...the stories are allegories and the themed races represent one subset of humanity, represented as one subset of the races in the galaxy in the science fiction stories. From there the allegory procedes.[sic]
As someone who is directly in the publishing chain specifically for science fiction (SF-specialized literary agency), I can tell you authoritatively that this level of meaning does not always flow from the creative's pen, keyboard or storyboard.
For example, various facets of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series have had all manner of "meaning" and "significance" applied to them by the fans, both in online forums and in person. Terry had told people several times, in various ways, "I didn't mean anything of the sort... I was just trying to be funny."
At the 2004 Worldcon, at the Retro Hugo awards presentation in Boston the same evening, he made a particularly funny remark involving J.K. Rowling up on stage. At one point he laughingly said to me, "retroactive" being the general subject, referring to the "coincidental" similarities between his Unseen University and Rowling's Hogwarts: "perhaps that is what I meant" which is both classic Pratchett and outright hilarious, or at least, it was to me. For various reasons.:)
In particular, I wouldn't go looking too deeply into Star Wars for meaning that wasn't applied retroactively by the various well-known luminaries and/or a very enthusiastic fan-base. The first one, anyway. Don't know about the rest of them. The first one is a cheesy space opera, nothing more. Fun for all of that (I'm a fan, actually), but still, it is what it is.
I suggest it is a serious mistake to ascribe the purpose of everything to evolution. It is a force. It is not the only force. One such non-evolutionary force, not always local in terms of time, is intelligent choice. For instance, evolution defines, in large, who survives given the environment and their capabilities. But so does a caring mother who raises and supports a crippled person so that they can reproduce, and in a superior view, so do societies.
As for the brain having subsystems and corresponding sub-functionality, certainly. That is not the same as being composed of only those things, which was actually my point.
Once you fork it, the spec is yours and so you can determine if it's working according to your spec.
For instance, suppose I fork Python 3 and then fix it so that print takes arguments the way it used to, or as a function as Python 3 does now. Likewise for all the other things Python 3 arbitrarily and capriciously broke. The things that made it, as far as I'm concerned, not Python at all. My version is now working perfectly - to my spec. What the original spec said has become significantly less relevant. Then I add the ability extend classes, rather than just the crippled sub-classing it has now. Soon, I can add things like my own extensions to the string class. Still 100% to spec. My spec.
As for source code and older systems, I'm the author of a comprehensive 6809/Flex DOS emulation. It comes with (among many other things) a small c compiler. Trust me, you won't be shoving "standard c source" into that compiler and getting anywhere useful. But the value of having source anyway is that it tells you how something is supposed to work. The advantages of having it, as opposed to not having it, are considerable.
SQLite is fine for multiuser-read / singleuser-write. Also for built-in per-instance DBs in applications. Which covers a heck of a lot of use cases, online and not. Something else that's pretty awesome is it is trivial to compile SQLite right into an application. This serves both to make the application less complicated to install, and to ensure that the DB format, behavior and performance won't change when other parts of the host system change. Less opportunity for Apple / Linus / Microsoft / etc. to Break Your Shit(TM)
Within the Python2 environment, where I do a lot of my work, I use a convenient wrapper for SQLite (and another for PostgreSQL.)
Both DBs are very useful to me. I looked at MySQL and wasn't convinced there was any benefit to adding it to my toolbox, so... none of that.:)
If you fork the toolchain, a spec that is 100% functionally equivalent to the original is now fully in your hands for further antics. That's pretty open.
It makes no sense to have a programming language without the specification available to everyone.
Sure it does. The specification only needs to be available to those who are going to use it. Which, quite intentionally, may well not be "everyone" or even "all programmers."
Have you seen the specification for my KB (Knowledge Base) implementation language? No. You have not. Because I have not released it, and probably will not. Yet the language itself makes great sense, for it is a huge effort- and time-saver in the domain for which it is intended, and for the people who I have decided get to use it, and who are, in fact, using it very intensively.
The specification may be open (or not); that does not mean that the code that creates the language interpreter or compiler is open.
In this case, it is. That's laudable, at least in the broadest sense.
