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

Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 239 posts

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#191

Post by wildmusings »

ap22213 wrote: post #184
wildmusings wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's not what happened. There was a lot of speculation that it would, but then he appointed a bunch of politicians to the cabinet, as is tradition.

I agree. But, I'd also argue that if he hadn't had the ongoing wars, recession, and hostile congress to deal with then lots would have happened.

Could've, would've, should've. Let's look at the one area where he had almost total discretion, foreign policy and national security. There's not much to speak of in terms of success there. Not only did he fail to advance the interests of the US, he also failed to deliver on progressive promises of scaling back the surveillance state.

The recent shenanigans with Russia are incredibly telling. Perhaps you remember in 2012 how Obama and his surrogates viciously mocked Romney for claiming that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat faced by the US. Obama was caught on tape telling the Russians he could be "more flexible after the election". They took his flexibility and marched right into Ukraine with it. They took Obama's cancellation of a European missile defense shield, and reciprocated by positioning nukes on the border. They saw Obama's incoherent Middle East strategy, and took the Iranian-Syrian-Russian bloc to new heights. Now, they're apparently hacking our election infrastructure and have released incredibly embarrassing emails about the corrupt machinery of Obama's chosen successor. The humiliation is total. Obama owes Mitt Romney an apology.

There's another recent President who faced a hostile Congress, Bill Clinton. He was able to achieve a lot by being willing to compromise.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#192

Post by brokenmasonjars »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #155
brokenmasonjars wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about high paying jobs. It's about just occupying people's time, giving them something to do. Perhaps high pay; or at least a pay of some form can come from patents/copyrights developed with such knowledge however.

Until basic needs are handled, you can't just say "it's about occupying people's time". People need to eat, clothe themselves, and shelter themselves, and all three require a steady source of income. If you want to push widespread welfare or UBI for those in academia, that's an entirely different option. But that'd require a serious revision in the current tax codes or some very wealthy benefactors to bootstrap.

So, basically bmi/ubi is what I'm assuming when I talk about this. Just it's post that, what I'm trying to answer is "what will people do" essentially when there is no jobs and we have bmi/ubi. I sort of just assumed readers figured such a system would need to be in place already as jobs are automated. Probably should not have assumed that, my bad.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#193

Post by asimuvPR »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #188
andirk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge point you make that it can be done by non-scientists now. Now we can all play with fire. That much power in idle hands controlled by mediocre minds is like everyone being magical.

"mediocre minds"?

It sounds weird, but I believe its meant as "untrained minds".

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#194

Post by downandout »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #187
downandout wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, yes, he did single-handedly do that. The authorization came straight from Obama, and then when it came to light, he basically didn't even bother apologizing. He lied to his base about being against this kind of thing, and then went and did exactly what he wanted to do.

he was pretty clear about his views that power corrupts, that he would expand mil presence in Afghanistan, and that he believed in a living constitution. some people voted for him for those reasons, presumably others voted for his opponent(s?). sometimes i just feel like the punchline to all of this will be something like: "it's the patriarchy, stupid"

Hmmm... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gove...

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#195

Post by wildmusings »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #181
wildmusings wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just hollow legacy-chasing. Just like how he crippled the space program during his 8 years in office, only to discover a passion for it in the last few days.

I agree 100% with the hollow legacy-chasing you're talking about. Please do elaborate more on how he's crippled the space program. If you were to ask me, I'd recommend not having government involvement in such things anyway.

I do think that there is a long-term security interest for the human race in populating other planets with self-sufficient colonies that could survive natural disasters on Earth. But I'm not really informed enough of the economics of space exploration to have a firm opinion about what the government's role is, though I agree that it should be as small as possible.

What I do know is that he's suddenly talking a big game about public/private partnerships for Mars when he undermined the previous public program, and with very convenient timing so that he won't be responsible for any of the tough decisions. It's also seems like he's trying to steal some headlines away from SpaceX and Boeing and make sure that the public sector, which he idolizes so much, doesn't look impotent by comparison.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#196

Post by visarga »

ewjordan wrote: post #101
Houshalter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what is about to happen. Deep learning has the potential to do robot control. Currently researchers are beating tons of video games using reinforcement learning with deep networks. Applying the same methods to robots shouldn't be too hard. And we've also come a long way with machine vision as well over the past 5 years.

