Things can only FEEL and LOVE, because they are living... Without an integral GROWTH or FEELING organism, you will never be able to teach machines how to CARE or LOVE. Logic--with all its merits, cannot be the basis for love, only LIFE can be the basis for love.
Relevant point. Multiple and emotional intelligences might be effectively simulated by "yes/no" logic, but by believing it, are we even greater fools?
Then again, if genetic algorhythms thrive less from our "teaching" and more from their own coopetive evolution, are they not alive? Isn't there some chance that some kinda nano-wetware "machine" clusters will somehow converge with our egomaniacally sentient, self-aware and "living" selves?
Re: "feeling" and "self-awareness" as signs of "intelligence", many suspect that any & all life feels love (as desire to thrive), and fear (as aware of threat to survival). How well "life" avoids fear (pain) and realizes love (pleasure) maybe depends on how intelligence evolves.
"Rocking" Bill Gates viewed as one of the "smartest" people in America? Yikes!.. We don't need more of one (inventors) or another (artists).. (if anything, just fewer stoopid lawyers and politians:)
As you invoke links between free-thinking geeks and proprietary-minded suits, does the code word "choardic"(#3;) arise in any of your dialogues? Could creative freedom and cooperation enforced by "open source" also inform actual corporate by-laws, (sort of like Dee Hock's 25% implemented code for Visa International?). Are they conceivable, corporations that don't suck?
"I guess we are about 15-20 years (maybe sooner) away from having a few problems with machines making unauthorized (by any human) decisions that could go against humans in general. At the rate things are changing, I would feel that in 30-40 years time things will be out of our hands."
kinda scary if, in fact, "war is quickly becoming a game only machines can play". Then again, if "artificial" intelligence is a belittling name for it, and we find ourselves blocking its progress, then maybe it'll subjugate us and serve its real host with a favor in kind. Here we haggle over our "intellect" as "property", while we actually manage our "property" (as in coastal real estate) with so little intelligence*. Or maybe trading more ideas we'll dump less industrial filth, and we'll get smart enough to leapfrog over the *pending antarcticmelt down. Who the hell knows?
It is very difficulty to classify the intelligence of Deep Blue. Its main advantage appeared to be that it could process information at a much faster rate than Kasparov. Also, unlike Kasparov, it did not whine and grumble when it lost.
My beef with the in-awed worship of "machine intelligence" (as in the age of"spiritual machines") is that the two bits gurus rarely refer to "emotional intelligence", (which may represent a healthy portion of the 90% of our "brain" we don't use. Other human cultural traditions, such as the Tibetan Buddhist, have copious libraries full of recorded learning about states of feeling, compassion, awareness and consciousness which the analytic Western tradition seems to ignore if not repress. Will "intelligence" outsmart us in a few short years with simple yes or no answers? Maybe or maybe not:)
On that note, apparently Deep Dark Blue is still kinda dumb when playing more binary and ancient human bored games like Korean shogi or Chinese go. "Deep Blue beat Kasparov by plotting 14 moves ahead, but a good shogi program would require a computer to read at least 20 moves ahead - professional shogi players can think 30 - 40 moves ahead.. Another lure for programmers is the ancient Chinese game of go, which is even harder for computers than shogi.." - latimes 990819A..
Sure, just a couple more exponential steps up mount moore's law, but until we let eugenetic engineers hardwire quantum wetware into our loved ones, how will digital decisionmakers get *meaningful* information from human feelings, intuitions, subtle verbal and subtler non-verbal communications, etc.?
IPO's can be used by *people with a surplus of stored value (ca$h or credit) to multiply said surplus as much and as fast as possible and preferably with the least possible effort. If successful, such users earn themselves even more "freedom". (from what: fear? envy? lack of sex appeal? who knows?;) anyways..
Companies which conduct these IPO's exploit such human virtues to raise money (needed to finance international legal and customer aquisition costs.. (remember, you are now an Internet company dotcom(tm), or you are roadkill, and this web grows global fast)). Founders and early investors of Internet companies can also use these IPO's to amass fabulous fortunes for themselves to diversify and secure by investing in new IPO's, politicians , etc.
Now, partially owned by the "public" (see above*), stock prices reflect "our" confidence in the company's potential to profit. Company managers, typically holding stakes of their own, spur the company to attract the highest possible share price. Bottom line. Period.
Whether our grandchildren or theirs will regard this behavior as blatently criminal is another question.
