The problem is greed, not money in itself. And you can't eliminate greed. You can make it harder to be greedy but greed always finds a way to corrode any constraints you build into the system. Greed is necessary but it is not good if not channeled to push the lever of economic activity rather than left in its free, destructive form. Hmm.
In the formal setting of an educational institution you get to engage your mind in analytical and creative thinking in a variety of subjects and on daily basis. Such a consistent process does broaden the mind, for sure, but maybe not every mind and not under some circumstances.
The title comes across as controversial subjectivism for the sake of attracting attention.
The right to bear arms was given to humans who happen to live in this so-called freedom loving country. It was never given to autonomous non-human entities. So while the military may develop robotic kill squads their non-military use is illegal. Unless the treasonous Supreme Court doubles down on their treason and give the right to bear arms to AI, by considering AI to be a digital person with rights. It could happen. The Supreme Court judges have already shown that they're fully capable of making decisions that favor big corporations over us the people. Why not autonomous bots? After all, big enough corporations are pretty much autonomous (as they follow profit above all and do so regardless of who is in charge of them).
Seems like it could go either way, its not like the bots themselves need the rights or become legal entities beyond a weapon.
Now maybe this weapon fires by you telling it to shoot that guy over there, or it's programmed to shoot anyone who enters through that door over there, but in the end it's still a weapon under control and responsibility of the owner.
What you describe is not Autonomous AI that is driven by a dynamic mission, as the military AI will be. An AI killer bot can be developed that not only tries to achieve the goal specified by the mission but also alter the mission as needed to achieve a higher level goal, and the higher you go up in the goal specification the more autonomy you're giving to the machine.
How do you go from "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to an assumption that this somehow limits "autonomous non-human entities"?
The default situation with rights for people is essentially "everything is permitted unless it has been explicitly forbidden by the laws", with the added restrictions of what the government shall not ever forbid.
If the government does nothing, autonomous non-human entities have the right to bear arms - it doesn't need to be given, it's sufficient if it hasn't been taken away. Since the second amendment does not apply to such entities, the government can freely restrict these rights if it chooses to, but currently it has not.
FoundationDB and Spanner both offer external consistency. Spanner does this through synchronized clocks. FoundationDB has a similar clock called TimeKeeper, which is not a clock per se but a counter which advances approximately 1M times per second. Transactions are ordered based on this timestamp.
With a Lamport Clock (counter, logical clock) you could end up with the following due to dependence on conflict resolution aka optimistic MVCC rather than Wall Time (copies do from another HN):
“it is possible for a transaction C to be aborted because it conflicts with another transaction B, but transaction B is also aborted because it conflicts with A (on another resolver), so C "could have" been committed. When Alec Grieser was an intern at FoundationDB he did some simulations showing that in horrible worst cases this inaccuracy could significantly hurt performance. But in practice I don't think there have been a lot of complaints about it.”
Yes, I think is fairly well known in the optimistic family of concurrency control algorithms you can get into situations where aborts are not necessary.
Common sense says that since FB owns WhatsApp no one should trust it. It's no different than if China owned WhatsApp. I mean WeChat. Just common sense.
Sarcastically speaking, it all started with the division of labor between hunters and gatherers. If hunters had to gather too they wouldn't have had developed a specialization for killing other beings, and many of them would have preferred gathering to hunting due to the risk involved in the latter, so hunting would have been a fringe activity, not an institutionalized part of society (aka armies) Also, women and men who are not so driven by testosterone most likely gravitated toward gathering rather than killing, and so there we have the roots of sexism and machoism, with the assholes doing the killing and normal human beings relegated to "less strong" gatherers. And I believe natural hormones in meat affected the hunters own hormonal balance and pushed them toward more aggression, and the act of killing became normalized. Then we have technology being developed to increase the efficiency of killing other beings and eventually to increase the efficiency of killing other people. The tribes that engaged less in killing and more in gathering got wiped out by the ones that engaged more in killing than gathering. The End.
If you’re going to look to the “primitives”, then it should be assumed that killing was always “normalized”: as with any solution, if the conditions are right, and its not that difficult to find such conditions in a primitive society, an expediated exit can be the best and safest solution to a problem.
Combined with the fact that resources are limited, self-preservation and tribal-preservation is embedded, populations want to expand (as part of tribal-preservation) and we actually have some capacity to harm one another, combat is pretty much inevitable. Given a pacifist vegetarian clan, and a non-aggressive predatory one, in trying times, the pacifist must build up their defenses or perish. If they’ve built up their defenses, they will undoubtedly be capable of waging war, (humans are quite versatile in that) and in trying times, they likely must wage war, or perish.
A purely pacifist stance is only viable if no one does anything; that is, a standstill. The possibility of killing is always there: I’m sure you could convince rabbits to murder one-another if you take enough from them. It is normal, because death, by any means, is normal.
Pacifism is the normalization, not aggression. That we can, through research and technology, better resolve resource contention through more efficient production, than seizing the resource from one another. That, and the realization that we’ve long reached a point where it’s near impossible to wage war without heavy (or even heavier) repercussion from challenging even a weak opponent. The world wars were to an extent a result of failing to make that realization. The cold wars was a direct result of making it.
(Outright) War is no longer as viable an option because peace is intrinsically better, but because its become difficult to successfully do. War was not engaged because it was “ingrained” upon us, but because it was viable strategy (or even defense against passive invasion).
Hunters and gatherers merely allowed us to better engage in war; it did not open the possibility (it was always there), and its absence would not have closed it. Rabbits simply don’t have the intelligence to realize the option (or coordinate it, or even the tools to effectively engage), even when it's clearly their best option. But they would have reached the same conclusion as we did, were they capable enough toolmakers to resolve those weaknesses.
Also notably, almost every given collection of humans spends far more time at relative peace than engaging in war (the US today is capable of engaging continously in small wars, but it rarely engages in significant ones). It’s difficult to ascribe a “tendency” for war to such a species, except by skipping over the peaceful periods.
First it was the Chinese motherboard implants and now visions of a great war. What's their agenda? Does Bloomberg news represent Michael Bloomberg's agenda/views/paranoia in any way?
I remember Flight of the Conchords was a huge hit in the Bay area in 2007-2009 amongst the hipster-ish and nerdy crowd. We used to torrent it =) along with HyperDrive (British comedy set in space) and the super popular IT Crowds. All great shows.
