In other places zoning is bastard, let residential building go anywhere and you'd probably have no parking lots in 5 years.
Motorcycles are also less comfortable, have less storage capacity, provide no protection from the elements and are basically death traps. Death traps if you're an experience utterly paranoid driver whose constant assumption is that every other driver has been personally hired to kill you. More like genocide for the average driver.
Yes, but the problem here is that you have control. If you published your personal data on YOUR site, that's your choice - you can remove it, change it. It's your data.
BS. Once it's out there, it's out there. You may get lucky and retract it but unless no one has viewed your page ever there are already copies of your information out there. With effort you might be able to remove the post public copies of that information but you never know what random internet person put a copy on their own hard drive.
Thinking it works any other way is how you end up in deep shit.
So when exactly isn't in cowardly and assassination? Please provide a decent concrete guideline since otherwise I'm sure you'll try to wiggle out of any argument to the contrary.
Like, are you saying if a police sniper shoots a kidnapper who poses no threat to the cop then it cowardly and assassination?
There is a difference between being in the resistance and using children as human shields. A big difference. If soldiers hoot up unarmed ambulances than they're in the wrong. If insurgents use ambulances to transport weapons than they're in the wrong. furthermore once they do that you can't blame soldiers for shootign ambulances since the assumption of being unarmed was broken. Resistance is what my grandfather nearly died in during WW2 and it's an honorable thing. The insurgents on the other hand are using tactics the Nazis my grandfather was fighting against would have approved of.
If you cannot understand that difference than there is little point in talking further with you.
the laws the jury bases their decision on represents the actual voters who cared enough to take the time to go and vote. in an 60 million country this can be as low as 6 million and less. moreover, laws are made after their back, nothing is asked to them while making those laws. it is just 'assumed' that because they elected a representative supposedly aligned with their views, what the representative will legislate according to their wishes. it never worked.
It is impossible to represent the views of people in laws because people have so many views. In fact, you can have contradictory views where a majority of people support separate laws which all contradict each other. Trivial textbook stuff really.
but in 4chan case, the actions and what happens reflect exactly the will of the people.
As other have said, it represents the temporary, likely irrational, will of a very select subset of people. So stop making idiotic assumptions and I'll stop calling you an idiot.
as for my and your other points, i wont reply. first learn to argue/discuss properly without having to resort calling names, and then talk.
In other words you have no logic response but are trying desperately to save face. Okay, got it.
I mean it'd be odd if you were all in favor of people giving action to their views but can't handle it when I give you my view of you. Okay, I guess you're either a hypocrite or a coward.
a greater selection group has higher chances of reducing bias. especially if it is a huge crowd like 4c or chinese people. especially, internet communities tend to contain people from all kinds of views and opinions.
Go look up what the word "self-selection" means before replying. Assuming it's not too big for your vocabulary.
There is never a single giant group on the internet since people generally cluster with others like them if possible. There is no single lynch mob. There are a hundred lynch mobs of people who hate one thing or another. Even if everyone else disagrees with the mob there is nothing they can do to stop it. The mob is now self contained. To stop the mob you must be part of it and if you disagree why would you be part of it.
Think of it this way, do you vote for KKK leaders and agendas? The internet simply lets groups like that organize themselves better. They aren't representative for the same reason the KKK isn't representative of most people.
Granted, given enough power at their call after a while the mobs would turn on each other till only one remained alive. Not a representative mob but just the one that's most ruthless and vile. Like most every totalitarian government that has existed.
in any cases, this is the future. direct democracy. in potential future people are going to vote directly on things, thereby setting the rules. a lot may just skip it, ignore it and just not vote. but then again this also happens with current election and legislation system.
Direct democracy has been tried before, it generally ends the second a charismatic bastard convinces people to lynch their neighbors and make him king. For the greater good. Or maybe the people lynch their neighbors all on their own. In general, things end badly.
People like you forget one important thing, governments and all their ilk are a necessary evil. They are not a good thing. They are necessary to keep society functioning but they are in the end horrid inhuman monsters. Given enough power they will burn society down in one way or another. The harder it is for people to pass laws the better it is.
The laws the jury bases their decision on represent the will of the majority with safety guards to protect the minority. That's the basis of representative democracy.
As for your other point, you're basically an idiot but let me explain why.
So if you were black and the KKK burnt your house down you wouldn't mind? After all I'm sure they can round up a good 100 thousand people who agree with their views so it's okay if they kill you right? After all, they're a perfectly representative sample of the people who wish to kill you because you're black. Or do you somehow disagree with your own views?