Whether there are alternatives to inequity exacerbating IPO and "street" methods of idea "ownership" is a question I hope/. will address and soon. After all, the MAN(tm), his law(tm) and by-laws(IPO Corp.) are forms of "code", right? (They instruct energetic systems to behave predictably. Or try to.)
So how do IPO's and like ownership models perpetuate "code"? Openly? How does it affect our capacity to trade our learning and creativity? Are there alternatives? Here may be a interesting one:
"Chaord" or "chaordic". [haHA! 2nd post:] It's shocking that Dotters of Slash completely ignore an archetypical business structure that seems to effectively trade creativity and borderlessly: Visa International. Growth? 20% annually, since way before any long boom, past $ 1.2trillion in '98 sales, no end in sight. Method? Better attract human ingenuity, (the most valuable AND abundant resource on the planet.) Blend competition with cooperation, seamlessly. Failure? Dee Hock, who founded Visa, says it could have been four times more powerful if ownership had been extended to merchants and cardholders.. Customers owning the business? COOL! bu..WTF!? How to hack that???
IPO? Stock? Forget it. Visa can't bought, sold, traded or raided. Ownership is shared in non-transferable rights of participation.
It's a very unusual "learning organization": commanders don't control it from the center. Instead, chaos organizes itself at the edges, adapting locally, learning and evolving. Advantages arise out of individual initiative. Ideally, "chaorganizations" are "equitable owned by all participants." Sound like a more "open source" code for biz? IMHO,/. and RHAT and MP3c may have kinda choked if they didn't consider more "open" ownership models, proven successful by Visa..
Anyway, a more positive way to look at IPO's and Public Companies is as forms of "currency". If you have some to spare, you could buy gold, but you have to pay someone to guard it, and gold's value is dropping. You could guard U.S.Gov't(tm) printed dead prezidents, but why do it when your banker will pay you interest to borrow them? Still, who wants a measly 6% when brand-name "currency" like yahoo! or rhat or idealab! may earn me 600%? In this light, it's more rewarding to invest in people and ideas rather than self-obsoleting systems or hoarding stores of value. Currency users now have more options, can better "vote with their pocketbook", perpetuate what they value, and maybe earn themselves some more "freedom". More options, more freedom? Who knows?
exactly! Is the Internet *not* a new geographic frontier? Is the e-conomy *not* growing much faster than the average national economy? Under whose jurisdiction is the 'net? WTO? IMF? Who enforces the "laws"? In which language are they written? Who do the laws serve? Who do patents serve? Innovators? Governments? "Public Servants"? Lawyers? Shareholding owners of stock? Which of these groups is most needed in the invention process?
Patents in this increasingly complex global context may end up costing their prosecutors too much time and money to manage and enforce. Maybe we can trade our ingenuity here on the net by some kind of alternative model for self-governance and global organization. Aren't we responsible for creating our own choices?
Ultimately, patents are issued by governments, not to protect "intellectual property" (whatever such a creature might be), but to encourage innovation. In exchange for your hard work, you get exclusive rights to it for a time to exploit your hard work and recoup your expenses in making the invention / discovery / whatever.
So far, so good.
No prob w/ systems to "encourage innovation", but are gov'ts as we know 'em effective systems to do so? Who governs this "new economy" of interconnected electronic information? The USPTO? Or is this village global? So does the WTO govern the Internet? Or the IMF? Who elected them? Whose interests do they serve? Are gov'ts, biz structures and "ownership" models, as we know 'em, the best agent to motivate innovations? Are alternatives conceivable? Hackable?
re: "exclusive rights to recoup expense". Is that the real motivation, or is it more accurate to claim that patent owners typically seek a monopolistic competitive advantage to leverage the maximum possible ROI?
So we're all in a rush to buy up every last word and phrase in the English language, for later resale to highest bidders. Gag me with snake-oil! Are we forever stuck with ASCII-ONLY DNS?
The fastest growth on the web now, finally, is non-English. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the HTTP:// protocol works only with ASCII-ONLY URL's. When will the web outgrow ascii and into UniCode? We need URL's in Czech, Chinese, Cyrillic. etc. Anybody know of specific initiatives?
ask slashdot: are any MultiLingual URL Protocols being developed to allow us to record and browse the world in more of its many languages? Where are they?
