dan-compton

What a terrible article.

The name is too long.

The problem with this kind of legislation is that it is unsustainable. The complexity and rate of emergence of digital markets will easily outstrip the governments ability to regulate them over the coming years. Of course, (slow) regulation like this will be disregarded by the community and progress will continue. It's possible that the rate of growth and profitability inherent to these markets will enable the market-builders to re-write government before government can write software to enable effective regulation.

I find it strange that just a few individuals might codify the language of the masses and delegate its enforcement to a black box.

This article is terrible.

I still assert that a relative black box will lie at the core of any "strong" AI.

Great! The easy problem is solved. Now let's do the reverse so that I can hand-draw ditaa diagrams.

heh

I will never understand the need to identify as something. To do so is to reject dynamics. Do the things that sustain you and keep an open mind.

> it strikes me as intuitively sensible...

This might be intuitive if A weighted each N of some class equally, and N>>Kevin for each _class_, but observation indicates this is not the case. Also certain N tend to be overweighted regardless of the knowledge class to which they belong.

IRL I have observed that B can work around A's bias by framing knowledge expressed as a question.

> Sounds like narcissism.

I think this is a common bias with implications in the "machine consciousness" question, but I'll have to wait ton finish that point. Look for an edit.

Intellectual Humility doesn't go far enough. The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from that knowledge set.

I believe that the primary issue is the formation of heuristics about knowledge sources. e.g. Person B provides person A with knowledge of class "low-value in domain D" N times and knowledge of class "higher-value in domain D" K times in some time period T. At some time T_n A internalizes a heuristic about Person B's overall knowledge set. Depending on internal characteristics of A, all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored.

This is problematic. Not only does A ignore that the difference set of A and B's knowledge (even in D) is likely nonzero, it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T. It ignores that A and B are dynamical systems.

In my opinion, formation of these kinds of heuristics and being dismissive of knowledge is a sign of intellectual weakness. It's akin to internalizing knowledge to the point of belief and belief is bounding.

Why don't use use git and sublime? Or better yet: Why don't you use git and vim.