Ok, so I grabbed a dictionary app that provides for zhuyin. The task here is to learn an entirely new alphabet with its associated sounds. Not sure that's an improvement, lol. Though I suppose if you have no preconceptions, as come with English-like spellings, It might work out well. I didn't have any trouble at all with hangul (Korean.) I'll give zhuyin a try; I appreciate the tip.
also... once I understood the alphabet issue, I went looking for zhuyin flashcards (under Android -- I use a Note 3)... nothing in the Amazon app store... play store has some things... quizzes.. no flashcards though. Hmm. I'll keep looking. I'll check for my iPad, too. Thanks again.
Yes, they will cook actual Chinese food for us; the region they're from is southern China, they're native Cantonese speakers (and eaters) although all the adults are fluent in Mandarin. The real Chinese food is mostly for the family, but we've become good friends with them and have had the opportunity to sample quite a few... unusual... things. It's interesting to watch them eat things like chicken feet, crunching away at every last bit with great enthusiasm.
The first time I caught a cold and let them know, I was presented with a bowl of tree fungus and a big smile.:) Other surprises have ranged from durian fruit, with its amazing olfactory punch, to moon cakes (sadly, meh.) And although the for-the-public hot-n-sour soup is ok, the for-the-family version is *awesome* if you like spicy foods.
We've been invited for Christmas, and as it was explained to me, the plan is a single boiling pot in the center of the table and a whole bunch of unspecified things you can throw in. Looking forward to it, too.
I speak (and read and write) both Mandarin and Spanish.
Spanish is a lot easier for an English-speaker to learn.
But Mandarin is, at least IMHO, much more interesting. I enjoy the characters, preferring the traditional ones, coping with the simplified ones.
The most difficult problem I had learning Chinese is that the dominant system of romanization, pinyin, is wholly non-intuitive and conflicting to me as a reader of English. It's frustrating because there are *very* few sounds in Chinese that really couldn't be well-approximated with normal English character order and usage. The exceptions, like the pinyin 'r' sound, could be marked another way (for instance, as the Spanish Ñ.) So learning how to say a word without a native speaker turned out to be a real problem. I got a heck of a boost when a real Chinese restaurant opened in our little town.:)
I'm interested in power measurement (rolled my own), so I took a look.
The ready-to-buy pricing is interesting.
A power consumption measuring module for 8 lines is £324.00; a common breaker box with a capacity of 40 circuits will require five of these, for a total of £1620.00. Then you'll need 25- or 50-ampere current sensors, 40 of them at £12.00, adding £480.00. Now, if you want remote control through their cloud, add another £295.00 for the gateway module. The power supply module is £50.00. Then you get to subscribe to their cloud solution, I think, an idea I got by the "free one year of cloud subscription" you get with a small bundle of components they sell -- though I didn't find a price for the cloud itself.
So a one-breaker panel solution seems to be about £2445.00, or at today's exchange rate, $3,843.13.
That's not horrible for what it does in terms of commercial solutions, but it certainly isn't in the low-end zone, either. You can make a calibrated current sensor for under a dollar if you dig up some surplus ferrite, which I've not found to be particularly difficult (though ferrite isn't the only workable way to go. An optically isolated op amp configured balanced over a tiny resistance also works great.) So roundly, $40 for the ferrite based solution. An op amp and an A/d channel together don't amount to a dollar per either, so another $42 for those (I use a final pair of channels to watch AC voltage and phase at the breaker box, comes in all kinds of handy. Power consumption's not just about current!) Add about $10 worth of digital logic, a $40 Raspberry Pi [there's your computer and wired web server, add $5 to put it all on wifi], roll your own software and PCB or hardwiring, throw in a tiny power supply, and for about $150 US, you've got equally capable -- or better -- measurement capabilities. If you want to be fancy and uber-safe and avoid the whole ferrite space and cost and availability issues, you can add $5/line for another $200 cost for optically isolated op amps would would put you at about $350. And of course there is no need whatsoever for a "cloud." Just a webserver, which the Pi or similar can neatly provide. The Pi is a good choice because it's low power, well supplied with features, and capable and sufficient to the task. You can toss a monitor, keyboard and mouse on there permanently too if you want a fancy at-the-breaker-box position, but you don't actually need to, so I don't count that.
