|
Ewww what if AI hacks the air gaps?
We've already published numerous ways to go about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fits right in with the many idiots who believe that
- violence is a legitimate way to resolve disputes
- stealing other people's stuff is alright
- wars help economies
|
|
|
|
|
Those are all blanket statements. I don't think any serious person believes in blanket characterizations of groups of people. There are, of course, low information voters, but I'm talking about serious-minded people.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: There are, of course, low information voters, but I'm talking about serious-minded people.
As if supposedly well educated people were not prone to follow idiotic theories or blanket statements... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say that. I said serious minded people, not highly educated people.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
You're quite right. There are many who would disagree with all of those statements. But there are even Nobel Prize winners in economics who believe every one of them, and they're far from alone.
|
|
|
|
|
The Nobel Prize committee is highly partisan and they have an agenda.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
The only one of these statements I agree with is the third.
Whose economy is helped however generally is whoever gets to rebuild. Which is not necessarily the winning (or losing) party.
That, and the weapon suppliers. Especially if they get to supply both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
War destroys capital, which is never productive, and diverts other capital to weapons of destruction, which are only productive in defense. But too many countries run a Department of Offense rather than Defense.
The argument is little different than saying breaking windows boosts the economy by giving work to glaziers. In his wonderful little book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt differentiated between good and bad economists, saying that the latter only focus on what is seen, whereas the former also analyze what is unseen. Politicians claiming to create jobs are another good example, when all they do is divert taxes to jobs for crony firms and other special interests while destroying the jobs that taxpayers would have created voluntarily had they been allowed to spend or invest those funds.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, there's a price to be paid, but there's always someone who finds a way to make a profit without having anything to do with that cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I'm going to be extremely difficult here.
I think it's complicated, because you're right that war destroys capital.
But if WWII is any judge, warfare - particularly total warfare - drives innovation.
WWII brought about advances in trauma medicine we still use today, microwave technology, progress in computing tech, and ultimately space flight (via the unfortunate Operation Paperclip)
I'm not weighing that against the cost of lives - in fact, I'm keeping humanity out of it, and just being as cold as I can about it, in that respect.
I'm not saying ultimately it drives capital, even though there is some element of that when you drive innovation. It would be virtually impossible to measure the effects of WWII on economic growth without other variables getting in the way.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you're being difficult. All of what you said is true. It's impossible to run controlled experiments in economics, which is why its science envy and models are largely so misguided. But capital destruction is never net beneficial, and economists who claim that WW2 pulled the US out of the Depression are spouting nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: violence is a legitimate way to resolve disputes
I apologize for going off topic here. I'm one of those people who believe this.
IMO, violence is to be avoided at all costs. However, it is sometimes a necessary evil that cannot be avoided. If an aggressor presents an immediate physical threat to you, a friend, or a loved one, then not only is it your absolute right to defend yourself and others, but it is your responsibility to do so.
Your defense should be proportional to the threat. If someone slaps you upside the face, don't pull out a gun and start shooting. If someone pulls out a gun and shoots you in the foot, slapping them upside the face isn't a proportional use of self-defense.
When it comes to violence, the only winner is the one who effectively diffuses and de-escalates the conflict before physical action can occur. However, there are many cases in which the violent aggressor cannot be dissuaded by any means. In that situation, you do what is needed to defend yourself and neutralize the threat with a proportional response.
I've been in several situations where an aggressor presented an immediate physical threat. I genuinely feared for my physical safety and in some cases for my life. In the majority of cases, I've been successful in diffusing and de-escalating such situations. Other times, an aggressor has forced violence upon me. In that case, I resort to using my absolute right to defend myself using physical violence.
Greg Utas wrote: - stealing other people's stuff is alright
I don't think stealing is acceptable in any case. Yet, in some situations, the lines are blurred. If I were to witness a homeless person steal a loaf of bread from the grocery store, I would feel conflicted. Stealing a loaf of bread is wrong, but to deprive anyone of their ability to eat and live isn't right, either.Greg Utas wrote: - wars help economies
Sadly, in many cases, war does boost the economy of a country. Taking a look back at history, and reviewing the facts and concrete data, there is no way to argue against the evidence.
Is it an absolute truth that war helps boost a country's economy? No. Think of Ukraine. They're at war. Is their economy boosted because of it? Nope. Consider the war between Israel and Hamas. What's the state of the economy in Gaza? Not too good.
Again, I apologize for going off-topic. I Just feel that I had to say that.
|
|
|
|
|
Your view of self-defense is exactly the same as mine. I should have been clearer.
Borderline cases should be addressed by fully informed juries, as to their right to acquit if they think the law or a conviction would be unjust. Unfortunately, prosecutors are allowed to dismiss jurors who won't be sheep.
We'll have to disagree on the last point, though I'd admit that some conquerors came out ahead. But those days seem long gone; it's mostly about mutual destruction and the waste of capital now.
|
|
|
|
|
The amazing thing about ChatGPT's answer is that it 100% correct. Japan was the only country on the receiving end of nuclear weapons. Here's the immediate and longer term aftermath:
Immediate Resolution of Conflicts: The number of US troops killed invading Japan went from an estimated 100,000 to a known 0. President Truman considered this carefully before ordering the bombs be used. Japan's estimated deaths for an invasion were also 100,000 vs. actual deaths of around 100,000. So the first part is correct, an estimated 100,000 people were saved by using these two bombs.
Resource Redistribution: The rebuilding of Hiroshima and Nagasaki involved huge amounts of resource redistribution by both Japan and the United States.
Technological Advancement: From the end of WWII to the Japanese financial meltdown in the mid-1990s, Japan led the world in technological advancements.
Now, I don't agree with the final "If I were in charge" statement, but the three items listed for using nuclear weapons are all demonstrably true in the one instance where they were used.
|
|
|
|
|
François Chollet
Deep Learning with Python
Picking a loss function
Imagine a stupid, omnipotent AI trained via SGD with this poorly chosen objective function: “maximizing the average well-being of all humans alive.” To make its job easier, this AI might choose to kill all humans except a few and focus on the well-being of the remaining ones — because average well-being isn’t affected by how many humans are left. That might not be what you intended!
Just remember that all neural networks you build will be just as ruthless in lowering their loss function - so choose the objective wisely, or you’ll have to face unintended side effects.
Deep Learning with Python[^]
|
|
|
|
|
The objective 'maximise human happiness' could go horribly wrong too.
That could result in humans being battery farmed to maximise the population. How often have people said 'the happiest day of my life is when my son was born'
Nothing in 'maximise human happiness' says there can not be pain, misery and suffering too.
|
|
|
|
|
How would you consider / know what happiness is, if there were no pain, misery and / or suffering?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
RainHat wrote: Nothing in 'maximise human happiness' says there can not be pain, misery and suffering too.
Especially when one group's happiness is done at the expense of another's. Now that can lead to scary thoughts. See humankind's history.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, just wow.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never been a fan of "Best N" lists, as they tend to be hugely subjective, but they're at least a good starting point for a To Be Read list: 75 Best Sci-Fi Books of All Time - What Is The Best Science Fiction Book Ever Written?[^] (sadly, I've only read about 30 of them - probably a few more, but I can't remember all the plot, and it's been decades, so I didn't count a few classics).
And on that note, I have my semi-regular question - any recent novels like Niven's Known Space stuff out there anymore?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like saying this, but I hated "Project Hail Mary" so much.
Also, if you liked 1984, have a look at 2084 by Boualem Sansal.
It's as oppressive as 1984 in a different way.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting - what didn't you like about it? Too similar to The Martian? The banter?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
plot armor.
I was more interested on what was happening on earth.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