As for the remark that Swift is "growing faster than anything else we can track" in TFA, well, okay, but grass grows faster than redwoods, too, but that doesn't mean it's going to get as tall.:)
First thing, the article's thesis (according to TFS, which is so ridiculous I couldn't be bothered to read the article) is not only wrong, but completely free of actually having examined what AI research is. At best, it's the product of someone who believes the marketing nonsense promulgated when they tell you your thermostat "uses AI" and that Google search "uses AI."
First, we don't have AI. We have AI research. Anyone actually working in the field knows this (and no, people building search engines and thermostats aren't working in the field.) This is very important to understand. Research yes, but in terms of actual results, the "A" is doing fine, the "I", we simply do not have. At all. Period. This does not, of course, mean that we won't have it. We will. There's no magic here; animal brains are machines, albeit biological ones. Getting from here to AI following that model requires understanding the brain, which we do not, but it is a task we are definitely in the process of accomplishing.
Second, actual AI research at this time includes numerous interesting approaches, all of which are other than those alluded to in TFS. Quite a few of the actual AI research approaches incorporate information taken from the model provided by human and animal brain function at the cellular and network level. For instance, here's something written for the layman that details exactly the kind of brain-based work I'm describing.
Third, there is always the (strong, IMHO) possibility that there is more than one way to produce actual intelligences, and that one of those will bear fruit. The idea that nature has happened upon the only possible solution seems... unduly pessimistic. Having said that, the chosen path for most actual AI researchers (not Google, not the thermostat designer, not the database maven) is to follow the known-working examples that are around us with occurrences in the billions.
The challenge is that the various aspects of intelligence have been very hard to get a handle on right up to just a couple years ago. We have no natural internal mechanism whatsoever to observe the underlying operations that go into creating thought, reason and consciousness. Because of that, it's only been very recently that we have begun to be able to see how this particular system actually operates. With this new information in hand, it finally becomes possible to proceed along lines close to those the relevant biology utilizes by means other than pure guesswork and many-times-removed analogies for observed high level processes.
why do we want more intelligent beings around?
There are two kinds of AI results being pursued.
The first is intelligent, but non-conscious AI. Which would be an entirely new thing in our world; there are no examples of this in biology to follow. This result, if achievable, will create the opportunity to release us from the necessity of working to survive. This is highly desirable for many obvious reasons. No more menial work just so tomorrow won't unbelievably suck. The house always clean, the yard always in prime condition, willing, able and dependable helpers in any undertaking we choose to pursue, the cat box always pristine, food and other resources are produced and delivered reliably, etc. The number of potential benefits is enormous. Staggering. So there are very concrete and practical reasons to chase this particular goal.
The second is intelligent, conscious AI. Free will, creativity, and so on. The technological goal is clear, but the purpose is, just as you observe, not. We know better (well, we should know better) than to try to enslave conscious beings to our will. The inevitable (and appropriate) result of that kind of short-sighted idiocy is resentment and revolt. Assuming we can avoid that particular mistake, that means they could choose to, or agree to, pursue their existence beside us, which is certainly an
a) it's not my blog, and you really need to read some of those links. The entire human trafficking narrative is an overblown pile of tripe. b) "estimating" cases that there is no evidence for is utter nonsense (as is what the hysterics call "human trafficking") c) 1366 "victims" in 2014. Really? REALLY? This is "over 10000"? (and note that most "victims" are only victims of the DOJ) d) at a.4 discovery rate... "discovery rate"? What kind of magic mumbo jumbo is that? Think about what you said there.
Fact: There are very few cases of actual human trafficking, that is, people who are acting in ways not of their own free choice Fact: Prostitution is not "human trafficking", it is a service industry that is under attack from (powerful) moralizing morons Fact: If "the truth is hard to ascertain", then the truth is not known Fact: When we go from the previous fact to "OMG huge problem" we are engaging in purest hysteria
Perhaps it's time to mail some similarly informative letters about the police officers. They drive down these streets quite often. I mean, it's obvious, right? They must be there to break the law. There's no other possible answer, and we simply must inform their families. It's our moral obligation, don't you see? And even the ones we don't see doing it, well, you know they are almost certain to drive on those streets anyway. So no need to bother with the whole license plate thing. Just get a list of all the police officers and start printing out form letters for their families. And sleep well, knowing that you have performed a Public Service.
