We make a product called MIRAI, a first-of-its-kind visual robot control system that enables robots to learn from humans and act in dynamic environments. With about 30 people, most of them at our headquarters in Berlin Neukölln, we are working to make task-specific, on-site machine learning for industrial robotics a reality.
I can vouch that it's a great team of smart people and an exciting product. No bullshit, the result is what counts.
I feel that when everyone would apply this world view there would be no point in ethics at all and we would live in a more grim world than we already are. I find it very discouraging since this assumes that we have no choice. But we do.
I met a guy studying CS in Cuba (he grew up there) on a Congress and visited him there. The living conditions there are not nice, wealth is something most people there don’t have access to. But this guy was asked by FB/Google to interview for a position and he proudly told me how he declined and wrote them exactly why he morally thought he will never work there. Regardless of the correctness of his view it impressed me that he held principles higher than his potential income. If you just follow financial incentives in your decisions plus a minimal ethical code that will keep you out of prison you are contributing to humanities demise. Long term if too many people just follow their incentives without reflecting on their net contribution to society as a whole this will destroy our society.
Also it’s not like you will be out on the streets if you don’t work for Google/FB. You’ll most likely still be considered rich with whatever you make at other companies in this sector.
With Netflix having content caches this seems like incompetency from the EU commissioner paired with an openness to virtue signaling in this time from Netflix. Isn’t it the job of the ISP to shape the traffic accordingly if they overprovisioned and are now failing their customers due to that?
Do you genuinely believe this? If yes, would you care to expand further on this? I'm utterly fascinated and would love to hear more background on what leads you to believe that this comparison is apt.
Why is this comment flagged? Is antifa having its own segment/talks? this would be very useful to know, as they're indeed an extremely radical organization(you can have left views and not resort to anything resembling that IMO)
Consider that they placed Gilles Bordelais, a man who as an EU parliament committee determined sexually harassed women in multiple cases, on their list in Germany before voting for the German pirate party:
Can you state openly what did he exactly do, or at least link to somewhere where its stated?
Ill bet it amounts to 'inappropriate remarks' and that not stating exactly what it is, instead using the 'sexual harassment' doublespeak is just a FUD tool to attempt to sabotage the Pirate Party.
Here's a link to what seems to be the party's response. From my reading, possibly tainted by translation, he agreed to step down if the European Parliament's Consultative Committee on Harassment at Work found that he had engaged in harassment, they did, and he resigned, but they were unable to remove him from the list due to regulations.
While I can't seem to find an account of what exactly transpired, it does appear that the European Parliament's Consultative Committee on Harassment at Work concluded that something did indeed transpire that falls under sexual harassment.
It’s hard to find official details (I guess they keep them private to protect the victims?) but this looks like reasonably trustworthy source: http://mab.nu/2018/11/16/a-friend-called-niles/
But even without details looking at Julia Redas track record and the fact that the German pirate party and European pirate party distanced themselves from him suggests more than a minor error in judgement. It’s unbelievable that he could successfully trick his party so he could get on the candidates list as number 2. And he will be there on election day! This is no FUD but something they have to blame on themselves.
Why? That wasn't known when the voting lists were made, and when it came out, they weren't able to remove him, because lists cannot be changed once finalized. There's just nothing they can do because that's the law.
I mean, I'm certainly not going to vote for them because they are far, far away from me politically, but imho their reaction to the whole affair was correct and shouldn't be held against them.
To be perfectly honest- i do not look at the person any more. I only look at promises and outcomes. Power and Money corrupt absolutly, so i dont even want to waste time on the displays of those with rigid morals. They usually do not accomplish anything, cause any move could bring down the little statue of themselves they put up as example.
I rather have a rupt to the core bastard, which still prevents a catastrophic climate change, because he game of thrones whole industries.
I think there is a much cleaner, more logical approach to the topic without any magical voodoo. I always find that this topic somehow lures people into esoteric explanations that wouldn't be acceptable in other areas, but when dealing with the mind it somehow is okay. In my opinion there is an example for a more productive paradigm when we want to discuss what the mind is. Just take a look: http://www.cognitive-ai.com/publications/assets/Draft-MicroP...
This article looks interesting. I was going to make a similar comment with a much more dated source so I'll piggyback off of yours. Piaget, in his book "Biology and Knowledge", applies biological concepts to the study of mind and comes to the conclusion that consciousness is similar to embryogenesis: both are processes that actively construct a set of interwoven systems that effect biological homeostasis. Many of the basic principles in embryogenesis and learning are the same. For example, isolated subsystems are developed in parallel, with input both from the genetic system and from the environment, and are later integrated to form higher-order functional systems. This idea is more interesting when you consider that the development of mind could be just the final stages of embryogenesis insofar as it is an aspect of the physical development of a child and their integration into society.
Piaget's ideas were a little sketchy because of the paucity of information about the brain at the time so I'm excited to look more at the article in the parent comment which appears to be an attempt at a more detailed analysis.
Well in a way the articles approach is similar to Piaget's in the sense that the approach is also functional. The hypothesis here is that the mind is just a information processing system and the research approach therefore is developing functional models. It will either work or not, you can actually test your models. This approach doesn't just model biological structures but independently tries to find functional explanations/mechanisms that could result in a mind like system. I think the articles model is one of the most sophisticated of the highly integrated ones out there. It really is worth reading, especially the explanation for emotion and motivation i found to be quite interesting.
