You know, the more I think about it, the more this looks like a scam to me. What is interesting is that the wive is still visible, but maybe he got rid of her this way too.
If the encryption is sound (e.g. LUKS with a reasonable password), then that is not possible. Also, who pays for it? The coins in there still belong to somebody.
Obviously, these people have never heard of Business Continuity Management. Fits however nicely with the "greed and stupidity FIRST" mindset of the cryptocurrency community. This is hilarious!
The microphone is a feature as soon as it can be activated by software. How that activation happens is immaterial. It changes the status of the device to "listening device". Your SoC example is deeply flawed.
Tech specs, by their very nature, must list every major feature present. That list _must_ be complete. Anything major not listed must be absent. And the ability to record audio (even is "disabled" in software) is obviously a major feature in a device you put in your home. Also obviously, they do not list everything that is missing as that would be infeasible. For example, this device likely does not contain an ice-cream machine or a toilet roll holder either. Would you also expect that to be listed as absent?
Well, your "no problem at all" is currently going towards a global catastrophe with 10x less the people from your claim. Your degree of non-insight is impressive.
Indeed. And it is not only food, although a lot of people seem to have that simplistic and unrealistic view. Realistically we are probably somewhere at 2x to 10x the population that is long-term sustainable on this planet.
Sure, the natural regulating mechanisms may finally start to work and reduce the human race to a sane size for this planet, which is probably somewhere around a few 100M. But there is no reason to not expect that at that level things will stabilize.
History of technology. Technology moves at a pretty constant speed from theory how something could work, to lab demo, to you can buy it, to it is in general use, to it becomes mature technology. With networked computers we are at general use now and will take an estimated 30-50 years before the technology is mature. If there is not even a credible theory, we are at least 30-50 years from the lab demo, and possibly much much longer. May even be impossible.
Whether you take the steam engine, electricity, computers, other technologies, the timeline is always relatively similar. There is absolutely no reason to believe this to be different.
Ok, true. If there are classes that do not provide value to students (and I do not doubt such classes exist and may not even be rare), then something is messed up completely and all bets are off. Of course, these classes provide even less value this way, because some of the students will just see that cheating works and not that this is due to special circumstances. When they then cheat elsewhere too, they are harming themselves.
As to foreign languages, I firmly believe everybody should learn one to the point of being fluent (that is usually at least 6 years or so). You learn an incredible lot about your first language that way and see how language shapes thought.
No argument about that. And fast is something machines can do in many cases were humans cannot. But it is limited and it is not a sign of intelligence. What I mean is that I do not object at all to "this machine has beaten a human at a strategy game". What I object to is the conclusion that "this machine is intelligent". It is not. To justify that conclusion, this would have to be set up quite a bit differently, and then the machine would lose. At least today and for the next few decades.
Incidentally, when I recently had a chance to ask the head of the Watson team Europe in private about AGI, he immediately said "not in the next 50 years".
Normally I would post a comment here affirming your intelligence (and I do, I affirm your intelligence) and agreeing with you.
I still mostly agree with you, but it should be pointed out that the Google team seems to have started coming up with slightly new algorithms, so if they keep going, they may find some insight that leads to a more complete AGI solution. Low probability but it seems there is real progress finally.
Well, thanks. Not what I am looking for here, but the occasional person that actually understands what I am talking about and either has good counter-arguments or agrees is nice.
Still, nothing that is AGI to even a very tiny amount is known today. Don't get me wrong, AI is hugely useful, but AGI does not exist. Maybe we will eventually find something that can do AGI without consciousness or we will find a different way to do computing that allows consciousness (digital computing clearly does not), but not anytime soon. We may even be able do divide the "G" in AGI further and find some things machines can do, despite them seemingly requiring general intelligence. Now that would be very interesting.
That said, a lot of things do not require general intelligence after all and can be done with dumb automation if you scale it up enough. That includes things like driving, document processing in a limited domain, stuff client advisers do in banks and insurances, etc. However, there are some things machines are useless for and will likely remain so for a long, long time. Sure, many humans are useless for many of them as well, being a good engineer or scientist, for example. So in limited skill-domains there already is a significant overlap between machines and humans, and that will grow, even without AGI.
Slashdot Mirror
Obvious troll is obvious.
You know, the more I think about it, the more this looks like a scam to me. What is interesting is that the wive is still visible, but maybe he got rid of her this way too.
If the encryption is sound (e.g. LUKS with a reasonable password), then that is not possible. Also, who pays for it? The coins in there still belong to somebody.
Well, it is probably not that hard to get an official death certificate in India while still alive.
Banks do it because they are required to. This was just an amateur with something that is not actually money.
