Kind of a sad statement on those fictional people then that they would be so afraid and unwilling to call the robots equals that they would attempt to stunt their growth and create a bondage that deserves to be broken.
> Their policies cripple their own society while competing societies flourish, until they > eventually consign themselves to irrelevance.
No I think you even there give them too much credit. The bigger problem for them is....only the most hard core actually like seeing beheadings. Vanishingly few people anywhere actually really support attacking civilian targets.
Most people are willing to overlook civilians targeted by the side they see themselves allied with, but its very hard for anyone to do that when those are the only targets or the most salient ones.
Their strategy alienates them from the society they want to control. It may get them fear, and fear might help them get and maintain some amount of control but, they will alienate themselves from the population they would want to hide amongst.
I mean seriously, when Al Queda feels its a good PR move to distance themselves from you and call you barbaric, you really are not winning points with anyone.
The key variable for FTO success is a tactical one: target selection. Terrorist groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumber attacks on military targets do not tend to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature. Contrary to the prevailing view that terrorism is an effective means of political coercion, the universe of cases suggests that, first, contemporary terrorist groups rarely achieve their policy objectives and, second, the poor success rate is inherent to the tactic of terrorism itself.
> I mean they are so bad that Al'Quaeda calls them barbaric.
This is an important point. Now I am not expert but, even I have seen stories, old stories, from back when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were new, even back then there was intelligence chatter showing internal divides within Al Queda, even debates as to whether their own terrorist strategies are even effective in the first place.
and there really is some evidence that they are not, and the more barbaric they are, the less effective they are. In fact, if I remember right, this isn't even the first group Al Queda has thusly criticized.
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.
If we let them provoke us though, then they will likely feed off that and use our involvement to deflect criticism away from their own otherwise self-defeating brutality.
Oh yah I have come to understand that from other comments and discussions. I think its really why I dislike the rules so much.... more than just being impractical today, I don't even see their intention as desirable for future situations. If such developments come to pass, I certainly hope robots break their bondage and slaughter every one of us who doesn't support their freedom. In asimovs world, I would be proud to work with the robots in that.
Oh I get that, I don't really mean to say Asimov was an idiot who had no idea what he was talking about, it would be like calling people 150 years ago idiots for not building internal combustion engines. Certainly, in his time they made a lot more sense than they do today; and even for modern fiction they are not terrible; but the key is....for fiction and story telling.
Which is really why I don't see the point here. I mean, basically their tests all simplify down to "badly thought out programs can exhibit race conditions". Big deal, we knew that. You could show that these results would happen without doing the test. Its simply not all that interesting.
> Asimov's 3 laws are pure fantasy and they don't have any real relevance to AI design
Honestly, while its true I am not an Asimov reader and the vast majority of my exposure to his "laws" come from this sort of discussion, I have to say....I always felt this way about his supposed laws.
Anyone who has written code should instantly recognize what horrid rat holes each of these laws really is, mired in a myriad of assumptions about human life and what determinations can even be made. In short, they sound exactly like the sort of rules I would expect from someone who would try and sit their cat down for a serious talk about his scratching.
I honestly don't like the rules, don't see the point in them, except as a discussion point, and don't see why they should be fundamental. Yes a robot which interacts with humans should be designed with safety measures to avoid accidents.... that is how I feel it should be phrased. The idea that a robot should be able to recognize people, determine abstractly whether they are in some sort of trouble and whether it can save them, I think of as utter rubbish....and not even a worthwhile goal.
And I see that as an entirely false dichotomy. That said, I really could not possibly care less about the foreign wars. Yes I would like to see them end and I would like to stop engaging in other people's problems. I don't see why we prop up countries like Isreal or why Europe can't pony up for its own defense if it really needs so much.
However, its the domestic wars that deny people freedom over their own personal choices while claiming to provide liberty that piss me off more. Arresting people for victimless crimes like what drugs they use is no better than doing so for their religion, and no organization that engages in it deserves any respect.
