The laws have become so complicated and so unknowable in detail that I'd be willing to guess that it is illegal to do that or that they can stretch some rule, regulation, law, or procedure to get that desired result.
The decision requiring taxation of internet sales is just another step in the direction of the coming complexity collapse. You just cannot keep doing good-sounding things that layer on more and more complexity without knowing that sooner or later things must start to unravel.
Programmers need to form a secret society with a secret handshake and magic words not to be uttered to outsiders. Oh, and a magic mysterious symbol. Then they could hand out power rings and decoders.
Most probably what constitutes intelligence is changing due to social and technological changes. Analog clocks are being removed from schools, I've read, because children cannot read them in a digital age. And what about cursive writing? There must be many subtle and obvious changes that are affecting what passes as intelligence. It could just be that the theory and testing of intelligence is lagging the massive changes that have taken place in the last 50 years..
"Professor Charles Forbin, a leading cybernetics expert of international repute, arrives at the White House to brief the President of the United States of North America (Canada and the United States are one country, the USNA) to announce the completion of Project Colossus, a computer system in the Rocky Mountains, designed to assume control of the USNA's nuclear defences. Although the USNA President eagerly relieves himself of that burden, Prof. Forbin voices doubt about conferring absolute military power to a computer. Advised, yet undeterred, the President announces to the world the activation of the Project Colossus computer system, and its irreversible control of the nuclear defence systems of the USNA." - from a Wikipedia synopsis of "Colossus," a "Sifi?" story from 1966 by D.F. Jones
So, the desire has always been there as illustrated here; it merely had to wait for the technology. Desire often overcomes reality. Read it.
Looks to be the same "leaving a word out" flub that left the "a" out of "One small step for "a" man...etc." But I don't buy it. Was the word used in any written data on what they were doing?
Just an aside: Who says the transistor concept has to be implemented in the physical world? Do switches and amplifiers actually have to be physical? Just wondering. It is a thought that occurred to me several years ago. Are there already non-physical "transistors" out there?
Refusal to make a judgement on such things is a convenient avoidance of responsibility and approaches business psychopathy. Imagine living in Nazi Germany while knowing what is going on and making no judgement. Just because you are in business doesn't relieve you of the obligation to be a human being who is part of his social environment. I believe the major cause of school shootings is 50 years of movies pushing the theme of "just revenge," not video games, which are active displacements of the rage and anger that would lead to school shootings, but that doesn't mean obviously disturbing video games like this that callously make money on the sufferings of individuals and families should be allowed by those who make them and those who provide them. Being in business does not relieve you of your obligations to society.
It just encourages more people to be threatening for the stipend. The counseling and case management will go away or become a joke and all the program will end up doing is bribing violent people not to be violent - which they will be anyway because it is their nature.
and the program would be lost again. Not the human, who would adapt. The program locks in the solution. And this is the problem with AI. Wherever you use it in lieu of humans you freeze the level of expertise.
This is what one would expect to happen when an area of human endeavor is studied, "understood" and turned into a set process. It is frozen. It doesn't advance and change. And this is exactly what will happen in any area that happily lets AI take over for human beings.
These books are always interesting and full of thought-food. But they never go one step higher and ask, "Why is it so?" It is the development of hyper-liberalism in the 1960s which placed the wants of the individual above the wants and needs of the group, the neighborhood, the nation. President Kennedy must have seen this coming with his famous line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." But hyper-liberalism is the inevitable result of democracy and its fatal flaw.
It is the propensity of the human mind to assume that if a little of a thing is good then an extreme amount of a thing is extremely good. But that is never the case, not even with something as fundamental to life as water. And the hyper-liberalism that allowed birth control and abortion of citizens for the convenience of the individual and the rise of a sociopathic feminism that encouraged women to shed their vital role as the producers of well-formed population for the nation in pursuit of a male positon in all aspects of life; that re-defined marriage as a mere social and legal convenience for the individuals involved; that created the "me-ism" of sex and drugs culture; that led to nice-feeling but continuously growing budget-busting social programs, is the natural path we should expect a maturing democracy to folllow, a path to its self-destruction.