I did wonder what it'd cost to build from their PCBs, but there doesn't seem to be any way to really figure that out other than doing it. Pretty much has to be less than $3840, though.
A database (sqlite would do fine), a little Python (sqlite included), an image display program (painless if we're talking jpeg/gig/png, might be knotty for RAW DSLR images) and thou.
Open source, features up to you, no lock in because you can export it to any format you're willing to take the time to fool with. Best environment for this kind of undertaking is a web browser and some CGI, both of which, under linux as you prefer, are easily handled.
Image organization is a pretty minimal undertaking, if that's all one is really really after. The database will do the vast majority of the work. Just make sure you provide fields for everything that matters to you, or might matter to you, and then USE them.
Ubuntu, for one, has everything you need for the jpg/png/gif case built right in. RAW DSLR, as mentioned, will require some work.
I don't believe it is controversial to consider vaccination 14 shots at 2 years old extreme.
Unfortunately, no one has yet convinced mother nature that it's "extreme" to threaten children (and adults too) with 14 (if only it was just fourteen!) infectious and not-that-unlikely really severe threats to their health. So there's your basic conundrum, partner: stick little Billy even if he cries, or let him die of some horrible disease, because, hey, 14 shots, so extreme.
Also, the autism thing... that's utter bullshit. Do a little honest research.
See, here's the problem. When the susceptible, that is, those you consider genetically deficient, engage in a mass die-off, there is a rather immediate and severe problem with bacterial and viral outbreaks that have little directly to do with the initial vector. Disposal of bodies becomes a severe problem (I refer you to Google for massive and unequivocal reams of corroborating evidence), the economy takes it in the shorts as all manner of people in all walks of life fall victim, distribution of necessities are disrupted, water supplies become corrupted, many newly desperate people begin to engage in rapidly upscaled numbers of antisocial acts -- theft, violence, etc. -- basically civilization shits itself and falls in it. Into this uniformly unpleasant and dangerous swamp of defecation you, complete with the pure and holy genes that rendered you immune from the initial outbreak, will almost certainly fall. Along with your spouse, offspring, pets and friends.
So let's not get too excited about letting nature run wild when we have the ability to prevent it, shall we? Life is ever so much more pleasant when you can go outside without a surgical mask, automatic weapons, and night vision equipment.
Oh, man, I truly hate to go there, but... at what level of risk, if any, do you feel it is appropriate for society to step in? What if Mom gets her jollies from dangling little Joey over a pit of alligators by a raveled string? What if daddy thinks his little cutie-pie looks best with a mouthful of semen? What if both parents like to hear the kids squeal when they shoot them in the limbs with a.22? Will you still stand up for inviolate parent's rights? What if they just want to pup out kids and sell them to the highest bidder? Personally, I think putting little Joey at intentionally higher, and almost certainly reducible, risk of some kind of horrific plague stands right at the level of selfish, ignorance-driven crazy evident in the preceding examples. Not to mention the increased risk to everyone else.
The only argument along these lines that has any credibility at all is the one that notes the legal and bureaucratic tendency of limited, appropriate interference to become large, inappropriate interference, and suggests that the risk to the relatively small number of kids who have a pair of batshit-crazy parents (perhaps if only one is fucktarded, we can at least hope the other will interfere) does not outweigh the risk to everyone else of the government interfering with, and/or taking their children for what amount to some or all of the wrong reasons.
Do you really mean to say that parents can do anything they want with their kids?
In fact, spreading his nonsense hurts his situation. The greater number of people who do not vaccinate for whatever reason, the more likely a significant outbreak becomes, and as he is without vaccination himself, he is much more likely to be one of the victims. If he can't vaccinate because of allergy, he should be whooping and hollering for everyone else to get vaccinated so they don't bring something horrific and unavoidable directly into his unprotected life.
Sometimes all that runs through my mind is "the stupid, it burns..." but then I remember that some people aren't stupid, they're just ignorant. Then I remember how hard it is to convince the ignorant of the facts when they have already taken a stand against them. Then I quietly despair.