"ever tried. ever failed. no matter. try again. fail again. fail better." - s. beckett
wow! didn't know about that.. kinda sets a precedent, no? so you can rent the right to own verbs? cool! or do you buy them by each use? do you have to pay up in Panama, Greece and each and every country on one Internet? Or are countries outdated?
so can xerox now xerox copies? after all, the precedent has been set. don't you yahoo!?® pay a complex network of attorneys and governments in a farflung web of worldwide jurisdictions, and you too can now own verbs!
Guess what? Trademarks are supposed to be used as adjectives. Not nouns, or things like a "thermos" or "dynamite" or "velcro", but "velcro zippers", "thermos jugs" etc. (Yes, dynamite was a brand of explosive, but it fell into common usage, so they lost their proprietary rights.)
Likewize, Trademarks can't be used as verbs. Witness Xerox freaking out about people "xeroxing". No no. Legally, you had better "make xerox(tm) brand copies," or risk consequences. Frankly, I'm not sure how yahoo!(TM) is getting away with "Do You Yahoo!?", but don't really feel up to slapping them with a lawsuit.
Slashdot(TM) has been something I've been wondering about. There's been a lot of "slashdotting" lately.. Who would like it if M$ claimed that the verb "to slashdot" was improperly policed, and had thus fallen into common usage. Why couldn't they start up a tech news group over at slashdot.msn.com? Or even "clarify" meaning of the GPL at gpl.msnbc.com? after all, is the GPL trademarked?
Do trademarks attempt create artificial "zero-sum" scarcities like many patents or copyrights? Aren't they kind of useful to identify a brand, a stand, a POV, a reputable reputation?
Who likes it when international spurious claims against the linux(tm) are made? Doesn't Linus' "ownership" of the trademark serve a purpose? In the same vein, doesn't the GPL copyright give an "owner" a valuable right to restrict usage of expressed ideas and derivatives of them?
Sure, "property" is not an apt and may be an inept metaphor for bits. Bits grow more valuable when more widely reproduced, and returns increase. But what use is ranting against all IP when some uses, ie.(tm)and copyleft, can enhance the reputability and potency of free info?
Slashdot Mirror
Things can only FEEL and LOVE, because they are living... Without an integral GROWTH or FEELING organism, you will never be able to teach machines how to CARE or LOVE. Logic--with all its merits, cannot be the basis for love, only LIFE can be the basis for love.
Relevant point. Multiple and emotional intelligences might be effectively simulated by "yes/no" logic, but by believing it, are we even greater fools?
Then again, if genetic algorhythms thrive less from our "teaching" and more from their own coopetive evolution, are they not alive? Isn't there some chance that some kinda nano-wetware "machine" clusters will somehow converge with our egomaniacally sentient, self-aware and "living" selves?
Re: "feeling" and "self-awareness" as signs of "intelligence", many suspect that any & all life feels love (as desire to thrive), and fear (as aware of threat to survival). How well "life" avoids fear (pain) and realizes love (pleasure) maybe depends on how intelligence evolves.
"Rocking" Bill Gates viewed as one of the "smartest" people in America? Yikes!.. We don't need more of one (inventors) or another (artists).. (if anything, just fewer stoopid lawyers and politians:)
As you invoke links between free-thinking geeks and proprietary-minded suits, does the code word "choardic"(#3;) arise in any of your dialogues? Could creative freedom and cooperation enforced by "open source" also inform actual corporate by-laws, (sort of like Dee Hock's 25% implemented code for Visa International?). Are they conceivable, corporations that don't suck?
"I guess we are about 15-20 years (maybe sooner) away from having a few problems with machines making unauthorized (by any human) decisions that could go against humans in general. At the rate things are changing, I would feel that in 30-40 years time things will be out of our hands."
kinda scary if, in fact, "war is quickly becoming a game only machines can play". Then again, if "artificial" intelligence is a belittling name for it, and we find ourselves blocking its progress, then maybe it'll subjugate us and serve its real host with a favor in kind. Here we haggle over our "intellect" as "property", while we actually manage our "property" (as in coastal real estate) with so little intelligence*. Or maybe trading more ideas we'll dump less industrial filth, and we'll get smart enough to leapfrog over the *pending antarctic melt down. Who the hell knows?
It is very difficulty to classify the intelligence of Deep Blue. Its main advantage appeared to be that it could process information at a much faster rate than Kasparov. Also, unlike Kasparov, it did not whine and grumble when it lost.
