Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#81

Post by dbecker » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 4:57 AM UTC

A lot of people get tired of their dissertation research, and I've heard others contemplate contrived reasons not to finish their PhD.

This happens to be especially far-fetched... but it takes a "big" reason to justify to yourself that you may leave behind so much work.

I hope the author realizes that this particular scenario isn't one of the 1,000,000 biggest concerns for humankind... that he continues his research program, and that he finds an application of his research that has a positive impact in a much more likely scenario.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#82

Post by sandycheeks » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:02 AM UTC

Made me think of this... Is the Concept of an Ethical Governor Philosophically Sound? By Andreas Matthias http://www.shufang.net/matthias/governor.pdf

Perhaps he should work on these kinds of algorithms instead of ones that solve Bongard problems.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#83

Post by clarky07 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:25 AM UTC

aneth3 wrote: post #59

busted wrote: post #13

If I read it right, he has stopped working on a form of artificial intelligence because it could potentially (or inevitably) be used to create androids indistinguishable from humans that are carrying nuclear or biological payloads inside of them, presumably to be detonated in a densely populated area. Taking as a given, like he does, that the advancement and spread of technology are inevitable, wouldn't it still be m…

> surely no shortage of people willing to die to do that I think there is a major shortage of people willing to be suicide bombers. There is a grand fallacy out there that the world is full of suicidal terrorists. It is not. Suicide bombers from Palestine were generally tricked or extorted. Those that were acting on their own volition generally could not detonate themselves, which is why bystanders had detonators. Th…

"There is strong evidence that most of the 9/11 hijackers did not know it was a suicide mission."

Could you share a link to that? What part of "fly plane into building" didn't they understand?

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#84

Post by qbrass » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:33 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #23

busted wrote: post #13

If I read it right, he has stopped working on a form of artificial intelligence because it could potentially (or inevitably) be used to create androids indistinguishable from humans that are carrying nuclear or biological payloads inside of them, presumably to be detonated in a densely populated area. Taking as a given, like he does, that the advancement and spread of technology are inevitable, wouldn't it still be m…

Isaac Asimov wrote a pretty good story about this. The plot is described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lets_Get_Together_(short_story) That gives away the ending, so if you like Asimov and might want to read the story, beware.

Philip K. Dick did as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_%28short_story%29

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#85

Post by mieubrisse » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:45 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #80

The author's characterization of any Americans who disagree with his politics as morons is disgusting.

I strongly felt this way from about the halfway point on down. He seems to have a particular hatred for Americans, and he is nothing if not vocal about it.

> But Americans can sense that this is not a case like those they’re familiar with, if they realize that the “reign of terror” was a cheap trick employed for years by their post-9/11 administrations in order to reduce civil liberties and pass antidemocratic policies with no resistance. I am not a member of their administration, not even an American. I am speaking as a person concerned about fellow people and the future of humanity as a whole.

smelled particularly strongly of a conspiracy theorist's thinking. While I'll not dispute that certain acts passed during our author's so called "reign of terror" overstepped their bounds (the Patriot Act is, of course, first to mind), passing off all regulation to fix clearly- and recently-exposed security flaws within U.S. security as maniacal scheming that we, the public, are docilely accepting is inaccurate and downright insulting.

Worse, he tries to couch his blatherings in the mantle of a just, altruistic benefactor who is merely "concerned about fellow people and the future of humanity as a whole." The article was interesting for the issues it drew attention to which DO merit consideration, but ultimately was spoiled by diatribe and paranoia.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#86

Post by talaketu » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:05 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #68

lukeschlather wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misinterpreting the premise of the article. The article is talking about ethics, not about some sort of danger. From an ethical perspective, if using a nuclear bomb is justified, then the delivery mechanism is irrelevant. However, in the case of the sentient atomic bomb (and I think talking about it as an android obscures this question) we get in to stickier terrain. A sentient atomic bomb is a sentient being…

> genocide Homicide, not genocide. Unless you think that all weapons over a certain destructive potential are necessarily used to eradicate certain ethnic groups as opposed to others.

You read "genocide" too narrowly, and write "homicide" too broadly. To annihilate a city and its people is genocide in my book.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#87

Post by Confusion » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:08 AM UTC

bithive123 wrote: post #43

This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry. Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dab…

People can have peculiar opinions without having an identifiable psychiatric affliction. I doubt you are a psychiatrist and even if you were, you wouldn't be capable of diagnosing someone over the internet on the basis of a single text.

I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this being the highest voted comment at the moment. It does not make any argument at all. It just casts some aspersions on the author and his writing, judging it as 'schizophrenic' and 'awry'.

The comment can be summarized as 'the argument does not make any sense', without actually explaining why it doesn't make any sense. That summary would be a better comment, because we wouldn't get into this stupid irrelevant discussion about the author's mental health.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#88

Post by pheon » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:23 AM UTC

codgercoder wrote: post #2

two words: "Dark Star"

two more words "Unabomber Manifesto"

... blah blah blah technology is evil ... blah blah blah going into isolation

(present day)

... blah blah blah I must stop the evil doers ... blah blah blah Their all against me! ... blah blah blah I must attack now . .

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#89

Post by rsanchez1 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:24 AM UTC

Wow, this guy has a bone to pick with Americans.

Why worry about an AI humanoid delivering weapons, when we already have so many humans who do that already? The groups sending people on suicide missions certainly won't spend money on androids, and suicide missions are much more common than just 9/11. Hint: for the most part, it's not Americans sending people out to deliberately commit suicide by delivering weapons to targets.

It's just as naive to be so one-sided about the issue.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#90

Post by rsanchez1 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:26 AM UTC

lysol wrote: post #28

busted wrote: post #13

If I read it right, he has stopped working on a form of artificial intelligence because it could potentially (or inevitably) be used to create androids indistinguishable from humans that are carrying nuclear or biological payloads inside of them, presumably to be detonated in a densely populated area. Taking as a given, like he does, that the advancement and spread of technology are inevitable, wouldn't it still be m…

Humans don't carry nukes because fissile material is _heavy_. Add onto that the shielding to make sure the person can even carry it without becoming gravely ill very shortly into their delivery and the fact a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb has never been personally delivered is not very surprising. The ridiculous part is that making an android carry this payload doesn't change the nature of the payload. Heavy, fissile m…

It's a nuke, they don't have to carry it on their person. And if they're delivering a nuke they probably don't care about getting ill en route.