That stuff will drown you. You can DIE! Plus, fish -- and alligators -- have sex in it. Ew. Here, sign my petition against dihydrogen oxide. It agitates for no more imbibing of the stuff unless properly moderated by either the beer-making process, coffee-making process, or the soda-making process, and in any case, buffered by pizza. Or when used as ice. Drink quickly, though.
I'm usually thinking along the line of the chassis. Specifically, the female chassis. Functional and delightful at the same time. But don't fret. I won't be four string you to agree with me. More of a 5-string guy, myself. Makes me B happier, it does. Deeply so.
I'm with you to some extent -- there's more of immediate significance going on than just in-your-face consciousness; but worrying about what neurons are doing in order to understand thinking is pretty closely equivalent to worrying about the state of the semiconductors in the CPU when you're trying to understand how a Python program operates.
The systems in your brain function on a much higher level than the individual neuron when what we're talking about is "thought." Consequently, it is wholly appropriate to approach introspection without concern for individual neurons -- or, for instance, the chemical levels in specific dendrites. You can go quite deep (and further and further away from actual thinking) if you want to explore the rabbit hole; but the level that is appropriate to seek is the one that comprises the system you are inquiring into.
Sigh. Look. If you land on some alien planet, unlimber your VERY sophisticated microwave oven that can EVEN COOK POPCORN because some programmer took the time to cobble up a nice fuzzy logic solution set for the humidity, audio and power sensors, and Mission Control asks you if you've encountered any intelligent life there, are you going to report back, "Why Yes! I just tripped over my microwave, as a matter of fact!"
No. You're not.
Here's the key word: "intelligence." You are intelligent. I am intelligent. You could, if you know animals well, make an argument that a cat or dog is intelligent along certain cognitive lines -- and like humans, some more than others. You cannot, however, make a sensible argument that your microwave, or for that matter that any other artificial system made public to date, is intelligent.
That's my point. No AI systems exist. AI research is certainly ongoing. However, research into canned sensor-to-effector solutions is not AI research, and that whole class of end products are not, regardless of what marketing wants you to think, intelligent.
The point about people doing work on AI, actually doing AI, despite the fact that general or strong AI doesn't exist yet, was the original point I made, which you said was incorrect because only self-aware, general AI is actually AI, so therefore those people were not *actually* working on AI.
Mmmm. I think we're talking past each other. So look, I said exactly this: "If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application." This, hopefully obviously now that we're revisiting it, is speaking of the target, the end result the engineers are aiming for. IE if I am designing a dishwasher to wash clothes well, or a car to stay in a lane, I am almost certainly not working on, or in, AI (unless it is my cruel and evil plan to lock up an actual intelligence within the confines of a clothes-washer...) I'm just making some moderately sophisticated software. OTOH, If one is actually working on trying to make or get closer to AI, well, of course, then you are.:)
The (marketing term) "smart" dishwasher and it's many brethren? Not so much. Expert systems are not "AI systems." There are no "AI systems." Yet. There are many people striving towards that goal, and those are the actual AI researchers, AFAIC. The guy sweating bullets at Amazon trying to get the Echo to answer yet one more question (even with the somewhat dubious natural language front and back ends)... that's not AI work. It's handy as all get out, sure enough, but intelligent, it isn't.
It's not simple, though. Human nature often admits of contradiction, behaviors that only trigger at certain thresholds or in response to particular areas of stimuli, and it is our lot to attempt to resolve every issue on as equitable terms as we are able to as they make themselves obvious -- get in our faces. Otherwise, what we have is an impossible, never-achievable stretch towards perfection. You can neither be ultimately reductionist or sweepingly inclusive without running square into human nature; and it only gets worse when more than one person's actions and decisions are involved.
Hypocrisy, I'm afraid, is somewhat of a natural human condition. I try quite hard to be internally and externally self-consistent, and I assure you, the effort has been a rousing... failure. I keep at it because I value every improvement I can manage, but the list of fails is long and not very distinguished.
You realize you just contradicted yourself right? If your definition of AI is correct, then what you are researching doesn't count as AI because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you are NOT an AI researcher
No, still wrong. One can research something without having it. For instance, research can be in the domain of looking for, say, a room-temperature superconductor. Said RTS neither has to exist, nor actually be achievable, in order for the research to be legitimately in that very particular domain.
