Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

foundalis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#101

Post by arethuza »

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…

Fatman, the plutonium implosion bomb that was detonated over Nagasaki, used only 6.2kg of Pu. Also, the Pu-239 used in weapons doesn't require a lot of shielding. There are plenty accounts of people handling nuclear weapon cores that have had only a light plating of other metals or with only thick gloves.

What probably is quite heavy is all of the associated components that you need to make a bomb - the chemical explosives, tamper etc.

The W54, one smallest nuclear warhead anyone is admitting to making, was about 23kg - although this did have a very small yield.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#102

Post by arethuza »

psykotic wrote: post #62
Estragon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs" Yes, I am much more concerned about the scope for ubiquitous surveillance and systematic domination that even fairly modest gains in AI will allow. Something along the lines of the Emergency society in A Deepness in the Sky .

It's been forever since I read the book, but wasn't the whole point of the Emergency culture they didn't use AI and relied entirely on hyper-focused humans with enslavement implants?

Didn't Sherkaner Underhill initially think that the Emergent zipheads were actually an AI?

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#103

Post by sp332 »

emmelaich wrote: post #54
sp332 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add a bit more to the conversation: The movie "Dark Star" which cam out in 1974, predating and anticipating many of the sci-fi tropes popularized by Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. The characters have a conversation with a bomb and try to rationalize that it shouldn't detonate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_%28film%29

Excellent movie. Two of the creators in Dark Star (Dan O'Bannon and Ron Cobb) worked on Star Wars, Alien, others. Also George Lucas was of course aware of Dark Star. So it's a bit different from mere predating/anticipating. (Though you are probably aware of that)

Yeah, anticipate probably isn't the right word. I just think it's funny that this movie seems to parody those others before they were even made :)

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#104

Post by sambeau »

Woah. I would have liked a warning about the picture of a kid with his arms blown off.

I realise the internet is full of this but I try my best to avoid it. I don't want to become immune to the shock.

The thought of this little guy's pain and suffering and the idea that he was casually being used to back-up an online essay is really sad.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#105

Post by voodoochilo »

great article! loved it. in the 80's i coined me the sentence "never write software for cruise missiles!". that was harder than i imagined then. today it's the same with AI, ML and even data mining. ethically very though stuff for responsible software developers. anyway, thnx for the article.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#106

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#107

Post by lukeschlather »

ColinWright wrote: post #97
talaketu wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#108

Post by ColinWright »

lukeschlather wrote: post #107
ColinWright wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.

The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#109

Post by lukeschlather »

ColinWright wrote: post #108
lukeschlather wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.

The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.

As I said, it depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic

> pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

The inhabitants of a city usually share a common and distinctive culture (and the like.) You're using extremely narrow definitions of genocide as well as ethnicity. Both are vague terms.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#110

Post by ColinWright »

lukeschlather wrote: post #109
ColinWright wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.

As I said, it depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic > pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like. The inhabitants of a city usually share a common and distinctive culture (and the like.) You're using e…

  > As I said, it depends on how restrictive
  > a definition of ethnicity you use.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

You appear to be choosing definitions that don't match those in dictionaries, but I'm sure they're perfectly cromulent.

Post reply on HN