Ultimately AI is just glorified statistics or statistics that are de-glorified to make processing practical, as in lossy-but-fast. The field is new enough that it's hard to know what the edge cases will be in the future. "Think like humans" smells too fuzzy to me such that it would probably come down to opinions of the jury and/or judges.
As an example of fragile laws, you think it would be easy to write misuse of classified info (secrets) into law, but as the "Hillary email" case showed, it's far from trivial. There was the "intent" side of the law, but judging intent is subjective. This would also apply to "intent to create AI". (No significant evidence of H's intent was found in my opinion.)
And then there's the "gross negligence" angle that was analyzed, which is also subjective. For whatever reason, H was not given a complete security course, only a "briefing", such that she wouldn't be expected to recognize security markings (which resemble other legal documents, by the way). But is it "gross negligence" to not make sure she found a way to attend the course(s)?
In most orgs I know, assistants are expected to manage such schedules, pre-fill server-request forms, and remind the head hanchos as needed. But somebody not exposed to that may say the burden of everything is ultimately on the Chief because they are at the top. I agree she was negligent, but "gross" is a stretch. No one person can micromanage the requirements of the entire policy manual. That's just beyond the human head (except perhaps rare individuals with eidetic memories).
I've asked others how they would fix the secrecy laws, but so far every suggestion created new problems.
My point is that laws about tech and info end up being too subjective, and ultimately judged by personal experience in the work-place and elsewhere.
Communications Decency Act is a good start. Other anti-pornography/decency laws dovetail nicely into it.
Ironically, conservatives are the one who want to regulate sex and sexual issues in communications & elsewhere, the same ones who otherwise claim laissez faire is usually the best route. Conservatives are for freedom of the wallet, but not freedom of sex/gender.
US flicks have fruit-stands as the go-to chaos focus. Nobody knows why, other than maybe "everyone else does it".
I always wanted to see a play on the concept where a massive fight breaks out around a fruit-stand, and everything else around it is flattened and smoldering, while the fruit-stand remains intact due to the acrobatic heroics of its ordinary-looking owner. Somebody fires a missile at the stand, and have it coincidentally pass through a tiny gap in stacked melons in slow motion.
After the fight ends, the owner starts to wheel the stand away from the quiet-but-smoldering mess, but stumbles on a road reflector bump, and the entire stand finally crashes down in glorious fruit spray.
When movie memes get too entrenched, it's time to mock them.
Similarly, a Japanese flick could have a monster fight that repeatedly ends up landing in power lines, but nothing happens with the lines: they bend a bit and then bend back to normal without drama. Have the antagonist get frustrated in that throwing his victim into them results in nothing. Finally he grabs a line, tears it in half, gets ready to zap his opponent, but just then his crime partner a few blocks away smashes another opponent into the power station, cutting off power to the line, rendering his zapping tool (torn cables) useless.
It's amazing financial bubbles and crashes have been happening at least since 400 years ago, yet a good many blame them on the Federal Reserve, usually those demanding that the "Fed be audited". Ignorance of history.
On a related note, the USA economy is due for a correction. The recovery period has been longer than average. I'd give it roughly a 70% chance of hitting a recession within the next 2 years. Perhaps a bitcoin crash will trigger it.
Some of the testimony is otherwise enough to put somebody away for murder. In one case a military bomber plane was passing nearby a military base in broad daylight, and ground witnesses spotted an undiscernable metallic object near it.
There were 3 people aboard the plane. Two of them, the non-pilots, got a good view out the side window of a lens-shaped silver-metallic craft with an orange or tan band around the upper half. They estimated it came as close as about 20 feet from the window and roughly the size of a small plane. If I remember correctly, the pilot also saw it, but didn't get the best view.
The crew of 3 basically freaked out and insisted on landing nearby instead of continue the flight. They never sought publicity.
(I'm still trying to find the name and date of the incident...)
