@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

oh my... Know this one from a vacation in the Czech Republic, isn't that far away from Romania. As far as I remember it just doesn't taste much like alcohol at all, and that is dangerous

Dear Matt,

leadership of the world always has been my declared goal. But I must admit you seem mad enough to be considered a good second in command, don't you think?

Here, this could be you giving autographs:

Image credit: "Verne Troyer" by Eva Rinaldi, CC-BY-SA 2.0

Think about it!

Yours sincerly

@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

There will always be those who don't want to sit around and play Xbox all day long. Some people (I'm thinking Scott as an example here) who nearly always have to be doing something. Sure, there will be tons of people doing nothing, but why should they be enslaved to work, if our technology can do it for them and take care of nearly everything else too?

You're trying to apply technology to a social issue. We could have completely automated farms and housing construction and we'd still have the same problems.

Already there: http://www.gizmag.com/hadrian-brick-laying-robot-fastbrick/38239/

@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@nadnerB said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

After much deliberation and pondering, I selected a new GPU yesterday (I'll get the other parts later).
AND IT'S HERE!!!! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MSI GTX 960 2GB Gaming Edition

Only 8 hours to go before I get to go home, and about 12 before I get to install it
Most importantly, it's here !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

And this is the last anyone will hear from @nadnerB for a week or three heheh

Famous last words, eh?

Those disclaimers aren't even worth the bandwith and storage they are taking. Simple as that. Uhm, heavy google translation now:

There's some irony behind it: Most disclaimer state that the information given is not "legally binding". But if so, what about the disclaimer? German courts stated multiple times that in this case, the disclaimer itself is also not binding.

For anyone who is capable of reading German or maybe Google Translate:

• http://blog.meine-firma-und-ich.de/umfrage-e-mail-disclaimer/
• https://angstklauseln.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/e-mail-disclaimer-als-angstklauseln/

So why use it anyway?

Let's play it the other way around. A family is crossing the street, an old lady is on the side. Should the car kill the lady or the family?

Probably one of the kids will be the next president of [Insert country here] or will find a cure for [whatever].

@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@thwr said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@thwr said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@scottalanmiller Full control: speed, brakes, stearing, traction control, anti-skid braking system...

The article was in German I'm afraid, written by a German professor researching robotics and AI.

What vehicle is it controlling?

The machine is a self-piloting car, for example a modern BMW 5 series or a SUV.

And the machine had a heart attack?

No the car has a driver, but is capable of self-piloting. The car was in "human pilot mode" and the driver has a heart attack. The car senses "I'm not under the control of the human any more, time to take over"

But I'm out of control the only way to stop is to crash either to the left or right. Which should the AI chose?

Like that, yes.

There is no wrong or right in my opinion. It's an ethical dilemma, but very well worth discussing it.

The driver or the car (machine), not the machine

@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

Where I am confused...

There is a driver with a heart attack in the car. there is an old lady in the road. Where does the machine or the family come into the picture?

It's about the machine having no choice. Someone will have an accident, either the family or the lady. The driver can't step in because he is suffering from the heart attack.

@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@thwr said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@scottalanmiller Full control: speed, brakes, stearing, traction control, anti-skid braking system...

The article was in German I'm afraid, written by a German professor researching robotics and AI.

What vehicle is it controlling?

The machine is a self-piloting car, for example a modern BMW 5 series or a SUV.

@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@thwr said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

What should the machine do in the following case:
A familiy is near the road. An old lady is just crossing the same road. The driver has a heart attack in this very moment and can't control the car. The speed is too high to come to a stop. What is the car supposed to do? Kill the family? Kill the old lady?

What control does the machine have in that question?

I would think the machine would have to make the decision to take out the elderly person. It's one life versus many lives

In this case, a machine is deciding upon the value of a single life, and that's terribly dangerous. What if the old lady was like Einstein and the family had no job at all?

@scottalanmiller Full control: speed, brakes, stearing, traction control, anti-skid braking system...

The article was in German I'm afraid, written by a German professor researching robotics and AI.

Summer sale 2016 day 2 just started.

@JaredBusch sorry, didn't see that.

@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:

@wirestyle22 It is from iRobot.

It's way older..."The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Three Laws, also known as Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

@dafyre That's something scientists are thinking about ever since 1942. Moral and ethics in robotics / AI. Been reading an article some months ago about self-piloting cars.

What should the machine do in the following case:
A familiy is near the road. An old lady is just crossing the same road. The driver has a heart attack in this very moment and can't control the car. The speed is too high to come to a stop. What is the car supposed to do? Kill the family? Kill the old lady?

@hobbit666 said in The World's fastest ISPs & Mobile Networks 2015 as per speedtest.net:

@thwr said in [The World's fastest ISPs & Mobile Networks 2015 as per speedtest.net](/topic/9456/the-world-s-fastest-isps-Germany sucks here, that's not my point. Average here is like 6-16 MBit/s with ADSL2 or 25 MBit/s with cable

That doesn't suck!!! Average for wales is about 2MB/s!!! if that! we still have connections that can only do 800K-900K

<justkidding>
Well, you(*) are eating french fries with vinegar. You just don't deserve faster internet access.
</justkidding>

(*) Not you personally, but I guess I owe you a beer now

@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Helping a buddy stop a spreading crypto bug...

good luck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Rule #3 is a real problem. A little mistake in the implementation and ... well, let's hope there's a Connor family around. A kill switch isn't the dumbest thing to implement.