How do you train them without using content created by humans?
It takes you all the way back to expert systems. You have to throw out modern AI techniques for any systems that make decisions that affect humans. What else do humans use automation for, but things that affect humans?
Right, but the import follow-up questions are: Who is "we?" Whoever that is, what do "they" actually want?
"Can" we build ethics into expert systems, yes. Can we actively try to make automatically derived systems have controlled ethics, sure. We can try. We can do better. And if currently we don't even worry about ethics in automated systems, then it is easy to meet the bar of merely having begun to consider it.
But the fact is, Scrooge McDuck has different ethics than many of us,
Let's not forget however, that the USA is at present at war with it's own intelligence agencies.
That makes as much sense as if you said, "Lets not forget that I'm at war with my nose!"
First of all, it isn't a historical fact that we agreed to, so why are you pretending that we agreed to it in the past? That's a precondition of worrying that we might "forget."
Second of all, it is really stupid. You obviously consume a lot of "alternative media."
Christ, this reads like schizophrenia world.
Yeah, lets just re-quote this one little snippet from earlier:
the USA is at present at war with it's own intelligence agencies
That's why you feel like you're experiencing schizophrenia. You're saying things like that.
Well, no, if you're the one required to stock the part, and they stop making it, why don't you now have to start making it?
And if you're off the hook in that case, suppliers will just start publishing a date after which they promise to stop selling a particular part number, and the part numbers will change more often.
This is one of those policies that seems simple at first, but as soon as you start looking at the problems, and how to work around the problems, you start to realize that if you work around the problems, you also worked around the intended effects of the policy.
Example: If you buy at least 10k microcontrollers, the factory is often willing to silkscreen your own product name on it so you can treat it as a custom part. They could re-word the exact same product feature to make up their own part number just for one company to buy, then they can cancel it whenever you ask.
You're playing a word game around "didn't sell any" even though I didn't say "any," I said "doesn't sell well."
If you sold a few units of products, you could easily be required to eventually stock and sell any number of the "repair" parts. There is no limiting factor; it could be 10 replacement widgets per unit sold, it could be 10,000. It could be 1,000,000.
You can't force them to sell parts for home repair, because you can't regulate that the parts are really going to home repairs.
It is completely hare-brained, just some random snippets of what would be nice "in a perfect world," without any thought to the results of the policy as a whole.
Any "right to repair" that eventually becomes law will look different; it will not involve the forced stockpiling of replacement parts, or consigning anybody that released a product to slave away for some number of years continuing to make the thing. Forcing the release of repair manuals is more likely, though easily gamed. Preventing companies from interfering with the import of 3rd party replacement parts is possible, though unlikely. Probably that would have to be done by the US Congress, not California. Preventing the soldering of batteries is possible, with a bunch of exceptions.
Right now, there are a lot of items where replacement parts are really cheap, but are only sold to verified customers. For those products, the cheap parts is often part of the reviews, part of the purchasing process, part of the long term business strategy of the company making the item. And sometimes, they change the replacement part due to experience with how it wears or fails. You're not going to convince Government in the US to try to stop any of those practices. Forcing them to release the repair manual, though, that's doable.
I would not only repeat "commonly," I would say also that a close family member is allergic to penicillin so I already know that it is what likely will be given at a clinic. So far it has been 100%, but I do agree there are other options.
You being a physician has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of a piece of information. It is no more or less true when stated with letters next to your name.
I'm just glad we have a local clinic with good doctors. Cephalosporins are contraindicated for people with a history of allergic reaction to penicillin. I know, I know, the drug companies say "golly, the new one isn't as bad" and many doctors just start firing off prescriptions whenever a drug company sneezes.
A minority of patients have stronger side effects from streptomycin, and should try something else. But any patient who is allergic to penicillin and has taken streptomycin without side effects should sing "Hallelujah" and their doctor should prescribe it. It is cheap, it is highly effective, it has the least side effects for many patients, and it is good public policy not to prescribe the latest antibiotic for everything.
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
They won't let us prevent entry, but we did used to have a sign asking people not to come back.
