hippee-lee

> Human intelligence took millions of years to evolve. Sorry, but AI(s?) will develop faster.

Just because it happens faster doesn't mean that the underlying laws that guide evolution in the universe are less applicable.

It feels like both you and the previous responder are predicating that there can only be one AI. If there is only one AI then yes, they don't love/hate or care about people and will likely have the resources to use them for their own means.

But, and I am looking for math, science or something more than Sci-fi, that can can show us that there will likely only be one AI, ever. If not wouldn't the AI's also try to manipulate and exploit each other for individual gains?

Perhaps I just don't understand AI well enough but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that points to only one AI entity evolving on earth. If there are more than one AI then is in unreasonable to think that people may still be able to think thoughts or come up with (emotional and irrational ideas) that the AI could not come up with that give it a competitive advantage over the other AI's? Thereby leading to a more symbiotic relationship between humanity and the AI's.

Forgive my lack of knowledge on the topic but a question keeps popping into my head when I read comments about the danger to humanity where AI runs amok.

> There are many paths towards dangerous AI futures,

Are there not just as many paths towards protective, helpful <or insert one of many adjectives here> AI futures?

Is there a reason to believe that there will only be one AI in the future and that given a directive to do something, the elimination of humanity will be a logical endgame scenario for it?

Why not many AI entities with different and competing goals? Granted, this opens up a different can of dangerous worms. But still, if there is a probability of an AI evolving to 'think' that elimination of the human race is a logical path then isn't it equally likely that there will be another AI evolving logical paths to preserve the human race?

> Kids are made to care.

True. But it's hard to predict or script which moments make a lasting impression on a child. Speaking only for myself the moments I remember most vividly don't even register with my parents when I bring them up. But the interactions are forever etched in my mind.

Having a child of my own nowI remember that. I remember that the world is chaotic, unpredictable and in order to make memories, even one you first have to be present. This bite me in the ass when my wife reminds me of it at 5am when my second grade daughter wants to play games or draw pictures with one of us.

It's funny you should mention horseback riding as the fun driving I was thinking of involves driving a a truck with a horse trailer attached to it. :-)

What about driving for fun? Please note, fun has no correlation to speed when it comes to driving.

More than interesting. It would be a way to account what people say and what they do.

Why not just render the public pages of your app out to HTML or use one of the phantom JS services to do it. Then when spiders come up the waterspout have your web server tell them where to go for your sites links.

If you don't ant to do it yourself there are quite a few companies that can help: http://scotch.io/tutorials/javascript/angularjs-seo-with-pre...

And Blender too.

Perhaps, but either way as a ST2 user I'm looking for a replacement and once ST2 does not meet my needs I'll either go back to emacs full time or look towards something else for light weight stuff.

I've already movers most of my we stuff to IntelliJ/WebStorm. I really liked ST2 but was a little miffed that right after I bought my licence ST3 was pushed to the forefront of the site without a reasonable upgrade plan.

> Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing

The tools we use are neither good nor bad. How well we use them, what we use them for and how we teach others to use them are what makes the good or bad.

I love the way you make this conversation good with a pragmatic point of view and an opinionated but reasonable voice. Thank you.

I don't sail, but I do surf in the rain. So i'll do that ;-)

I would just hate for someone in their early 20's to not even consider all their alternatives. There is quite an intense sentiment online that corporate life is a dead end. I left the corporate world almost 10 years ago and am on my 5th start-up I guess, I'm not sure how to judge them any more but my 'career' is the high risk / higher reward whilst my wives is the aggressive mutual fund to use a poor analogy. When I had a health issue several years ago, without her insurance it would have been devastating and none of the start ups I have worked at since leaving BigCo have had health insurance that would have helped.

My point in carrying on in this discussion is that one should carefully consider all the possible outcomes and adjust plans accordingly. And selling the next generation on the defacto certainty that if they keep trying to start up they will be ok is a dis-service to them just because it works for you.