Yes, it feels right to blame the "boomers." But they are the result of the development of hyper-liberalism, not the cause of its results.
That this game was made and they have supported it against criticism shows how sick recent generations have been made, not by video games, but by 50 years of movies with the theme of "just revenge." These movies have a protagonist who is put upon by bad guys to the point that he stands up and "gets his back" by going on a psychopathic killing spree. The audience is supposted to cheer and applaud him. Normal people can ignore this kind of revenge behavior in real life, but there is always going to be a small percentage of disturbed children and men who use movie lectures on correct behavior as a model for their own.
Post the normal curve of human intelligence above your computer so you see it every day. Now put a vertical line at the midpoint. Half the population of the country - and the world - is at, or below this "normal IQ," which is fine for normal human life, but isn't enough for more advanced work. Now move this line slowly to the right. When you create a world where AI and AI driven machines and processes dominate the work of the world, more and more of these people to the left of the line will find themselves left out of work and the life-giving resources and satisfactions that come from work. These people will not be empowered by AI and advanced technology because they will not be able to help make it or use it in any but the most menial and degrading ways - if at all. The pie-in-the-sky beliefs of those who want to create AI as a substitute for people are either selfishly self-deluded, or just stupid. The whole point of AI is to destroy human participation, just like the "expert systems" they tried to create in the 1980s by interviewing and putting the knowledge base and way of thinking of experts in various specialties into computers. For what reason? Obviously to eliminate people. We know that today they are working mightily to have computers program in substitution for highly intelligent and highly paid human programmers. You think you are immune? The line moves right.
You would think that after so many years in computer and network tech that they would understand that this information will eventually be hacked and used against people. Just stupid, like people putting passwords online in central password storage.
This is an extraordinary example of the effect of hyper-liberalism on society. What we have here is hyper-liberalism turning an entire country into a village and making every individual responsible for every other individual. A country cannot be a village, obviously, but not to a hyper-liberalist in a position of power. That is scary. Look for more of this kind of thing in the future.
Charlie made the mistake. He didn't understand either. Our advantage is that we have humans point out our mistakes and we correct them permanently. We do this one bad understanding at a time throughout life. But who wants to correct the bad understandings of AI? Oops you killed that person, here's why, don't do that again. But we WILL do that. We will allow self-driving cars to kill people and be corrected for a long, long time. We may even let AI nuke the Earth to learn how not to.
Why do "quantum computing" articles make me feel like they are talking about unobtainium, perpetual motion machines, or androids coming any-decade-now?
He's not the man with the "Golden Arm," but the man with the Golden Heart. The DNA of such a person should be saved, archived for study now or in the future. Actually, there should be a voluntary world DNA bank of extraordinary people for study.
I can easily swipe out one of the supports of your argument. Sault's law doesn't apply simply because we can cooperate. Even if one of us isn't capable of containing all the information required to replicate one of us, there are many of us, and thanks to communication, we can split the solution between us. Hell, I'm a weirdo. I'm hoping something like hive minds in the sci-fi sense is possible, but till then, communication between separate humans is sufficient coordination to appear as a mind smarter than a human one.
Someone has to know what exactly is being "split." That is the problem. Sure, if someone already knows what they are going for they can farm out the subsections and sub engineering then paste it all together like, say, an airplane whose parts are developed and manufactured around the world; But someone knows what they are after to begin with and decides if what is being produced around the world is correct for his understanding of the thing being made. In short, he understands the whole picture. Who would understand the whole human being? And the Borg didn't do so well, now did they?
Because you must know more about reality than the thing you are creating.
I know nothing about building skyscrapers, super colliders, or lipstick. Yet, all those things exist. What you miss is that no single human has to know everything about an AI for human*S* to build one.
