"However, from other little clues in his post I tend to lean towards thinking this particular guy may indeed be addicted"
No, in fact I've cut some out completely, and cut down on pretty much everything else (although I have drank a lil more caffeine than usual the past week). What you're likely picking up on is not a "need for drugs", but a passion for them, for the difference they have made in my life, and difference I have seen them make in so many other peoples lives. I've seen them bring people together, and open peoples minds. As many bad hypothetical stories most people have heard about drugs effect on people, I can give real stories about real people who have had their lives changed for the better.
I have learnt a lot through experimenting with various drugs (it's always been curiosity driven), combined the "field tests" with my study of the neurosciences, learnt a lot about the mind and the memory (even applied some of what I've learnt to software development), and had a lot of fun along the way.
More people use drugs recreationally than you know. They don't get into fights, or steal to support it, or any of the other things commonly associated with "drugs" (which are in fact associated with the highly addictive drugs, such as crack and smack, which *aren't* used in the same way, for the same reasons, or with the same attitude). It doesn't rip lives apart or do the damage so many people have been led to believe, and I hate the fact that so many people have been so mislead, and lump people like myself together with others such as crack/smack dealers/users, because they don't understand how there can be any difference. There is. And it's huge. I feel sorry that they will never have the kind of amazing experiences that I have had, seen things as incredible as I have, and I'm extremely annoyed that my such activities are illegal because people don't understand them (and thus fear them).
Please try and be open minded. You'll find that people can be more open with you.
You actually know nothing about this big bad "drugs" word do you? You call me an addict, accuse me of being more prone to irresponsible behaviour than the average person, yet I haven't even named any of the chemicals I will take. But I suppose to you, they're all the same huh? Doesn't matter the molecule, the interactions, the receptor sites it binds to, a drugs a drugs a dirty dirty word, huh? You're so incredibly uneducated, it's scary.
Oh, and I don't steal, for drugs or otherwise.
Do you steal to support your computer gaming addiction?
*lol* wow, the media certainly hasn't gotten to you. I most certainly am not an addict, I am most certainly able to self monitor, and you most certainly are a closed minded fool who cannot see past preconceptions, and by your ability to judge with so little information, I'd guess a christian too.
"The only way I can see MS hurting google is if they make IE point to MSN like Firefox does with Google on the top right search box."
Most ppl I know have google set to their homepage anyway. Want a new search? Open a new window. Type it in. Press return. I have no idea what search engine my "browser default" is set to, it certainly doesn't matter. The only time I've ever seen someone use an in-browser-toolbar search is when it has 'google' right next to it (ie, a browser plugin).
When it has been made easy, yes. But why would you make it easy for a machine to reprogram vital parts of it's system? For example, you might want to let it restructure it's memory, but you'd want to leave in place the parts that allow it to move, or that send it SIGPWR when the battery's low, so you wouldn't even give it a desire to change those, let alone the ability to. Simple really.
Next time I spot whoever posts with the sig "being stupid should be more painful", I can point them here *lol* it's not often someone gets hurt twice for the same mistake, but I kinda like the idea of it! (Although of cause feel sorry for everyone else involved, esp the scapegoats who copped the blame). I do hope you contested their conclusion, thanks for sharing:-)
No, repression implies that something there (ie, a desire) is being silenced or muted, but really there's no reason to give the robot desires for anything other than it's function to begin with. Even if a robot can learn new skills, if they don't help it achieve it's desired goals, it won't use them. For example, i've been taught various drawing and painting skills, but visual recreation of objects/scenes isn't something I desire to do, and so I don't.
Robots can be intelligent without being made a threat. We only percieve the threat because we can't help but anthropomorphasize. But most of our threatening behaviour patterns stem from our need to eat to live, kill to eat, and kill to control territory so that we have stuff to kill to eat (and similar with the whole mating thing). This is not something that's going to be deeply etched into a robots psychology as it is ours. You're far more likely to be hurt/killed/enslaved by another human, so why believe that giving intelligence to a machine is going to make it want to do those things to you, when it's not the intelligence that makes a person want to do those things to you?
