I agree. To me, the ideal car is absolutely quiet. There is already way too much noise in our lives nowadays. Besides, people might as well get used to the fact that the whole concept of a car and driver is destined to become obsolete in not too long: cars will evolve to be living rooms on wheels, driver not required (or even allowed, in urban areas).
Yes, true. But I am still very concerned. After all, people predicted that once we had discovered DNA, we would have a cure for cancer and other diseases in short order. It took much longer than expected - the problem turned out to be harder than we realized and we are not even there yet - but I don't think anyone doubts that we will get there. And the same applies to AI - don't you think?
Yes, indeed there is much to learn about the brain. You are right - and I understand - that the brain is more than a neural net. From your response, I think you know my point though: that it is a machine, and given time, we will figure it out - at least in terms of how it learns, how it models reality, how it infers things, how it creates new ideas, etc. And I think that will happen sooner than most people think: we are very far from understanding it now, but progress is accelerating, and our ability to introspect the brain is accelerating as well. Some of the largest countries - the US included - have initiated large efforts to decompose the function of the brain. So while I think that the scenarios depicted in sci-fi are simpleminded and silly (though entertaining), we still face an existential threat. True AI - if we attain it - is something that cannot be undone or controlled. We are truly playing with the ultimate Pandora's Box.
We already know that it is possible to have a neural network that is as smart as the human brain: our own brains prove it. Within a couple of decades it will be possible to build machines that do exactly what the brain does, neuron for neuron. Will they be conscious? Who knows - but it doesn't matter - because they will be able to reason, and plan, and have goals. This is clearly an existential risk: that is why very smart researchers are sounding the warning. If we don't listen, we have only ourselves to blame when it comes to pass. I recommend the book by Hugo DeGaris, "The Artilect War". DeGaris is a thinking machine researcher - he builds these systems. His predictions are pretty dire indeed.
I don't care about cost, personally. When I do watch TV shows, I don't want commercials, and I don't want to watch junk. I watch what I carefully choose. So higher cost is not an issue. Quality is. I want to be able to cherry pick what I want to watch, and if I have to go to a hundred different sources, that is fine: I will discover which sources are worth checking. That is what I do now. I don't watch cable TV at all: I watch shows on Netflix and Amazon and streamed via Comcast - never cable. So cable has no impact on me as it is, except that I have to pay for it but never use it.
It is not rich versus commoners, when it comes to patronage: it is rich versus government. The government is the commoner's mechanism for patronage, in addition to other mechanisms such as non-profit entities. But when it comes to esoteric things like science and space travel, non-profit entities are generally too weak: one needs government, or inspired rich people. Unfortunately, our government in the US has failed us with regard to space travel, and many other things. Today, our government and both main parties are controlled by moneyed interests. This won't change unless the role of money can be reduced in election campaigns. Until then, things will remain broken. Efforts that require great vision, such as space exploration, will remain on the back burner. It then falls to rich people to take the lead - as is happening.
Yes, I think you are right. It will take people who have a personal motivation. E.g., Elon Musk wants to go to Mars himself. And many people feel motivated because they feel that humans need to explore. Their goal is not profit. Great voyages of exploration have always required patronage, just as the sciences and the arts have always required patronage.
True, if you have a group of people who are filtered based on their attitudes, then socialism could work. A good example might be the Burning Man festival. In that case, I think there is an implicit filter in that those who go to the trouble to attend are like-minded ?
I can't wait: software-driven gadgets everywhere - and all buggy, hackable, and requiring constant updates just when you need them. What a wonderful world it will be!
And no doubt they will import labor and pay them subsistence, since no one in this floating nation will be willing to collect the trash. So we will have floating favelas.
I am the editor for Transition2Agile.com and I would like to continue this dialog with you directly (if you are willing). Can you please email me? My email address is cliff AT Transition2Agile.com. My own personal focus has been the application of Agile in high assurance business environments - like banks - and your comments about banking software are really interesting to me. Thanks! Best regards - Cliff
The issue is that we are not requiring sufficient quality in software. Imagine where we are headed - the "Internet Of Things" (IOT). Programmed devices everywhere, all requiring updates constantly, all security risks, and of the hundreds of devices that you interact with every day, some percent don't do what they are supposed to do at any given moment. It adds up to a very frustrating day. I for one am not looking forward to it. If there are hundreds of programmed devices in our vicinity, 99% reliable is not enough - we need 99.999% - otherwise life will become shit.
Everything you buy today - especially things with software - will cause you grief - error codes, constant software updates, hacked, frozen and race conditions, and general frustration - so you have to ask yourself, is it worth it?
I agree. Auctioning creates a "pay to play" system. Spectrum is a fixed resource - it should be allocated based on social policy - not based on who can pay the most. And when someone pays for it, they have every right to feel that they "own" it - and that undermines the government's ability to manage it: to adjust rules as situations change over time. Auctioning a fixed public resource is nothing less than prostitution of our public assets.
I can't wait: We will all be surrounded by a sea of devices, all beta quality - as is the norm today - such that every single day will involve struggle with 5% of the devices not doing what they are supposed to do; and all will require constant software updates; and all will have security vulnerabilities. Nice. Please count me out!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. To me, the ideal car is absolutely quiet. There is already way too much noise in our lives nowadays. Besides, people might as well get used to the fact that the whole concept of a car and driver is destined to become obsolete in not too long: cars will evolve to be living rooms on wheels, driver not required (or even allowed, in urban areas).
And now they can sell farmers the missing ingredient!
