You mean the creeps that want to backdoor everything and compromise all security in order to be able to listen to and record everything? Fat chance. These people will only make everything worse.
Bruce Schneier has an irrational trust in authority. He really should know better by now.
Yes, our so-called "leaders" are that dumb. When you take into account that these get elected, then you begin to see why basically everything is messed up.
Lately I've found Google results to be stunningly poor. It seems that in addition to indexing a page's straight content (the body text of an article) it also indexes anything that may be on the sidebar like a news feed. You end up with top results that don't even contain the word you are searching for.
I did notice that too. Google becomes less and less useful.
Well, I am just a bit tired of people asking for technology to do things it cannot actually do and then chickening out when asked "and how do you think that could work?". I do get your stance now (I think), so my apologies and thanks for the explanation.
"Machine learning" is pretty much a nonsensical marketing-term as well. There is no learning in machines, just automatic parameter adjustment in fixed algorithms. Actual learning requires insight, this is just training. Although, even when applied to humans this term is misused and a lot of things that are really "training" are called "learning". It is not as bad as "non-general intelligence" though. The whole thing is about anthropomorphizing machines or "machinizing" humans (by the physicalist morons). Pretty stupid scientifically, but apparently good for business as it appeals to people's imagination.
Well, I do know that some people have started to call things not "general intelligence" "intelligence". That makes absolutely no sense from a scientific point of view but helps with marketing. In any scientific context, assume that "intelligence" means "general intelligence" as there really is nothing that would qualify as "nongeneral intelligence". The "general" is at the very core of the idea of "intelligence". The rest is automation, statistical classification, planning algorithms, etc. but not in any sense "intelligent".
It does not. It would if AI researchers were seeing a credible approach to create strong AI anywhere on the distant horizon. They do not. There is absolutely nothing. The whole public discussion is completely baseless.
I can see that you "don't see". Your argument is completely out of sync with current AI research results. "Hysterical fear mongering" has absolutely nothing to do with it. AI researchers do not have any clue at all how what you describe could be implemented. Last time (2017) I talked to a high-profile AI expert in a non-public setting, his immediate statement was "not in the next 50 years". That is science-speak for "we have nothing". (Yes, I am a scientist and I have been following AI research for about 30 years now).
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not.
This is not about reality, but descriptions and perceptions of reality. They are very subjective.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
It is impossible to determine objectively the truth of most things that involve people and, especially, politics. This is something many people do not understand though, usually because they are convinced they have the truth in an effect that Dunning and Kruger described nicely.
And that is a question that does not even require any intelligence, just a linear search forward in time. These fabulous "digital assistants" cannot even do that? Now I am _never_ getting one. (Besides, they are creepy...)
I agree. The problem is basically intractable (at least with digital computers) as even the dumbest human has this quality of "understanding" that completely eludes software. Well, "understanding" requires consciousness for the moment of insight, and we do not even know what that is. (No we don't, go away physicalist idiots. You are a religious cult.)
Well, that happened. Bots now routinely pass that test.
It has not. What has happened is that bots can successfully claim to be some limited form of human being (very young and/or with serious mental defects) in a very restricted topic area and a very time-limited conversation. The general Turing test is unsolved.
Looks very much like anything requiring insight is not accessible to computing machinery. For anybody with some understanding of the problem, that is no surprise. It is highly doubtful insight and intelligence can actually work without self-awareness and free will (yes, I know some neuro-morons claim their faulty experiments show there is no such thing), as that is the only place were we observe it.
Sure, physicalists (basically a fundamentalist cult) claim that everything is physical, and hence strong AI should be possible, but that is belief, not science. They consistently fail to explain consciousness except by calling it magic (in other words), for example. There is also the little problem that they think they can get intelligence and insight without free will. There is no indication that is even possible, and there certainly is no example of that in nature.
LibreOffice is working fine and does not come with the baggage idiots playing politics have attached to OpenOffice. This is one fork that worked as it should: With all the smart and competent moving to the fork and leaving the idiots behind to fail as they deserve.
And how do you propose to do that? Force all people to post their opinions and then add a "reality" or "truth" score? The only thing a search engine can give you truthfully is the reality on the net, nothing else. Everything else will be some ones or some parties interpretation of how the world is or should be and it will be skewed.
That said, I do see your point and it would be nice to have a way to represent full truth in a search engine, but I am pretty sure it cannot be done and any attempt to do so will likely be worse than the problem it addresses.
You do not understand how this works: I am well aware that basically all authoritarians justify their actions using the presence of a serious threat. That is not the problem and that part of the argumentation is actually valid. The problem with authoritarians is that they routinely manufacture the threats and lie about them and never restrict their authority to actually dealing with these threats only.
So yes, I would force the fight against the existential threat of climate change on people, but only this.
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not. And it has no good answer. If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net. If you say yes, you get a "morality" that is dictated by those with power, which may well be worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the creeps that want to backdoor everything and compromise all security in order to be able to listen to and record everything? Fat chance. These people will only make everything worse.
Bruce Schneier has an irrational trust in authority. He really should know better by now.
Yes, our so-called "leaders" are that dumb. When you take into account that these get elected, then you begin to see why basically everything is messed up.
Wonder what is next.
