That's the attitude that they say murdered wikipedia. Rules are there to foster a better community, not to kill off good community initiatives. As soon as the adherence to the rules becomes more important than the quality of the product you've basically lost it. The whole trick is to know when not to apply the rules. AMAs are an exceptional item and a different ruleset for AMAs would not be all that hard to imagine.…
"Murdered" Wikipedia whose fifth pillar is "ignore all rules"?
> fifth pillar is "ignore all rules"?
Go and make some useful edits and see how that works out for you. Rules are strictly enforced above all else.
As far as I can tell, you have two main objections to prioritizing worrying about Strong AI: 1) Strong AI is very far away, so no use worrying about it yet. 2) Strong AI if developed will not be likely to take over. to which I would counterpoint with: 1) Sure, but when it happens, it will only happen once and thereafter will likely be out of our hands and control. Thinking about the groundwork that needs to go into s…
I still don't buy the doom scenario. There is so much more to world domination than just intelligence... like having the proper weapons. See https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ Pigs are also intelligent, but they never dominated humans because they don't have / cannot use guns.
In 20-50 years time I believe most missiles/guns/tanks/weapons will be controlled via computers and connected to networks.
The point is that that fundamental principle seems to be ignored by people that prefer to bicker over the rules rather than to be otherwise productive: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8596682 And that this in turn is what drives editors away. So it very much supports my point.
Wikipedia at this point is one of the primary sources for everything on the internet. At the early days of wikipedia, you could pick any topic and there would be major articles unwritten. It was far best to have some article than a great article. I can't comment exactly on the editor situation of the wiki, but it's to be expected a shift to more specialized and aggressive "curation" of articles, specially of more sol…
Your point seems limited to the inclusionist / deletionist discussion.
But you don't address the problems that some good faith editors have with making edits to improve the project.
These problems include over-zealous reverts by people making rapid automatic edits -- sometimes in a misguided attempt to show they "work hard" is a drive for adminship; page ownership and the accusations of bad faith that go with that (BDR fails hard when you have a group owning a page).
Wikipedia has strict socking policies so most experienced editors never try making a new account to edit, but I recommend that any experienced wikipedia edit tries this at least once a year. (And socking is allowed in this case because IAR)
Does anyone know why Musk believes so strongly that robot overlords are a serious threat? I don't understand how wasting any time worrying about AI taking over, Terminator-style, is productive. We're not going to be developing Strong AI any time soon, so it's simply not a problem worth worrying about. And if we do, the Strong AI won't be in any position to "take over." It probably won't even want to take over. That's…
Bill Gate's seemes kind of concerned about AI too? About a
week ago I heard him say something about how Robots might take
over low wage jobs in the future. As someone who has had more than a few
low wage jobs(state security guard, food server, cashier, etc. ), I think there is something to worry about. Actually,
I can't think of a job out there that won't be severely affected by AI and Robotics. It will start off slowly, and
who knows where it will end? I know I hated self checkout
kiosks at supermarkets, and hardware stores at first, but once I realized I didn't need to interact with anyone; I started to
look for the self-checkouts. It was just one less stressor in my day. And no, I'm not the guy who doesn't like to interact with people; I just don't like small talk, or dealing with someone who's having a bad day. As a former Security Guard--I honestly didn't care about the property I was protecting. I would honestly
help load the loot as long as I wasn't shot. I didn't protect any human life though. I saw a Microsoft built robot
patrolling a car lot, or something of the like, on T.V., and realized a robot can be programmed "to just protect, and serve!". I could see how it could do a better job than a
human, or me? I do see a computer running an established corporation
in the future. It will be programmed to maximize stockholders returns, but take on risk. It won't marry. It won't need Therapy. It won't need to buy a yacht. As to computer programming, I look at Ruby on Rails. Just how easy
will it be to put up a dynamic website in ten years? If Gates, Musk, and Hawkings are concerned--I'm concerned. AI dominance seems far off, unless you are a Golden Gate Toll Taker? I'm a nobody, but if I could add an admendment to the
U.S. constitutuion it would be along the use, and limits of AI, and Automation.