Obviously, these people have never heard of Business Continuity Management. Fits however nicely with the "greed and stupidity FIRST" mindset of the cryptocurrency community. This is hilarious!
The microphone is a feature as soon as it can be activated by software. How that activation happens is immaterial. It changes the status of the device to "listening device". Your SoC example is deeply flawed.
I find this exceptionally funny. People are _dumb_ to trust these companies.
Yes, stupid wins by the numbers. In all other regards, people like you lose.
Just expect that camera to be cleverly hidden in the future.
Tech specs, by their very nature, must list every major feature present. That list _must_ be complete. Anything major not listed must be absent. And the ability to record audio (even is "disabled" in software) is obviously a major feature in a device you put in your home. Also obviously, they do not list everything that is missing as that would be infeasible. For example, this device likely does not contain an ice-cream machine or a toilet roll holder either. Would you also expect that to be listed as absent?
Do you see how wrong your statement is?
At least unless there is a physical switch. No? Then this counts as deceptive and malicious. These evil f****** are getting more bold.
It really continues to amaze me how stupid people can be. Does explain the current mess nicely though.
Well, your "no problem at all" is currently going towards a global catastrophe with 10x less the people from your claim. Your degree of non-insight is impressive.
People are stupid and like to come up with fantasy scenarios as to why everything is fine.
Indeed. And it is not only food, although a lot of people seem to have that simplistic and unrealistic view. Realistically we are probably somewhere at 2x to 10x the population that is long-term sustainable on this planet.
This is journalism and people wanting to sell a book. It is not Science.
Sure, the natural regulating mechanisms may finally start to work and reduce the human race to a sane size for this planet, which is probably somewhere around a few 100M. But there is no reason to not expect that at that level things will stabilize.
To be stored forever and data-mined to the nines. Google does nothing for others, everything it does is just to make its elite even more filthy rich.
History of technology. Technology moves at a pretty constant speed from theory how something could work, to lab demo, to you can buy it, to it is in general use, to it becomes mature technology. With networked computers we are at general use now and will take an estimated 30-50 years before the technology is mature. If there is not even a credible theory, we are at least 30-50 years from the lab demo, and possibly much much longer. May even be impossible.
Whether you take the steam engine, electricity, computers, other technologies, the timeline is always relatively similar. There is absolutely no reason to believe this to be different.
Well, _that_ I would not call cheating. That is more keeping your synapses free of utterly useless and demented crap.
Ok, true. If there are classes that do not provide value to students (and I do not doubt such classes exist and may not even be rare), then something is messed up completely and all bets are off. Of course, these classes provide even less value this way, because some of the students will just see that cheating works and not that this is due to special circumstances. When they then cheat elsewhere too, they are harming themselves.
As to foreign languages, I firmly believe everybody should learn one to the point of being fluent (that is usually at least 6 years or so). You learn an incredible lot about your first language that way and see how language shapes thought.
No argument about that. And fast is something machines can do in many cases were humans cannot. But it is limited and it is not a sign of intelligence. What I mean is that I do not object at all to "this machine has beaten a human at a strategy game". What I object to is the conclusion that "this machine is intelligent". It is not. To justify that conclusion, this would have to be set up quite a bit differently, and then the machine would lose. At least today and for the next few decades.
While I do not follow Starcraft games, this does not surprise me one bit.
Incidentally, when I recently had a chance to ask the head of the Watson team Europe in private about AGI, he immediately said "not in the next 50 years".
Normally I would post a comment here affirming your intelligence (and I do, I affirm your intelligence) and agreeing with you.
I still mostly agree with you, but it should be pointed out that the Google team seems to have started coming up with slightly new algorithms, so if they keep going, they may find some insight that leads to a more complete AGI solution. Low probability but it seems there is real progress finally.
Well, thanks. Not what I am looking for here, but the occasional person that actually understands what I am talking about and either has good counter-arguments or agrees is nice.
Still, nothing that is AGI to even a very tiny amount is known today. Don't get me wrong, AI is hugely useful, but AGI does not exist. Maybe we will eventually find something that can do AGI without consciousness or we will find a different way to do computing that allows consciousness (digital computing clearly does not), but not anytime soon. We may even be able do divide the "G" in AGI further and find some things machines can do, despite them seemingly requiring general intelligence. Now that would be very interesting.
That said, a lot of things do not require general intelligence after all and can be done with dumb automation if you scale it up enough. That includes things like driving, document processing in a limited domain, stuff client advisers do in banks and insurances, etc. However, there are some things machines are useless for and will likely remain so for a long, long time. Sure, many humans are useless for many of them as well, being a good engineer or scientist, for example. So in limited skill-domains there already is a significant overlap between machines and humans, and that will grow, even without AGI.