You don't get it. The reason people gave up their seats on lifeboats was social pressure which, due to the slow moving nature of that catastrophe, was able to take precedence over the individual survival instinct, very much like the initial analogy.
He's right, only humans are stupid enough to allow themselves to die in such a manner--see men giving up their seats on lifeboats to women and children on the Titanic.
Why do you think someone will have sex or do drugs in front of a camera? Are you developmentally disabled? Maybe sociopathic? Completely unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes and predict what they might do?
No, I am trying to explain human nature to you. People aren't as stupid and violent as you seem to think they are. The incentive for them not to trash the vehicle is there, and that is enough for everyone who isn't insane, and most who are.
It's not so much that they are stupid as they are caught in a sort of (I suspect purposefully designed) prisoner's dilemma. They get to vote on who will be "their" warden, and only get fed according to the seniority of their warden. Thus, it pays to keep a sadistic nutjob in office once they have any seniority at all. If they don't, then they starve.
Systems like this can't be changed from the inside. At best you can have a constitutional convention to fix these problems. At worst, you get civil war when one group becomes so oppressed they have to secede or risk real and literal starvation.
Sell the video online and report to the police respectively. Remember, you have their credit card info, and it would be foolish to think there wouldn't be cameras.
Flying cars have been shot down repeatedly by the FAA, and we would have moonbases by now if the Feds hadn't given a monopoly on space travel to NASA (and the US military) when it was founded. The monopoly was only lifted fully in the 2000's, and as a result, commercial space enterprise is booming.
Not looking for an argument on whether such regulation are good or bad or whatever, just stating facts.
Fault is moot in that case. Whoever is insuring the vehicle that malfunctioned and caused the accident will pay out. You won't have to wait for anything. There will be lawsuits afterwards, sure, but it will be the insurance company trying to recover their costs from the manufacturer, and it won't really have much of anything to do with you.
And socialism is not the answer to ANYTHING. We already have socialism in medicine, and have for more than 100 years. More specifically, fascism/corporatism. Before that, we had a free market, and even the poorest family could afford a middle of the night housecall from a doctor. They had a harder time paying for the medicine than the doctor.
A basic income is better than the current haphazard welfare system, but it is unneccessary. Do you need free money from the government to pay for access to internet websites? No. Machines have brought the cost of such services down so much that its not even worth it to charge you anything. Robots will do the same thing with real world goods and services. Once everything is automated, everything will be free. If you have some weird thing that you want that requires human intervention, you will have to pay for that, but that's about it. Socialism will only delay that lofty goal.
"Eventually, because there are more people than jobs (not just from driverless cars, think about how many jobs your smart phone replaces) you'll have to move to socialism."
*SIGH*
Why do socialists always say and think the stupidest things? You idiots thought we would have to move to socialism as a result of abandoning agrarianism for industrialism too, and the people who listened to you starved and died if they didn't get murdered first.
Tell me, do we need socialism on the INTERNET? SPOILER ALERT: no we don't. An economy of plenty arose due to machines handling pretty much everything with minimal human intervention, and as a result, pretty much everything is free. You idiot socialists would have killed it in the crib.
"it is utterly naïve to think that nuclear power would ever be the solution for underdevelopment"
Really? Cheap power doesn't lead to economic development? Are you developmentally disabled, or just a liberal?
"It is also naïve to think that the nuclear empowered nations do not take part nor have an interest on preventing that more countries develop nuclear technology."
Uh, duh. That's because those nations are led by warmongers who see non-nuclear armed nations as possessions rather than as free peoples. And they aren't far off the mark.
"I am not even thinking Iran, but Brazil and Argentina."
Yes, because US doctrine doesn't allow for South American countries that we can't topple at any time we want. You know, because the US is led by warmongers.
Hahaha, it's like you were born yesterday. Or maybe 80 years ago. The West has degraded. No lever of power is left unattended. The independence of media is a bald faced lie, and has been for at least 14 years, and I suspect that time will tell us that it was NEVER independent, and that it has always been controlled by intelligence organizations.
Not really. There were plenty of wars in poor countries before nukes came about. More even than today. Today, small countries have to worry about stepping on the toes of nuclear powers when thinking about declaring war on their neighbors, which has cut the number of wars fairly dramatically.
They aren't peaceful due to literally continuous and massive outside meddling, but there most assuredly aren't any non-state backed bandits roving the countriside.
Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success. Only a complete idiot or a warmonger of the most evil type would call for nuclear disarmament. Of course, one of those groups is very useful for the other.
If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.
Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.
Wow, you are a complete idiot. If you were in charge, we'd all be doomed.
You are certainly free not to think or listen to some of the foremost thinkers in the field (ie the good people at Lesswrong). Also, nice use of the racecard. Never had that pulled on me in a discussion about AIs before, but it is just as good of a thought killer there as it is everywhere else.
Who said anything about modelling a human brain? We are talking about building an AGI, not an artificial human.
That said, neural nets do resemble neural connections in animals. They aren't being modeled by transistors directly (ie one transistor!=one neuron, or neural net node), but rather the NN is being simulated with a GPU.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get it. The reason people gave up their seats on lifeboats was social pressure which, due to the slow moving nature of that catastrophe, was able to take precedence over the individual survival instinct, very much like the initial analogy.
He's right, only humans are stupid enough to allow themselves to die in such a manner--see men giving up their seats on lifeboats to women and children on the Titanic.
