Okay, so $1M isn't exactly going to bankroll the next Hubble, but he's only 43 years old, not exactly "old age" yet. I'd say he's on track to be amazingly altruistic, sure.
But if machine intelligence is the "beast", then that brings us to a slew of other seemingly contradictory claims. Computers "come out of the earth" only in the most tenuous sense. Sure, they're fabricated from materials mined from the earth, but if we're okay with drawing such indirect connections then so does everything else (plants, animals) except meteorites. Also, I'm not sure why machine intelligence would have "two horns like a lamb", since I've never seen a computing system that had horns. Additionally, I'm not sure how digital communication protocols resemble the speech of dragons; do (did?) dragons speak IP?
Really, if you read the rest of that verse keeping in mind some equivalence between the "beast" and machine intelligence, it's evident that the metaphor doesn't hold at all. But all that aside, you didn't really answer any of the questions I posed in my previous post, so it's evident to me that you're more interested in spreading your strange view than actually discussing it. Cheers!
Hardware is not the problem. If it were, we'd have things that were very smart, but very slow. Then someone would rent enough Amazon AWS instances to make them fast.
Explain to me why a physical simulation of a human brain (state as determined by medical imaging of a real human brain; forces as informed by the known laws of physics) in silicon wouldn't behave the same as a real human brain.
Also, most estimates put us at achieving the capacity to run simulations like this at reasonable coast and in near-real-time in the 2030s. So yes, hardware is the problem. AWS isn't infinite and the architecture doesn't lend itself to problems that aren't easily distributed.
We still don't really have a full handle on how individual nerves work
Citation needed. You could buy discrete ICs that modelled neurons in the 1990s. Today we have [even more accurate] simulations of thousands, even millions of highly-interconnected neurons running on supercomputers. What don't we understand about individual "nerves"? The fact that you talk about "actual thinking" betrays the fact that you've never worked in AI.
This prediction relies on the assumption that human brains aren't magic and that they're subject to the known laws of physics. If you disagree then I think the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
Okay, I'm no AGW denier, but this is just fucking lunacy.
How the fuck is global climate change supposed to "wipe out civilized society" in the next 31 years? No, really. Please just provide a rough outline of how this would happen.
See, this is the main reason why idiots line up to bash climate science. People like you making totally absurd claims. It is also conceivable that global climate change will burn us to a crisp next Tuesday. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it reasonable or realistic.
That's fascinating. What, specifically, about this story reminds you of this verse?
Also, while we're on the subject, I have a few more questions. Can you clarify the phrase "two horns like a lamb" in light of the fact that many breeds of sheep only produce horns in males, while many other breeds of sheep don't produce any horns whatsoever? Also, can you clarify what "spooke like a dragon" means, since dragons don't exist and consequently don't speak? Additionally, what does it mean to calculate (or reckon, or ponder) a number that is already defined?
Which is also quite a stretch, given how often it 'recognises' patches of lichen on a wall as a face.
Because it's not like humans make these types of mistakes.
"Oh, and your cellphone can also beat any grandmaster in the world at chess."
As above. And anyway, if the grandmaster followed the same instructions as the computer, it would win right back. Does that mean anything though?
By this logic, if a computer followed the same instructions as a human (that is, the laws of physics acting on a particular collection of massive particles), it too would be sentient. Worded differently, if a computer could run a sufficiently accurate simulation of a human brain in realtime, it would behave the same way as a human brain. Does that mean anything though? Well, it means that indistinguishable-from-humans AI is inevitable, but apparently the implication is meaningless?
Ah, so you go to a store to buy something, get a boleto instead, then take the boleto to a bank and pay it, then return to the store with a "paid" stamped boleto to pick up your goods?
It sounds like a Boleto is an invoice, and consequently that retailers in Brazil are very trusting of their customers, since there's no mention of collecting buyer information. What's to stop buyers from destroying or simply never paying off the Boleto? If I went to the store to get a TV and instead of having to actually pay for it I was just given an invoice, with no identifying information about me obtained by the seller, it would be rather tempting to never take the Boleto to a bank to pay it off.
It's great that you have traffic control devices to alert you when you have the legal right of way.
However, the laws of physics still apply. In a mechanical sense, cars always have the right of way. So, unless you're invincible to blunt force impacts by massive metal objects, it's probably best to simply look both ways and make sure there is no oncoming traffic before crossing the street. I learned this approach when I was very young, but I understand the quality of education in this country isn't what it once was.