I dunno, there are things you can program into the core, a subconscious if you will. For example, we can change our thoughts and attitudes (often a more gradual than instant process), but we're still built on top of basic primal and autonomous functions. Deep, deep, real deep down, to a level you're not even barely conscious of, you want your heart to beat... and no amount of changing your attitude and outlook on life is going to be able to change that. It'd be very simple to put the same kind of primal desires/instincts into the foundation of an AI, while giving it an ability to change things at a higher abstraction level of thought (that is, if you were doing the latter already).
This is true. He even wore t-shirts with slogans designed to undermine the robot's self confidence. When a robot no longer value's itself, how can it value anything else?
There is a saying, "make something foolproof, and they'll invent a bigger fool".
The question is cutoff line, you can always protect something better, but the cost rises exponentially. Surely there's a point where it's easier/better to teach people to be responsible for themselves, and not need looking after?
I know, *shock* *horror*, thinking outside the box here, man, but yeah, why can't people look after themselves?
"I don't think we can really call something without AI a robot"
Well it does fit dictionary definition, although I do actually agree, to me this is just "a machine", the term 'robot' does have at least some kind of awareness-process-respond connotation in my and many peoples minds, it would be nice to have some proper differenciation. But perhaps another word, as the roots behind the word 'robot' ("forced labor") hardly conjours the best images either.
Not really. The traits I think you're actually wanting to avoid don't come from self awareness, but come from the reward system (and at the other end, the pain system), which controls motivation and desires. All the self awareness in the world won't be a problem, if it's only desire is to do it's job. It's the programming of the reward system equivalent that you have to watch out for these things.
heh, I was just quoting from Drawn Together:-p but does draw all sorts of moral issues over the creation of AI's that "self preserve" through similar mechanisms as we do - what feelings shouldn't we try to recreate?
yes, but also change the way alcohol is treated. We're already beginning to see this in the UK (well, slightly, with changes to licencing hours). The minimum age for alcohol consumtion is something like 5yrs old here. Kids bought up around alcohol (not in the alcoholic parent style!) tend to be more responsible with it than those who are "banned, don't you dare touch it!". America's minimum drinking age of 21 just encourages the problem. Many european countries have more relaxed drinking laws than the UK, and they suffer the 'binge drinking antisocial youth' thing less than we do.
Forcing something, either way ("you must" / "you must not") removes their idea of responsibility, as only the irresponsible need to be told in such a way. Relaxing to laws is definitely the way to go.
'sept floride does the oposite to caffeine (replaces iodine (which in the same chemical group, but less reactive) in the thyroid gland, lowering the metabolism. This slows you down and makes you put on weight).
So instead of adding the caffeine, they could just try taking the floride out?
No, the problem with "just say no" isn't addiction, because to be addicted, you must have already not said no at least once already. The problem with "just say no", and in fact so much of the anti-drugs FUD out there, is the term: drugs. Drugs are meant to be bad... right? So what about all the drugs that you get from the doc/chemist? Okay, so drugs are bad if they're illegal, but drugs from the doc/chemist are good, because they're legal... so it's actually breaking the law that's bad, and the laws MUST be right... right?
Wrong. "Just say no!" teaches ignorance, it says don't question, don't learn, just repeat after me. But the truth is that illegal drugs aren't all the same, and the legal status of a drugs makes absolutely no difference to whether it's "good" or "bad" for you. The difference comes when whether you've learnt how to use the drugs responsibly.
The only drug I've ever become addicted to was one I was prescribed from a doctor, because I trusted/just accepted what I was told. All other drugs I've 'experimented' (recreational only, I stear well clear of the big addictive one's such as smack/crack) with, I've researched beforehand, and not hand anything like the same kind of problems with. I've even managed to boost my work productivity (programming) with some, which has saved my ass at least a couple of times.
Whenever I've seen people having problems with these drugs, is because they don't respect them, think that taking more == makes you cooler, they get competative ("I can handle more than you"), or often believe that the drug will solve something that it can't. But guess what... you get the same problems with legal as you do with illegal drugs. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean you won't become addicted, or that it won't screw your liver or whatever, and just because something illegal, doesn't mean it will.
