No. All we have some interface-observations at the outside of a black box. There is a lot of quantum effects going on in the brain, and they would offer a fine interface for something else. Or not. We just do not know enough. From the constant failure to find even a theory how intelligence could be created to consciousness still being completely unexplained (there is no mechanism for it in present-day physics), an explanation of "the brain is a machine and that is all there is to a human being" is not scientifically credible at this time.
Find an explanation for consciousness in Physics and then come back to me. And no, "it is an illusion" does not count, because that one is self-referent.
Well, yes. And what mechanisms society comes up with to keep itself going and to make sure enough wealth is shared to keep society stable. It will be an interesting next few decades. There are just too many people that can be replaced by automation job-wise for this to not be a huge change.
If it is possible at all. There has been zero progress in the direction of "strong" AI (the version that actually has intelligence in the sense of understanding) in the last 30 years or so and that unfortunately includes theory. The theory we have today just does not include anything that can generate intelligence and hence for that question "faster" does not make one bit of difference. Sure, automation is becoming useful in more areas due to speed and memory increases, but qualitatively it has not changed.
For example, when I wen to university, there was an expectation that today the majority of mathematical proofs would be done by machines. That did not happen at all. What happened is that mathematicians how have systems they can explain the details of a proof to and the machine can (mechanically) verify that the steps are correct, fit together and deliver the expected result. Very useful, but the idea has to be supplied by actual intelligence, i.e. by a human being.
That there has not been any progress on strong AI in the last few decades can mean two things though: a) It is actually impossible. This would mean we have a fundamental gap in understanding what intelligence is. That is a possibility, though in what direction actual explanations would go is unclear. Certainly some sort of "magic" would be required. And b), it is possible, but some fundamental idea is missing. In that case we could still end up at something like a), because if the idea needed is way to complex for humans, then we are not going to find it. Alternatively, in the next few 100 years, some smart person may have the right idea.
Personally, I started out thinking strong AI is possible, but likely with the usual drawbacks, i.e. consciousness, personality, not smarter then humans and has to be motivated somehow. Over the years of following AI research, I have mostly moved my expectations to "likely not possible", because a lot of very smart people have not made any progress at all. Something seem to be missing in this picture and the explanation "human brains do it" does not cut it either, because on that front there was also no progress in finding out how intelligence is done. Sure, _automation_ in the brain is beginning to be understood, but that is not intelligence.
Well, possibly. I think it would have been better to keep attention away from the whole thing, but it could have been some kind of "detector". I still think that is too complicated and one thing competent TLAs understand is KISS. Of course, US intelligence skill has been going down the drain, and maybe they did this as you describe. Would still be incompetence, just somewhere else.
The person that wrote this either never had a course in computability or failed it. The bottom line is that "infinite speed" does not matter in reality, because it turns out to be not the same as "infinite computing power". "Infinite computing power" is provable impossible, it leads directly to a contradiction.
Basically, you would not get much more than what current compilers are already doing, you would just not have to wait for it.
... it would actually be exciting. Unfortunately, it is complete and unmitigated bullshit. There still is zero understanding in machines and the only form of "AI" we have is weak AI, i.e. the "AI" that actually has no intelligence and can only fake it in very limited circumstances. Properly, this is called "automation" and anybody thinking of a mechanical process is right on the mark.
Indeed. The Brexit and Trump are the most stupid things voters did recently, but they are not unique. The vulnerability here are voters without a clue about reality. That one cannot easily be fixed, but throwing the staff and financiers of such companies in jail would be a start.
I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. This is far too easy to find for that. It is very surprising it took so long. The right way to do backdoors is to make _subtle_ errors that cannot easily be found without special knowledge. That way, they stay useful for a long, long time. No, this is likely just extreme incompetence.
Now one wonders what great "security features" Intel has places in their network cards, chipsets and CPUs. This really is on the most stupid level possible. They cannot even have done an internal review of this code that deserves the name before putting it into production.
I see you fell for the propaganda. It says "while 55 children were "identified or rescued" in America". That means between 0 and 55 were identified and between 0 and 55 were rescued. It does include actually zero being rescued and 55 being identified with no rescue. Otherwise they would have said "identified and rescued", but they did not.
Indeed. Ultimately, this can mean not a single one rescued and 55 identified from material they already had. Of course, they want everybody to think "nearly 55 rescued", but that is not the statement they made.