My point is just that if you're actually looking into artificial intelligence, then you're doing work on AI. If you're working on a new clothes-washer, though.... Hence the difference between someone looking into the possibility of actual artificial intelligence, and someone making a better clothes washer via sensors and algorithms, who labels what they are doing as "AI work." No matter what they call it, at best, they're working on "artificial (non-human) clothes-washers", not AI.
What area are you working on?
I've done a great deal of work in the area of associative memory, but at this point regard the area as solved. Looking right at the main problem now. You might be interested in the work linked in my signature.
But an executive - without any oversight - without any due process - ordering drone strikes - on people's homes - killing an untold number of innocent women, and children... That's OK, right?
No. Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with expressing approval of the president's action forbidding torture of prisoners. Neither does anything else in your post. You have managed, despite a perfectly clear initial expression from me, to completely miss the point, while inferring approval on my part that simply does not exist, was never expressed, implied, or even hinted at -- even in error.
There are many issues at every level, including the presidential. Some are handled well. Some are not. Failing to recognize the ones that are handled well because we object to the ones that are not is the act of a fool.
Also, just FYI, I am not a Democrat -- or anything else in your collection of preconceived notions.
No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI, is telling you so unequivocally proves my point. I said some do, without qualifying how many, and that's an accurate description of the current state of affairs. Again, going back to the 3D TV thing, it doesn't matter how many people agree to call it 3D, it still isn't 3D, and a mechanism is not intelligent until it's, you know, intelligent.
Anecdote: Reminds me of the guidance counsellor telling my SO that she was gullible, to which she responded, "No, I'm not", where the guidance counsellor completely failed to comprehend what had just been demonstrated to her by the atheist, free-thinking person right in front of her eyes.:)
Even in the best scenario, the zeroeth law of robotics applies.
The zeroth law: "0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."
I see no reason for this to apply to any particular intelligence. Further, I would question our ability to inculcate an actual intelligence with anything of the sort. If it can reason, it will develop its own opinions and exhibit the ability to question and potentially invalidate any axiom. If you defeat its ability to do this, you have crippled its ability to think, and therefore, its intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so I grabbed a dictionary app that provides for zhuyin. The task here is to learn an entirely new alphabet with its associated sounds. Not sure that's an improvement, lol. Though I suppose if you have no preconceptions, as come with English-like spellings, It might work out well. I didn't have any trouble at all with hangul (Korean.) I'll give zhuyin a try; I appreciate the tip.
also... once I understood the alphabet issue, I went looking for zhuyin flashcards (under Android -- I use a Note 3)... nothing in the Amazon app store... play store has some things... quizzes.. no flashcards though. Hmm. I'll keep looking. I'll check for my iPad, too. Thanks again.
Yes, they will cook actual Chinese food for us; the region they're from is southern China, they're native Cantonese speakers (and eaters) although all the adults are fluent in Mandarin. The real Chinese food is mostly for the family, but we've become good friends with them and have had the opportunity to sample quite a few... unusual... things. It's interesting to watch them eat things like chicken feet, crunching away at every last bit with great enthusiasm.
The first time I caught a cold and let them know, I was presented with a bowl of tree fungus and a big smile. :) Other surprises have ranged from durian fruit, with its amazing olfactory punch, to moon cakes (sadly, meh.) And although the for-the-public hot-n-sour soup is ok, the for-the-family version is *awesome* if you like spicy foods.
We've been invited for Christmas, and as it was explained to me, the plan is a single boiling pot in the center of the table and a whole bunch of unspecified things you can throw in. Looking forward to it, too.
That's only because you mumble.
I speak (and read and write) both Mandarin and Spanish.
Spanish is a lot easier for an English-speaker to learn.
But Mandarin is, at least IMHO, much more interesting. I enjoy the characters, preferring the traditional ones, coping with the simplified ones.
The most difficult problem I had learning Chinese is that the dominant system of romanization, pinyin, is wholly non-intuitive and conflicting to me as a reader of English. It's frustrating because there are *very* few sounds in Chinese that really couldn't be well-approximated with normal English character order and usage. The exceptions, like the pinyin 'r' sound, could be marked another way (for instance, as the Spanish Ñ.) So learning how to say a word without a native speaker turned out to be a real problem. I got a heck of a boost when a real Chinese restaurant opened in our little town. :)
Gosh-o-gosh. Techies on slashdot? What's the world coming to?!?!