I've become far more successful in my life, both work wise and socially, since I discovering what levels of different chemicals have different effects on me, what I can achieve in different states, and importantly: my limits. I can use amphetamines (the family ritalin is in, as is speed) to slam out code for 24hours straight, but the brain needs to rest, so if I keep doing it, I just end up being awake, and can't be productive. I've learnt this, I use it wisely, I use it responsibly, I monitor my health (physically and mentally) very closely. There's no reason why I should stop (except legal status).
Take responsibility for your own life, for MORE of your own life, and you'll find you can be safer from most things, and see that some things are only "dangerous" if used irresponsibly (like powertools) but can be useful if used wisely (like powertools).
It took them this long to get this release out yes, but no one said this is their first cluster software release though, think you might have imagined that bit because it's what you want to read.
"Somehow I don't think it is a suprise that you blindly copy MS-FUD"
Well it would be pretty damn stupid to talk about what MS says to sell their software, without copying what they say, wouldn't it? "The idea behind Windows clusters is that they use giant rats that have been genetically engineered to perform complex calculations" would be ya know... a lie. That's not the idea behind it at all. The idea behind it is that you CAN save money in other areas greater than the cost of the actual OS. Sure, maybe that doesn't actually work out to be true, no one here is saying that it does, but that's the IDEA behind it. The idea behind something doesn't actually have to work out true for it to be an idea behind something. D'ya get yet???
Somehow I don't think it is a surprise that you blindly copy/.-FUD.
"You have never worked with VS and yet you think it will be easier?"
Try reading a post before you reply to it. It begins with "The idea behind..." and discusses arguments that MS uses to sell, and that the arguments often work and MS gets the sale. At no point does he make the opinions out to be his own, or give any real indication or whether he agrees or not. Just "What MS says == What PHB's like to hear", which is actually true a whole lot of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
"However, from other little clues in his post I tend to lean towards thinking this particular guy may indeed be addicted"
No, in fact I've cut some out completely, and cut down on pretty much everything else (although I have drank a lil more caffeine than usual the past week). What you're likely picking up on is not a "need for drugs", but a passion for them, for the difference they have made in my life, and difference I have seen them make in so many other peoples lives. I've seen them bring people together, and open peoples minds. As many bad hypothetical stories most people have heard about drugs effect on people, I can give real stories about real people who have had their lives changed for the better.
I have learnt a lot through experimenting with various drugs (it's always been curiosity driven), combined the "field tests" with my study of the neurosciences, learnt a lot about the mind and the memory (even applied some of what I've learnt to software development), and had a lot of fun along the way.
More people use drugs recreationally than you know. They don't get into fights, or steal to support it, or any of the other things commonly associated with "drugs" (which are in fact associated with the highly addictive drugs, such as crack and smack, which *aren't* used in the same way, for the same reasons, or with the same attitude). It doesn't rip lives apart or do the damage so many people have been led to believe, and I hate the fact that so many people have been so mislead, and lump people like myself together with others such as crack/smack dealers/users, because they don't understand how there can be any difference. There is. And it's huge. I feel sorry that they will never have the kind of amazing experiences that I have had, seen things as incredible as I have, and I'm extremely annoyed that my such activities are illegal because people don't understand them (and thus fear them).
Please try and be open minded. You'll find that people can be more open with you.
Alex
You actually know nothing about this big bad "drugs" word do you? You call me an addict, accuse me of being more prone to irresponsible behaviour than the average person, yet I haven't even named any of the chemicals I will take. But I suppose to you, they're all the same huh? Doesn't matter the molecule, the interactions, the receptor sites it binds to, a drugs a drugs a dirty dirty word, huh? You're so incredibly uneducated, it's scary.
Oh, and I don't steal, for drugs or otherwise.
Do you steal to support your computer gaming addiction?
*lol* wow, the media certainly hasn't gotten to you. I most certainly am not an addict, I am most certainly able to self monitor, and you most certainly are a closed minded fool who cannot see past preconceptions, and by your ability to judge with so little information, I'd guess a christian too.
"The only way I can see MS hurting google is if they make IE point to MSN like Firefox does with Google on the top right search box."