There are a lot of stupid people around, and quite a few have a completely unfounded trust in technology. The Tor project itself warns you right on the verification page that "this is not all you need to be secure" and points to the documentation. The thing is, Tor can be used for different purposes. If I just want to keep the insane pervs out that want to see every citizen's (legal) browsing habits, leaving JS active is likely not a problem. If you are a political activist in a country that does not respect human rights, JS should most definitely be off.
That these people were caught with JS on points to another problem of the whole affair: They have only caught the really dumb ones. That means they have not made any real dent in the overall problem, even with this extremely problematic approach.
One of the arguments against is that it is a slippery slope. The only thing that works long-term is that LEOs may not commit crimes, no exception. Otherwise they begin to resemble those that they fight more and more, because it is just so much easier.
In the case at hand, by the very definition of the DOJ (!), the FBI committed child abuse for two weeks, and the step to actually directly abusing children is a small one. I do not see why they should get away with that. Otherwise, they can next start to produce this type material themselves by raping children, because that can get them into the inner circles of such groups if they have new material to swap. They may even only have to rape a few children and may as a result safe a lot more!
I think the problem here is entirely obvious and it is very obvious that the FBI stepped far over the line.
While I expected I could stay away from all the systemd failure, I recently got hit as well. I have a netbook that is used for one purpose: Access to serial consoles via USB-serial adapter. Accidentally, it got downgraded to use systemd. And what does systemd break? Right, the serial adapter! The kernel detects it just fine, but then systemd and its tools mess with it and _remove_ it without good reason and without any useful diagnostic. That is _not_ the Linux I have come to know an love.
Of course, removing systemd again fixed the issue, but one has to ask who such utter crap can make it into a supposedly stable release.
Slashdot Mirror
No. All we have some interface-observations at the outside of a black box. There is a lot of quantum effects going on in the brain, and they would offer a fine interface for something else. Or not. We just do not know enough. From the constant failure to find even a theory how intelligence could be created to consciousness still being completely unexplained (there is no mechanism for it in present-day physics), an explanation of "the brain is a machine and that is all there is to a human being" is not scientifically credible at this time.
Find an explanation for consciousness in Physics and then come back to me. And no, "it is an illusion" does not count, because that one is self-referent.
Well, yes. And what mechanisms society comes up with to keep itself going and to make sure enough wealth is shared to keep society stable. It will be an interesting next few decades. There are just too many people that can be replaced by automation job-wise for this to not be a huge change.
If it is possible at all. There has been zero progress in the direction of "strong" AI (the version that actually has intelligence in the sense of understanding) in the last 30 years or so and that unfortunately includes theory. The theory we have today just does not include anything that can generate intelligence and hence for that question "faster" does not make one bit of difference. Sure, automation is becoming useful in more areas due to speed and memory increases, but qualitatively it has not changed.
For example, when I wen to university, there was an expectation that today the majority of mathematical proofs would be done by machines. That did not happen at all. What happened is that mathematicians how have systems they can explain the details of a proof to and the machine can (mechanically) verify that the steps are correct, fit together and deliver the expected result. Very useful, but the idea has to be supplied by actual intelligence, i.e. by a human being.
That there has not been any progress on strong AI in the last few decades can mean two things though: a) It is actually impossible. This would mean we have a fundamental gap in understanding what intelligence is. That is a possibility, though in what direction actual explanations would go is unclear. Certainly some sort of "magic" would be required. And b), it is possible, but some fundamental idea is missing. In that case we could still end up at something like a), because if the idea needed is way to complex for humans, then we are not going to find it. Alternatively, in the next few 100 years, some smart person may have the right idea.
Personally, I started out thinking strong AI is possible, but likely with the usual drawbacks, i.e. consciousness, personality, not smarter then humans and has to be motivated somehow. Over the years of following AI research, I have mostly moved my expectations to "likely not possible", because a lot of very smart people have not made any progress at all. Something seem to be missing in this picture and the explanation "human brains do it" does not cut it either, because on that front there was also no progress in finding out how intelligence is done. Sure, _automation_ in the brain is beginning to be understood, but that is not intelligence.
Lets talk again in 10 years. Then it should have become obvious to you too.
I actually think this would be a good idea.
Well, possibly. I think it would have been better to keep attention away from the whole thing, but it could have been some kind of "detector". I still think that is too complicated and one thing competent TLAs understand is KISS. Of course, US intelligence skill has been going down the drain, and maybe they did this as you describe. Would still be incompetence, just somewhere else.