Lately I've found Google results to be stunningly poor. It seems that in addition to indexing a page's straight content (the body text of an article) it also indexes anything that may be on the sidebar like a news feed. You end up with top results that don't even contain the word you are searching for.
I did notice that too. Google becomes less and less useful.
Well, I am just a bit tired of people asking for technology to do things it cannot actually do and then chickening out when asked "and how do you think that could work?". I do get your stance now (I think), so my apologies and thanks for the explanation.
"Machine learning" is pretty much a nonsensical marketing-term as well. There is no learning in machines, just automatic parameter adjustment in fixed algorithms. Actual learning requires insight, this is just training. Although, even when applied to humans this term is misused and a lot of things that are really "training" are called "learning". It is not as bad as "non-general intelligence" though. The whole thing is about anthropomorphizing machines or "machinizing" humans (by the physicalist morons). Pretty stupid scientifically, but apparently good for business as it appeals to people's imagination.
Simple: You are not smart and competent. Why do you ask?
Well, I do know that some people have started to call things not "general intelligence" "intelligence". That makes absolutely no sense from a scientific point of view but helps with marketing. In any scientific context, assume that "intelligence" means "general intelligence" as there really is nothing that would qualify as "nongeneral intelligence". The "general" is at the very core of the idea of "intelligence". The rest is automation, statistical classification, planning algorithms, etc. but not in any sense "intelligent".
We have examples of naturally occuring intelligences without free will
Oh? What do you know that the entire AI research field has missed for a few decades?
It does not. It would if AI researchers were seeing a credible approach to create strong AI anywhere on the distant horizon. They do not. There is absolutely nothing. The whole public discussion is completely baseless.
I can see that you "don't see". Your argument is completely out of sync with current AI research results. "Hysterical fear mongering" has absolutely nothing to do with it. AI researchers do not have any clue at all how what you describe could be implemented. Last time (2017) I talked to a high-profile AI expert in a non-public setting, his immediate statement was "not in the next 50 years". That is science-speak for "we have nothing". (Yes, I am a scientist and I have been following AI research for about 30 years now).
So you are not qualified to offer a solution, but you presume to be qualified to judge data that supports a specific solution? That does not work.
The problem is that reality is very subjective.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not.
This is not about reality, but descriptions and perceptions of reality. They are very subjective.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
It is impossible to determine objectively the truth of most things that involve people and, especially, politics. This is something many people do not understand though, usually because they are convinced they have the truth in an effect that Dunning and Kruger described nicely.
And that is a question that does not even require any intelligence, just a linear search forward in time. These fabulous "digital assistants" cannot even do that? Now I am _never_ getting one. (Besides, they are creepy...)
I agree. The problem is basically intractable (at least with digital computers) as even the dumbest human has this quality of "understanding" that completely eludes software. Well, "understanding" requires consciousness for the moment of insight, and we do not even know what that is. (No we don't, go away physicalist idiots. You are a religious cult.)
17% fail? Looks to me more like around 17% succeed, the rest just builds up a dictionary of observed behaviors without any understanding.
Well, that happened. Bots now routinely pass that test.
It has not. What has happened is that bots can successfully claim to be some limited form of human being (very young and/or with serious mental defects) in a very restricted topic area and a very time-limited conversation. The general Turing test is unsolved.
Looks very much like anything requiring insight is not accessible to computing machinery. For anybody with some understanding of the problem, that is no surprise. It is highly doubtful insight and intelligence can actually work without self-awareness and free will (yes, I know some neuro-morons claim their faulty experiments show there is no such thing), as that is the only place were we observe it.
Sure, physicalists (basically a fundamentalist cult) claim that everything is physical, and hence strong AI should be possible, but that is belief, not science. They consistently fail to explain consciousness except by calling it magic (in other words), for example. There is also the little problem that they think they can get intelligence and insight without free will. There is no indication that is even possible, and there certainly is no example of that in nature.
Good luck with that.
Common sense isn't very common I'm afraid.
Indeed. And in particular, the military is the last place where you find it.
LibreOffice is working fine and does not come with the baggage idiots playing politics have attached to OpenOffice. This is one fork that worked as it should: With all the smart and competent moving to the fork and leaving the idiots behind to fail as they deserve.
And how do you propose to do that? Force all people to post their opinions and then add a "reality" or "truth" score? The only thing a search engine can give you truthfully is the reality on the net, nothing else. Everything else will be some ones or some parties interpretation of how the world is or should be and it will be skewed.
That said, I do see your point and it would be nice to have a way to represent full truth in a search engine, but I am pretty sure it cannot be done and any attempt to do so will likely be worse than the problem it addresses.
You do not understand how this works: I am well aware that basically all authoritarians justify their actions using the presence of a serious threat. That is not the problem and that part of the argumentation is actually valid. The problem with authoritarians is that they routinely manufacture the threats and lie about them and never restrict their authority to actually dealing with these threats only.
So yes, I would force the fight against the existential threat of climate change on people, but only this.
Hehehehe, nice!!
"Useful" is a loaded term, easily abused. What, for example, would be "useful" to a racist, a sexist, a religious fanatic, or a republican?
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not. And it has no good answer. If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net. If you say yes, you get a "morality" that is dictated by those with power, which may well be worse.