California has a border post on the freeway and refuses entry to fruits and vegetables, though humans and pets are allowed through unchecked.
Didn't Parliament already hold a binding vote rejecting a hard Brexit? And, while Parliament saw fit to hold a second vote on May's deal (!!!), they've said a third vote isn't allowed.
It seems that they only legal choices, based on these various binding and non-binding votes that have been taken by different parties, is to delay, or cancel.
It is clear that many people in the UK demand that a generation of British people cut their noses off, to stiffen their upper lips, but it seems that Parliament already rejected that.
Aren't you a little old to need the help of a tutor to look up 101-level claims?
I didn't make a claim about something controversial that would require a citation, I imparted very basic knowledge that is not in dispute in the field.
So educate yourself, or kick rocks.
And you seem to even say that you know it already? Or that, you thought a different point would be more interesting? You seem confused even about what you already know. Pathetic. And grasping at "life expectancy at 15," that's just pathetic. You admitted before that that you understood the context was something different than that.
Slashdot Mirror
What has Hillary got to do with Uranium One?
OK, I'm gonna solve. John Kerry, with the Freedom Fries, in the Lincoln Bedroom.
If it was Hillary with the Uranium One in the Library of Congress then I owe you a beer.
Youtube has a little button when you're logged in, you can click "Not Interested" and it will stop recommending it to you.
They were probably led astray by the ponies, promising pancakes.
How do you train them without using content created by humans?
It takes you all the way back to expert systems. You have to throw out modern AI techniques for any systems that make decisions that affect humans. What else do humans use automation for, but things that affect humans?
I don't think it is even legal to do it without a driver.
Right, but the import follow-up questions are:
Who is "we?"
Whoever that is, what do "they" actually want?
"Can" we build ethics into expert systems, yes. Can we actively try to make automatically derived systems have controlled ethics, sure. We can try. We can do better. And if currently we don't even worry about ethics in automated systems, then it is easy to meet the bar of merely having begun to consider it.
But the fact is, Scrooge McDuck has different ethics than many of us,
I would just like to know this:
When he isn't President any more, is he guilty in New York State? That's what I care about.
People blathering about Federal blah blah, they're simply missing the point.
but the programmer that uses it.
Exactly. C is the hard parts. Lots of mistakes are made.
It opens whole markets.
Let's not forget however, that the USA is at present at war with it's own intelligence agencies.
That makes as much sense as if you said, "Lets not forget that I'm at war with my nose!"
First of all, it isn't a historical fact that we agreed to, so why are you pretending that we agreed to it in the past? That's a precondition of worrying that we might "forget."
Second of all, it is really stupid. You obviously consume a lot of "alternative media."
Christ, this reads like schizophrenia world.
Yeah, lets just re-quote this one little snippet from earlier:
the USA is at present at war with it's own intelligence agencies
That's why you feel like you're experiencing schizophrenia. You're saying things like that.
You seem really confused about the nature of the conversation.
You replied to argue with me. You failed. Now you're using the word "tantrum."
LOL
Well, no, if you're the one required to stock the part, and they stop making it, why don't you now have to start making it?
And if you're off the hook in that case, suppliers will just start publishing a date after which they promise to stop selling a particular part number, and the part numbers will change more often.
This is one of those policies that seems simple at first, but as soon as you start looking at the problems, and how to work around the problems, you start to realize that if you work around the problems, you also worked around the intended effects of the policy.
Example: If you buy at least 10k microcontrollers, the factory is often willing to silkscreen your own product name on it so you can treat it as a custom part. They could re-word the exact same product feature to make up their own part number just for one company to buy, then they can cancel it whenever you ask.
Liar liar, pants on fire!
You're playing a word game around "didn't sell any" even though I didn't say "any," I said "doesn't sell well."
If you sold a few units of products, you could easily be required to eventually stock and sell any number of the "repair" parts. There is no limiting factor; it could be 10 replacement widgets per unit sold, it could be 10,000. It could be 1,000,000.
You can't force them to sell parts for home repair, because you can't regulate that the parts are really going to home repairs.