My beef with the in-awed worship of "machine intelligence" (as in the age of"spiritual machines") is that the two bits gurus rarely refer to "emotional intelligence", (which may represent a healthy portion of the 90% of our "brain" we don't use. Other human cultural traditions, such as the Tibetan Buddhist, have copious libraries full of recorded learning about states of feeling, compassion, awareness and consciousness which the analytic Western tradition seems to ignore if not repress. Will "intelligence" outsmart us in a few short years with simple yes or no answers? Maybe or maybe not:)
On that note, apparently Deep Dark Blue is still kinda dumb when playing more binary and ancient human bored games like Korean shogi or Chinese go. "Deep Blue beat Kasparov by plotting 14 moves ahead, but a good shogi program would require a computer to read at least 20 moves ahead - professional shogi players can think 30 - 40 moves ahead.. Another lure for programmers is the ancient Chinese game of go, which is even harder for computers than shogi.." - latimes 990819A ..
Sure, just a couple more exponential steps up mount moore's law, but until we let eugenetic engineers hardwire quantum wetware into our loved ones, how will digital decisionmakers get *meaningful* information from human feelings, intuitions, subtle verbal and subtler non-verbal communications, etc.?
IPO's can be used by *people with a surplus of stored value (ca$h or credit) to multiply said surplus as much and as fast as possible and preferably with the least possible effort. If successful, such users earn themselves even more "freedom". (from what: fear? envy? lack of sex appeal? who knows?;) anyways..
Companies which conduct these IPO's exploit such human virtues to raise money (needed to finance international legal and customer aquisition costs.. (remember, you are now an Internet company dotcom(tm), or you are roadkill, and this web grows global fast)). Founders and early investors of Internet companies can also use these IPO's to amass fabulous fortunes for themselves to diversify and secure by investing in new IPO's, politicians , etc.
Now, partially owned by the "public" (see above*), stock prices reflect "our" confidence in the company's potential to profit. Company managers, typically holding stakes of their own, spur the company to attract the highest possible share price. Bottom line. Period.
Whether our grandchildren or theirs will regard this behavior as blatently criminal is another question.
Whether there are alternatives to inequity exacerbating IPO and "street" methods of idea "ownership" is a question I hope /. will address and soon. After all, the MAN(tm), his law(tm) and by-laws(IPO Corp.) are forms of "code", right? (They instruct energetic systems to behave predictably. Or try to.)
So how do IPO's and like ownership models perpetuate "code"? Openly? How does it affect our capacity to trade our learning and creativity? Are there alternatives? Here may be a interesting one:
"Chaord" or "chaordic". [haHA! 2nd post:] It's shocking that Dotters of Slash completely ignore an archetypical business structure that seems to effectively trade creativity and borderlessly: Visa International. Growth? 20% annually, since way before any long boom, past $ 1.2trillion in '98 sales, no end in sight. Method? Better attract human ingenuity, (the most valuable AND abundant resource on the planet.) Blend competition with cooperation, seamlessly. Failure? Dee Hock, who founded Visa, says it could have been four times more powerful if ownership had been extended to merchants and cardholders.. Customers owning the business? COOL! bu..WTF!? How to hack that???
IPO? Stock? Forget it. Visa can't bought, sold, traded or raided. Ownership is shared in non-transferable rights of participation.
It's a very unusual "learning organization": commanders don't control it from the center. Instead, chaos organizes itself at the edges, adapting locally, learning and evolving. Advantages arise out of individual initiative. Ideally, "chaorganizations" are "equitable owned by all participants." Sound like a more "open source" code for biz? IMHO, /. and RHAT and MP3c may have kinda choked if they didn't consider more "open" ownership models, proven successful by Visa..
Anyway, a more positive way to look at IPO's and Public Companies is as forms of "currency". If you have some to spare, you could buy gold, but you have to pay someone to guard it, and gold's value is dropping. You could guard U.S.Gov't(tm) printed dead prezidents, but why do it when your banker will pay you interest to borrow them? Still, who wants a measly 6% when brand-name "currency" like yahoo! or rhat or idealab! may earn me 600%? In this light, it's more rewarding to invest in people and ideas rather than self-obsoleting systems or hoarding stores of value. Currency users now have more options, can better "vote with their pocketbook", perpetuate what they value, and maybe earn themselves some more "freedom". More options, more freedom? Who knows?
links, again, on dee hock, visa, and chaords: /chaos_is_good.htm /05/deehock.html
http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock.htm ">
http://www.fastcompany.com/online
exactly! Is the Internet *not* a new geographic frontier? Is the e-conomy *not* growing much faster than the average national economy? Under whose jurisdiction is the 'net? WTO? IMF? Who enforces the "laws"? In which language are they written? Who do the laws serve? Who do patents serve? Innovators? Governments? "Public Servants"? Lawyers? Shareholding owners of stock? Which of these groups is most needed in the invention process?