Emotions are the state indicators that evolution made for us to interact in groups. Groups are not possible without them. We perceive the internal states of others and react to those states by modifying our own behaviors - and we are motivated to do that if our motivation array is "normal." The HMA will never be replicated in a machine for this reason, we can't see it in detail.
Until recently, I was very bad at "reading" people. Then I read some books on how people express emotions, and what was going on in their heads when it happens. I now find it trivially easy to manipulate people without even speaking, and reading body language is boringly obvious. You may find reading and expressing emotions difficult, but I can almost guarantee the reason is that you've done it "instinctively" and just never really spent time studying the subject. Hell, we even have an entire INDUSTRY centered in LA and New York that is based on little more that faking emotions. Do you really think it would be that hard to codify an acting coach's instructions?
Yes, I do. Actors are humans. So are you, I suppose, though you do express a bit of the psychopath's well known inability to read other's emotions and react properly to them, indicating a pathology. And yes, I have read about body language. I don't find it difficult to read and express emotions. I don't believe I said that. And it isn't the ability to mimic emotions that is the question; It is when in complex interactions with humans to do so that would be the problem. Oh, and psychopaths are well known to pride themselves on their ability to manipulate others. Read some books on psychopathy if you haven't already. I'm not calling you a psychopath; I don't know you.
It's very refreshing to read someone on Slashdot, discussing this subject, who doesn't engage in 'magical thinking' when it comes to so-called 'AI' (e.g., 'build a gigantic neural net/deep learning machine', '***then magic happens***', 'oh look, it's conscious/self-aware/fully cognitive!'), instead realizing and expressing that we don't know the first thing, really, about what makes a human brain human, therefore we can't build a machine that does the same thing. Which should be obvious, but somehow it isn't. Personally, I blame TV and movies for making people think it's that easy, and marketing people from 'AI' companies, hyping up their pseudo-intelligence machines to the point where people actually believe there's a person in that box.
Slashdot Mirror
The laws have become so complicated and so unknowable in detail that I'd be willing to guess that it is illegal to do that or that they can stretch some rule, regulation, law, or procedure to get that desired result.
The decision requiring taxation of internet sales is just another step in the direction of the coming complexity collapse. You just cannot keep doing good-sounding things that layer on more and more complexity without knowing that sooner or later things must start to unravel.
Programmers need to form a secret society with a secret handshake and magic words not to be uttered to outsiders. Oh, and a magic mysterious symbol. Then they could hand out power rings and decoders.
A very good point I think. Nature is not an idiot.
Most probably what constitutes intelligence is changing due to social and technological changes. Analog clocks are being removed from schools, I've read, because children cannot read them in a digital age. And what about cursive writing? There must be many subtle and obvious changes that are affecting what passes as intelligence. It could just be that the theory and testing of intelligence is lagging the massive changes that have taken place in the last 50 years..
"Professor Charles Forbin, a leading cybernetics expert of international repute, arrives at the White House to brief the President of the United States of North America (Canada and the United States are one country, the USNA) to announce the completion of Project Colossus, a computer system in the Rocky Mountains, designed to assume control of the USNA's nuclear defences. Although the USNA President eagerly relieves himself of that burden, Prof. Forbin voices doubt about conferring absolute military power to a computer. Advised, yet undeterred, the President announces to the world the activation of the Project Colossus computer system, and its irreversible control of the nuclear defence systems of the USNA." - from a Wikipedia synopsis of "Colossus," a "Sifi?" story from 1966 by D.F. Jones
So, the desire has always been there as illustrated here; it merely had to wait for the technology. Desire often overcomes reality. Read it.
Looks to be the same "leaving a word out" flub that left the "a" out of "One small step for "a" man...etc." But I don't buy it. Was the word used in any written data on what they were doing?
Just an aside: Who says the transistor concept has to be implemented in the physical world? Do switches and amplifiers actually have to be physical? Just wondering. It is a thought that occurred to me several years ago. Are there already non-physical "transistors" out there?