Here in NJ we recently had a police crackdown on enforcing this very law. Personally, I think it's absurd. There's literally no safety impact of driving across a crosswalk if the pedestrian is on the other side of the intersection. It's these over-the-top laws that go way beyond what is reasonable that causes people such as myself to simply lose respect for the law in general, thereby violating not only unreasonable laws like this but also reasonable ones as well.
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. These laws clearly don't go far enough, since pedestrians are still being killed by absentminded drivers. We need new legislation that outlaws driving any time a pedestrian is within 100 feet of a public roadway. While an unreasonable inconvenience to motorists (much like the law you boast about), it will surely save pedestrians' lives. Well worth it, right?
Employment and wages are just the start of personal motivation. Those will only cause a person to show up.
Indeed, this is precisely how I would describe most workers I encounter in daily life. Motivated just enough to show up. If you think the average middle manager is anything like a soldier storming the beaches at Normandy or a World Cup player, you're deluding yourself.
I know an awful lot of people here in silicon valley who could easily retire, but they keep working because they have dreams and feel their work is meaningful.
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but perhaps they keep working because they're fully committed to the rat race, keeping up with the Joneses, and/or getting a high score in the game of life (i.e. dying rich). It doesn't help that society praises work as inherently valuable and looks down on people who take breaks, vacation, or retire.
What if language started to gradually change such that citizens, residents, or passport holders of Luxembourg became known as Europeans? Wouldn't that necessarily imply that they're more European than other Europeans? Wouldn't that come across as arrogant to you?
Also, a majority of commonplace continent models include a single continent named "America" which can then be further subdefined into North, South, and possible Central regions, much like Asia is often further subdivided as Minor, South-East, etc. Much like many would argue that there is no continent named South-East Asia, so too would they argue that there is no continent named North America. I was never taught this in US public schools, so I'm not surprised to hear so many "Americans" bring this point up.
Perhaps my ignorance got the best of me, as I really don't know much about Michaelangelo's personal life. Are you saying that he gained significant wealth through his painting and sculpting? I was under the impression that artists of that era sought commissions from wealthy patrons simply as a means of supporting themselves. If Michaelangelo died wealthy, I'll have learned something new today.
You know, the closest I ever came to that situation was when I delivered pizza for Dominos. Second closest was when I was a cabbie in Maine.
I like jobs where there's really no consequence for underperformance and no requirement for thinking. Jobs where I can spend half the work day just relaxing and listening to music, or reading a good book (I read War&Peace, among other length tomes, as a cabbie). Jobs where nobody checks up on me to see if I'm on schedule. Jobs where I can call out sick and it's never a problem. Jobs where I don't give a shit, and nobody expects me to give a shit.
Jobs that pay minimum wage (or less, in the case of being a cabbie). That shit doesn't pay the bills, though. And there's a lot of fucking bills.
If you know of any jobs like this that pay as much as my software developer gig, I'm all ears. In my experience, however, employers don't pay people big bucks to chill out. The idea that work is supposed to be magical and fulfilling is quaint. I wonder if the miners and farmers of yesteryear pined for fulfilling employment like everyone does today.
As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents. Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are. "Citizens/residents of the United States of America" is too wordy. So it's down to "USian", which is retarded, or "American", which is ridiculously arrogant. When it comes down to it, I'll take retardation over arrogance.
Today, I agree. However, that's only the case since 2011. Previously, we had a first-to-invent system (in theory, at least), and sufficient documentation of your invention would have been sufficient to invalidate any patents granted to others for the same invention at a later date.
Either way, I can't fault you for your actions. Even before we transitioned to a first-to-file system, it was either patent or get fucked. An inventor tinkering in his garage is unlikely to have the financial resources to enter into litigation against a giant corporation. Thus, in practice, it's always been a first-to-file system, and any self-interested person would be wise to patent their inventions as soon as possible.
However, we're talking about making the world better. Sometimes making the world better necessarily involves personal sacrifice, like sacrificing one's own potential profits, sacrificing ones one's ability to sell one's very own inventions. Can you say with certainty that the world is better off with you selling your invention instead of IBM or HP selling it? Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, you say you're reasonable regarding licensing fees, but who are we to comment on whether the fees you set are truly low enough to make the world a better place? If there were no fee, that would necessarily be the case, but as long as the fees are nonzero, it's not entirely obvious that the benefits offered by your inventions are truly (as opposed to economically) more valuable than the fees that you charge.