Patents in this increasingly complex global context may end up costing their prosecutors too much time and money to manage and enforce. Maybe we can trade our ingenuity here on the net by some kind of alternative model for self-governance and global organization. Aren't we responsible for creating our own choices?
Ultimately, patents are issued by governments, not to protect "intellectual property" (whatever such a creature might be), but to encourage innovation. In exchange for your hard work, you get exclusive rights to it for a time to exploit your hard work and recoup your expenses in making the invention / discovery / whatever.
So far, so good.
No prob w/ systems to "encourage innovation", but are gov'ts as we know 'em effective systems to do so? Who governs this "new economy" of interconnected electronic information? The USPTO? Or is this village global? So does the WTO govern the Internet? Or the IMF? Who elected them? Whose interests do they serve? Are gov'ts, biz structures and "ownership" models, as we know 'em, the best agent to motivate innovations? Are alternatives conceivable? Hackable?
re: "exclusive rights to recoup expense". Is that the real motivation, or is it more accurate to claim that patent owners typically seek a monopolistic competitive advantage to leverage the maximum possible ROI?
So we're all in a rush to buy up every last word and phrase in the English language, for later resale to highest bidders. Gag me with snake-oil! Are we forever stuck with ASCII-ONLY DNS?
The fastest growth on the web now, finally, is non-English . Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the HTTP:// protocol works only with ASCII-ONLY URL's. When will the web outgrow ascii and into UniCode? We need URL's in Czech, Chinese, Cyrillic. etc. Anybody know of specific initiatives?
ask slashdot: are any MultiLingual URL Protocols being developed to allow us to record and browse the world in more of its many languages? Where are they?
"ever tried. ever failed. no matter. try again. fail again. fail better." - s. beckett
wow! didn't know about that.. kinda sets a precedent, no? so you can rent the right to own verbs? cool! or do you buy them by each use? do you have to pay up in Panama, Greece and each and every country on one Internet? Or are countries outdated?
so can xerox now xerox copies? after all, the precedent has been set. don't you yahoo!?® pay a complex network of attorneys and governments in a farflung web of worldwide jurisdictions, and you too can now own verbs!
hardly a level playing field. can you trust it?
Guess what? Trademarks are supposed to be used as adjectives. Not nouns, or things like a "thermos" or "dynamite" or "velcro", but "velcro zippers", "thermos jugs" etc. (Yes, dynamite was a brand of explosive, but it fell into common usage, so they lost their proprietary rights.)
Likewize, Trademarks can't be used as verbs. Witness Xerox freaking out about people "xeroxing". No no. Legally, you had better "make xerox(tm) brand copies," or risk consequences. Frankly, I'm not sure how yahoo!(TM) is getting away with "Do You Yahoo!?", but don't really feel up to slapping them with a lawsuit.
Slashdot(TM) has been something I've been wondering about. There's been a lot of "slashdotting" lately.. Who would like it if M$ claimed that the verb "to slashdot" was improperly policed, and had thus fallen into common usage. Why couldn't they start up a tech news group over at slashdot.msn.com? Or even "clarify" meaning of the GPL at gpl.msnbc.com? after all, is the GPL trademarked?
Do trademarks attempt create artificial "zero-sum" scarcities like many patents or copyrights? Aren't they kind of useful to identify a brand, a stand, a POV, a reputable reputation?
Who likes it when international spurious claims against the linux(tm) are made? Doesn't Linus' "ownership" of the trademark serve a purpose? In the same vein, doesn't the GPL copyright give an "owner" a valuable right to restrict usage of expressed ideas and derivatives of them?
Sure, "property" is not an apt and may be an inept metaphor for bits. Bits grow more valuable when more widely reproduced, and returns increase. But what use is ranting against all IP when some uses, ie.(tm)and copyleft, can enhance the reputability and potency of free info?