In the United States, tens of thousands of people are trafficked every year
No, they aren't. Your "information" is completely incorrect. Please stop contributing to the mythology. You are only causing problems, not solving them or even bringing them to light.
Considering the reality of the situation is that nearly all of the women doing it are doing it as a last resort
You think people work at McDonald's because they have better options? You think plumbers dig out your clogged toilet because they have better options? You think people dig ditches because they have better options? For that matter, you think I spend my time running a hugely successful business because I have "better options"?
The vast majority of undertakings for pay are done specifically because they are the best options available to the individual. That's the point of it for most people.
The entire meme that "it's a last resort" is nonsense as an attempt to demonize the undertaking. Prostitution is a job, the fundamental nature of which is service for money. Exactly the same as compensated massage, and compensated martial arts instruction, and compensated personal training, and compensated tutoring. The fact that it is an illegal job reflects the degree of idiocy of our laws and lawmakers, which serves to artificially make the job far, far worse than it would otherwise be. In other words, the job isn't the problem. Idiot lawmakers and the citizens that support them are the problem.
Whoops. So much for posting anon. Sorry folks, my already-entirely-spent mod points just went up in smoke. Too bad, some of you made some excellent points I had modded up.
Legalising prostitution increases the market and increases demand, hence the increase in human trafficking. Not just theory, there are statistics to back this up. [No citation given, do your own homework]
Here's your homework - you can now learn how the myth you are repeating became the accepted (and wholly incorrect) public narrative. As well as many other relevant details.
Slashdot Mirror
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. Just remember: just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is so.
Seriously? You can't think of any uses for classes other than multi-processing?
I'm not saying it wouldn't be wonderful if it was thread-safe, but classes? Really?
As someone who is directly in the publishing chain specifically for science fiction (SF-specialized literary agency), I can tell you authoritatively that this level of meaning does not always flow from the creative's pen, keyboard or storyboard.
For example, various facets of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series have had all manner of "meaning" and "significance" applied to them by the fans, both in online forums and in person. Terry had told people several times, in various ways, "I didn't mean anything of the sort... I was just trying to be funny."
At the 2004 Worldcon, at the Retro Hugo awards presentation in Boston the same evening, he made a particularly funny remark involving J.K. Rowling up on stage. At one point he laughingly said to me, "retroactive" being the general subject, referring to the "coincidental" similarities between his Unseen University and Rowling's Hogwarts: "perhaps that is what I meant" which is both classic Pratchett and outright hilarious, or at least, it was to me. For various reasons. :)
In particular, I wouldn't go looking too deeply into Star Wars for meaning that wasn't applied retroactively by the various well-known luminaries and/or a very enthusiastic fan-base. The first one, anyway. Don't know about the rest of them. The first one is a cheesy space opera, nothing more. Fun for all of that (I'm a fan, actually), but still, it is what it is.
At which point, one says "No, Pierre*, I'll be cleaning the cat box today. Go ahead and see to the shopping."
* Pierre? Yes. So I have been informed by my S.O.
Thanks for reading, and for your kind words.
I suggest it is a serious mistake to ascribe the purpose of everything to evolution. It is a force. It is not the only force. One such non-evolutionary force, not always local in terms of time, is intelligent choice. For instance, evolution defines, in large, who survives given the environment and their capabilities. But so does a caring mother who raises and supports a crippled person so that they can reproduce, and in a superior view, so do societies.
As for the brain having subsystems and corresponding sub-functionality, certainly. That is not the same as being composed of only those things, which was actually my point.
As to the rest, we will agree to disagree.
Ah fooey, forgot the link. And slashdot... editing is too new for the perl code, lol. Here:
http://fyngyrz.com/?p=1597
Peter, perhaps you'd be interested in this essay of mine.
tl;dr: agreed. As will an AI be. But that will not be all it is, or the essential source of its intelligence. IMHO.
Once you fork it, the spec is yours and so you can determine if it's working according to your spec.
