Live data from Hacker News

Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

foundalis.com

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#91
post #59
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 a shortage of willing people, but as you demonstrated there's no shortage of people that can be tricked into doing something.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#93

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…

Not to mention the mind-blowing arrogance and ignorance he displays in believing that his research (on Bongard problems, for God's sake! Conceptions of human cognition that are 50 years behind!) could possibly lead to believable artificial humans.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#95
This has to be one of the biggest leaps of logic I've ever seen in my life.

it's like, "Why I stopped working on crypography." sentences 1-5: author introduces the theory behind cryptography (interesting) sentence 6: he says he stopped working on it for ethical reasons (um, okay) sentence 7: because cryptography would prevent batman doing his detective work. (batshit insnae)

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#96

This has to be one of the biggest leaps of logic I've ever seen in my life. it's like, "Why I stopped working on crypography." sentences 1-5: author introduces the theory behind cryptography (interesting) sentence 6: he says he stopped working on it for ethical reasons (um, okay) sentence 7: because cryptography would prevent batman doing his detective work. (batshit insnae)

He watched "Good Will Hunting" too many times.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#97
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's Humpty Dumpty thinking. You can interpret the words however you like, but effective communication requires some sort of agreement about definitions. For most people, and in dictionaries, "genocide" specifically does not mean "lots of people", no matter how you personally choose to interpret it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide :

    "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or
    in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 :

    It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes
    committed against groups with the intent to destroy
    the existence of the group.
By all means interpret it differently, just don't expect to communicate effectively.

(And yes, I know that "decimate" used to mean "kill one in ten" and now people use it to mean "kill nearly everyone". I know language changes, but "genocide" is still rather specific, and has not, to my knowledge, broadly changed in the way you intimate.)

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#98
post #25

Atomic dielectric resonance scanning obsoletes nukes anyway. It also obsoletes most concepts of privacy and most existing biological, chemical and geological analysis technologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_dielectric_resonance http://adrokgroup.com/

ROFL, the European Space Agency developed it and the US made a patent of it?

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#99
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#100
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Only those in the cockpit needed to know. The rest were in charge of subduing the passengers and could have been told they were hijacking the plane for ransom, or to meet demands, or any other story. If you consider the long lead up to 9/11, keeping most operatives in the dark makes the most sense for an Al Qaeda planners since it reduces the chances of a member talking or dropping out.

"FBI investigators have officially concluded that 11 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the aircraft on 11 September did not know they were on a suicide mission"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.septem...

Post reply on HN