That is of course the problem with mob justice. The mob is by definition not a representative sample no matter how big it is, it's the people who want to go after you. The ones who don't want to go after you are by definition not part of the mob no matter how many there might be. There may be fifty times as many people who think you did nothing wrong but they don't matter since they have no influence on the mob. The mob is not rational, even if evidence points otherwise the mob will by definition be those people who don't agree with the evidence no matter how strong it is. It might be 1% of the population for any given issue but 1% of a billion is a lot of people.
The point of society and justice is to give the other 99% of the population a way to keep that 1% mob at bay.
So let's say the police have two options and you get to choose which they do: a) Shoot you and a murderer (assuming you're 100% certain he is a murderer). b) Let the murderer go.
You're saying you'd pick choice a) without any qualms at all? If not then what probabilities would each possibility need before you say yes? 1% chance of shooting you and a 5% chance of shooting the murderer? 50% and 100%? Well?
This is essentially what we're talking about here. You increase the odds of catching the murderer a tiny amount but also increase the odds of getting screwed over yourself. So just how altruistic are you? Willing to sacrifice yourself for other people every time?
You don't tell the subjects what you're testing and why. They may play video games but they wouldn't know exactly why they're being told to do so. It's the standard way of doing psych studies although it can fail if the subjects are clever enough to figure things out.
That's a silly statement, there's nothing magical about emotion. It's simply a subconscious heuristic and shortcut for certain decisions. It's a billion years worth of evolution shoved into a set of response that a mouse could act upon. Useful and nifty I might add but nothing you can't replicate by other means. There's perfectly fine logic behind it, our minds just aren't built to properly understand it since we have those shortcuts ingrained so deeply. Likewise, there's plenty of crap in there which makes you worse off in a given situation.
In your example, emotion works on the evolutionary logic of genetic survival rather than individual survival. Like I said, lots of evolution to create a set of emotional responses that lets a society function together.
Most likely an advanced enough logical AI would run on a very complex set of probabilistic and utility based models. Something like Decision Analysis but more complicated. If it needs to act quickly it'll use the less accurate but faster model for it's decision. If it didn't have enough data then it'd simply make the choice most beneficial (by whatever metric that is) given the data and historical information it does have.
It's ALL about carnal desires of one sort or another, that's the whole point of civilization and longer existence. We want to live longer, we want to eat good food, screw pretty things, we want to have kids, we want to satisfy our curiosity, we want to satisfy our ingrained empathic needs, we want to be admired, etc, etc.
Society and civilization are simply entities that over time evolved on top of all this crap. We have civilization because it lets us better beat the shit out of groups of humans who don't have it. We want to beat the shit out of them because we want all those carnal desires of ours fulfilled.
The question is what pointless goal will an AI want and how will it go about achieving it rather than if it will have such a goal.
You'd still need to park but unlike an airport you'd probably have an even harder time at a rail station. Less people going through, less infrastructure, etc. No security, tarmac or baggage but a train is decidedly slower. Then you've got potential stops along the way, delays and so on. You'd still need to rent a car and you'd probably have the same problems as with parking.
Or he thinks it can be used in the crumple zones and remove the need for an airbag. I mean, did you even bother reading the article summary? Whoosh, indeed.
Interesting, so I assume you work your day job for free then? After all why aren't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone? What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?
Your company basically hires the cheapest crappiest college graduates it can and you're complaining about what exactly? Teaching an idiot a low-level language won't make him or her good at it. You get what you pay for, essentially.
My college taught low-level languages quite a bit and the science was taught extensively. Of course, most of those students got higher salaries out of school than many people with actual experience got. If your company wants people like that it has to pay for them and quite clearly your company doesn't want to pay. Good companies realize this and they do pay a lot for such people.
Sort of, the soviets managed to land intact on Mars twice. Of course since both lander stopped working within half a minute it's hard to really call them successful.
Slashdot Mirror
As you yourself admit we have large gaps in our knowledge of how these things work. Global warming is bad but can be dealt with. There are many, many worse things you can do to the planet. Like accidentally wiping out most marine lift which this very well could do. Or runaway global cooling that would coat the whole planet in a sheet of ice. It's like saying we should treat a fever by dumping someone outside naked on the south pole. Then maybe dump the person into a pot of boiling water once hypothermia and frostbite starts to kick in.
As any decent engineer knows you do not control a process with positive feedback alone unless you want a very dramatic effect.
If price of land > price of multistory parking than guess what gets built?