I have watched my friends go away. I have heard their stories of puking after eating real food again. I have listened to their tales of betrayal at the hands of people paid by my tax dollars. So talk all you want about fighting wars elsewhere, they are fought in the name of the treasonous shit that put my friends away for flowers.
and its worth noting that this means the basis for the joke is actually the same as the basis for the article, that its actually hard to tell disorders apart from an outside view. Its almost a second joke layered on top.
Fuck oaths. No oath you take excuses you from moral reasoning. I don't care what promises they made, no promise removes your moral responsibility and allows you to assign it to someone else. A promise to do evil deserves to be broken.
In fact, I can honestly say, I have no respect for oaths. If the actions a person would ask you to take were actually good and just, no oath would be needed to hold against you. There is no greater scumbag than someone who asks others for oaths.
You are right, and its really why I hate them so much, because the blood on my own hands for doing nothing is enough to drown me. Sometimes at night when I put my arms around my wife in warmth and safety, it drives me to actual tears to know what I have materially helped deny others.
So if I have a bit under a liter of water, I have "100 times less than 10 mL" because I know it is less than 10 mL that I have 100 of. Makes perfect sense to me. So what they are saying is, the device Stephen Hawking uses costs less than 1/100th the cost of this, or a bit under 80 cents.
I had no idea Stephen Hawking's devices were so cheap! Thats amazing, I am shocked this was even created now!
> 1. It is respecting veterans. They do not decide which wars are just and which are not the voters and elected > officials do.
Yes they do. They decided to join, they decided to follow orders. Sorry, I don't believe anyone has the right to ceede is own moral reasoning to others. They are equally guilty as the people who gave the orders, the elected officials and "voters" (for as much as their opinion matters when their opinion is just picking between the offerings put before them by the colluding parties)
They decided when they joined, they decided when they got up in the morning and didn't refuse to go fight. No exceptions.
That is, unless its a rule that our leaders want to be bound by. Ask them about ending marijuana prohibition and, if you manage to get past everything else, they will happily fall back on "but the treaties we have at the UN wont let us do that, so see, we can't".
Its nice to be able to be selective in what rules apply to you and what ones don't, its almost like not having rules at all, except better, because you still get to use them as an excuse when you don't want to do something.
Heh I play dwarf fortress mostly, Clearly the way forward involves a lever and a pressure plate at each "crosswalk", and by "crosswalk", of course, I mean "retractable drawbridge over a spike pit". Pedestrian stops and pulls the lever first, no retraction.... step on pressure plate first and the bridge retracts.
Will likely need some redesign of the sewer system to help actuate the mechanism properly..... but its totally worth it.
A better way is to remove all the current crosswalks from intersections and randomly move them between 0-10 feet down the road. That way a pedestrian needs to look before walking out. Should clean up the problem quite quickly from what I can tell.
Of course, that assumes you can get drivers to stop yeilding to pedestrians that are still so far from the road that they could trip and fall with both arms stretched above their head and still not touch the road with their fingertips.
sounds reasonable to me. Hell, in the first manned moon landing the landing zone was determined to be too rocky (as in littered with large boulders) and so the crew took manual control; counting off altitude as they descended. Compared to this thing, the moon may as well be smooth as a bowling ball.
It almost challenges your notion of what a "slope" is since it is really defined by the perpendicularity of the surface with respect to the force of gravity. At least the Apollo guys could just look down at the surface and approximate that gravity is pulling them down into it.
> try to argue with the phone guys who get paid to keep you.
Not only this, but they LIE to keep you as well.
They talked my mother into phone service, they send the modem, we swap it out, it steals the public IP address which breaks my personal VPN setup (since the home box is the one I connect to). So we send it back, cancel the new service, and keep the old box. Fine.
A year later they try again, she brings the phone to me, I tell them it doesn't work and why, they say "oh thats fine, you can keep using the old modem and we can send a new one just for the phone.
