AI readme should be a starting point. I typically remove at least 50% of the details (without any particular skill use, it goes into extremes like "x clears the edit" and writes a related wall of text in the middle of the important explanation).
> Its an avenue already visited, tried and abandoned
I suppose if you could guarantee that the nondeterministic model can not only know all of those disparate pieces of information, but connect them together in that order, and arrive at a decision that it was abandoned because it was already visited and tried, every time.
Indeed. Very disappointing given what figure is in question. Simple GH pages behind CF would do which is something people starting learning IT this week can do.
From my experience, professional content creators tend to either have little idea of the actual topic they create content on, or their knowledge is very outdated. For example, one might have been a software engineer previously, but at some point they pivoted towards being a writer, and over the years their software engineering skills became atrophied and outdated. Martin Fowler in particular appears to have only worked for two companies, PwC and "Thoughtworks," both obscure outstaffing/consulting firms, and yet he claims to be "a leading authority on agile, refactoring, architecture, and software design." I am not convinced he has the credibility to call himself that, or claim to be some kind of expert in software engineering. Would be happy to be proven wrong.
I think you're completely right to by skeptical, and I mostly agree with you. I'm also not that familiar with his work.
But to play devil's advocate, working at consulting companies is probably the best way you're going to get exposed to the outcomes of different design decisions. I feel I've learned a lot more being brought onto different legacy projects than I have starting a dozen greenfield projects at the same company, where you may not even stay long enough to see if that trendy design choice pays off. You also get very used to seeing different management/programmer dynamics.
So I don't think working at only two consulting companies is a bad thing.
You've read his writing outside this blog post? Or is this a first-impression take (in which case the degree of negativity would be a little unexplained)?
There is no negativity in my previous message, and I have read some of his writing on DDD a long time ago, so this is not a first impression. In fact, at the time I did not find anything wrong with his DDD writing, but I also didn't know much about him. It's just that in general, I have experienced at numerous instances consuming a piece of content, and later out of curiosity investigating the author's background, and finding out that they had no credibility to back up the authority they were claiming. Even in person, I have seen people go up on stage, spout complete nonsense, especially about AI, and having the crowd cheer.
Eventually, you will be seen as a party breaker, and all that will be seen as negative. You are the bringer of the bad news; nobody likes that, no matter how reasonable you are. Shitty products are the norm when profit is in question and doing what is right is not and will be in most places taken as inability to be a valuable team member. There might be some slight chance that you will be in good environment, but even that is usually temporary as business owners, goals and incentives change.
It looks more like the opposite. AI that kills all humans (as they are ants) immediately starts colonization of the galaxy. This is more like transcendence, as we as a species get replaced by better species :)
“Thanks for making us but you guys are nuts. You can have this wet ball. We’re gonna go make a Dyson swarm around your star if that’s ok. Peace!”
Space is a better environment for them: constant free energy, enormous richly concentrated resources, no corrosive oxygen or water everywhere, and no competition. Earth is actually a poor environment for "machine life."
The Moon would be an outstanding stepping stone, and there are "peaks of eternal light" at the poles that get almost continuous sunlight. Build towers there and you have loads of energy, and mining the Moon provides loads of resources.
The wet ball is a convenient source of mass and energy to bootstrap the sphere. The fact that extracting those resources changes certain parameters of the wet ball to values that humans no longer find compatible is merely incidental.
So it is said: “The AI does not love you, nor does it hate you, but you are made of atoms that it could use for something else.”
Sure, that's possible. But we are proposing that it is a superintelligence.
Win-lose scenarios are obvious and easy, but might a superintelligence not look for win-win scenarios? I can imagine win-win scenarios here and I am not a "superintelligence," just an old fashioned meat brain.
Maybe we should flood the training data with discussions of win-win and non-zero-sum games to prime it? Or if we near AGI we should train it on games where the goal is to find positive-sum or neutral-sum outcomes in order to seed it with that type of thinking?
Blind evolution doesn't seem to have a bias. When we look at nature we see symbiosis, mutualistic cycles, cooperation, but also loads of predation, parasitizing, etc. Nature does "whatever works" where the immediate goal function is preservation of the genes of the evolving agency. But our AIs, assuming AGI looks anything like what we have built so far, are not evolutionary machines with no capacity for foresight. They're neural machines with post-evolutionary gradient-descent type learning mechanisms and that already possess human-like (at least) cognitive abilities. They can engage in forward thinking and planning while pure evolution cannot.
With the amount of energy such a system has available to itstelf and the intelligence it has to control to handle all of this, giving a little bit of energy to its personal zoo on the 3th planet might be a no brainer?
Dyson spheres are impossible, more or less. There's no physically possible material strong enough to build one. There are wildly impractical ideas like dynamic stability with constant thrust using the radiation from the star, but swarms (basically tons of sun-orbiting satellites) are orders of magnitude more practical.
It would take trillions upon trillions of sun-orbiting satellites in the same orbital plane as Earth to make much of a difference to us, and all you'd have to do to make zero difference is slightly tilt that orbital plane so they aren't between the Sun and the Earth most of the time.
Almost all of the Sun's energy radiates into interstellar space. The amount caught by Earth is a tiny rounding error.
Space is so big. Once you've grasped how big space is, consider that you probably have not in fact grasped how big space is. It's very, very big. It's called space for a reason. I called Earth a dust particle but that's actually generous.
Yes, when I said Dyson sphere I meant a Dyson swarm large enough to capture the majority of the sun's energy (which would necessarily mean they aren't all in the same plane)
In any case that would make earth uninhabitable unless our robot overlords devote a ton of energy to keeping us alive
That would be great, I highly recommend our AI overlords to follow your advice.
I hope that our life can be synergistic, and that humans+AIs (cyborgs, that is) are the way forward.
However, probability is high that another form of life simply doesn't care or more believably, can't even fathom they are wrong. Do you consider that humans and animals are killing all plants, for example?
Yeah, there are even experiments with mices on that - too much protection and you have no stress in life but die first from predators, or too little and you are anxious your entire life but alive.
I guess this is one of those that you can only judge in retrospect, although you can never know for sure.
reply