It is a shame we will likely never find out.
It's Trump. Do not expect gratitude, respect for others or any recognition. Trump does not understand these things.
Well, Trump will clearly fix that. He is already hard at work to make anybody that is poor now even poorer tomorrow. Enjoy your "improvement".
If needed, insist. Unless you can read thoughts, there is no other way. If that still fails, look for another job.
The person that wrote this either never had a course in computability or failed it. The bottom line is that "infinite speed" does not matter in reality, because it turns out to be not the same as "infinite computing power". "Infinite computing power" is provable impossible, it leads directly to a contradiction.
Basically, you would not get much more than what current compilers are already doing, you would just not have to wait for it.
There is no risk of that happening anytime soon. At this time, it is entirely unclear whether "thinking machines" are even possible in this universe.
Indeed. It seems tech reporters are severely lacking in real intelligence when it comes to reporting on AI.
... it would actually be exciting. Unfortunately, it is complete and unmitigated bullshit. There still is zero understanding in machines and the only form of "AI" we have is weak AI, i.e. the "AI" that actually has no intelligence and can only fake it in very limited circumstances. Properly, this is called "automation" and anybody thinking of a mechanical process is right on the mark.
Indeed. The Brexit and Trump are the most stupid things voters did recently, but they are not unique. The vulnerability here are voters without a clue about reality. That one cannot easily be fixed, but throwing the staff and financiers of such companies in jail would be a start.
I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. This is far too easy to find for that. It is very surprising it took so long. The right way to do backdoors is to make _subtle_ errors that cannot easily be found without special knowledge. That way, they stay useful for a long, long time. No, this is likely just extreme incompetence.
Now one wonders what great "security features" Intel has places in their network cards, chipsets and CPUs. This really is on the most stupid level possible. They cannot even have done an internal review of this code that deserves the name before putting it into production.
I see you fell for the propaganda. It says "while 55 children were "identified or rescued" in America". That means between 0 and 55 were identified and between 0 and 55 were rescued. It does include actually zero being rescued and 55 being identified with no rescue. Otherwise they would have said "identified and rescued", but they did not.
Well, funny. Except that you did not read (or maybe did not understand) what I wrote. For example, I nowhere advocate a "vigilante approach".
Indeed. Ultimately, this can mean not a single one rescued and 55 identified from material they already had. Of course, they want everybody to think "nearly 55 rescued", but that is not the statement they made.
There are a lot of stupid people around, and quite a few have a completely unfounded trust in technology. The Tor project itself warns you right on the verification page that "this is not all you need to be secure" and points to the documentation. The thing is, Tor can be used for different purposes. If I just want to keep the insane pervs out that want to see every citizen's (legal) browsing habits, leaving JS active is likely not a problem. If you are a political activist in a country that does not respect human rights, JS should most definitely be off.
That these people were caught with JS on points to another problem of the whole affair: They have only caught the really dumb ones. That means they have not made any real dent in the overall problem, even with this extremely problematic approach.
One of the arguments against is that it is a slippery slope. The only thing that works long-term is that LEOs may not commit crimes, no exception. Otherwise they begin to resemble those that they fight more and more, because it is just so much easier.
In the case at hand, by the very definition of the DOJ (!), the FBI committed child abuse for two weeks, and the step to actually directly abusing children is a small one. I do not see why they should get away with that. Otherwise, they can next start to produce this type material themselves by raping children, because that can get them into the inner circles of such groups if they have new material to swap. They may even only have to rape a few children and may as a result safe a lot more!
I think the problem here is entirely obvious and it is very obvious that the FBI stepped far over the line.
So you would also consent to a camera in every bedroom (including yours), because that may rescue some children?
While I expected I could stay away from all the systemd failure, I recently got hit as well. I have a netbook that is used for one purpose: Access to serial consoles via USB-serial adapter. Accidentally, it got downgraded to use systemd. And what does systemd break? Right, the serial adapter! The kernel detects it just fine, but then systemd and its tools mess with it and _remove_ it without good reason and without any useful diagnostic. That is _not_ the Linux I have come to know an love.
Of course, removing systemd again fixed the issue, but one has to ask who such utter crap can make it into a supposedly stable release.
"Appeal to authority" fallacy. Well, you have proven to be stupid before and you continue to do so. At least you are consistent.