Why do you think someone will have sex or do drugs in front of a camera? Are you developmentally disabled? Maybe sociopathic? Completely unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes and predict what they might do?
No, I am trying to explain human nature to you. People aren't as stupid and violent as you seem to think they are. The incentive for them not to trash the vehicle is there, and that is enough for everyone who isn't insane, and most who are.
It's not so much that they are stupid as they are caught in a sort of (I suspect purposefully designed) prisoner's dilemma. They get to vote on who will be "their" warden, and only get fed according to the seniority of their warden. Thus, it pays to keep a sadistic nutjob in office once they have any seniority at all. If they don't, then they starve.
Systems like this can't be changed from the inside. At best you can have a constitutional convention to fix these problems. At worst, you get civil war when one group becomes so oppressed they have to secede or risk real and literal starvation.
Sell the video online and report to the police respectively. Remember, you have their credit card info, and it would be foolish to think there wouldn't be cameras.
The joke has gone over grandpa's head. Grandpa has gone down the stairs.
They don't want to lose the $200 though. And Uber (or whoever) need a judgement. They just charge the card.
Flying cars have been shot down repeatedly by the FAA, and we would have moonbases by now if the Feds hadn't given a monopoly on space travel to NASA (and the US military) when it was founded. The monopoly was only lifted fully in the 2000's, and as a result, commercial space enterprise is booming.
Not looking for an argument on whether such regulation are good or bad or whatever, just stating facts.
Fault is moot in that case. Whoever is insuring the vehicle that malfunctioned and caused the accident will pay out. You won't have to wait for anything. There will be lawsuits afterwards, sure, but it will be the insurance company trying to recover their costs from the manufacturer, and it won't really have much of anything to do with you.
And socialism is not the answer to ANYTHING. We already have socialism in medicine, and have for more than 100 years. More specifically, fascism/corporatism. Before that, we had a free market, and even the poorest family could afford a middle of the night housecall from a doctor. They had a harder time paying for the medicine than the doctor.
A basic income is better than the current haphazard welfare system, but it is unneccessary. Do you need free money from the government to pay for access to internet websites? No. Machines have brought the cost of such services down so much that its not even worth it to charge you anything. Robots will do the same thing with real world goods and services. Once everything is automated, everything will be free. If you have some weird thing that you want that requires human intervention, you will have to pay for that, but that's about it. Socialism will only delay that lofty goal.
Nursing: pusher robot.
Protecting: shover robot.
We are here to protect you.
"Eventually, because there are more people than jobs (not just from driverless cars, think about how many jobs your smart phone replaces) you'll have to move to socialism."
*SIGH*
Why do socialists always say and think the stupidest things? You idiots thought we would have to move to socialism as a result of abandoning agrarianism for industrialism too, and the people who listened to you starved and died if they didn't get murdered first.
Tell me, do we need socialism on the INTERNET? SPOILER ALERT: no we don't. An economy of plenty arose due to machines handling pretty much everything with minimal human intervention, and as a result, pretty much everything is free. You idiot socialists would have killed it in the crib.
Probably the fact that they have their credit card information.
Not really a problem. The car detects the mess and drives itself to get cleaned out and detailed, and the bill is charged to the drunk's credit card.
People behave better when they know for a fact they aren't anonymous.
We're all unemployed, you insensitive clod!
"it is utterly naïve to think that nuclear power would ever be the solution for underdevelopment"
Really? Cheap power doesn't lead to economic development? Are you developmentally disabled, or just a liberal?
"It is also naïve to think that the nuclear empowered nations do not take part nor have an interest on preventing that more countries develop nuclear technology."
Uh, duh. That's because those nations are led by warmongers who see non-nuclear armed nations as possessions rather than as free peoples. And they aren't far off the mark.
"I am not even thinking Iran, but Brazil and Argentina."
Yes, because US doctrine doesn't allow for South American countries that we can't topple at any time we want. You know, because the US is led by warmongers.
"this separation is taken very seriously"
Hahaha, it's like you were born yesterday. Or maybe 80 years ago. The West has degraded. No lever of power is left unattended. The independence of media is a bald faced lie, and has been for at least 14 years, and I suspect that time will tell us that it was NEVER independent, and that it has always been controlled by intelligence organizations.
No, it's nothing like that. These AIs are self trained, not programmed. That is the difference.
But you are too far out of the loop to know even that bit of common knowledge.
If you have a point, you should make it. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.
Not really. There were plenty of wars in poor countries before nukes came about. More even than today. Today, small countries have to worry about stepping on the toes of nuclear powers when thinking about declaring war on their neighbors, which has cut the number of wars fairly dramatically.
They aren't peaceful due to literally continuous and massive outside meddling, but there most assuredly aren't any non-state backed bandits roving the countriside.
Yes, the United States government should stop doing those things.
Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success. Only a complete idiot or a warmonger of the most evil type would call for nuclear disarmament. Of course, one of those groups is very useful for the other.
If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.
Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.
Wow, you are a complete idiot. If you were in charge, we'd all be doomed.
You are certainly free not to think or listen to some of the foremost thinkers in the field (ie the good people at Lesswrong). Also, nice use of the racecard. Never had that pulled on me in a discussion about AIs before, but it is just as good of a thought killer there as it is everywhere else.
Who said anything about modelling a human brain? We are talking about building an AGI, not an artificial human.
That said, neural nets do resemble neural connections in animals. They aren't being modeled by transistors directly (ie one transistor!=one neuron, or neural net node), but rather the NN is being simulated with a GPU.