I'm as bullish on AGI as anyone in the medium term, but deep learning is not even playing the same game as AGI, let alone in the same ballpark or having the potential to achieve it. Deep learning is still mere perception. It doesn't handle memory or processing, it just transforms input into output, typically trained by Big Data, way bigger than necessary statistically speaking, given the world we live in. AGI require…

This just came out from DeepMind:

Differentiable neural computers - https://deepmind.com/blog/differentiable-neural-computers/

> we introduce a form of memory-augmented neural network called a differentiable neural computer, and show that it can learn to use its memory to answer questions about complex, structured data

So it seems that deep neural nets can have memory mechanisms and be trained to solve symbolic operations.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#197

Post by Animats »

Houshalter wrote: post #98
Animats wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't even have good generalized robot manipulation. Think of that as monkey-level AI. After half a century of hard work, robot manipulation in unstructured situations still sucks. Go watch DARPA Humanoid Challenge videos or old Willow Robotics towel-folding to see how badly it sucks. Factory robotics works because the work situation is highly structured. On the other hand, once someone cracks that, a huge number…

That's exactly what is about to happen. Deep learning has the potential to do robot control. Currently researchers are beating tons of video games using reinforcement learning with deep networks. Applying the same methods to robots shouldn't be too hard. And we've also come a long way with machine vision as well over the past 5 years.

That's what Rod Brooks claimed when he started Rethink Robotics. It hasn't worked out well.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#199

Post by dwaltrip »

golergka wrote: post #186
dwaltrip wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans don't naturally have any empathy for Cthulhu, and science leads us to believe there is no such thing. Thus, I doubt most people would find that very reasonable. Determining where, how, and to what extent is a much harder question. I don't have any easy answers there. At the very least, recognizing how the indifferent hand of fortune plays an immense role in all of our lives nudges suggests that helping those w…

Helping unfortunates is a great thing indeed. But the original idea was different: it was about "giving back". Can you spot the difference?

What's a better way to give back?

Of course, we should do so in a way that helps all. However, even if we distribute help in a totally blind fashion, a single "unit of help" given to those who have less will comprise a larger percentage of their "life capital" (opportunity, potential, resources, etc, for lack of a better term) than a unit of help given to someone who is in a better position. So both the perceived and real impact will be higher for the less fortunate.

Once we have managed to gather a shared set of resources (of course, there will be much grumbling and immense disagreements about the exact amounts), how should it be utilized? Certainly, you aren't suggesting we give a larger share to those who already have more.

If you are worried about the disincentive to contribute upon receiving help, remember, this whole sub-thread started in the context of businesses making use of new, advanced automation technologies and placing large swaths of people out of work.

What if the value of labor for a large percentage of the citizenry really does fall to unemployable levels due to technology? Should we "make up" jobs for them? Let them starve?

Why does the person who can afford to buy an army of robots deserve all of the proceeds? They didn't invent the robots, it took thousands of years and billions of human lives toiling in the dirt for such incredible technology to enter the world.

It isn't impossible to strike balance between helping those who have less, and allowing those who are skilled and make large contributions to be richly rewarded.

And even if many people become somewhat unemployable, society can choose to encourage living productive, engaged lives. We don't need to become zombies hiding in our houses playing video games all day or binge watching netflix non-stop. People still will want to be fulfilled. There is much we can do to promote fulfilling, productive lifestyles and vibrant communities.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#200

Post by ethbro »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #180
mr_overalls wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They only get in the way of productive people in a bid to placate non-producers thereby granting themselves power and undue privilege once in office. Oh boy. Anti-government extremists like yourself love to grandstand about the merits of unfettered capitalism without understanding that government creates the conditions for market capitalism to exist. There would be no property rights without the police, legal contr…

Do you value your liberty? I bet you do and you just don't realize you've been slowly but surely losing it. I would venture that the only extremism, so to speak, that exists is in how government has increased in both its size and ineffectiveness. When you have a combination of the two aforementioned features, then things inevitably get worse. > Oh boy. Anti-government extremists like yourself love to grandstand about…

You have some valid points in critiquing government, but you're doing them a severe disservice by the way you present them. Context-appropriate facts, not rhetoric.

> In the late 19th century, when there was less government intervention, America saw the most rapid rate of economic growth.

The late 19th century of American history featured a large number of one-time-only economic improvements and wholescale pillaging of large amounts of natural resources.

The completion of a transcontinental railroad (completed 1869 with government sponsorship via the Pacific Railroad Acts), Pennsylvania oil rush (1870s), the settling and harvesting of the West (1850-1900), and implementation of manufacturing economies of scale on the back of the new rail system.

Additionally, unrestrained consolidation of competition into cooperative trusts gave rise to monopolies that Theodore Roosevelt spent considerable political capital resolving in the early 20th century via lawsuits under the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). See Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1903) and Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911).

Post reply on HN