Refusal to make a judgement on such things is a convenient avoidance of responsibility and approaches business psychopathy. Imagine living in Nazi Germany while knowing what is going on and making no judgement. Just because you are in business doesn't relieve you of the obligation to be a human being who is part of his social environment. I believe the major cause of school shootings is 50 years of movies pushing the theme of "just revenge," not video games, which are active displacements of the rage and anger that would lead to school shootings, but that doesn't mean obviously disturbing video games like this that callously make money on the sufferings of individuals and families should be allowed by those who make them and those who provide them. Being in business does not relieve you of your obligations to society.
It just encourages more people to be threatening for the stipend. The counseling and case management will go away or become a joke and all the program will end up doing is bribing violent people not to be violent - which they will be anyway because it is their nature.
and the program would be lost again. Not the human, who would adapt. The program locks in the solution. And this is the problem with AI. Wherever you use it in lieu of humans you freeze the level of expertise.
Is this now policy of Slashdot - to sell adds as news items for tech people?
This is what one would expect to happen when an area of human endeavor is studied, "understood" and turned into a set process. It is frozen. It doesn't advance and change. And this is exactly what will happen in any area that happily lets AI take over for human beings.
These books are always interesting and full of thought-food. But they never go one step higher and ask, "Why is it so?" It is the development of hyper-liberalism in the 1960s which placed the wants of the individual above the wants and needs of the group, the neighborhood, the nation. President Kennedy must have seen this coming with his famous line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." But hyper-liberalism is the inevitable result of democracy and its fatal flaw.
It is the propensity of the human mind to assume that if a little of a thing is good then an extreme amount of a thing is extremely good. But that is never the case, not even with something as fundamental to life as water. And the hyper-liberalism that allowed birth control and abortion of citizens for the convenience of the individual and the rise of a sociopathic feminism that encouraged women to shed their vital role as the producers of well-formed population for the nation in pursuit of a male positon in all aspects of life; that re-defined marriage as a mere social and legal convenience for the individuals involved; that created the "me-ism" of sex and drugs culture; that led to nice-feeling but continuously growing budget-busting social programs, is the natural path we should expect a maturing democracy to folllow, a path to its self-destruction.
Yes, it feels right to blame the "boomers." But they are the result of the development of hyper-liberalism, not the cause of its results.
That this game was made and they have supported it against criticism shows how sick recent generations have been made, not by video games, but by 50 years of movies with the theme of "just revenge." These movies have a protagonist who is put upon by bad guys to the point that he stands up and "gets his back" by going on a psychopathic killing spree. The audience is supposted to cheer and applaud him. Normal people can ignore this kind of revenge behavior in real life, but there is always going to be a small percentage of disturbed children and men who use movie lectures on correct behavior as a model for their own.
Post the normal curve of human intelligence above your computer so you see it every day. Now put a vertical line at the midpoint. Half the population of the country - and the world - is at, or below this "normal IQ," which is fine for normal human life, but isn't enough for more advanced work. Now move this line slowly to the right. When you create a world where AI and AI driven machines and processes dominate the work of the world, more and more of these people to the left of the line will find themselves left out of work and the life-giving resources and satisfactions that come from work. These people will not be empowered by AI and advanced technology because they will not be able to help make it or use it in any but the most menial and degrading ways - if at all. The pie-in-the-sky beliefs of those who want to create AI as a substitute for people are either selfishly self-deluded, or just stupid. The whole point of AI is to destroy human participation, just like the "expert systems" they tried to create in the 1980s by interviewing and putting the knowledge base and way of thinking of experts in various specialties into computers. For what reason? Obviously to eliminate people. We know that today they are working mightily to have computers program in substitution for highly intelligent and highly paid human programmers. You think you are immune? The line moves right.
You would think that after so many years in computer and network tech that they would understand that this information will eventually be hacked and used against people. Just stupid, like people putting passwords online in central password storage.
This is an extraordinary example of the effect of hyper-liberalism on society. What we have here is hyper-liberalism turning an entire country into a village and making every individual responsible for every other individual. A country cannot be a village, obviously, but not to a hyper-liberalist in a position of power. That is scary. Look for more of this kind of thing in the future.