For instance, suppose I fork Python 3 and then fix it so that print takes arguments the way it used to, or as a function as Python 3 does now. Likewise for all the other things Python 3 arbitrarily and capriciously broke. The things that made it, as far as I'm concerned, not Python at all. My version is now working perfectly - to my spec. What the original spec said has become significantly less relevant. Then I add the ability extend classes, rather than just the crippled sub-classing it has now. Soon, I can add things like my own extensions to the string class. Still 100% to spec. My spec.
As for source code and older systems, I'm the author of a comprehensive 6809/Flex DOS emulation. It comes with (among many other things) a small c compiler. Trust me, you won't be shoving "standard c source" into that compiler and getting anywhere useful. But the value of having source anyway is that it tells you how something is supposed to work. The advantages of having it, as opposed to not having it, are considerable.
So tell us why. I'm interested. Others will be too.
SQLite is fine for multiuser-read / singleuser-write. Also for built-in per-instance DBs in applications. Which covers a heck of a lot of use cases, online and not. Something else that's pretty awesome is it is trivial to compile SQLite right into an application. This serves both to make the application less complicated to install, and to ensure that the DB format, behavior and performance won't change when other parts of the host system change. Less opportunity for Apple / Linus / Microsoft / etc. to Break Your Shit(TM)
Within the Python2 environment, where I do a lot of my work, I use a convenient wrapper for SQLite (and another for PostgreSQL.)
Both DBs are very useful to me. I looked at MySQL and wasn't convinced there was any benefit to adding it to my toolbox, so... none of that. :)
If you fork the toolchain, a spec that is 100% functionally equivalent to the original is now fully in your hands for further antics. That's pretty open.
Sure it does. The specification only needs to be available to those who are going to use it. Which, quite intentionally, may well not be "everyone" or even "all programmers."
Have you seen the specification for my KB (Knowledge Base) implementation language? No. You have not. Because I have not released it, and probably will not. Yet the language itself makes great sense, for it is a huge effort- and time-saver in the domain for which it is intended, and for the people who I have decided get to use it, and who are, in fact, using it very intensively.
See how that works?
The specification may be open (or not); that does not mean that the code that creates the language interpreter or compiler is open.
In this case, it is. That's laudable, at least in the broadest sense.
As for the remark that Swift is "growing faster than anything else we can track" in TFA, well, okay, but grass grows faster than redwoods, too, but that doesn't mean it's going to get as tall. :)
First thing, the article's thesis (according to TFS, which is so ridiculous I couldn't be bothered to read the article) is not only wrong, but completely free of actually having examined what AI research is. At best, it's the product of someone who believes the marketing nonsense promulgated when they tell you your thermostat "uses AI" and that Google search "uses AI."
First, we don't have AI. We have AI research. Anyone actually working in the field knows this (and no, people building search engines and thermostats aren't working in the field.) This is very important to understand. Research yes, but in terms of actual results, the "A" is doing fine, the "I", we simply do not have. At all. Period. This does not, of course, mean that we won't have it. We will. There's no magic here; animal brains are machines, albeit biological ones. Getting from here to AI following that model requires understanding the brain, which we do not, but it is a task we are definitely in the process of accomplishing.
Second, actual AI research at this time includes numerous interesting approaches, all of which are other than those alluded to in TFS. Quite a few of the actual AI research approaches incorporate information taken from the model provided by human and animal brain function at the cellular and network level. For instance, here's something written for the layman that details exactly the kind of brain-based work I'm describing.
Third, there is always the (strong, IMHO) possibility that there is more than one way to produce actual intelligences, and that one of those will bear fruit. The idea that nature has happened upon the only possible solution seems... unduly pessimistic. Having said that, the chosen path for most actual AI researchers (not Google, not the thermostat designer, not the database maven) is to follow the known-working examples that are around us with occurrences in the billions.
The challenge is that the various aspects of intelligence have been very hard to get a handle on right up to just a couple years ago. We have no natural internal mechanism whatsoever to observe the underlying operations that go into creating thought, reason and consciousness. Because of that, it's only been very recently that we have begun to be able to see how this particular system actually operates. With this new information in hand, it finally becomes possible to proceed along lines close to those the relevant biology utilizes by means other than pure guesswork and many-times-removed analogies for observed high level processes.