In many American cities that's the case, parking structures and multistory buildings in general are expensive so it's not hard to get such a ratio. In other places zoning is bastard, let residential building go anywhere and you'd probably have no parking lots in 5 years.
Motorcycles are also less comfortable, have less storage capacity, provide no protection from the elements and are basically death traps. Death traps if you're an experience utterly paranoid driver whose constant assumption is that every other driver has been personally hired to kill you. More like genocide for the average driver.
Yes, but the problem here is that you have control. If you published your personal data on YOUR site, that's your choice - you can remove it, change it. It's your data.
BS. Once it's out there, it's out there. You may get lucky and retract it but unless no one has viewed your page ever there are already copies of your information out there. With effort you might be able to remove the post public copies of that information but you never know what random internet person put a copy on their own hard drive.
Thinking it works any other way is how you end up in deep shit.
So when exactly isn't in cowardly and assassination? Please provide a decent concrete guideline since otherwise I'm sure you'll try to wiggle out of any argument to the contrary.
Like, are you saying if a police sniper shoots a kidnapper who poses no threat to the cop then it cowardly and assassination?
There is a difference between being in the resistance and using children as human shields. A big difference. If soldiers hoot up unarmed ambulances than they're in the wrong. If insurgents use ambulances to transport weapons than they're in the wrong. furthermore once they do that you can't blame soldiers for shootign ambulances since the assumption of being unarmed was broken. Resistance is what my grandfather nearly died in during WW2 and it's an honorable thing. The insurgents on the other hand are using tactics the Nazis my grandfather was fighting against would have approved of.
If you cannot understand that difference than there is little point in talking further with you.
So how much sanity do spam filters have and what happens when it runs out?
Although to be fair, Chell never talks in Portal because there is nobody to talk to.
Except the Weighted Companion Cube.
Ah, good to see someone able to admit to their own intellectual limitation.
the laws the jury bases their decision on represents the actual voters who cared enough to take the time to go and vote. in an 60 million country this can be as low as 6 million and less. moreover, laws are made after their back, nothing is asked to them while making those laws. it is just 'assumed' that because they elected a representative supposedly aligned with their views, what the representative will legislate according to their wishes. it never worked.
It is impossible to represent the views of people in laws because people have so many views. In fact, you can have contradictory views where a majority of people support separate laws which all contradict each other. Trivial textbook stuff really.
but in 4chan case, the actions and what happens reflect exactly the will of the people.
As other have said, it represents the temporary, likely irrational, will of a very select subset of people. So stop making idiotic assumptions and I'll stop calling you an idiot.
as for my and your other points, i wont reply. first learn to argue/discuss properly without having to resort calling names, and then talk.
In other words you have no logic response but are trying desperately to save face. Okay, got it.
I mean it'd be odd if you were all in favor of people giving action to their views but can't handle it when I give you my view of you. Okay, I guess you're either a hypocrite or a coward.
a greater selection group has higher chances of reducing bias. especially if it is a huge crowd like 4c or chinese people. especially, internet communities tend to contain people from all kinds of views and opinions.
Go look up what the word "self-selection" means before replying. Assuming it's not too big for your vocabulary.
There is never a single giant group on the internet since people generally cluster with others like them if possible. There is no single lynch mob. There are a hundred lynch mobs of people who hate one thing or another. Even if everyone else disagrees with the mob there is nothing they can do to stop it. The mob is now self contained. To stop the mob you must be part of it and if you disagree why would you be part of it.
Think of it this way, do you vote for KKK leaders and agendas? The internet simply lets groups like that organize themselves better. They aren't representative for the same reason the KKK isn't representative of most people.
Granted, given enough power at their call after a while the mobs would turn on each other till only one remained alive. Not a representative mob but just the one that's most ruthless and vile. Like most every totalitarian government that has existed.
in any cases, this is the future. direct democracy. in potential future people are going to vote directly on things, thereby setting the rules. a lot may just skip it, ignore it and just not vote. but then again this also happens with current election and legislation system.
Direct democracy has been tried before, it generally ends the second a charismatic bastard convinces people to lynch their neighbors and make him king. For the greater good. Or maybe the people lynch their neighbors all on their own. In general, things end badly.
People like you forget one important thing, governments and all their ilk are a necessary evil. They are not a good thing. They are necessary to keep society functioning but they are in the end horrid inhuman monsters. Given enough power they will burn society down in one way or another. The harder it is for people to pass laws the better it is.