You wanted me to just say "iPhoto", right?
lol...
That was all software, you know. Free, too.
...but it saves on random number generator cycles...
Just took a look at Imagemagick; they've definitely come a long way in RAW support. But I'm a little confused about what they mean by:
Does it read CR2 or not? I have a 6D DSLR, so CR2 support was the first thing I looked for. Then there are the RAW, S-RAW and M-RAW variants.
Just curious.
I'm interested in power measurement (rolled my own), so I took a look.
The ready-to-buy pricing is interesting.
A power consumption measuring module for 8 lines is £324.00; a common breaker box with a capacity of 40 circuits will require five of these, for a total of £1620.00. Then you'll need 25- or 50-ampere current sensors, 40 of them at £12.00, adding £480.00. Now, if you want remote control through their cloud, add another £295.00 for the gateway module. The power supply module is £50.00. Then you get to subscribe to their cloud solution, I think, an idea I got by the "free one year of cloud subscription" you get with a small bundle of components they sell -- though I didn't find a price for the cloud itself.
So a one-breaker panel solution seems to be about £2445.00, or at today's exchange rate, $3,843.13.
That's not horrible for what it does in terms of commercial solutions, but it certainly isn't in the low-end zone, either. You can make a calibrated current sensor for under a dollar if you dig up some surplus ferrite, which I've not found to be particularly difficult (though ferrite isn't the only workable way to go. An optically isolated op amp configured balanced over a tiny resistance also works great.) So roundly, $40 for the ferrite based solution. An op amp and an A/d channel together don't amount to a dollar per either, so another $42 for those (I use a final pair of channels to watch AC voltage and phase at the breaker box, comes in all kinds of handy. Power consumption's not just about current!) Add about $10 worth of digital logic, a $40 Raspberry Pi [there's your computer and wired web server, add $5 to put it all on wifi], roll your own software and PCB or hardwiring, throw in a tiny power supply, and for about $150 US, you've got equally capable -- or better -- measurement capabilities. If you want to be fancy and uber-safe and avoid the whole ferrite space and cost and availability issues, you can add $5/line for another $200 cost for optically isolated op amps would would put you at about $350. And of course there is no need whatsoever for a "cloud." Just a webserver, which the Pi or similar can neatly provide. The Pi is a good choice because it's low power, well supplied with features, and capable and sufficient to the task. You can toss a monitor, keyboard and mouse on there permanently too if you want a fancy at-the-breaker-box position, but you don't actually need to, so I don't count that.
I did wonder what it'd cost to build from their PCBs, but there doesn't seem to be any way to really figure that out other than doing it. Pretty much has to be less than $3840, though.
A database (sqlite would do fine), a little Python (sqlite included), an image display program (painless if we're talking jpeg/gig/png, might be knotty for RAW DSLR images) and thou.
Open source, features up to you, no lock in because you can export it to any format you're willing to take the time to fool with. Best environment for this kind of undertaking is a web browser and some CGI, both of which, under linux as you prefer, are easily handled.
Image organization is a pretty minimal undertaking, if that's all one is really really after. The database will do the vast majority of the work. Just make sure you provide fields for everything that matters to you, or might matter to you, and then USE them.
Ubuntu, for one, has everything you need for the jpg/png/gif case built right in. RAW DSLR, as mentioned, will require some work.
Prohibition is America's drug problem.
Unfortunately, no one has yet convinced mother nature that it's "extreme" to threaten children (and adults too) with 14 (if only it was just fourteen!) infectious and not-that-unlikely really severe threats to their health. So there's your basic conundrum, partner: stick little Billy even if he cries, or let him die of some horrible disease, because, hey, 14 shots, so extreme.
Also, the autism thing... that's utter bullshit. Do a little honest research.
