but preventing it from existing solely based on that idea is like preventing a child from existing because their 'free will' could allow them to potentially be dangerous. Intelligence is intelligence whether artificial or organic,...
But biological intelligence cannot replicate and tap into additional computing resources the way artificial brains can. The power of a human brain is limited to the power of the human brain. Each brain is too unique to "cluster" smoothly. The power of AI has no known limit that we know of, creating the potential of the runaway "singularity".
I do agree the risk of such is probably at least a generation away. Our existing AI is still pretty "dumb". We've made fairly good topic-specific savants, but they lack "big picture" understanding and what we call general common sense.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the risk (and other technology risks).
For the sake of argument, suppose we were living in a created universe. Your rule suggests that science couldn't determine that and the cause of creation could never be scientifically known.
Yes, that means they get a free or cheap supply of inventory. The advantage they have over say a garage sale is that similar books (hopefully) are categorized together in one spot, saving the consumer from multiple store/source visits.
It even explains how the term "narcissism" is used differently in the clinical context and might be misinterpreted when used without the relevant context...
A rough synonym of "narcissistic" is "competitive". That's not necessarily a bad thing. While most people tend to be "socially competitive" or "financially competitive", geeks tend to compete with games and "lab" or tech projects.
Males tend to be competitive whether the subject matter is social, financial, or technical. (Different people will select different areas to compete in). It's in our biological wiring. Women are competitive also, but tend to avoid direct confrontation, or at least the appearance of direct confrontation. If you are playing a video game with your buddy and blow up his ship, you just may say, "In your face!". Women tend to avoid "rubbing it in" directly.
Creationism could make the same argument. Just because we don't currently know how to test for a creator (other than tingling in the spine from prayer), the future could change that.
Maybe every quark has a little label "Made by God" that we haven't found yet because our microscopes are not yet good enough, for example.
Ironically, many believe MS turned a blind eye to pirating early on to gain market share, and eventually market lock-in. They only cracked down once they had a strangle-hold on the market. I do remember it was easy to copy some early MS software, even as other vendors put in more protections.
It's yet another reason that pirating loss claims are often exaggerated or misleading.
Then I wouldn't have to fix my grandma's Win10 machine every time she decides to punch the monkey.
I'd be tempted to play if it were Sock Bill Gates.
The 8,000,000 copies it makes every day costs the record industry $10m/day in losses. At that rate, they'll be bankrupt in a few weeks at most.
This implies an 80-cents loss per copy, which probably makes the incorrect assumption that almost every copy prevents a legitimate sell (of roughly $1 per song).
Often people will take something given for free even though they would otherwise NOT purchase it if the free option didn't exist. And often they are just test-listening to a song to see if they like it.
If I'm walking down the hall at work and somebody offers me a free donut, there's a pretty good chance I'd take it even if it's not my favorite kind. But put that very same donut for sale at a typical donut price, then I'd be much less likely to purchase it because likely it's not the flavor I want and/or I don't really feel like a donut at that time, at least not enough to part with cash for it.
I suspect the real lost-sales ratio for songs is more like 10-to-1.
Industry lobbyists often make the 1-for-1 false assumption in loss claims. I don't know whether its ignorance or spin, but suspect the second.
The wealthy right is larger, especially if you include corporate lobbying and influence peddling, not just individuals. Corporations lobby for things that benefit themselves rather than things that benefit (most) individuals or consumers.
you go off on this tangent about AGW.
It's not a tangent; it's an example of the impact of large amounts of money spent on lobbying and "convincing" the public.
And, I don't see what point your "puppy" statement is trying to make. It appears to be an extreme exaggeration either way. I invite a clarification or re-statement.
It's arguable that all of this wouldn't have come to pass -- that we never would have learned any of this -- if we hadn't sent a human scientist to the Moon...that this is what's truly needed if we want to uncover the truths about the rest of the worlds in our Solar System: scientific exploration by a human who knows what they're looking for. Or more importantly, who recognizes something interesting when they see it, and who isn't afraid to kick up what might be lurking where a more autonomous mind might not think to look!
This seems to be presenting an argument for more scientists (instead of just astronauts) and/or on-site human exploration instead of remote-controlled robots.
However, the argument for both is weak. A regular astronaut and remote rover could spot orange soil also.
In fact, a rover could have more "color" filters instead of be limited to the 3 ranges (cones) that human eyes have. There can be odd spectral variations that human eyes just can't detect, including the infra-red and ultraviolet range.
And for the same money, bots can cover far more territory and linger in an interesting spot, if needed.
The main reason for granting patents is to persuade inventors to publish their ideas so knowledge will spread and in return they are given exclusive licensing rights for a reasonable amount of time.
I know that, but it's not working as intended. There's no evidence companies heavily use patent searches to make something or make something better. They mostly use them to avoid getting sued. The court battles and the practice of holding products and product ideas "hostage" is too large a counter cost.
Overall, the costs outweigh the benefits. Mostly only large companies can make anything because only they have enough legal leverage and counter-patents (threats) to get anything done.