Not firing, correcting, or demoting idiot managers is a big problem. Some managers are excellent kiss-ups, but treat their employees like dirt. Get feedback from their underlings, and if you see problems, do something about it. Sometimes with pressure from above they'll mostly correct bad habits, but if they don't, bootem!
Too many slashdotters are surprised politicians and political appointees are not logical. Keep in mind you are dealing with Ferengi's, NOT Vulcans. Rule of Acquisition #623: "Logic is Not Profitable" (disclaimer: I made up that ROA, although there are existing similar ones.)
Note that I am not making a distinction between parties nor administrations here. It's a general rule. As far which group is more Ferengish, I'll leave that debate to another thread. And you can substitute "power" for profits in many situations.
Re:Does *anyone* actually support repeal?...besides Trump and Big Business / the cable providers I mean...
If Fox News, Rush L., Breitbart News, and their copy-cats say "it's good", most their readers/viewers will believe it uncritically.
If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.
Their script is pretty predictable by now for anyone who has followed politics for a few decades.
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...
GOP more or less says, "It gives companies freedom to innovate and create jobs. More freedom = more jobs & more innovation."
Of course there are practical limits to the benefits of high-freedom, and as most of us know, oligopolies usually end up abusing freedom to lock out competition and lock in customers; ruining what capitalism is supposed to provide in theory: competition and choice.
The bottom line is that telecom oligopolies spend a lot of campaign donations to get their way: and bribery works.
Sometimes I think the current administration is just doing things to purposely piss people off, like a heel in wrestling.
T is a WWE fan, so it wouldn't surprise me. Most politicians usually try diplomatic or indirect wording when they criticize in order to avoid inflaming those criticized. T tossed that rule out the window and jumped up and down on it with his 300 lb body: Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB;-)
Another problem is consistency. In the past he's talked about benefits of certain types of regulation, but now it seems ALL regulation is "bad". Is he confused, or is it part of his intentional trolling kit?
The click-inducing bots show people what they want to see. While I believe the majority of people are mature enough to see through it, enough get all out wound up via confirmation bias and conspiracy theories that they become extremists. Thus, we have more extremists, and they in turn create noise and confusion such that few know what's really going on because it takes time and effort to sort out messes and verify stuff.
I wonder how this will play out in places like China that try to micromanage social media. Many there realize they are being manipulated by the gov't and take stuff with a grain of salt. If the gov't ever needs to cash in on their credibility during tension, they'll find they have none. China's economy has been growing such that people are less likely to complain now, but bleep happens and someday their credibility will be challenged. What works when bellies are full will not work when they are empty.
Chinese commentators/defenders sometimes use the election of T as an example of the downsides of democracy and free speech. However, lack of democracy can and has resulted in iron-fisted dictators, so neither approach has proven perfect. Plus, we'll have an opportunity to dump T in 3 years, and at most he'll serve only 8 years. Getting rid of bad dictators is harder. Also, checks and balances have largely muted T's agenda.
And one can argue he was elected because the other politicians ignored the plight of the rust-belt: acting as if they were the sacrificial lambs of "free trade" so others could have cheap Walmart trinkets. (T's fixes are not really fixes, but at least he gave the problem attention.) T may be a general jerk, but he was right about one thing: he gave a voice to people ignored before.
Women dominated computer programming in its early days because the field wasn't seen as a career, just a something someone could do...for only a short period of time. Computer jobs had no room for advancement, so having women 'retire' in their 20s was not seen as a bad thing.
The field is still this way. Agism is rampant and fingers often wear out. The "proper" goal is to somehow slip into management.
Unfortunately, some of the right-wing crazies get elected, while left-wing crazies tend not to be.
Do elected left-wing crazies cancel out elected right-wing crazies like adding 10 to -10? Or is it more like matter and anti-matter where shit blows up?
Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Stupidity will be the Next Big Thing.