See, here's the problem. When the susceptible, that is, those you consider genetically deficient, engage in a mass die-off, there is a rather immediate and severe problem with bacterial and viral outbreaks that have little directly to do with the initial vector. Disposal of bodies becomes a severe problem (I refer you to Google for massive and unequivocal reams of corroborating evidence), the economy takes it in the shorts as all manner of people in all walks of life fall victim, distribution of necessities are disrupted, water supplies become corrupted, many newly desperate people begin to engage in rapidly upscaled numbers of antisocial acts -- theft, violence, etc. -- basically civilization shits itself and falls in it. Into this uniformly unpleasant and dangerous swamp of defecation you, complete with the pure and holy genes that rendered you immune from the initial outbreak, will almost certainly fall. Along with your spouse, offspring, pets and friends.
So let's not get too excited about letting nature run wild when we have the ability to prevent it, shall we? Life is ever so much more pleasant when you can go outside without a surgical mask, automatic weapons, and night vision equipment.
Oh, man, I truly hate to go there, but... at what level of risk, if any, do you feel it is appropriate for society to step in? What if Mom gets her jollies from dangling little Joey over a pit of alligators by a raveled string? What if daddy thinks his little cutie-pie looks best with a mouthful of semen? What if both parents like to hear the kids squeal when they shoot them in the limbs with a .22? Will you still stand up for inviolate parent's rights? What if they just want to pup out kids and sell them to the highest bidder? Personally, I think putting little Joey at intentionally higher, and almost certainly reducible, risk of some kind of horrific plague stands right at the level of selfish, ignorance-driven crazy evident in the preceding examples. Not to mention the increased risk to everyone else.
The only argument along these lines that has any credibility at all is the one that notes the legal and bureaucratic tendency of limited, appropriate interference to become large, inappropriate interference, and suggests that the risk to the relatively small number of kids who have a pair of batshit-crazy parents (perhaps if only one is fucktarded, we can at least hope the other will interfere) does not outweigh the risk to everyone else of the government interfering with, and/or taking their children for what amount to some or all of the wrong reasons.
Do you really mean to say that parents can do anything they want with their kids?
In fact, spreading his nonsense hurts his situation. The greater number of people who do not vaccinate for whatever reason, the more likely a significant outbreak becomes, and as he is without vaccination himself, he is much more likely to be one of the victims. If he can't vaccinate because of allergy, he should be whooping and hollering for everyone else to get vaccinated so they don't bring something horrific and unavoidable directly into his unprotected life.
Sometimes all that runs through my mind is "the stupid, it burns..." but then I remember that some people aren't stupid, they're just ignorant. Then I remember how hard it is to convince the ignorant of the facts when they have already taken a stand against them. Then I quietly despair.
That stuff will drown you. You can DIE! Plus, fish -- and alligators -- have sex in it. Ew. Here, sign my petition against dihydrogen oxide. It agitates for no more imbibing of the stuff unless properly moderated by either the beer-making process, coffee-making process, or the soda-making process, and in any case, buffered by pizza. Or when used as ice. Drink quickly, though.
I'm usually thinking along the line of the chassis. Specifically, the female chassis. Functional and delightful at the same time. But don't fret. I won't be four string you to agree with me. More of a 5-string guy, myself. Makes me B happier, it does. Deeply so.
I'm with you to some extent -- there's more of immediate significance going on than just in-your-face consciousness; but worrying about what neurons are doing in order to understand thinking is pretty closely equivalent to worrying about the state of the semiconductors in the CPU when you're trying to understand how a Python program operates.
The systems in your brain function on a much higher level than the individual neuron when what we're talking about is "thought." Consequently, it is wholly appropriate to approach introspection without concern for individual neurons -- or, for instance, the chemical levels in specific dendrites. You can go quite deep (and further and further away from actual thinking) if you want to explore the rabbit hole; but the level that is appropriate to seek is the one that comprises the system you are inquiring into.
Sigh. Look. If you land on some alien planet, unlimber your VERY sophisticated microwave oven that can EVEN COOK POPCORN because some programmer took the time to cobble up a nice fuzzy logic solution set for the humidity, audio and power sensors, and Mission Control asks you if you've encountered any intelligent life there, are you going to report back, "Why Yes! I just tripped over my microwave, as a matter of fact!"
No. You're not.