Charlie made the mistake. He didn't understand either. Our advantage is that we have humans point out our mistakes and we correct them permanently. We do this one bad understanding at a time throughout life. But who wants to correct the bad understandings of AI? Oops you killed that person, here's why, don't do that again. But we WILL do that. We will allow self-driving cars to kill people and be corrected for a long, long time. We may even let AI nuke the Earth to learn how not to.
Why do "quantum computing" articles make me feel like they are talking about unobtainium, perpetual motion machines, or androids coming any-decade-now?
He's not the man with the "Golden Arm," but the man with the Golden Heart. The DNA of such a person should be saved, archived for study now or in the future. Actually, there should be a voluntary world DNA bank of extraordinary people for study.
Boys From Brazil. My mistake. I got the "boys" mixed up.
I can easily swipe out one of the supports of your argument. Sault's law doesn't apply simply because we can cooperate. Even if one of us isn't capable of containing all the information required to replicate one of us, there are many of us, and thanks to communication, we can split the solution between us. Hell, I'm a weirdo. I'm hoping something like hive minds in the sci-fi sense is possible, but till then, communication between separate humans is sufficient coordination to appear as a mind smarter than a human one.
Someone has to know what exactly is being "split." That is the problem. Sure, if someone already knows what they are going for they can farm out the subsections and sub engineering then paste it all together like, say, an airplane whose parts are developed and manufactured around the world; But someone knows what they are after to begin with and decides if what is being produced around the world is correct for his understanding of the thing being made. In short, he understands the whole picture. Who would understand the whole human being? And the Borg didn't do so well, now did they?
Because you must know more about reality than the thing you are creating.
I know nothing about building skyscrapers, super colliders, or lipstick. Yet, all those things exist. What you miss is that no single human has to know everything about an AI for human*S* to build one.
Emotions are the state indicators that evolution made for us to interact in groups. Groups are not possible without them. We perceive the internal states of others and react to those states by modifying our own behaviors - and we are motivated to do that if our motivation array is "normal." The HMA will never be replicated in a machine for this reason, we can't see it in detail.
Until recently, I was very bad at "reading" people. Then I read some books on how people express emotions, and what was going on in their heads when it happens. I now find it trivially easy to manipulate people without even speaking, and reading body language is boringly obvious. You may find reading and expressing emotions difficult, but I can almost guarantee the reason is that you've done it "instinctively" and just never really spent time studying the subject. Hell, we even have an entire INDUSTRY centered in LA and New York that is based on little more that faking emotions. Do you really think it would be that hard to codify an acting coach's instructions?
Yes, I do. Actors are humans. So are you, I suppose, though you do express a bit of the psychopath's well known inability to read other's emotions and react properly to them, indicating a pathology. And yes, I have read about body language. I don't find it difficult to read and express emotions. I don't believe I said that. And it isn't the ability to mimic emotions that is the question; It is when in complex interactions with humans to do so that would be the problem. Oh, and psychopaths are well known to pride themselves on their ability to manipulate others. Read some books on psychopathy if you haven't already. I'm not calling you a psychopath; I don't know you.
It's very refreshing to read someone on Slashdot, discussing this subject, who doesn't engage in 'magical thinking' when it comes to so-called 'AI' (e.g., 'build a gigantic neural net/deep learning machine', '***then magic happens***', 'oh look, it's conscious/self-aware/fully cognitive!'), instead realizing and expressing that we don't know the first thing, really, about what makes a human brain human, therefore we can't build a machine that does the same thing. Which should be obvious, but somehow it isn't. Personally, I blame TV and movies for making people think it's that easy, and marketing people from 'AI' companies, hyping up their pseudo-intelligence machines to the point where people actually believe there's a person in that box.
Yes. And thank you for knowing it.
You still have your appendix and your fifth pinky though
Then they must still have use. Because "they" (scientists) don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.