Thursday, October 30, 2008
The ultimate evil computer program:
I'm sure glad that nothing could possibly go wrong when building an evil intelligent computer program... (Via Morality War.)
A group of scientists is building the world's most evil computer program. This isn't a B-movie setup: A team at Rensselaer Institute's AI & Reasoning Lab is bringing personified evil to virtual life in the hope that they'll unlock the secrets of human morality. The researchers have given their creation a face and a name, and quiz it daily, using its answers to further blacken its hideous character.More info here.
Selmer Bringsjord, director of the AI lab and chairman of RPI's Department of Cognitive Science, has created "E," a computer-generated character programmed according to his own definition of evil. E must, according to Bringsjord, be willing to carry out premeditated acts that are immoral and would cause harm to others. And, when E analyzes its reasons for wanting to commit such acts, it must either develop a logically incoherent argument or conclude that it desired to see people harmed.
I'm sure glad that nothing could possibly go wrong when building an evil intelligent computer program... (Via Morality War.)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Shameless plug: My radiology practice Invision/Sally Jobe gets mentioned in this October 28, 2008 story in the Wall Street Journal, "CT Scans Gain Favor as Option for Colonoscopy".
The article quotes one of my partners, Dr. Richard Obregon, who was one of the co-authors of the recent September 18, 2008 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on this topic, "Accuracy of CT Colonography for Detection of Large Adenomas and Cancers".
The article quotes one of my partners, Dr. Richard Obregon, who was one of the co-authors of the recent September 18, 2008 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on this topic, "Accuracy of CT Colonography for Detection of Large Adenomas and Cancers".
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
"Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth".
Simson Garfinkel discusses the problems that arise when truth isn't based on adherence to the facts of reality but instead to a mixture of authority and social consensus:
Simson Garfinkel discusses the problems that arise when truth isn't based on adherence to the facts of reality but instead to a mixture of authority and social consensus:
Unlike the laws of mathematics or science, wikitruth isn't based on principles such as consistency or observability. It's not even based on common sense or firsthand experience. Wikipedia has evolved a radically different set of epistemological standards--standards that aren't especially surprising given that the site is rooted in a Web-based community, but that should concern those of us who are interested in traditional notions of truth and accuracy. On Wikipedia, objective truth isn't all that important, actually. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is that it appeared in some other publication--ideally, one that is in English and is available free online. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," states Wikipedia's official policy on the subject.
Surveillance technology to allegedly predict a crime before it happens.
Fortunately, it can only be used for good and never for evil...
Fortunately, it can only be used for good and never for evil...
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Problems with early e-voting? From CNN (emphasis mine):
(Via Techdirt.)
...[R]eports of problems are troubling signs for many who are skeptical of whether their votes will count.Personally, I don't regard "it's just been doing that" as a very satisfactory response from government representatives. If American voters don't have confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome, this election could be historic in more ways than one...
Forty-two percent of those surveyed in a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said they were not confident that their votes could be "accurately cast and counted."
... In West Virginia's Jackson County, there were some reports that voting machines were accidentally recording the wrong vote.
"I went in there and pushed the Democrat ticket, and it jumped to the Republican ticket for president of the United States," said Calvin Thomas, an 81-year-old West Virginian...
The same thing happened to his daughter, Micki Clendenin, when she cast her ballot. In both cases, poll workers at the site had them touch the screen a few more times, and the voting machine changed their ballot to their candidate choice.
"The lady came in, and she was -- very nicely, she just said, 'it's just been doing that.' She said, 'just hit it again.' So we hit it again, and this time it did go to Obama," Clendenin said.
(Via Techdirt.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)