Zaak

Can you predict and prevent every possible way the AI could remove your power to terminate it?

Would you bet your life and the lives of those you care about on keeping the AI under control?

Remember, the AI only has to win once.

I for one would be willing to pay a modest fee for news that was consistently accurate and relevant (ie, made sure to catch important developments that are typically ignored by other new sources). Any suggestions?

Saying "AIDS virus" could be an example of metonymy.

The program counter isn't the only element of that "what the program is doing now" state though. The context in which the current instruction is being executed makes a world of difference.

The problem with using water as a standard is that "water" isn't well defined when you're measuring to eight decimal places.

Where do you get the 20 times as much silicon number? For example, SRAM typically uses 6 transistors per bit, as opposed to 1 transistor for DRAM. What are the other 14 transistors doing?

"uncontained fragmentation"

Labor has not yet become obsolete. That doesn't mean it can't.

I'm not talking about the prevailing definition of what a human can do. I'm talking about the actual fact of what a human can do.

You still haven't addressed the question of what will happen when nearly everything which a human being is capable of can be done better by a machine.

That just moves the problem into the future. What happens when we can build a machine with the mental abilities of a human being for the price of a supercomputer? Then what happens when it falls to the price of a smartphone?

Your reply misses the point. Regardless of how horses were classified, there came a point where 99% of what a horse can do could be done better, faster, and cheaper by a machine.

What happens when we develop technology which can do 99% of what a human can do better, faster, and cheaper?

With previous innovations, there was always something else that a displaced human worker could find to do. What happens when 99% of human jobs are gone?

I'm curious about this as well. For example, during the implantation of a mammal embryo, endogenous retroviruses are produced in large quantities. I don't know if the double-stranded RNA targeted by DRACO is present in that situation, but it's certainly something that would need extensive testing.

Why wouldn't neutrinos fit?

The human eye can't detect single photons. However, it can detect a few simultaneous photons at the retina, which corresponds to a hundred or so entering the cornea.

Knowing this fact came in handy one evening while stargazing with some friends.

A tablet doesn't fit in your pocket. I carry my phone everywhere I go. Though I would love to have a tablet, I can't imagine doing the same with one.

You wouldn't need to fab your own chip. Plenty of FPGAs would work. In fact, you could make do with a decent speed ADC and a bit of software.

Polio. Osteosarcoma. Malaria. Tuberculosis. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Leprosy. Yellow fever. Bacterial meningitis.

Even though the speed of the electrons is nowhere near the speed of light, electromagnetism is so strong that the tiny length contraction at those speeds is enough to produce the magnetic force.

This sounds interesting, but I can't think of how FSMs could be used to process exceptions. Would you explain?

The basic idea is that a neutron all by itself has a lower energy state available to it, which is to decay into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. On the other hand, in the nucleus of a stable atom, a neutron decaying would result in a higher energy state for the whole nucleus.

Does that help?

No need to write a separate back end for each target platform.

A side effect of a compact neutrino detector would be the immediate obsolescence of all nuclear submarines.

I'm interested in the indirect measurements that have been done. Where could I find more information about them?

From that article: "Since their inception, universal grammar theories have been subjected to vocal and sustained criticism. In recent years, with the advent of more sophisticated brands of computational modeling and more innovative approaches to the study of language acquisition, these criticisms have multiplied."

It seems likely that there are properties of the human brain and body which would lead to regularities in human languages. However, I believe that the proponents of universal grammar are overstating the case.

The reason why democracy is a good thing is not because the general public is good at running a country, or even good at selecting people who are good at running a country.

The reason why democracy is a good thing is it forces the people in power to care about the effects their decisions have on the general public.

The problem with this approach is that the most offensive and problematic software patents are those which are trivial to implement.

Considering how far Goldman's tentacles reach into the federal government, I'm not surprised at all.

That's what they look like at present, but it's possible that future theories will allow us to calculate their values from first principles.