FriendlyHacker

http://soundmedicine.org/post/childhood-trauma-leads-brains-wired-fear

Astronauts are having too much fun in zero gravity therefore it must be fake? You're going out of your way to find evidence supporting what you want to believe, while ignoring contrary evidence, maybe you should take a break from these hoax histories and find a new hobby, it seems that you became obsessed about it.

You're using a computer right now, do you understand how it works? Can you see the entangled particles on your cd burner? Why do you think it should be easy to understand entangled particles? If everything you can't understand is supposedly fake, I suppose you must be the smartest person that ever was and ever will be.

The ISS is for zero gravity experiments on things varying from new kinds materials in electronics to growing plants, for human experiments on how our bodies deal with prolonged space travel, as place people can go to while repairing satellites and other machinery and in the future it will be a place to actually launch missions to Mars and beyond.

In AI the decision has to be made beforehand, once AI reaches a certain level you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The reason I work on it is because this technology is innevitable, and it's either going to come from pacifists such as myself, or the military, and I see serious moral implications on an AI that comes from the military.

The way I see in the uncertainty principle, is not of a limit of how much it can be known about a system, but a limit of what can be known with our current technology. The interference problem is a solvable problem, and the way to approach it is to actually try to solve it, instead of assuming that nothing more can be known about the system.

I've written this short story, it might seem like it does not belong to the Philosophy board, but once you understand the metaphors you will see why it should be here: Narrator: Once upon a time there was a sad unicorn hunter, the reason she's sad is because at this very date, exactly 10 years ago, she first set off in her journey to find the unicorn, but even though she had become very good at searching for the creature, she's still terribly bad at finding it. But today is different, today she decided she would try something new. In the big city there's this strange new idea called marketing, and the way it works is that instead of trying to find people, marketing allows you to be easily found. So she is spreading out billboards throughout the swamp region, in the hope they will work as good for unicorns as they do for people: LOOKING FOR UNICORNS REWARD OFFERED MEET ME AT THE TOP OF THE HILL After a few days of work her message can now be read from afar, and she will camp at the top of the hill for as long as it takes for any news of the Unicorn to reach her. She then waited and waited, many days have come and gone until an idea hits her as painfully as a brick wall: What if the Unicorn can't read my message? Why was she expecting an unicorn to be able to read in English anyway? This marketing thing might have been a terrible idea after all. But as soon as she starts dismounting her camping gear, a stranger appears from behind the tent and quietly asks: - Are you the one trying to find unicorns? The hunter quickly jumps up and happily replies: - Yes! Do you know how to find them? - No, I don’t... Says the man, and after noticing the disappointment in the face of the hunter, he continues. - It's of no use Lady. The swamp is a terrible place to search for Unicorns you know, I’ve already spent my life searching to no avail. - You mean... That you’re also an Unicorn hunter? She asks while a single tear runs down her cheek. - Yes, I am. Replies the man. - Everybody knows there’s no such a thing as an unicorn, why would you spend your life doing something that silly? Asks the hunter. - Well... Because I am an unicorn - the man now removes his hunter’s hat, revealing a shiny beautiful horn coming out the top of his head. - An unicorn’s life is quite lonely, says the man, I’m not hunting for unicorns, I’m looking for someone for whom to share true friendship. Someone that being an unicorn, can see the world in the way that only an unicorn can see. The hunter then replies. - Today is you lucky day, for I’m also an unicorn, and the reward I offer is the reward of true friendship. Narrator: From that point on the unicorns knew that they would never feel lonely again, but more importantly, they now understood how to find other Unicorns.

Matter = Any particle not traveling at the speed of light Light = A specific wavelength in the electrophotomagnetic spectrum, usually reffered to as the visible light spectrum The uncertanty principle is not a description of how the Universe works, is a description of the limitations in quantum mechanics to properly describe the Universe, there are other explanations for the cat problem that do not require many worlds. Major breakthroughs happen by accident, and the reason they are breakthroughs is because nobody thought whatever happened could be possible. A lot of theoretical physics seems like guessing, because it is guessing. The difference is that it only becomes science after the guess has been shown to be a good description of how the world actually works

For anyone who wants some news on our progress of reaching human like AI. https://www.facebook.com/luisaranaweb/videos/812186495501662/

It's quite alienating, most people think that being really really smart is a good thing, it isn't. I don't fit well into society and feel like an alien walking around.

Start from the basics: What is language? Are humans the only animals capable of language? Why is language useful? How did human language evolve? Google it.

People have been replacing limbs and etc for millenea, now they can replace their hands not with hooks but with robotic hands that can feel and obey brain wave commands. Main organs are being 3D printed and replacing failing organs. This is not a matter of people vs machines, but a matter of how much machine and how much people, or if there will be any reason to differentiate the 2 in the future.

We are working on 1) for now, but one day it will be an actual robot able to physically interact and learn from it. Takes millions of dollars to build robots, to build software it only takes us cheap computers+internet+being alive. Machines are much better at fixing things like cars, than dealing with human emotion and having conversations. Fixing a car is a technical solution that requires some simple patter reconition, having an actual conversation means that the machine understands emotional responses, human needs and all sorts of human capabilities we take for granted, but are the hardest for a machine to understand, such as being able to appreciate a joke. Of course there are ways to trick people into thinking they are having a conversation, but you are actually talking to a machine that pretends to understand humans, and because it can recall the internet from memory you are falselly led to believe that this machine is a genius, at least for now that is how it goes.