Anyway, I said what I said and now i'll go to the beach even though its not raining.

This is the approach I took. If the developer offered an adds free app I would gladly pay for it not to have to deal with "Daddy, the iPad is broken." only to find that Safari had launched and taken her away from her game.

Now that she is old enough to read and some of the game apps she has used her money to buy prompt her to upgrade I just tell her we don't do in app upgrades and she is very adept at dismissing the prompts. Fwiw - Toca Boca apps are great. I still see her playing them occasionally although in the past few months her interest in digital games has really fallen off and she wants to play some of the board games or hide-and-seek instead.

I'm not sure what the moral of you story is?

Is it not possible that you can spend all your money/time/effort chasing a lotto ticket and never have the winning numbers or even numbers that can support you when you get a curveball in life? Is it not possible that your opinions or your life circumstances could change enough that you need something more than a lotto ticket?

Could that be sold as an upgrade, something akin to the international outlet kits that apple sells for it's laptop chargers?

For me, having a backup plan means when 10-15 years on into the startup career and the tenth startup doesn't work out and shuts it's doors, I have a foundation in place that means I'm not starting from ground zero or hoping that the next startup is a lottery ticket that pays off.

Also, the backup plans I envision involve more than one person and I realize that working with your partner isn't an option for everyone.

Not playing it safe doesn't mean you don't have a back up plan, right? Why does it have to be all one way or the other? The finance folks on Wall Street take big risks that get lots of press when they fail but they or their parent company also mitigate the risk.

I'm not an entrepreneur, maybe a wanna be which is why I keep choosing start ups to work for. What I am curious about is why there is so much resistance to a balanced approach that doesn't require you to go all in without a plan for mitigating the risk your are taking on.

I totally get not playing it safe, all the big names in tech seem to have done this and made fu money. But I'm not that smart and even less connected. (I suspect most folks on here lack the connections that the big names in tech had before they made their $ - I could very well be mistaken about this and it's importance to starting up and striking a jackpot) so, I don't get not having a plan that looks at the long term consequences for all the potentail outcomes and plans accordingly.

I'm really interested in your feedback on this if you have the time.

Duolingo - because it's not just me learning Spanish, it's us translating English only websites to Spanish. Perhaps I'm not versed enough in the services available in '94 - I didn't really start to use the internet much until college when I got access to the computer labs. Was there something like it around then? I say this because the most impressive thing to me about duolingo ( and the captcha system designed by its founder before it ) is the efficient way to leverages different individual goals to aggregate really large differences for both individuals. Ie the person wanting to learn a new language for free and the person with an English only website that needs to get it translated into multiple languages.

My impression of that as a corporate mission is that is sounds good enought that most folks think, yeah that's a good thug to pursue.

Having said this irl to other developers, the more I think about that, the more it disappoints me. Why? Because when I think about the mid level employee faced with making decisions, and they have to have an internal dialog with the selves as to if something is evil or not there are a lot of influencing factors that come into play. Is compensation bonus or promotion tied to the thing under consideration. How do individuals differentiate between evil and just really bad? My guess is that human nature (my own included ) is a lot easier swayed to 'well this is morally or ethically bad but not evil' when my own self interest is a factor in the decision to do or not do certain things.

Thinking about that slogan for the last fee years makes me wish they had gone the opposite direction and raced to the top: be righteous, be ethical, be morally strong.

For full disclaimer, I live in a world of my own construct where the glass is always half full and the scales always balance. However for, practical reasons, I have learned to understand the motivations behind the way the world and adjust my expectations accordingly.

How could they not know? While Mr Schmidt was CEO, it was a three way decision makin process as I recall. I'm of the opinion that something this big, with such large long term consequences, would surely have been discussed among equal decision making partners.

This weekend, in between makeing a home for a catapiller we found on the way home from the park and riding bikes in the circle at the end of our street, my daughter said, 'daddy can we play the game (Hopscotch) where me make the animals move when we touch the screen. And she doesn't even know that I am showing her how to program (with an ipad). I'm sure there are android, windows, etc equivalents.