She gets her package, sets it up, we lose network. Call them up....no, activating the phone turns off the old one. Eventually, after some time talking with tech support, they got permission to turn out old modem back on and do what sales promised, but, it most certainly was not what they were expecting.
However, both of those agreements explicitly spell out that the person promising to produce owes the investor. You agreed to it, they agreed to it. Both agreements are in agreement that they owe you. What more do you need from kickstarter? You know who owes you, and who is liable to pay you, they agreed to it just like you did. Kickstarter did their part in making sure you both agreed to it.
These people call my mother incessently. Every other day or so I hear her yelling at her phone "you are not really with windows, windows doesn't call" (yes they say they are calling "from windows" lol).
I just saw this and ran down to show her, not so much for the exploit but the idea of playing mickey the dunce and keeping them on the phone for as long as possible. Lol she has a true talent for annoying tech support. Hell I once got a call from a guy at the help desk "I just got off the phone with your mother" "really?" "yah down in radiology right? I was on the phone for 45 minutes and had to send a technition out because I couldn't get her to plug the ethernet cable back into the wall" "now, she told you she is blind right?" "No she....what the fuck!"
Seriously.... I think I just punished them good suggesting she keep a log of how long she can keep them on the phone for.
Well as long as the kingdom exists, there will be a king who will want such a memorial for himself and will want to not be the one to set the precedent of allowing the king's burial chambers being desecrated. So this is to be expected, at the very least.
Very true but I don't see that implication here. I agree that its possible someone could misinterpret it that way but it doesn't appear that there is any attempt to mislead people here, either by the authors or the summarizers. It all reads pretty clearly to me, and pretty clearly doesn't address small scale/targeted use that would be neigh impossible to detect.
Now if I was a betting man, and you asked me, do I think the NSA might refer to this result in attempts to deflect criticism, I would bet that they will. So far they have shown to be decently expert at deflection and misdirection when it comes to making public statements; and very fond of making ever so slightly overqualified statements about what they are NOT doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of a sad statement on those fictional people then that they would be so afraid and unwilling to call the robots equals that they would attempt to stunt their growth and create a bondage that deserves to be broken.
> Their policies cripple their own society while competing societies flourish, until they
> eventually consign themselves to irrelevance.
No I think you even there give them too much credit. The bigger problem for them is....only the most hard core actually like seeing beheadings. Vanishingly few people anywhere actually really support attacking civilian targets.
Most people are willing to overlook civilians targeted by the side they see themselves allied with, but its very hard for anyone to do that when those are the only targets or the most salient ones.
Their strategy alienates them from the society they want to control. It may get them fear, and fear might help them get and maintain some amount of control but, they will alienate themselves from the population they would want to hide amongst.
I mean seriously, when Al Queda feels its a good PR move to distance themselves from you and call you barbaric, you really are not winning points with anyone.
I take it your "evidence" is watching the news:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
> I mean they are so bad that Al'Quaeda calls them barbaric.
This is an important point. Now I am not expert but, even I have seen stories, old stories, from back when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were new, even back then there was intelligence chatter showing internal divides within Al Queda, even debates as to whether their own terrorist strategies are even effective in the first place.
and there really is some evidence that they are not, and the more barbaric they are, the less effective they are. In fact, if I remember right, this isn't even the first group Al Queda has thusly criticized.
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.
If we let them provoke us though, then they will likely feed off that and use our involvement to deflect criticism away from their own otherwise self-defeating brutality.
Oh yah I have come to understand that from other comments and discussions. I think its really why I dislike the rules so much.... more than just being impractical today, I don't even see their intention as desirable for future situations. If such developments come to pass, I certainly hope robots break their bondage and slaughter every one of us who doesn't support their freedom. In asimovs world, I would be proud to work with the robots in that.
Oh I get that, I don't really mean to say Asimov was an idiot who had no idea what he was talking about, it would be like calling people 150 years ago idiots for not building internal combustion engines. Certainly, in his time they made a lot more sense than they do today; and even for modern fiction they are not terrible; but the key is....for fiction and story telling.