Takes less time and money to run simulations 24/7 and not annoy any kid. There are basically 3 paths to reach smarter than human AI: 1 - Build a self improving machine from scratch. Teach it everything and use the Internet as levarage, this is a software based solution because with good enough pattern reconigtion it can learn a lot from the internet. 2 - Replicate the biological brain atom by atom, electron by eletron, find out if it will retain memories and a human counciousness. This is a hardware based solution. 3 - Figure out how to upload all the information stored inside the brain to a computer, and see if the simulation has a counciouness. Hardware+software based solution.

First common myth about AI is that the creation can't be better than the creator, people can make supersonic airplanes but people can't actually fly or run that fast. Second myth about AI is that the human brain is irreducible complex, it's not, and this stupid monkey's brain is not even that wonderful, it took evolution billions of years because evolution is not engineered to work, people can do more changes to dogs in a few years than millions of years of natural selection on wolves, and that is not even engineering it's just selective breeding. Third myth is that computers can't teach themselves like a person would, this is not true, a computer can learn in the same way a child learns, if a computer does something it's not supposed to do, you can tell it to not do it again, it wiill add all the bolean logic related to the action to a database and have the task set as a do not repeat. It's a matter of exposing the computer to different outcomes, recording the outcomes, have a human evaluate the outcomes and incrementally build on results, so more and more complex actions can be done in the future. It would be possible to create an evil AI that way, and this is what scares me about the military developing smarter killing machines. We humans have to figure out if we still want to keep being stupid monkeys and risk our extinction, or do we want to improve ourselves in a way that violence is viewed as the dumbest most absurd act imaginable.

A century ago it was said that heavier than air flying machines were impossible and against the laws of physics, so I don't care about what people think is possible, I care about figuring out how to do it. While everyone is having a philosophical discussion about it, I will be out there building it.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions to this problem, if you read about what I wrote above you will notice I said it's problem that will be solved at some point, and usually for humans that means it will be solved in the last minute. And of course small plants and animals will end up fine, last times it happened the planet lost 99% of the species, and the other one it lost 90% (including dinosaurs), but 10 thousand years later the planet was repopulated again with the species that survived. Life on the planet will do fine, we are the ones who are going to go extinct if the problem is not solved.

No, when I say that plutonium nukes are the puny version of banging hydrogen together, this is what I mean: The sun This is a galaxy, did you notice the thing is spiraling down like water going down the drain? That is because the thing in the middle is a huge black hole, that black hole there used to be a place that bangs atoms together (also known as star), and now is the thing that moves over 300 billion stars around.

Yes, and that is the puny version of it, the bigger one is about banging hydrogen gas toghether. This is obviouslly oversimplyfing the issue, but if you want to use this terminology there you have it.

This is not localized, Brazil makes a good chunk of the food people in places like Canada are not able to grow. Plants are very sensitive to temperature changes, they won't get better at carbon-dioxidide rich atmosphere, because they will be dead from the heat. Precipitation inreases in some areas, decreases in others. When you change the temperature of the place, you also change the spots that rain usually occurs. And in Sao Paulo, is not raiing into the actual water reservour, but rains in other places. Brazil is becoming a desert up north. Canada will be as cold as Florida is right now, while everywhere else becomes hell. If the algae in the ocean that produces our oxygen dies we are pretty much fucked, unless technology replaces the algea by something else.

Obviouslly if agriculture requires a certain temperature to maintain production, that will come to hault when changing temperature. In Brazil for instance it was common to grow grapes in the South East and Sugar Cane in the northeast, now they grow sugar cane in the South East and grapes in the South. Soon there will be no place left to grow plants that require lower temperatures and sugar cane will only grow in the South. In addition to that, Sao Paulo is having a major problem with droughts, and over 20 million people might end up without access to potable water in a few months.

I have a hard time understating this: https://docs.google.com/a/amazonicadesign.com/file/d/0B-KljfuGLbTCZDlrOXRHWkZYMlk/edit?pli=1 It's riddled with anecdotal evidence and non scientific language.

While you were watching Fox News to learn the science of global warming. I was actually learning the physics of meteorology from books, scientific papers and watching interviews with people who do weather research for a living, and you might be surprised about this little piece of information, but they actually know what they are doing when they take data from thousands of different data collecting points around the globe, not to mention satellite technology. Do you really take anything from Fox News seriously? Isn't that the place they showcase creationism as science and blame gay people for meteorological catastrophes? It does not matter if you believe in global warming, or if I believe in it, I don't care about that, I care about understanding the issue. It might seem like you're writing about things I've never thought or read about before, but I get the same feeling I get when a Chirstian comes up to me with Pascal's Wager, as if I've never heard about it before.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/worldtransformed/2015/02/20/man-and-machine-chatting-with-an-artificial-intelligence-and-her-creator This is the ethical AI project I was talking about.