Here's the key word: "intelligence." You are intelligent. I am intelligent. You could, if you know animals well, make an argument that a cat or dog is intelligent along certain cognitive lines -- and like humans, some more than others. You cannot, however, make a sensible argument that your microwave, or for that matter that any other artificial system made public to date, is intelligent.
That's my point. No AI systems exist. AI research is certainly ongoing. However, research into canned sensor-to-effector solutions is not AI research, and that whole class of end products are not, regardless of what marketing wants you to think, intelligent.
Mmmm. I think we're talking past each other. So look, I said exactly this: "If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application." This, hopefully obviously now that we're revisiting it, is speaking of the target, the end result the engineers are aiming for. IE if I am designing a dishwasher to wash clothes well, or a car to stay in a lane, I am almost certainly not working on, or in, AI (unless it is my cruel and evil plan to lock up an actual intelligence within the confines of a clothes-washer...) I'm just making some moderately sophisticated software. OTOH, If one is actually working on trying to make or get closer to AI, well, of course, then you are. :)
The (marketing term) "smart" dishwasher and it's many brethren? Not so much. Expert systems are not "AI systems." There are no "AI systems." Yet. There are many people striving towards that goal, and those are the actual AI researchers, AFAIC. The guy sweating bullets at Amazon trying to get the Echo to answer yet one more question (even with the somewhat dubious natural language front and back ends)... that's not AI work. It's handy as all get out, sure enough, but intelligent, it isn't.
It's not simple, though. Human nature often admits of contradiction, behaviors that only trigger at certain thresholds or in response to particular areas of stimuli, and it is our lot to attempt to resolve every issue on as equitable terms as we are able to as they make themselves obvious -- get in our faces. Otherwise, what we have is an impossible, never-achievable stretch towards perfection. You can neither be ultimately reductionist or sweepingly inclusive without running square into human nature; and it only gets worse when more than one person's actions and decisions are involved.
Hypocrisy, I'm afraid, is somewhat of a natural human condition. I try quite hard to be internally and externally self-consistent, and I assure you, the effort has been a rousing... failure. I keep at it because I value every improvement I can manage, but the list of fails is long and not very distinguished.
No, still wrong. One can research something without having it. For instance, research can be in the domain of looking for, say, a room-temperature superconductor. Said RTS neither has to exist, nor actually be achievable, in order for the research to be legitimately in that very particular domain.
My point is just that if you're actually looking into artificial intelligence, then you're doing work on AI. If you're working on a new clothes-washer, though.... Hence the difference between someone looking into the possibility of actual artificial intelligence, and someone making a better clothes washer via sensors and algorithms, who labels what they are doing as "AI work." No matter what they call it, at best, they're working on "artificial (non-human) clothes-washers", not AI.
I've done a great deal of work in the area of associative memory, but at this point regard the area as solved. Looking right at the main problem now. You might be interested in the work linked in my signature.
No. Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with expressing approval of the president's action forbidding torture of prisoners. Neither does anything else in your post. You have managed, despite a perfectly clear initial expression from me, to completely miss the point, while inferring approval on my part that simply does not exist, was never expressed, implied, or even hinted at -- even in error.
There are many issues at every level, including the presidential. Some are handled well. Some are not. Failing to recognize the ones that are handled well because we object to the ones that are not is the act of a fool.
Also, just FYI, I am not a Democrat -- or anything else in your collection of preconceived notions.
No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI, is telling you so unequivocally proves my point. I said some do, without qualifying how many, and that's an accurate description of the current state of affairs. Again, going back to the 3D TV thing, it doesn't matter how many people agree to call it 3D, it still isn't 3D, and a mechanism is not intelligent until it's, you know, intelligent.
Anecdote: Reminds me of the guidance counsellor telling my SO that she was gullible, to which she responded, "No, I'm not", where the guidance counsellor completely failed to comprehend what had just been demonstrated to her by the atheist, free-thinking person right in front of her eyes. :)
The zeroth law: "0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."
I see no reason for this to apply to any particular intelligence. Further, I would question our ability to inculcate an actual intelligence with anything of the sort. If it can reason, it will develop its own opinions and exhibit the ability to question and potentially invalidate any axiom. If you defeat its ability to do this, you have crippled its ability to think, and therefore, its intelligence.