US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8629

On September 02 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:

Listen: Any ongoing investigation is going to get the same response from shitlibs. There's nothing here and it's all just a deflection. In fact, you don't even have to read if there's anything to the revelations to arrive at that conclusion.

On September 02 2017 11:09 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/amanbatheja/status/903698434292666368

You can't make this shit up. He called a special session for the bathroom bill.

On September 02 2017 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Is the point there that other countries are much more likely to extend a helping hand in the USA's time of need when the country's motto isn't "us first, fuck the rest of you"?

On September 02 2017 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Is the point there that other countries are much more likely to extend a helping hand in the USA's time of need when the country's motto isn't "us first, fuck the rest of you"?

Was there no info on what Sandy got from the international community? And if you think about who was running things at the time of Katrina, it wouldn't be such a surprise. Also, the US is a massive clusterfuck when it comes to things like this. Most places, depending on where they go, just take the money. Some of it gets put back into a fund for the future, and some are investments and repairs for said affected areas. We'd need complete transparency in order to make an argument that the people didn't get the money.

On September 02 2017 10:00 m4ini wrote:


We both know that i don't think you're credible. And i in fact did attack the source, i literally told you what's in it. "Maybe", "i think", "probably". There's nothing of substance other than "okay lets ask for documents to doublecheck", yet you're going ham as if they actually caught comey doing something.

You went out on a limb for the dumbest shit trump said and in regards to the russia investigation, constantly emphasising that these are all "not proven", "allegations" and the obvious "anonymous sources don't count" shit.

You seem to have forgotten.

edit: as a footnote, that's not you personally but generally the way you debate. Constantly deflecting to other points and whataboutism - things that make you inherently not trustworthy because everything seems like you argue in bad faith.

On September 02 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/903962484574445568

This seems like the best for the country.

On September 02 2017 23:53 plated.rawr wrote:

So what's stopping anyone relatively close to your president feeding him home-made versions of Fox News to advance their agenda?

On September 03 2017 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:

What do you think Bannon was doing?

The technology entrepreneur Elon Musk recently urged the nation’s governors to regulate artificial intelligence “before it’s too late.” Mr. Musk insists that artificial intelligence represents an “existential threat to humanity,” an alarmist view that confuses A.I. science with science fiction. Nevertheless, even A.I. researchers like me recognize that there are valid concerns about its impact on weapons, jobs and privacy. It’s natural to ask whether we should develop A.I. at all.

I believe the answer is yes. But shouldn’t we take steps to at least slow down progress on A.I., in the interest of caution? The problem is that if we do so, then nations like China will overtake us. The A.I. horse has left the barn, and our best bet is to attempt to steer it. A.I. should not be weaponized, and any A.I. must have an impregnable “off switch.” Beyond that, we should regulate the tangible impact of A.I. systems (for example, the safety of autonomous vehicles) rather than trying to define and rein in the amorphous and rapidly developing field of A.I.

I propose three rules for artificial intelligence systems that are inspired by, yet develop further, the “three laws of robotics” that the writer Isaac Asimov introduced in 1942: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except when such orders would conflict with the previous law; and a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the previous two laws.

These three laws are elegant but ambiguous: What, exactly, constitutes harm when it comes to A.I.? I suggest a more concrete basis for avoiding A.I. harm, based on three rules of my own.

First, an A.I. system must be subject to the full gamut of laws that apply to its human operator. This rule would cover private, corporate and government systems. We don’t want A.I. to engage in cyberbullying, stock manipulation or terrorist threats; we don’t want the F.B.I. to release A.I. systems that entrap people into committing crimes. We don’t want autonomous vehicles that drive through red lights, or worse, A.I. weapons that violate international treaties.

Our common law should be amended so that we can’t claim that our A.I. system did something that we couldn’t understand or anticipate. Simply put, “My A.I. did it” should not excuse illegal behavior.

My second rule is that an A.I. system must clearly disclose that it is not human. As we have seen in the case of bots — computer programs that can engage in increasingly sophisticated dialogue with real people — society needs assurances that A.I. systems are clearly labeled as such. In 2016, a bot known as Jill Watson, which served as a teaching assistant for an online course at Georgia Tech, fooled students into thinking it was human. A more serious example is the widespread use of pro-Trump political bots on social media in the days leading up to the 2016 elections, according to researchers at Oxford.

My rule would ensure that people know when a bot is impersonating someone. We have already seen, for example, @DeepDrumpf — a bot that humorously impersonated Donald Trump on Twitter. A.I. systems don’t just produce fake tweets; they also produce fake news videos. Researchers at the University of Washington recently released a fake video of former President Barack Obama in which he convincingly appeared to be speaking words that had been grafted onto video of him talking about something entirely different.

My third rule is that an A.I. system cannot retain or disclose confidential information without explicit approval from the source of that information. Because of their exceptional ability to automatically elicit, record and analyze information, A.I. systems are in a prime position to acquire confidential information. Think of all the conversations that Amazon Echo — a “smart speaker” present in an increasing number of homes — is privy to, or the information that your child may inadvertently divulge to a toy such as an A.I. Barbie. Even seemingly innocuous housecleaning robots create maps of your home. That is information you want to make sure you control.

My three A.I. rules are, I believe, sound but far from complete. I introduce them here as a starting point for discussion. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Musk’s view about A.I.’s rate of progress and its ultimate impact on humanity (I don’t), it is clear that A.I. is coming. Society needs to get ready.