I was trying to follow what happened. It appears that prior to the start of the AMA, various subreddits, such as r/teslamotors, collected questions within their subreddit that they wished Musk to answer, then posted them in the AMA and upvoted them. Moderators of /r/AMA see that as "vote brigading" and hid or deleted the questions so that Musk could not answer them. Did I get that right in terms of what happened?
Well the AMA was supposed to be SpaceX only. I'm not surprised that questions about Tesla were deleted or ignored.
Nothing in the original post by Elon Musk states that.
Its a "AMA" or "Ask me Anything."
Original Post:
>Zip2, PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity. Started off doing software engineering and now do aerospace & automotive.
>Falcon 9 launch webcast live at 6am EST tomorrow at SpaceX.com
But there is infinitely more atoms out in the Solar System and beyond... isn't a more likely scenario that the AI would quickly figure out how to blast out of Earth's gravity well and spread throughout the universe? It might accidentally kill a few humans in the process, but not intentionally...like a human crushing an ant when crossing the road.
Why would you bother expending vast amounts of joules to get more atoms until after you've consumed all the ones surrounding you right now?
That's assuming that the atoms around you aren't fighting back. Its simply easier for a machine to get itself into space to do whatever it needs to do rather than fight with the organic things on a planet.
I am still reeling from having just learned that in Wernher Von Braun's book 'The Mars Project', it is proposed that the leader of the Martian government when it is formed shall be known as the 'Elon'. https://i.imgur.com/65YR89H.png
The book says no such thing. http://books.google.com.uy/books?id=V16e-xQmyZQC&pg=PR5&sour... Edit: There appears is a posthumously published book named Project Mars that says that. Not sure if I trust it.
I confused things as there are two separate books with very similar titles by Braun, 'Project Mars' (ISBN - 0973820330) and 'The Mars Project' (ISBN - 0252062272). The first is sci-fi and the second is technical.
I hadn't initially noticed the fact it was posthumously published in 2006, however it would seem like an odd kind of forgery, if it is one.
Equally it does seem odd that Braun would choose Elon as the name of the Mars leader, so perhaps it might be a real work but with Elon added as a joke by the translator.
Or perhaps Braun chose the word Elon because he sometimes thought of leaders as trees, or something, and it is all just a massive bit of luck.
Personally I'm starting to suspect another explanation however. And if I'm right, there is an entire warehouse full of empty Elon Musk clones on ice, waiting for the spirit of Wernher Von Braun to animate each one in turn, in the event of damage occurring to the current corporeal vessel.
Wikipedia at this point is one of the primary sources for everything on the internet. At the early days of wikipedia, you could pick any topic and there would be major articles unwritten. It was far best to have some article than a great article. I can't comment exactly on the editor situation of the wiki, but it's to be expected a shift to more specialized and aggressive "curation" of articles, specially of more sol…
> Wikipedia at this point is one of the primary sources for everything on the internet. That is explicitly what it isn't, anything but that. > I can't comment exactly on the editor situation of the wiki, but it's to be expected a shift to more specialized and aggressive "curation" of articles, specially of more solidified topics. Wikipedia's fantastic performance contradicts this argument. Wikipedia would still be a…
I think you're confusing the parent's use of "primary" + "source" with the lexical item "primary source". The parent presumably meant "one of the most main sources [to use as one's only or first point of research]".
Sort of separately, but as threeseed points out, Wikipedia is frequently used as a corpus for primary research, so technically it's that kind of "primary source" too.
Q: What daily habit do you believe has the largest positive impact on your life? A: Showering Q: Would you ever consider becoming a politician? A: Unlikely
I'm starting to believe there's an odd property to curiosity. Unique observations are threatening to people's identity. Those were two actual questions asked to Elon along with his responses, and the two that stood out for me the most. Did he mention showering because that's the time he gets most of his ideas[1]? Did he say no to politics because it's more likely to change the world through innovation[2]? Result: 8 d…
Your first post got downvotes because it is devoid of content. It just quotes, with no comment or context, two questions and answers.
I'm not sure how you get the idea that you're somehow provoking people with dangerous ideas.