I'm working on the Biglytron, Grope-A-Matic, bribenomics, panderamics, and Spinster.com.
This one did.
Ultimately AI is just glorified statistics or statistics that are de-glorified to make processing practical, as in lossy-but-fast. The field is new enough that it's hard to know what the edge cases will be in the future. "Think like humans" smells too fuzzy to me such that it would probably come down to opinions of the jury and/or judges.
As an example of fragile laws, you think it would be easy to write misuse of classified info (secrets) into law, but as the "Hillary email" case showed, it's far from trivial. There was the "intent" side of the law, but judging intent is subjective. This would also apply to "intent to create AI". (No significant evidence of H's intent was found in my opinion.)
And then there's the "gross negligence" angle that was analyzed, which is also subjective. For whatever reason, H was not given a complete security course, only a "briefing", such that she wouldn't be expected to recognize security markings (which resemble other legal documents, by the way). But is it "gross negligence" to not make sure she found a way to attend the course(s)?
In most orgs I know, assistants are expected to manage such schedules, pre-fill server-request forms, and remind the head hanchos as needed. But somebody not exposed to that may say the burden of everything is ultimately on the Chief because they are at the top. I agree she was negligent, but "gross" is a stretch. No one person can micromanage the requirements of the entire policy manual. That's just beyond the human head (except perhaps rare individuals with eidetic memories).
I've asked others how they would fix the secrecy laws, but so far every suggestion created new problems.
My point is that laws about tech and info end up being too subjective, and ultimately judged by personal experience in the work-place and elsewhere.
Ironically, conservatives are the one who want to regulate sex and sexual issues in communications & elsewhere, the same ones who otherwise claim laissez faire is usually the best route. Conservatives are for freedom of the wallet, but not freedom of sex/gender.
US flicks have fruit-stands as the go-to chaos focus. Nobody knows why, other than maybe "everyone else does it".
I always wanted to see a play on the concept where a massive fight breaks out around a fruit-stand, and everything else around it is flattened and smoldering, while the fruit-stand remains intact due to the acrobatic heroics of its ordinary-looking owner. Somebody fires a missile at the stand, and have it coincidentally pass through a tiny gap in stacked melons in slow motion.
After the fight ends, the owner starts to wheel the stand away from the quiet-but-smoldering mess, but stumbles on a road reflector bump, and the entire stand finally crashes down in glorious fruit spray.
When movie memes get too entrenched, it's time to mock them.
Similarly, a Japanese flick could have a monster fight that repeatedly ends up landing in power lines, but nothing happens with the lines: they bend a bit and then bend back to normal without drama. Have the antagonist get frustrated in that throwing his victim into them results in nothing. Finally he grabs a line, tears it in half, gets ready to zap his opponent, but just then his crime partner a few blocks away smashes another opponent into the power station, cutting off power to the line, rendering his zapping tool (torn cables) useless.
It's amazing financial bubbles and crashes have been happening at least since 400 years ago, yet a good many blame them on the Federal Reserve, usually those demanding that the "Fed be audited". Ignorance of history.
On a related note, the USA economy is due for a correction. The recovery period has been longer than average. I'd give it roughly a 70% chance of hitting a recession within the next 2 years. Perhaps a bitcoin crash will trigger it.
Some of the testimony is otherwise enough to put somebody away for murder. In one case a military bomber plane was passing nearby a military base in broad daylight, and ground witnesses spotted an undiscernable metallic object near it.
There were 3 people aboard the plane. Two of them, the non-pilots, got a good view out the side window of a lens-shaped silver-metallic craft with an orange or tan band around the upper half. They estimated it came as close as about 20 feet from the window and roughly the size of a small plane. If I remember correctly, the pilot also saw it, but didn't get the best view.
The crew of 3 basically freaked out and insisted on landing nearby instead of continue the flight. They never sought publicity.
(I'm still trying to find the name and date of the incident...)
What are the 2 strongest examples?