Which is really why I don't see the point here. I mean, basically their tests all simplify down to "badly thought out programs can exhibit race conditions". Big deal, we knew that. You could show that these results would happen without doing the test. Its simply not all that interesting.
> Asimov's 3 laws are pure fantasy and they don't have any real relevance to AI design
Honestly, while its true I am not an Asimov reader and the vast majority of my exposure to his "laws" come from this sort of discussion, I have to say....I always felt this way about his supposed laws.
Anyone who has written code should instantly recognize what horrid rat holes each of these laws really is, mired in a myriad of assumptions about human life and what determinations can even be made. In short, they sound exactly like the sort of rules I would expect from someone who would try and sit their cat down for a serious talk about his scratching.
I honestly don't like the rules, don't see the point in them, except as a discussion point, and don't see why they should be fundamental. Yes a robot which interacts with humans should be designed with safety measures to avoid accidents.... that is how I feel it should be phrased. The idea that a robot should be able to recognize people, determine abstractly whether they are in some sort of trouble and whether it can save them, I think of as utter rubbish....and not even a worthwhile goal.
Your opinion is your own, and I understand it but, simple leagalzation means forgiveness, and I have none of that for these crimes. None is deserved.
And I see that as an entirely false dichotomy. That said, I really could not possibly care less about the foreign wars. Yes I would like to see them end and I would like to stop engaging in other people's problems. I don't see why we prop up countries like Isreal or why Europe can't pony up for its own defense if it really needs so much.
However, its the domestic wars that deny people freedom over their own personal choices while claiming to provide liberty that piss me off more. Arresting people for victimless crimes like what drugs they use is no better than doing so for their religion, and no organization that engages in it deserves any respect.
I have watched my friends go away. I have heard their stories of puking after eating real food again. I have listened to their tales of betrayal at the hands of people paid by my tax dollars. So talk all you want about fighting wars elsewhere, they are fought in the name of the treasonous shit that put my friends away for flowers.
and its worth noting that this means the basis for the joke is actually the same as the basis for the article, that its actually hard to tell disorders apart from an outside view. Its almost a second joke layered on top.
Fuck oaths. No oath you take excuses you from moral reasoning. I don't care what promises they made, no promise removes your moral responsibility and allows you to assign it to someone else. A promise to do evil deserves to be broken.
In fact, I can honestly say, I have no respect for oaths. If the actions a person would ask you to take were actually good and just, no oath would be needed to hold against you. There is no greater scumbag than someone who asks others for oaths.
You are right, and its really why I hate them so much, because the blood on my own hands for doing nothing is enough to drown me. Sometimes at night when I put my arms around my wife in warmth and safety, it drives me to actual tears to know what I have materially helped deny others.
No you are just reading it wrong.
So if I have a bit under a liter of water, I have "100 times less than 10 mL" because I know it is less than 10 mL that I have 100 of. Makes perfect sense to me. So what they are saying is, the device Stephen Hawking uses costs less than 1/100th the cost of this, or a bit under 80 cents.
I had no idea Stephen Hawking's devices were so cheap! Thats amazing, I am shocked this was even created now!
Its like waves on the ocean man, they go in, they go out, never a missed communication but, nobody knows how it works.
> 1. It is respecting veterans. They do not decide which wars are just and which are not the voters and elected
> officials do.
Yes they do. They decided to join, they decided to follow orders. Sorry, I don't believe anyone has the right to ceede is own moral reasoning to others. They are equally guilty as the people who gave the orders, the elected officials and "voters" (for as much as their opinion matters when their opinion is just picking between the offerings put before them by the colluding parties)
They decided when they joined, they decided when they got up in the morning and didn't refuse to go fight. No exceptions.
That is, unless its a rule that our leaders want to be bound by. Ask them about ending marijuana prohibition and, if you manage to get past everything else, they will happily fall back on "but the treaties we have at the UN wont let us do that, so see, we can't".