That being said, congrats on figuring out a way to meaningfully contribute to society. I apologize for (but can't resist) using your positive comment as a platform for an anti-patent socialist rant. I acknowledge that it's more likely than not that your patents do qualify as a creation that makes the world better. I just enjoy challenging people to be critical of their own accomplishments, since it's much easier to be proud of one's accomplishments than it is to be critical of them.
Relevant observation: Thomas Edison's greedy ass created stuff (okay, well, his lab assistants did at least) that made the world a better place. So did Michelangelo. Maybe it's just me, but I see one as a rent-seeking cocksucker and the other as someone who truly dedicated his life to humankind. I'm just sayin'.
You're mistaking me for someone that likes to work. I don't. I'll find the workplace you describe once people start hiring professional sleepers. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if I developed insomnia and grew to hate that which I now love.
Being compelled to do things not of your own volition is toxic. Unfortunately, that's how society is structured.
Or, conversely, it's not the fence that's the problem, it's the giant concrete wall that it's built on top of. Bonus spiderman in picture because why the fuck not.
It works in Israel because a majority of the population has no qualms with embracing apartheid. Israel, where hypocrisy is the national dish.
The worst professor I ever had (over a very long academic career), or, well, the only terrible professor I ever had, claimed (repeatedly) to be a MENSA member. He would literally mock people for failing to understand course material, once causing a student to break out in tears and leave the room (and subsequently drop the class) while he continued his mockery. This is the only person I've met that boasted of being a member of MENSA, and so this is the impression that I have of MENSA members.
Amusingly enough, he was a physics professor at a county college. No, not tenured at a research institution. Instead, he chose for himself a job where he could belittle those of us who for whatever reason couldn't make it to the ivy leagues. A true asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
unless Elon Musk turns out to be amazingly altruistic in his old age
He just donated another $1M to the Tesla Museum.
Okay, so $1M isn't exactly going to bankroll the next Hubble, but he's only 43 years old, not exactly "old age" yet. I'd say he's on track to be amazingly altruistic, sure.
But if machine intelligence is the "beast", then that brings us to a slew of other seemingly contradictory claims. Computers "come out of the earth" only in the most tenuous sense. Sure, they're fabricated from materials mined from the earth, but if we're okay with drawing such indirect connections then so does everything else (plants, animals) except meteorites. Also, I'm not sure why machine intelligence would have "two horns like a lamb", since I've never seen a computing system that had horns. Additionally, I'm not sure how digital communication protocols resemble the speech of dragons; do (did?) dragons speak IP?
Really, if you read the rest of that verse keeping in mind some equivalence between the "beast" and machine intelligence, it's evident that the metaphor doesn't hold at all. But all that aside, you didn't really answer any of the questions I posed in my previous post, so it's evident to me that you're more interested in spreading your strange view than actually discussing it. Cheers!
Hardware is not the problem. If it were, we'd have things that were very smart, but very slow. Then someone would rent enough Amazon AWS instances to make them fast.
Explain to me why a physical simulation of a human brain (state as determined by medical imaging of a real human brain; forces as informed by the known laws of physics) in silicon wouldn't behave the same as a real human brain.
Also, most estimates put us at achieving the capacity to run simulations like this at reasonable coast and in near-real-time in the 2030s. So yes, hardware is the problem. AWS isn't infinite and the architecture doesn't lend itself to problems that aren't easily distributed.
We still don't really have a full handle on how individual nerves work
Citation needed. You could buy discrete ICs that modelled neurons in the 1990s. Today we have [even more accurate] simulations of thousands, even millions of highly-interconnected neurons running on supercomputers. What don't we understand about individual "nerves"? The fact that you talk about "actual thinking" betrays the fact that you've never worked in AI.
This prediction relies on the assumption that human brains aren't magic and that they're subject to the known laws of physics. If you disagree then I think the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
Okay, I'm no AGW denier, but this is just fucking lunacy.
How the fuck is global climate change supposed to "wipe out civilized society" in the next 31 years? No, really. Please just provide a rough outline of how this would happen.
See, this is the main reason why idiots line up to bash climate science. People like you making totally absurd claims. It is also conceivable that global climate change will burn us to a crisp next Tuesday. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it reasonable or realistic.
That's fascinating. What, specifically, about this story reminds you of this verse?
Also, while we're on the subject, I have a few more questions. Can you clarify the phrase "two horns like a lamb" in light of the fact that many breeds of sheep only produce horns in males, while many other breeds of sheep don't produce any horns whatsoever? Also, can you clarify what "spooke like a dragon" means, since dragons don't exist and consequently don't speak? Additionally, what does it mean to calculate (or reckon, or ponder) a number that is already defined?