Not firing, correcting, or demoting idiot managers is a big problem. Some managers are excellent kiss-ups, but treat their employees like dirt. Get feedback from their underlings, and if you see problems, do something about it. Sometimes with pressure from above they'll mostly correct bad habits, but if they don't, bootem!
Too many slashdotters are surprised politicians and political appointees are not logical. Keep in mind you are dealing with Ferengi's, NOT Vulcans. Rule of Acquisition #623: "Logic is Not Profitable" (disclaimer: I made up that ROA, although there are existing similar ones.)
Note that I am not making a distinction between parties nor administrations here. It's a general rule. As far which group is more Ferengish, I'll leave that debate to another thread. And you can substitute "power" for profits in many situations.
If Fox News, Rush L., Breitbart News, and their copy-cats say "it's good", most their readers/viewers will believe it uncritically.
If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.
Their script is pretty predictable by now for anyone who has followed politics for a few decades.
Correction: "...spend a lot on campaign donations..." (not "of")
GOP more or less says, "It gives companies freedom to innovate and create jobs. More freedom = more jobs & more innovation."
Of course there are practical limits to the benefits of high-freedom, and as most of us know, oligopolies usually end up abusing freedom to lock out competition and lock in customers; ruining what capitalism is supposed to provide in theory: competition and choice.
The bottom line is that telecom oligopolies spend a lot of campaign donations to get their way: and bribery works.
T is a WWE fan, so it wouldn't surprise me. Most politicians usually try diplomatic or indirect wording when they criticize in order to avoid inflaming those criticized. T tossed that rule out the window and jumped up and down on it with his 300 lb body: Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB ;-)
Another problem is consistency. In the past he's talked about benefits of certain types of regulation, but now it seems ALL regulation is "bad". Is he confused, or is it part of his intentional trolling kit?
What's an actual example of a thickly-veiled plot?
The click-inducing bots show people what they want to see. While I believe the majority of people are mature enough to see through it, enough get all out wound up via confirmation bias and conspiracy theories that they become extremists. Thus, we have more extremists, and they in turn create noise and confusion such that few know what's really going on because it takes time and effort to sort out messes and verify stuff.
I wonder how this will play out in places like China that try to micromanage social media. Many there realize they are being manipulated by the gov't and take stuff with a grain of salt. If the gov't ever needs to cash in on their credibility during tension, they'll find they have none. China's economy has been growing such that people are less likely to complain now, but bleep happens and someday their credibility will be challenged. What works when bellies are full will not work when they are empty.
Chinese commentators/defenders sometimes use the election of T as an example of the downsides of democracy and free speech. However, lack of democracy can and has resulted in iron-fisted dictators, so neither approach has proven perfect. Plus, we'll have an opportunity to dump T in 3 years, and at most he'll serve only 8 years. Getting rid of bad dictators is harder. Also, checks and balances have largely muted T's agenda.
And one can argue he was elected because the other politicians ignored the plight of the rust-belt: acting as if they were the sacrificial lambs of "free trade" so others could have cheap Walmart trinkets. (T's fixes are not really fixes, but at least he gave the problem attention.) T may be a general jerk, but he was right about one thing: he gave a voice to people ignored before.
Bitcoin is an energy hog and a money-laundering black hole. Killit!
Rather than keep having holy wars over it, foster both systemd and non-systemd distros, and let time decide which is better.
or Mormicon
Yes, the ones slated to replace YOU.
Candidate 1: Nervous
Candidate 2: Nervous
Candidate 3: Nervous
Candidate 4: Calm, but high
Well, it is the size of a 1 or 0.
The field is still this way. Agism is rampant and fingers often wear out. The "proper" goal is to somehow slip into management.
Do elected left-wing crazies cancel out elected right-wing crazies like adding 10 to -10? Or is it more like matter and anti-matter where shit blows up?
You can if you mix it with other stuff. How about we call it "cofefe".