It is completely hare-brained, just some random snippets of what would be nice "in a perfect world," without any thought to the results of the policy as a whole.
Any "right to repair" that eventually becomes law will look different; it will not involve the forced stockpiling of replacement parts, or consigning anybody that released a product to slave away for some number of years continuing to make the thing. Forcing the release of repair manuals is more likely, though easily gamed. Preventing companies from interfering with the import of 3rd party replacement parts is possible, though unlikely. Probably that would have to be done by the US Congress, not California. Preventing the soldering of batteries is possible, with a bunch of exceptions.
Right now, there are a lot of items where replacement parts are really cheap, but are only sold to verified customers. For those products, the cheap parts is often part of the reviews, part of the purchasing process, part of the long term business strategy of the company making the item. And sometimes, they change the replacement part due to experience with how it wears or fails. You're not going to convince Government in the US to try to stop any of those practices. Forcing them to release the repair manual, though, that's doable.
I would not only repeat "commonly," I would say also that a close family member is allergic to penicillin so I already know that it is what likely will be given at a clinic. So far it has been 100%, but I do agree there are other options.
You being a physician has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of a piece of information. It is no more or less true when stated with letters next to your name.
I'm just glad we have a local clinic with good doctors. Cephalosporins are contraindicated for people with a history of allergic reaction to penicillin. I know, I know, the drug companies say "golly, the new one isn't as bad" and many doctors just start firing off prescriptions whenever a drug company sneezes.
A minority of patients have stronger side effects from streptomycin, and should try something else. But any patient who is allergic to penicillin and has taken streptomycin without side effects should sing "Hallelujah" and their doctor should prescribe it. It is cheap, it is highly effective, it has the least side effects for many patients, and it is good public policy not to prescribe the latest antibiotic for everything.
Cloud can haz cheeseburder thought? Rite?
Cloud can haz Taco Tuesday, or banned?
Stargate also had unmarked data crystals. And control crystals.
Fucking idiots and grifters all of them.
Scots wha hae!
Scotland was never in the UK under duress; it was by consent. They don't need England's permission to leave the UK.
And, it can only be thus without a written Constitution.
Scotland doesn't need their permission, they can Brexit by local declaration too.
They probably will, if Brexit goes forwards, so they can rejoin the EU.
Northern Ireland is a bigger problem, but a border has to go somewhere and putting it inside of Ireland violates the peace plan. Interesting times!
Clearly Parliament should declare Lord Buckethead Lord Protector and the problems will be resolved.
No need to dissolve parliament. Simply undo the Restoration.
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
They won't let us prevent entry, but we did used to have a sign asking people not to come back.
California has a border post on the freeway and refuses entry to fruits and vegetables, though humans and pets are allowed through unchecked.
If the British people wanted to do it that way, they'd hold a binding vote.
They didn't do that.
Insisting that a non-binding vote be treated as binding is simply to be dishonest.
Barely passed is still a pass.
And non-binding is still non-binding.
Didn't Parliament already hold a binding vote rejecting a hard Brexit? And, while Parliament saw fit to hold a second vote on May's deal (!!!), they've said a third vote isn't allowed.
It seems that they only legal choices, based on these various binding and non-binding votes that have been taken by different parties, is to delay, or cancel.
It is clear that many people in the UK demand that a generation of British people cut their noses off, to stiffen their upper lips, but it seems that Parliament already rejected that.
It is sad because streptomycin is used commonly for people who are allergic to penicillin.
They won't have to convince everybody that they invented cable to cash in; they only have to convince a few percent.
Give them another 10 or 15 years, they'll probably invent radio too.
Naw, just go learn how to use a search engine.
Aren't you a little old to need the help of a tutor to look up 101-level claims?
I didn't make a claim about something controversial that would require a citation, I imparted very basic knowledge that is not in dispute in the field.
So educate yourself, or kick rocks.
And you seem to even say that you know it already? Or that, you thought a different point would be more interesting? You seem confused even about what you already know. Pathetic. And grasping at "life expectancy at 15," that's just pathetic. You admitted before that that you understood the context was something different than that.