"has a camera that can recognize faces,"
Which is also quite a stretch, given how often it 'recognises' patches of lichen on a wall as a face.
Because it's not like humans make these types of mistakes.
"Oh, and your cellphone can also beat any grandmaster in the world at chess."
As above. And anyway, if the grandmaster followed the same instructions as the computer, it would win right back. Does that mean anything though?
By this logic, if a computer followed the same instructions as a human (that is, the laws of physics acting on a particular collection of massive particles), it too would be sentient. Worded differently, if a computer could run a sufficiently accurate simulation of a human brain in realtime, it would behave the same way as a human brain. Does that mean anything though? Well, it means that indistinguishable-from-humans AI is inevitable, but apparently the implication is meaningless?
Mod parent up. Most complete explanation I've seen yet.
Ah, so you go to a store to buy something, get a boleto instead, then take the boleto to a bank and pay it, then return to the store with a "paid" stamped boleto to pick up your goods?
Wouldn't it be easier to just pay at the store?
It sounds like a Boleto is an invoice, and consequently that retailers in Brazil are very trusting of their customers, since there's no mention of collecting buyer information. What's to stop buyers from destroying or simply never paying off the Boleto? If I went to the store to get a TV and instead of having to actually pay for it I was just given an invoice, with no identifying information about me obtained by the seller, it would be rather tempting to never take the Boleto to a bank to pay it off.
It's great that you have traffic control devices to alert you when you have the legal right of way.
However, the laws of physics still apply. In a mechanical sense, cars always have the right of way. So, unless you're invincible to blunt force impacts by massive metal objects, it's probably best to simply look both ways and make sure there is no oncoming traffic before crossing the street. I learned this approach when I was very young, but I understand the quality of education in this country isn't what it once was.
Here in NJ we recently had a police crackdown on enforcing this very law. Personally, I think it's absurd. There's literally no safety impact of driving across a crosswalk if the pedestrian is on the other side of the intersection. It's these over-the-top laws that go way beyond what is reasonable that causes people such as myself to simply lose respect for the law in general, thereby violating not only unreasonable laws like this but also reasonable ones as well.
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. These laws clearly don't go far enough, since pedestrians are still being killed by absentminded drivers. We need new legislation that outlaws driving any time a pedestrian is within 100 feet of a public roadway. While an unreasonable inconvenience to motorists (much like the law you boast about), it will surely save pedestrians' lives. Well worth it, right?
You don't get to pick what should an entire nation be called in their own language.
The English language doesn't belong to the United States of America. What if I'm Canadian. Am I not allowed to speak English?
Cue the Quebecois and their "Fuck you, Anglais!"
Mod parent up: Troll
Employment and wages are just the start of personal motivation. Those will only cause a person to show up.
Indeed, this is precisely how I would describe most workers I encounter in daily life. Motivated just enough to show up. If you think the average middle manager is anything like a soldier storming the beaches at Normandy or a World Cup player, you're deluding yourself.
I know an awful lot of people here in silicon valley who could easily retire, but they keep working because they have dreams and feel their work is meaningful.
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but perhaps they keep working because they're fully committed to the rat race, keeping up with the Joneses, and/or getting a high score in the game of life (i.e. dying rich). It doesn't help that society praises work as inherently valuable and looks down on people who take breaks, vacation, or retire.
I became a developer because I thought it would be great to have someone pay me to do something I love doing.
I do see development as an enjoyable puzzle to solve, but I still made the wrong career choice, even though I kick ass at it.
If you love painting, the last job you want to get is as a painter. Because you won't be painting Mona Lisas, you'll be painting walls.
What if language started to gradually change such that citizens, residents, or passport holders of Luxembourg became known as Europeans? Wouldn't that necessarily imply that they're more European than other Europeans? Wouldn't that come across as arrogant to you?
Also, a majority of commonplace continent models include a single continent named "America" which can then be further subdefined into North, South, and possible Central regions, much like Asia is often further subdivided as Minor, South-East, etc. Much like many would argue that there is no continent named South-East Asia, so too would they argue that there is no continent named North America. I was never taught this in US public schools, so I'm not surprised to hear so many "Americans" bring this point up.
Perhaps my ignorance got the best of me, as I really don't know much about Michaelangelo's personal life. Are you saying that he gained significant wealth through his painting and sculpting? I was under the impression that artists of that era sought commissions from wealthy patrons simply as a means of supporting themselves. If Michaelangelo died wealthy, I'll have learned something new today.