And stupid judges and juries don't know "obvious" from a hole in the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Node++ on Cloud MongoRails still "in", or is that passe? I lost track.
But biological intelligence cannot replicate and tap into additional computing resources the way artificial brains can. The power of a human brain is limited to the power of the human brain. Each brain is too unique to "cluster" smoothly. The power of AI has no known limit that we know of, creating the potential of the runaway "singularity".
I do agree the risk of such is probably at least a generation away. Our existing AI is still pretty "dumb". We've made fairly good topic-specific savants, but they lack "big picture" understanding and what we call general common sense.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the risk (and other technology risks).
Now where the hal did you get that idea?
There's an "automation-related" saying that dates back to at least the 70's:
"To err is human; to really foul things up you need a computer."
Wish that happened to the F-35
It's spiritual because you need a lot of faith to use it.
For the sake of argument, suppose we were living in a created universe. Your rule suggests that science couldn't determine that and the cause of creation could never be scientifically known.
Yes, that means they get a free or cheap supply of inventory. The advantage they have over say a garage sale is that similar books (hopefully) are categorized together in one spot, saving the consumer from multiple store/source visits.
Compromise. Limit cash to transactions under say $50
What truth? 90% of the time Trump is full of shit.
A rough synonym of "narcissistic" is "competitive". That's not necessarily a bad thing. While most people tend to be "socially competitive" or "financially competitive", geeks tend to compete with games and "lab" or tech projects.
Males tend to be competitive whether the subject matter is social, financial, or technical. (Different people will select different areas to compete in). It's in our biological wiring. Women are competitive also, but tend to avoid direct confrontation, or at least the appearance of direct confrontation. If you are playing a video game with your buddy and blow up his ship, you just may say, "In your face!". Women tend to avoid "rubbing it in" directly.
Creationism could make the same argument. Just because we don't currently know how to test for a creator (other than tingling in the spine from prayer), the future could change that.
Maybe every quark has a little label "Made by God" that we haven't found yet because our microscopes are not yet good enough, for example.
You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out that slip. It doesn't change the general premise, however.
On the flip side, seeing the wrong kind of donut(s) may make somebody think about and crave the "correct" kind of donut and go buy it elsewhere.
A "full cycle" simulation and/or study would be needed to really judge.
Ironically, many believe MS turned a blind eye to pirating early on to gain market share, and eventually market lock-in. They only cracked down once they had a strangle-hold on the market. I do remember it was easy to copy some early MS software, even as other vendors put in more protections.
It's yet another reason that pirating loss claims are often exaggerated or misleading.
I'd be tempted to play if it were Sock Bill Gates.
This implies an 80-cents loss per copy, which probably makes the incorrect assumption that almost every copy prevents a legitimate sell (of roughly $1 per song).
Often people will take something given for free even though they would otherwise NOT purchase it if the free option didn't exist. And often they are just test-listening to a song to see if they like it.
If I'm walking down the hall at work and somebody offers me a free donut, there's a pretty good chance I'd take it even if it's not my favorite kind. But put that very same donut for sale at a typical donut price, then I'd be much less likely to purchase it because likely it's not the flavor I want and/or I don't really feel like a donut at that time, at least not enough to part with cash for it.
I suspect the real lost-sales ratio for songs is more like 10-to-1.
Industry lobbyists often make the 1-for-1 false assumption in loss claims. I don't know whether its ignorance or spin, but suspect the second.
The wealthy right is larger, especially if you include corporate lobbying and influence peddling, not just individuals. Corporations lobby for things that benefit themselves rather than things that benefit (most) individuals or consumers.
It's not a tangent; it's an example of the impact of large amounts of money spent on lobbying and "convincing" the public.
And, I don't see what point your "puppy" statement is trying to make. It appears to be an extreme exaggeration either way. I invite a clarification or re-statement.
This seems to be presenting an argument for more scientists (instead of just astronauts) and/or on-site human exploration instead of remote-controlled robots.
However, the argument for both is weak. A regular astronaut and remote rover could spot orange soil also.
In fact, a rover could have more "color" filters instead of be limited to the 3 ranges (cones) that human eyes have. There can be odd spectral variations that human eyes just can't detect, including the infra-red and ultraviolet range.
And for the same money, bots can cover far more territory and linger in an interesting spot, if needed.
It's half related.
This is where "nested" composition references come in handy:
self.left
captain.left
ourBoat.left
enemyBoat.left
But we want our system stack to be turtles all the way down.
I know that, but it's not working as intended. There's no evidence companies heavily use patent searches to make something or make something better. They mostly use them to avoid getting sued. The court battles and the practice of holding products and product ideas "hostage" is too large a counter cost.
Overall, the costs outweigh the benefits. Mostly only large companies can make anything because only they have enough legal leverage and counter-patents (threats) to get anything done.
And stupid judges and juries don't know "obvious" from a hole in the wall.
just go to blackhole.com
Simple fix: "Drone Crash Misses Champion Skier By Inches"
Or
"Crashing Drone Misses Champion Skier By Inches"
I patented a blackout preventor, but it's stuck in the patent office because of their blackout.