Most ppl I know have google set to their homepage anyway. Want a new search? Open a new window. Type it in. Press return. I have no idea what search engine my "browser default" is set to, it certainly doesn't matter. The only time I've ever seen someone use an in-browser-toolbar search is when it has 'google' right next to it (ie, a browser plugin).
But then, that's hardly a wide sample.
ahh, spreading themselves too thin, I get it! :-p
"It's much easier to reprogram software"
When it has been made easy, yes. But why would you make it easy for a machine to reprogram vital parts of it's system? For example, you might want to let it restructure it's memory, but you'd want to leave in place the parts that allow it to move, or that send it SIGPWR when the battery's low, so you wouldn't even give it a desire to change those, let alone the ability to. Simple really.
Occording to the wiki page you linked to, he places Love/Belonging into #3, but sex itself into #1.
Next time I spot whoever posts with the sig "being stupid should be more painful", I can point them here *lol* it's not often someone gets hurt twice for the same mistake, but I kinda like the idea of it! (Although of cause feel sorry for everyone else involved, esp the scapegoats who copped the blame). I do hope you contested their conclusion, thanks for sharing :-)
Sorry have we met? I was probably just too wasted to remember you ;-)
The fact that you remember me means I win, ner-ner-ni-ner-ner! *rasp*
No, repression implies that something there (ie, a desire) is being silenced or muted, but really there's no reason to give the robot desires for anything other than it's function to begin with. Even if a robot can learn new skills, if they don't help it achieve it's desired goals, it won't use them. For example, i've been taught various drawing and painting skills, but visual recreation of objects/scenes isn't something I desire to do, and so I don't.
Robots can be intelligent without being made a threat. We only percieve the threat because we can't help but anthropomorphasize. But most of our threatening behaviour patterns stem from our need to eat to live, kill to eat, and kill to control territory so that we have stuff to kill to eat (and similar with the whole mating thing). This is not something that's going to be deeply etched into a robots psychology as it is ours. You're far more likely to be hurt/killed/enslaved by another human, so why believe that giving intelligence to a machine is going to make it want to do those things to you, when it's not the intelligence that makes a person want to do those things to you?
I dunno, there are things you can program into the core, a subconscious if you will. For example, we can change our thoughts and attitudes (often a more gradual than instant process), but we're still built on top of basic primal and autonomous functions. Deep, deep, real deep down, to a level you're not even barely conscious of, you want your heart to beat... and no amount of changing your attitude and outlook on life is going to be able to change that. It'd be very simple to put the same kind of primal desires/instincts into the foundation of an AI, while giving it an ability to change things at a higher abstraction level of thought (that is, if you were doing the latter already).
This is true. He even wore t-shirts with slogans designed to undermine the robot's self confidence. When a robot no longer value's itself, how can it value anything else?
There is a saying, "make something foolproof, and they'll invent a bigger fool".
The question is cutoff line, you can always protect something better, but the cost rises exponentially. Surely there's a point where it's easier/better to teach people to be responsible for themselves, and not need looking after?
I know, *shock* *horror*, thinking outside the box here, man, but yeah, why can't people look after themselves?
"I don't think we can really call something without AI a robot"
Well it does fit dictionary definition, although I do actually agree, to me this is just "a machine", the term 'robot' does have at least some kind of awareness-process-respond connotation in my and many peoples minds, it would be nice to have some proper differenciation. But perhaps another word, as the roots behind the word 'robot' ("forced labor") hardly conjours the best images either.
This robot actually sounds to me more like one of natures "thinning out" devices.
...although, it was heard to say "hey sexy momma, wanna kill all humans?", so I'm not sure...
Not really. The traits I think you're actually wanting to avoid don't come from self awareness, but come from the reward system (and at the other end, the pain system), which controls motivation and desires. All the self awareness in the world won't be a problem, if it's only desire is to do it's job. It's the programming of the reward system equivalent that you have to watch out for these things.
Very true. Shame on him for posting the other side of the argument, to slashdot of all places, what an idiot.
heh, I was just quoting from Drawn Together :-p but does draw all sorts of moral issues over the creation of AI's that "self preserve" through similar mechanisms as we do - what feelings shouldn't we try to recreate?
yes, but also change the way alcohol is treated. We're already beginning to see this in the UK (well, slightly, with changes to licencing hours). The minimum age for alcohol consumtion is something like 5yrs old here. Kids bought up around alcohol (not in the alcoholic parent style!) tend to be more responsible with it than those who are "banned, don't you dare touch it!". America's minimum drinking age of 21 just encourages the problem. Many european countries have more relaxed drinking laws than the UK, and they suffer the 'binge drinking antisocial youth' thing less than we do.