I take it you're not familiar with the work of Archbishop Don Magic Juan. Chuuch.
"Chuuch" is an exclamation or interjection largely synonymous with "okay". It is used to express assent, agreement, or acceptance.
Unique to a particular branch of African American Vernacular English, it is most commonly heard in the pimp community.
Let's turn to popular culture for more:
Snoop Dogg's thoughts on "Chuuch".
Urbandictionary on "Chuuch".
You know, the closest I ever came to that situation was when I delivered pizza for Dominos. Second closest was when I was a cabbie in Maine.
I like jobs where there's really no consequence for underperformance and no requirement for thinking. Jobs where I can spend half the work day just relaxing and listening to music, or reading a good book (I read War&Peace, among other length tomes, as a cabbie). Jobs where nobody checks up on me to see if I'm on schedule. Jobs where I can call out sick and it's never a problem. Jobs where I don't give a shit, and nobody expects me to give a shit.
Jobs that pay minimum wage (or less, in the case of being a cabbie). That shit doesn't pay the bills, though. And there's a lot of fucking bills.
If you know of any jobs like this that pay as much as my software developer gig, I'm all ears. In my experience, however, employers don't pay people big bucks to chill out. The idea that work is supposed to be magical and fulfilling is quaint. I wonder if the miners and farmers of yesteryear pined for fulfilling employment like everyone does today.
As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents. Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are. "Citizens/residents of the United States of America" is too wordy. So it's down to "USian", which is retarded, or "American", which is ridiculously arrogant. When it comes down to it, I'll take retardation over arrogance.
Today, I agree. However, that's only the case since 2011. Previously, we had a first-to-invent system (in theory, at least), and sufficient documentation of your invention would have been sufficient to invalidate any patents granted to others for the same invention at a later date.
Either way, I can't fault you for your actions. Even before we transitioned to a first-to-file system, it was either patent or get fucked. An inventor tinkering in his garage is unlikely to have the financial resources to enter into litigation against a giant corporation. Thus, in practice, it's always been a first-to-file system, and any self-interested person would be wise to patent their inventions as soon as possible.
However, we're talking about making the world better. Sometimes making the world better necessarily involves personal sacrifice, like sacrificing one's own potential profits, sacrificing ones one's ability to sell one's very own inventions. Can you say with certainty that the world is better off with you selling your invention instead of IBM or HP selling it? Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, you say you're reasonable regarding licensing fees, but who are we to comment on whether the fees you set are truly low enough to make the world a better place? If there were no fee, that would necessarily be the case, but as long as the fees are nonzero, it's not entirely obvious that the benefits offered by your inventions are truly (as opposed to economically) more valuable than the fees that you charge.
That being said, congrats on figuring out a way to meaningfully contribute to society. I apologize for (but can't resist) using your positive comment as a platform for an anti-patent socialist rant. I acknowledge that it's more likely than not that your patents do qualify as a creation that makes the world better. I just enjoy challenging people to be critical of their own accomplishments, since it's much easier to be proud of one's accomplishments than it is to be critical of them.
Relevant observation: Thomas Edison's greedy ass created stuff (okay, well, his lab assistants did at least) that made the world a better place. So did Michelangelo. Maybe it's just me, but I see one as a rent-seeking cocksucker and the other as someone who truly dedicated his life to humankind. I'm just sayin'.
You're mistaking me for someone that likes to work. I don't. I'll find the workplace you describe once people start hiring professional sleepers. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if I developed insomnia and grew to hate that which I now love.
Being compelled to do things not of your own volition is toxic. Unfortunately, that's how society is structured.
Israel has less than 760 kilometers of fence
That's one hell of a fence.
Or, conversely, it's not the fence that's the problem, it's the giant concrete wall that it's built on top of. Bonus spiderman in picture because why the fuck not.
It works in Israel because a majority of the population has no qualms with embracing apartheid. Israel, where hypocrisy is the national dish.
The worst professor I ever had (over a very long academic career), or, well, the only terrible professor I ever had, claimed (repeatedly) to be a MENSA member. He would literally mock people for failing to understand course material, once causing a student to break out in tears and leave the room (and subsequently drop the class) while he continued his mockery. This is the only person I've met that boasted of being a member of MENSA, and so this is the impression that I have of MENSA members.
Amusingly enough, he was a physics professor at a county college. No, not tenured at a research institution. Instead, he chose for himself a job where he could belittle those of us who for whatever reason couldn't make it to the ivy leagues. A true asshole.