The laws the jury bases their decision on represent the will of the majority with safety guards to protect the minority. That's the basis of representative democracy.
As for your other point, you're basically an idiot but let me explain why.
So if you were black and the KKK burnt your house down you wouldn't mind? After all I'm sure they can round up a good 100 thousand people who agree with their views so it's okay if they kill you right? After all, they're a perfectly representative sample of the people who wish to kill you because you're black. Or do you somehow disagree with your own views?
That is of course the problem with mob justice. The mob is by definition not a representative sample no matter how big it is, it's the people who want to go after you. The ones who don't want to go after you are by definition not part of the mob no matter how many there might be. There may be fifty times as many people who think you did nothing wrong but they don't matter since they have no influence on the mob. The mob is not rational, even if evidence points otherwise the mob will by definition be those people who don't agree with the evidence no matter how strong it is. It might be 1% of the population for any given issue but 1% of a billion is a lot of people.
The point of society and justice is to give the other 99% of the population a way to keep that 1% mob at bay.
So let's say the police have two options and you get to choose which they do:
a) Shoot you and a murderer (assuming you're 100% certain he is a murderer).
b) Let the murderer go.
You're saying you'd pick choice a) without any qualms at all? If not then what probabilities would each possibility need before you say yes? 1% chance of shooting you and a 5% chance of shooting the murderer? 50% and 100%? Well?
This is essentially what we're talking about here. You increase the odds of catching the murderer a tiny amount but also increase the odds of getting screwed over yourself. So just how altruistic are you? Willing to sacrifice yourself for other people every time?
You don't tell the subjects what you're testing and why. They may play video games but they wouldn't know exactly why they're being told to do so. It's the standard way of doing psych studies although it can fail if the subjects are clever enough to figure things out.
Pure democracy is called "tyranny of the majority" for a reason.
That's a silly statement, there's nothing magical about emotion. It's simply a subconscious heuristic and shortcut for certain decisions. It's a billion years worth of evolution shoved into a set of response that a mouse could act upon. Useful and nifty I might add but nothing you can't replicate by other means. There's perfectly fine logic behind it, our minds just aren't built to properly understand it since we have those shortcuts ingrained so deeply. Likewise, there's plenty of crap in there which makes you worse off in a given situation.
In your example, emotion works on the evolutionary logic of genetic survival rather than individual survival. Like I said, lots of evolution to create a set of emotional responses that lets a society function together.
Most likely an advanced enough logical AI would run on a very complex set of probabilistic and utility based models. Something like Decision Analysis but more complicated. If it needs to act quickly it'll use the less accurate but faster model for it's decision. If it didn't have enough data then it'd simply make the choice most beneficial (by whatever metric that is) given the data and historical information it does have.
Okay, why?
It's ALL about carnal desires of one sort or another, that's the whole point of civilization and longer existence. We want to live longer, we want to eat good food, screw pretty things, we want to have kids, we want to satisfy our curiosity, we want to satisfy our ingrained empathic needs, we want to be admired, etc, etc.
Society and civilization are simply entities that over time evolved on top of all this crap. We have civilization because it lets us better beat the shit out of groups of humans who don't have it. We want to beat the shit out of them because we want all those carnal desires of ours fulfilled.
The question is what pointless goal will an AI want and how will it go about achieving it rather than if it will have such a goal.
How much would high speed rail actually help you?
You'd still need to park but unlike an airport you'd probably have an even harder time at a rail station. Less people going through, less infrastructure, etc. No security, tarmac or baggage but a train is decidedly slower. Then you've got potential stops along the way, delays and so on. You'd still need to rent a car and you'd probably have the same problems as with parking.
Or he thinks it can be used in the crumple zones and remove the need for an airbag. I mean, did you even bother reading the article summary? Whoosh, indeed.
Interesting, so I assume you work your day job for free then? After all why aren't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone? What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?
Your company basically hires the cheapest crappiest college graduates it can and you're complaining about what exactly? Teaching an idiot a low-level language won't make him or her good at it. You get what you pay for, essentially.
My college taught low-level languages quite a bit and the science was taught extensively. Of course, most of those students got higher salaries out of school than many people with actual experience got. If your company wants people like that it has to pay for them and quite clearly your company doesn't want to pay. Good companies realize this and they do pay a lot for such people.
Entropy will get us all in the end.
Sort of, the soviets managed to land intact on Mars twice. Of course since both lander stopped working within half a minute it's hard to really call them successful.
Shocked you say? Amazing how everyone forgets McCarthyism.