My point is that as her parent/teacher/friend it's up to me to show her when to use it as a tool for school, learning, manipulating and when to use it to consume. This is a much finer line as she can easily get lost in tangents of rainbow loom videos and forget that she started watching them to learn to weave a new bracelet. But apps like Hopscotch are genius for disguising logic, creative and critical thinking into a fun activity she considers a game.

So I posit that they are good. Like anything else good they should be used in moderation and it's up to the parentals to teach them how to use the tool instead of consuming from the tool. Both actities are using the tablet, but without moderation and guidance it's like giving a child access to unlimited money and expecting them to manage their finances themselves.

With regards to the quick buck apps - I tell here we don't download those b/c they just pop annoying adds and the other games she wants that have in app upgrades she has to save up her allowance ($3/week) if she wants them.

I'm saying that I think one can have both the tablet interaction along with the 'natural' interaction. And I say this as a biology major who grew up on 5 acres with a natural aquifer and a ravine that fed a 50 acre swamp. The onus is on the parents of the touch screen generation to recognize the dual potential for both creation & learning and consumption of the devices. The hard part is showing them how to balance the two or taking it away altogether and catching catapillers with them.

To provide another opinion: Apple does this to, .mac, .me & icloud oh my don't forget about the iTunes account now.

In case you are wondering I switched my household, parents and several friends to apple products since 2002 because it was easier to provide help.

I sometimes wish there was a magic button I could push to merge everything into a unified single sign on for <insert company name here>'s products. It took a while but Google did it in a weird way that didn't make me very happy either.

So women in a yoga class ( at work ) are actively promoting their sexual characteristics at that time?

Your comment reads very, very predatory.

To a certain extent, I used to feel that way too. But now I have to ask 'why waste your time hateingthe ads?'

Sure they could be better or more entertaining. But most ads are easily recognizable and easily ignored. As much as I get a similar reaction to being manipulated once I recognize the manipulation I can use the info for my advantage or to move on.

Maybe this is naive but without advertising how robust would the worlds economy be?

The flexibility with icomoon it fantastic, once you get it wired into the app. And the ability to add your own, custom svg's is very handy!

Honeywell: I remember it because I bought the 'programmable' one for 199. It was a pain to program, separate programs for cooling and heating, a pain to set right and it looked, well like a beige box on my wall.

When I moved and they had an ancient thermostat it was easy to pay $50 more than the above just so I could control it with a phone. Setting the program is much, much easier than the Honeywell.

I think they bought best for the team as much as the product and I hope nest does sprinkler systems next in their pursuit of solving first world problems.

I think Disney has an office in the Burbank area. Co-worker has mentioned he used to contract for them in that area.

So I think you are reading way to much into the comment. It was more meant to probe an expert for his approach to sussing out viable teammates or employees.

If I as someone interviewing for a QA role ask them a question such as 'Tell me about the QA work you are most proud of.' And they spend the next 20 minutes not talking about anything QA related it's a red flag. And an important data point to me when doing a retro with my peers. Perhaps that recent scenario is a reflection of the folks my company is able to attract in this area.

Conversely, if I am interviewing with you and I ask you, what's the most interesting thing your team has done and how did you help them accomplish it.' And you go into great detail about a deep area in your field that's part of the product your team works on its useful and important information when I need to make a decision. However if you are only interested and talking about me, my technical (or lack of - I know very little about security) understanding and you brush off conversational attempts to gain information that will help me judge the book by its cover it's usefully info when I need to make a decision.

I am not sure why your tone was so hostile? I did not mean to imply anything by my question. I am merely looking for other ways that people have found works for them.

So what is valuable? I ding candidates when they can't carry a conversation in an interview setting, technical discussion or otherwise.

Perhaps the exact wording of the question is less important than the discussion that follows?