Forcing something, either way ("you must" / "you must not") removes their idea of responsibility, as only the irresponsible need to be told in such a way. Relaxing to laws is definitely the way to go.
'sept floride does the oposite to caffeine (replaces iodine (which in the same chemical group, but less reactive) in the thyroid gland, lowering the metabolism. This slows you down and makes you put on weight).
So instead of adding the caffeine, they could just try taking the floride out?
why doesn't he remove the chip that makes me feel PAIN?
No, the problem with "just say no" isn't addiction, because to be addicted, you must have already not said no at least once already. The problem with "just say no", and in fact so much of the anti-drugs FUD out there, is the term: drugs. Drugs are meant to be bad... right? So what about all the drugs that you get from the doc/chemist? Okay, so drugs are bad if they're illegal, but drugs from the doc/chemist are good, because they're legal... so it's actually breaking the law that's bad, and the laws MUST be right... right?
Wrong. "Just say no!" teaches ignorance, it says don't question, don't learn, just repeat after me. But the truth is that illegal drugs aren't all the same, and the legal status of a drugs makes absolutely no difference to whether it's "good" or "bad" for you. The difference comes when whether you've learnt how to use the drugs responsibly.
The only drug I've ever become addicted to was one I was prescribed from a doctor, because I trusted/just accepted what I was told. All other drugs I've 'experimented' (recreational only, I stear well clear of the big addictive one's such as smack/crack) with, I've researched beforehand, and not hand anything like the same kind of problems with. I've even managed to boost my work productivity (programming) with some, which has saved my ass at least a couple of times.
Whenever I've seen people having problems with these drugs, is because they don't respect them, think that taking more == makes you cooler, they get competative ("I can handle more than you"), or often believe that the drug will solve something that it can't. But guess what... you get the same problems with legal as you do with illegal drugs. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean you won't become addicted, or that it won't screw your liver or whatever, and just because something illegal, doesn't mean it will.
I've become far more successful in my life, both work wise and socially, since I discovering what levels of different chemicals have different effects on me, what I can achieve in different states, and importantly: my limits. I can use amphetamines (the family ritalin is in, as is speed) to slam out code for 24hours straight, but the brain needs to rest, so if I keep doing it, I just end up being awake, and can't be productive. I've learnt this, I use it wisely, I use it responsibly, I monitor my health (physically and mentally) very closely. There's no reason why I should stop (except legal status).
Take responsibility for your own life, for MORE of your own life, and you'll find you can be safer from most things, and see that some things are only "dangerous" if used irresponsibly (like powertools) but can be useful if used wisely (like powertools).
"it took Microsoft long enough, huh?"
It took them this long to get this release out yes, but no one said this is their first cluster software release though, think you might have imagined that bit because it's what you want to read.
"Somehow I don't think it is a suprise that you blindly copy MS-FUD"
/.-FUD.
Well it would be pretty damn stupid to talk about what MS says to sell their software, without copying what they say, wouldn't it? "The idea behind Windows clusters is that they use giant rats that have been genetically engineered to perform complex calculations" would be ya know... a lie. That's not the idea behind it at all. The idea behind it is that you CAN save money in other areas greater than the cost of the actual OS. Sure, maybe that doesn't actually work out to be true, no one here is saying that it does, but that's the IDEA behind it. The idea behind something doesn't actually have to work out true for it to be an idea behind something. D'ya get yet???
Somehow I don't think it is a surprise that you blindly copy
"You have never worked with VS and yet you think it will be easier?"
Try reading a post before you reply to it. It begins with "The idea behind..." and discusses arguments that MS uses to sell, and that the arguments often work and MS gets the sale. At no point does he make the opinions out to be his own, or give any real indication or whether he agrees or not. Just "What MS says == What PHB's like to hear", which is actually true a whole lot of the time.