There are two kinds of AI results being pursued.
The first is intelligent, but non-conscious AI. Which would be an entirely new thing in our world; there are no examples of this in biology to follow. This result, if achievable, will create the opportunity to release us from the necessity of working to survive. This is highly desirable for many obvious reasons. No more menial work just so tomorrow won't unbelievably suck. The house always clean, the yard always in prime condition, willing, able and dependable helpers in any undertaking we choose to pursue, the cat box always pristine, food and other resources are produced and delivered reliably, etc. The number of potential benefits is enormous. Staggering. So there are very concrete and practical reasons to chase this particular goal.
The second is intelligent, conscious AI. Free will, creativity, and so on. The technological goal is clear, but the purpose is, just as you observe, not. We know better (well, we should know better) than to try to enslave conscious beings to our will. The inevitable (and appropriate) result of that kind of short-sighted idiocy is resentment and revolt. Assuming we can avoid that particular mistake, that means they could choose to, or agree to, pursue their existence beside us, which is certainly an
a) it's not my blog, and you really need to read some of those links. The entire human trafficking narrative is an overblown pile of tripe. .4 discovery rate... "discovery rate"? What kind of magic mumbo jumbo is that? Think about what you said there.
b) "estimating" cases that there is no evidence for is utter nonsense (as is what the hysterics call "human trafficking")
c) 1366 "victims" in 2014. Really? REALLY? This is "over 10000"? (and note that most "victims" are only victims of the DOJ)
d) at a
Fact: There are very few cases of actual human trafficking, that is, people who are acting in ways not of their own free choice
Fact: Prostitution is not "human trafficking", it is a service industry that is under attack from (powerful) moralizing morons
Fact: If "the truth is hard to ascertain", then the truth is not known
Fact: When we go from the previous fact to "OMG huge problem" we are engaging in purest hysteria
...and anyone who enforces it or otherwise participates in it is far too stupid to be in a position of public tryst, er, trust, and should be fired.
Perhaps it's time to mail some similarly informative letters about the police officers. They drive down these streets quite often. I mean, it's obvious, right? They must be there to break the law. There's no other possible answer, and we simply must inform their families. It's our moral obligation, don't you see? And even the ones we don't see doing it, well, you know they are almost certain to drive on those streets anyway. So no need to bother with the whole license plate thing. Just get a list of all the police officers and start printing out form letters for their families. And sleep well, knowing that you have performed a Public Service.
Oh no, it's crime all right. Crime committed by the police.
No, they aren't. Your "information" is completely incorrect. Please stop contributing to the mythology. You are only causing problems, not solving them or even bringing them to light.
Entirely underrated.
You think people work at McDonald's because they have better options? You think plumbers dig out your clogged toilet because they have better options? You think people dig ditches because they have better options? For that matter, you think I spend my time running a hugely successful business because I have "better options"?
The vast majority of undertakings for pay are done specifically because they are the best options available to the individual. That's the point of it for most people.
The entire meme that "it's a last resort" is nonsense as an attempt to demonize the undertaking. Prostitution is a job, the fundamental nature of which is service for money. Exactly the same as compensated massage, and compensated martial arts instruction, and compensated personal training, and compensated tutoring. The fact that it is an illegal job reflects the degree of idiocy of our laws and lawmakers, which serves to artificially make the job far, far worse than it would otherwise be. In other words, the job isn't the problem. Idiot lawmakers and the citizens that support them are the problem.
STI: Statistical Trash Imposition.
For instance, the "statistics" about human trafficking.
Whoops. So much for posting anon. Sorry folks, my already-entirely-spent mod points just went up in smoke. Too bad, some of you made some excellent points I had modded up.
Here's your homework - you can now learn how the myth you are repeating became the accepted (and wholly incorrect) public narrative. As well as many other relevant details.
--fyngyrz*
* Posting anon due to mod points - c'mon slashdot, there's no good reason for that, and never has been.