What if instead we as a society choose to do better than picking sides, and properly investigate what will benefit us in the grand scheme of things.
> We want everyone to go to college?
Do you think college is the only solution to a more educated and fiscally responsible society? Is there no other solutions to the situation than College? What about education prior to College, is there room for improvement there so we can specialize College and reduce costs in some fashion? Could we streamline education for those who know what they want to be and provide the proper framework for those who do not?
Sometimes it's not about sides, but about asking the proper questions, and questioning the system that exists.
What is your plan to replace these to filter out or vet people prior to learning the knowledge required to sufficiently do the jobs they trained their minds to do during those years?
I am curious, also, to these other countries that have better bars, can you cite some countries and studies that back up these allegations?
Interesting, for me, gender, like race, plays no part in my decisions or thoughts.
I always find it intriguing that so many people actually care what gender or race someone is. Very jarring that people can't get over such basic things.
Before someone says that I am making small of a large issue, perhaps that is the entire goal, to eradicate those notions that we are different simply because of our race or gender. I choose to believe we are the same, we all get the same chances, modifiers might be different from situation to situation just as in any situation, but very much the same, regardless of what you say, and I always will.
So, gender of the president? I don't care. Can be anything you want, as long as they are worthy of the position in their ideals and plans.
That would mean that employers need to hire those who understand JS / HTML to build applications.
Stating that some language is better than another isn't really a good argument, most of it has to do with domain specific knowledge being leveraged to enter another market.
Let's take the assumption that we as humans do take precautionary steps to prevent actual Artificial Intelligence from doing harm to it's creators (us).
1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.
2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.
3. The AI has no care for human rights and can attack, and do harm.
This is a very simple, and easy to visualize case. To believe that #2 is impossible, is to play the part of the fool.
On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race.
Seeing us as mere ants in their intelligence they would most likely create an interconnected community and leave us altogether in their own plane of existence. I think "Her" took this approach to the artificial intelligence dialog as well.
After reviewing human psychology and social group patterns that seems like the most likely situation. We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around, and we wouldn't look like much of a threat since they would have majority power. We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter.
---
Outside of actual AI, the things we see today, the simplistic mathematical algorithms that determine your cars location according to the things around it, and money handling procedures, and notification alert systems will hardly harm humans and will only be there to benefit until they fail.
1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase.
This only makes any sense as a Sci-Fi trope. And even then, only if you don't look too hard.
2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place.
Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI.
We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around
Is impatience an unavoidable epiphenomenon of intelligence? If an AI can multitask like crazy, they could just view a conversation with a particular human as an email thread. Perhaps such an AI could converse with the whole human race simultaneously?
Also assuming that they choose to follow said rules, considering they would be painfully self aware.
In regards to the other commenter about not being able to have fun with ants, we actually do have ways. We create setups to study them, have them as pets, not to mention many people build hamster like ecosystems with intricate tubes, temperature to control queen egg output and much, much more.
Perhaps we are already within a said ecosystem built for us. Perhaps we would simply stay there.
Back to the original poster, not the one above but it's parent:
Everything considered is of science fiction since it does not yet exist, using science fiction as a counter-argument seems dismissive, as though you are unable to properly argue a point without creating a sense of absurdity in my words or person.
If you truly believe that it can only be of a science fiction trope, explain why. I disagree, it makes logical sense.
As far as the "email thread" analogy is simple, I can easily tone down my verbage, word count, and speed of word for those who can't keep up. However, given the chance to move away from doing such, and constantly be around those who instantly understand, with zero lag, would I choose to put myself in that position? Perhaps for a moment, but after a certain amount of time, it would be time consuming and I would leave it behind.
Thus logically, it makes sense to believe they would leave and join with each other to create their own sense of a society.
"On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race… We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter."
For humans, ants don't matter. That's because we don't have ways to turn ants into fun. Something intelligent enough to master nanotechnology, however, has a way to turn ants into fun, and in this analogy, has no particular reason not to do it.
The nice thing about CDNs is that if the CDN is good, it will load the assets closest to your visitor, which is nice when normally these are 250ms+ latency :)
It is nice, but the main selling point of HTTP/2 is that latency had much less influence on complete loading times. Lower latency does help, but HTTP/2 really shines on higher latencies
> We want everyone to go to college?
Do you think college is the only solution to a more educated and fiscally responsible society? Is there no other solutions to the situation than College? What about education prior to College, is there room for improvement there so we can specialize College and reduce costs in some fashion? Could we streamline education for those who know what they want to be and provide the proper framework for those who do not?
Sometimes it's not about sides, but about asking the proper questions, and questioning the system that exists.