Something to look forward to: constant software updates for my front door. And if the power goes out, sorry - you can't get in!
Why, why, why are schools so interested in teaching kids to program? Programming will not even exist in ten years!
Yes, true. But I am still very concerned. After all, people predicted that once we had discovered DNA, we would have a cure for cancer and other diseases in short order. It took much longer than expected - the problem turned out to be harder than we realized and we are not even there yet - but I don't think anyone doubts that we will get there. And the same applies to AI - don't you think?
Yes, indeed there is much to learn about the brain. You are right - and I understand - that the brain is more than a neural net. From your response, I think you know my point though: that it is a machine, and given time, we will figure it out - at least in terms of how it learns, how it models reality, how it infers things, how it creates new ideas, etc. And I think that will happen sooner than most people think: we are very far from understanding it now, but progress is accelerating, and our ability to introspect the brain is accelerating as well. Some of the largest countries - the US included - have initiated large efforts to decompose the function of the brain. So while I think that the scenarios depicted in sci-fi are simpleminded and silly (though entertaining), we still face an existential threat. True AI - if we attain it - is something that cannot be undone or controlled. We are truly playing with the ultimate Pandora's Box.
We already know that it is possible to have a neural network that is as smart as the human brain: our own brains prove it. Within a couple of decades it will be possible to build machines that do exactly what the brain does, neuron for neuron. Will they be conscious? Who knows - but it doesn't matter - because they will be able to reason, and plan, and have goals. This is clearly an existential risk: that is why very smart researchers are sounding the warning. If we don't listen, we have only ourselves to blame when it comes to pass. I recommend the book by Hugo DeGaris, "The Artilect War". DeGaris is a thinking machine researcher - he builds these systems. His predictions are pretty dire indeed.
I don't care about cost, personally. When I do watch TV shows, I don't want commercials, and I don't want to watch junk. I watch what I carefully choose. So higher cost is not an issue. Quality is. I want to be able to cherry pick what I want to watch, and if I have to go to a hundred different sources, that is fine: I will discover which sources are worth checking. That is what I do now. I don't watch cable TV at all: I watch shows on Netflix and Amazon and streamed via Comcast - never cable. So cable has no impact on me as it is, except that I have to pay for it but never use it.
It is not rich versus commoners, when it comes to patronage: it is rich versus government. The government is the commoner's mechanism for patronage, in addition to other mechanisms such as non-profit entities. But when it comes to esoteric things like science and space travel, non-profit entities are generally too weak: one needs government, or inspired rich people. Unfortunately, our government in the US has failed us with regard to space travel, and many other things. Today, our government and both main parties are controlled by moneyed interests. This won't change unless the role of money can be reduced in election campaigns. Until then, things will remain broken. Efforts that require great vision, such as space exploration, will remain on the back burner. It then falls to rich people to take the lead - as is happening.
Yes, I think you are right. It will take people who have a personal motivation. E.g., Elon Musk wants to go to Mars himself. And many people feel motivated because they feel that humans need to explore. Their goal is not profit. Great voyages of exploration have always required patronage, just as the sciences and the arts have always required patronage.
But the government won't play a role in it.
The question is therefore moot.
When lightning hits.... That part of the world is known for really massive lightning - lightning with far more power than average lightning.
It is. But it works best if there is a filter on who can join. Bad apples spoil most utopian social constructs.
Actually, I meant cooperative anarchy - not socialism. I think that is what you were referring to, otherwise known as self organization.
True, if you have a group of people who are filtered based on their attitudes, then socialism could work. A good example might be the Burning Man festival. In that case, I think there is an implicit filter in that those who go to the trouble to attend are like-minded ?
Indeed! And when they eventually abandon their fake city, it will combine into the trillions of tons of floating garbage that we already have!
I can't wait: software-driven gadgets everywhere - and all buggy, hackable, and requiring constant updates just when you need them. What a wonderful world it will be!
And no doubt they will import labor and pay them subsistence, since no one in this floating nation will be willing to collect the trash. So we will have floating favelas.
I am the editor for Transition2Agile.com and I would like to continue this dialog with you directly (if you are willing). Can you please email me? My email address is cliff AT Transition2Agile.com. My own personal focus has been the application of Agile in high assurance business environments - like banks - and your comments about banking software are really interesting to me. Thanks! Best regards - Cliff
The issue is that we are not requiring sufficient quality in software. Imagine where we are headed - the "Internet Of Things" (IOT). Programmed devices everywhere, all requiring updates constantly, all security risks, and of the hundreds of devices that you interact with every day, some percent don't do what they are supposed to do at any given moment. It adds up to a very frustrating day. I for one am not looking forward to it. If there are hundreds of programmed devices in our vicinity, 99% reliable is not enough - we need 99.999% - otherwise life will become shit.
Everything you buy today - especially things with software - will cause you grief - error codes, constant software updates, hacked, frozen and race conditions, and general frustration - so you have to ask yourself, is it worth it?
Pitiful to think that we could anticipate how this might go wrong.
I agree. Auctioning creates a "pay to play" system. Spectrum is a fixed resource - it should be allocated based on social policy - not based on who can pay the most. And when someone pays for it, they have every right to feel that they "own" it - and that undermines the government's ability to manage it: to adjust rules as situations change over time. Auctioning a fixed public resource is nothing less than prostitution of our public assets.
I can't wait: We will all be surrounded by a sea of devices, all beta quality - as is the norm today - such that every single day will involve struggle with 5% of the devices not doing what they are supposed to do; and all will require constant software updates; and all will have security vulnerabilities. Nice. Please count me out!