google
(156 000 000 results)
versus
microsoft
(188 000 000 results)
The winner is: microsoft
Just because 'Microsoft' appears on more pages does not indicate it is better, it just means there are more occurances of 'Microsoft' than 'Google'. A more effective test would be a google fight between 'Microsoft is the best' and 'Google is the best'.
"Microsoft is the best":
2,610
versus
"Google is the best":
12,100
However, for all fairness, someone with more time than me might write a script to check all the synonymous phrases to 'is the best'. But, anyone with that competency would realize that Google is far better than Microsoft without having to prove it to themselves.
Life exists as one percieves it. In other words, if you take a world like 1984 / Fahrenheit 451 and think about it into the future, wouldn't it become a world where people just sit there. Not doing anything, only interfacing with the screen in front of them. Or take it even further as a Matrix scenairo. My point is that normal is what the majority is. So if the majority of people are in a matrix, then that is normal. In Edison's time, he thought that his invention of the light bulb would allow people to never sleep. Working all night and day. People went to bed when the sun set before the lightbulb, that was normal. Normality is an abstract concept, don't fiddle with it.
If you thought that a new robot was about as intelligent as a new born baby, even a 5 year old. Then, do you expect, if you tell them to be ethical, they will even listen to you, let alone understand it, remember it and put it into action for the rest of their life? No. No human is perfectly ethical 100% of the time. There's no need to prove that. So, it would take a robot with the equivelent experience of a 20 year old to have a hope in obeying your perfect law. It is much eaiser, and more logical to define ethics, rather than give the capability to define ethics. Einstein said "Make things as simple as possible, not simpler." I think 'Be Ethical' is just a little too simple there mate.
The most logical statement I have witnessed, is '"a" == "a"'
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft is the best":
2,610
versus
"Google is the best":
12,100
However, for all fairness, someone with more time than me might write a script to check all the synonymous phrases to 'is the best'. But, anyone with that competency would realize that Google is far better than Microsoft without having to prove it to themselves.
Life exists as one percieves it. In other words, if you take a world like 1984 / Fahrenheit 451 and think about it into the future, wouldn't it become a world where people just sit there. Not doing anything, only interfacing with the screen in front of them. Or take it even further as a Matrix scenairo. My point is that normal is what the majority is. So if the majority of people are in a matrix, then that is normal. In Edison's time, he thought that his invention of the light bulb would allow people to never sleep. Working all night and day. People went to bed when the sun set before the lightbulb, that was normal. Normality is an abstract concept, don't fiddle with it.
'Be ethical'
Try telling this to a 5 year old.
If you thought that a new robot was about as intelligent as a new born baby, even a 5 year old. Then, do you expect, if you tell them to be ethical, they will even listen to you, let alone understand it, remember it and put it into action for the rest of their life? No. No human is perfectly ethical 100% of the time. There's no need to prove that. So, it would take a robot with the equivelent experience of a 20 year old to have a hope in obeying your perfect law. It is much eaiser, and more logical to define ethics, rather than give the capability to define ethics. Einstein said "Make things as simple as possible, not simpler." I think 'Be Ethical' is just a little too simple there mate.
The most logical statement I have witnessed, is '"a" == "a"'