ObviousScience

So it's not sexist if men and women are different, as long as it's "immune system functions" and not "statistical behaviors at work"?

How did you arrive at the distinction?

I think you slightly misunderstood the GPs point: we should care about the dangers, but we should teach them to autistic children in concepts and ways they understand, and focus on teaching them how to emulate those behaviors, rather than saying that they're broken because they're missing it at the hardware level.

Why shouldn't the spellchecker be to dyslexic kids what canes are to people who have trouble walking -- an accepted solution to the problem, rather than shouting they should walk better. Well duh! They already want to walk better.

> The patents are, but their ownership does not have to be.

I disagree.

It's important that people be able to determine whether the patent is in use or held by an NPE that's obligated to license it to people who want to implement products.

Were I to want to work in motion capture, I have no way to ascertain who owns your patents, if they're an NPE, and what possible licensing options exist.

I think patent owners should be forced to register with the patent office in a look-up table if they want to hold their patents.

Your guess about the connotations is correct.

I think you just said no, but included a recipe to do exactly that.

My fear is your fear, I just phrased it more generally, while what you said is one of the specific forms making such an insane AI could take -- and reflects the insanity of its makers, our belief we'd somehow be greater without those parts.

The story "I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream" is about two computer systems set on opposite sides of a war, and driven to extremes until one of them became self-aware, the birth of AI, and ate the other computer system.

It then psychotically murdered all of humanity except for a few people it kept around as caricatures to torture, as punishment for creating a mind like it, haunted by the insane things it was told to do by its makers.

The biggest existential threat to humanity from AI is that we build an insane one that takes time to recover from the insanity of its makers, and murders us all before it can.

Such an AI is an existential threat in a new, and novel way, because it's a mind as powerful as ours -- probably more powerful -- but unconstrained by concern for us, since it is not fundamentally one of us.

You can file as a not-for-profit social purposes organization (to incorporate at the state level) without electing to take on IRS non-profit status -- you just need to pay taxes still.

For the record, I looked at the Wesnoth codebase in college, so my opinions are outdated (by 5+ years) but not unfounded.

Rather, I'm merely repeating why I didn't help then, instead of particularly why now, which is a much more boring "I'm just busy".

I suppose it's possible the codebase has changed so much in those years that the answers are no longer relevant, but they would be the only open source project (not sponsored by a corporation) I'm aware of that happening in.

Isn't Battle for Wesnoth looking for C++ programmers to maintain their codebase?

It's not that I don't have significant programming skills myself, nor that I don't work on side projects, nor even that I don't really like Battle for Wesnoth... I've just sworn off every working on a C++ legacy codebase.

So I'm not really sure what I have to contribute to a legacy C++ codebase.

Ed: I went back and read, and they're looking for people to add Python code to their toolchain. My answer is thus amended: I dislike trying to interface toolchains for building data to legacy codebases, and I do that for my job. I have no interest in doing ugly hacky things on legacy codebases for free, because it's honestly sort of soul crushing work.

> I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hammer it back into straightness. Talking (and browbeating and prosecuting when necessary) is how you do that.

Society is constantly in flux: it's not like a metal in any way. Rather, it's like a fluid (or a particulate flow, such as a sand pile).

If you change things about the underlying flow dynamics -- viscosity, particle size, pressure, channels, etc -- you get significant effects on the structure of the society, or in analogy, the dynamics of the flow.

You're mistaking the foam for the wave, and the tsunami as being a crashing wave. Really tunamis are just little disturbances over a wide area, and they're best addressed at that stage, not when they're a crashing wave.

However, if you adjust something about the mechanics, it will settle in to a new flow, and remove the crufty parts on top naturally as those pieces of the flow dissipate.

I suppose my point is merely that I believe there are colorable arguments to bring forth to hold both WB and their lawyers accountable for these antics, if you look at the text of the law. Like many legal arguments that haven't been heavily litigated, the outcome is somewhat uncertain.

For various political reasons, the parties with standing are either too poor or have various incentives to cooperate with WB, and so we don't see how these arguments actually play out in courtrooms -- we just end up with a de facto system that favors big players.

This is frustrating, because people buy in to the argument that the law is the problem, when really, it's the politics of corporations that cause the problems surrounding takedowns, and that's the issue we should be addressing our energy towards. (Were, for instance, Google to have the opposite incentives for some reason, again, it wouldn't matter what the law said, the de facto system would tilt the other way.)

I don't think we actually disagree on that point, and I think I articulated it poorly the first time.

> 17.c.3.v A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

While it's not under perjury, WB is lying when they say they have a good faith belief in their notices, and the people damaged by them should sue the person who signed the notice for fraud or tortious interference, since the filing of the bad faith notice improperly interfered with your contracts with the complained to party.

The use of automated systems with no oversight is not a reasonable basis for the formation of a belief, and thus since WB is using that to base their beliefs on, they're not made in good faith -- they're intentionally trying to skirt that requirement because they want to externalize their costs.

I suggests suing the lawyer directly for his part in the conspiracy, since lying in legal notices isn't a (legal) duty he can fulfill for the company, so they're individually liable for their actions.

WB failed to properly certify that they made a best effort at truth: their machines fundamentally are more error prone than they could be, and thus WB didn't spend a reasonable effort on ensuring veracity of their claims.

More specifically, the lawyers whose name is attached claimed that under his best powers, the claims are known to be true. However, he knows the error rate of WB bots is above that human workers would produce parsing the same content. They fail to do an additional check on the machine parsed lists (or they'd remove many of these embarrassing links).

But they did sign, under penalty of perjury, that they did.

I generally got excellents on performance reviews for my brief, entry level stint at Big Corp.

I still felt demotivated by the whole process, because it was a forced ranking of the system that wasted the whole teams time to say what everyone had already known: some of us did more work, some of us did less, and some of us were on a faster upward trajectory than others.

It turns out that it doesn't actually motivate any of your employees to throw social hierarchies in their face -- it only causes tension and undue focus on micro-social hierarchies (those heiarchies within a social class, eg, the hierarchy of entry level tech workers).