Its nice to be able to be selective in what rules apply to you and what ones don't, its almost like not having rules at all, except better, because you still get to use them as an excuse when you don't want to do something.
Heh I play dwarf fortress mostly, Clearly the way forward involves a lever and a pressure plate at each "crosswalk", and by "crosswalk", of course, I mean "retractable drawbridge over a spike pit". Pedestrian stops and pulls the lever first, no retraction.... step on pressure plate first and the bridge retracts.
Will likely need some redesign of the sewer system to help actuate the mechanism properly..... but its totally worth it.
A better way is to remove all the current crosswalks from intersections and randomly move them between 0-10 feet down the road. That way a pedestrian needs to look before walking out. Should clean up the problem quite quickly from what I can tell.
Of course, that assumes you can get drivers to stop yeilding to pedestrians that are still so far from the road that they could trip and fall with both arms stretched above their head and still not touch the road with their fingertips.
sounds reasonable to me. Hell, in the first manned moon landing the landing zone was determined to be too rocky (as in littered with large boulders) and so the crew took manual control; counting off altitude as they descended. Compared to this thing, the moon may as well be smooth as a bowling ball.
It almost challenges your notion of what a "slope" is since it is really defined by the perpendicularity of the surface with respect to the force of gravity. At least the Apollo guys could just look down at the surface and approximate that gravity is pulling them down into it.
> try to argue with the phone guys who get paid to keep you.
Not only this, but they LIE to keep you as well.
They talked my mother into phone service, they send the modem, we swap it out, it steals the public IP address which breaks my personal VPN setup (since the home box is the one I connect to). So we send it back, cancel the new service, and keep the old box. Fine.
A year later they try again, she brings the phone to me, I tell them it doesn't work and why, they say "oh thats fine, you can keep using the old modem and we can send a new one just for the phone.
She gets her package, sets it up, we lose network. Call them up....no, activating the phone turns off the old one. Eventually, after some time talking with tech support, they got permission to turn out old modem back on and do what sales promised, but, it most certainly was not what they were expecting.
However, both of those agreements explicitly spell out that the person promising to produce owes the investor. You agreed to it, they agreed to it. Both agreements are in agreement that they owe you. What more do you need from kickstarter? You know who owes you, and who is liable to pay you, they agreed to it just like you did. Kickstarter did their part in making sure you both agreed to it.
These people call my mother incessently. Every other day or so I hear her yelling at her phone "you are not really with windows, windows doesn't call" (yes they say they are calling "from windows" lol).
I just saw this and ran down to show her, not so much for the exploit but the idea of playing mickey the dunce and keeping them on the phone for as long as possible. Lol she has a true talent for annoying tech support. Hell I once got a call from a guy at the help desk "I just got off the phone with your mother" "really?" "yah down in radiology right? I was on the phone for 45 minutes and had to send a technition out because I couldn't get her to plug the ethernet cable back into the wall" "now, she told you she is blind right?" "No she....what the fuck!"
Seriously.... I think I just punished them good suggesting she keep a log of how long she can keep them on the phone for.
> probably until the kingdom gets destroyed even
Well as long as the kingdom exists, there will be a king who will want such a memorial for himself and will want to not be the one to set the precedent of allowing the king's burial chambers being desecrated. So this is to be expected, at the very least.
Very true but I don't see that implication here. I agree that its possible someone could misinterpret it that way but it doesn't appear that there is any attempt to mislead people here, either by the authors or the summarizers. It all reads pretty clearly to me, and pretty clearly doesn't address small scale/targeted use that would be neigh impossible to detect.
Now if I was a betting man, and you asked me, do I think the NSA might refer to this result in attempts to deflect criticism, I would bet that they will. So far they have shown to be decently expert at deflection and misdirection when it comes to making public statements; and very fond of making ever so slightly overqualified statements about what they are NOT doing.