@asgs the tank engine

Strava or it didn't happen. Unless you meant motorcycle, then I believe you

@Hazarth I think the fact that you took my statement to mean that we're in full control of our software is quite illustrative of our differences: I meant exactly the opposite. It's a fundamental problem which only increases with the level of abstraction.

@Hazarth I don't think this is really going anywhere since we're basically having a debate about what will happen in 50 years in a field that neither of us know much about.

I think you're more focused on what present AI can do, which is an understandable position to take.

However, I find it interesting to think about the theoretical implications of creating an intelligence greater than our own. This means I can't give implementation details because then I'd have solved the problem we're discussing.

@Hazarth Computers always do what they are told: that's the first rule of software engineering ;). We need them to do what we want.

@Hazarth Any internet-connected robot needs a software kill switch since the robot could replicate itself remotely. Useful robots will likely be internet-connected

@Hazarth

How about your boss says "build me an AI which can manage my factories and report statistics and key decisions". Whilst this isn't an AI that can do everything, it does require sophisticated intelligence to carry out its job without extensive supervision.

I really don't see how you think it wouldn't be useful to have AI that's functionally equivalent to a human but can interface with technology much faster and doesn't need nearly as many resources; just because it's dangerous and difficult to build doesn't mean that someone won't try.

From my limited knowledge from watching this dude https://youtube.com/channel/..., it looks like the stop button approach has been explored and isn't without its problems. Here's the video (different channel) if you're interested https://youtu.be/3TYT1QfdfsM.

@Hazarth I agree that we will probably limit the intelligence of the AIs we produce for complexity and safety reasons. However, as we build AIs to tackle more complex tasks which require a greater variety of skills, these AIs will approach the variety of intelligence that a GI has.

I'm not sure why you think an advanced AI needs easy access to weapons to be dangerous. We would give it some control over the environment in order for it to be useful, so it could cause damage with this control. It may also use this control to gain greater control. Intelligence is inherently dangerous because it is the tool by which we control our environment.

@Hazarth I think if we can make them reasonably safe (big assumption) then they have a huge reason to exist: we could liberate humanity from work. Whilst this would no doubt create social issues, it is at least a superficially attractive proposition.

I concede that the obstacles to producing a safe AGI are monumental, but who knows what progress we will make on these fronts in decades or centuries?

That's assuming we don't develop AI which has general intelligence on par with humans. Clients could simply speak to it to give it specifications and feedback, and it would develop software using a similar process to humans. However, we'll have much bigger fish to fry if that happens.

Do you want to be social? Saying that the code made you anti social strikes me as a rationalisation you made as you continually decided to code instead of do social things.

I'm not trying to beat you up here, I just understand avoiding challenging and uncomfortable things. For example, I've avoided relationships because I have lots of work to do and I'm under a lot of stress, but the truth is that I have plenty of spare time. The real reason is probably that I'm not sure how I'd handle things going badly in that area so I haven't pursued it. I know that must change in the future though because I have to develop that part of myself.

There are other reasons too of course, but that is the one I must tackle.

@Elyz Because you'd be making an investment that could pay off for the rest of your life if it turns out it's better. It's easier if you enjoy tinkering with your machine though, not everyone's a geek in that field.

Fuck this infuriates me. I hope to be in the position to quit if I ever get asked to do something so moronic.

@AlmondSauce Thanks. I didn't realise it was that informal.

@ThomasRedstone I'm in the UK. I've agreed a start date which can be moved a bit. I kinda assumed that since they haven't signed yet they could pull out but maybe I'm wrong

It looks like I had the website open in multiple tabs, works when I closed them all. Seems like a good case for a dialog popup to inform the user, but I guess they didn't anticipate my lazy 100-tab-having ass

This is an absolutely top quality rant

I still think it's hilarious that I got rejected for being too mercenary though. "We want good people who aren't money-motivated so we're offering more money"

@620hun @AmyShackles I kinda wish I could delete the last part, it's a bit of a bullshit rationalisation.

I think I'm just worried that I'll get stuck in a shit job with average pay, and I'm shooting for a job with good pay rather than shooting for a good job. Pay and working hours are the only things I can measure, anything else requires experience.

@Stuxnet You just said it's debatable, now it's "false".

It's interesting that you don't try to offer any Windows solutions to OPs problems, or argue the case for Windows in general. Instead you just show up and claim it's subjective, like we didn't already know that nothing is objective.

"withholding from others information". Smfh, wtf was the point of reordering that sentence? This belongs on r/iamverysmart

@craig939393 I'd hope that future employers would look past that as long as it isn't a pattern. Idk how you'd explain it in a positive way though

@craig939393 seems a little extreme, how long have you been there?

Sounds like a lot of work to do without promise of reward. I'm not experienced with these sort of interviews though.

@jackhartley Could be wrong about Dell screen resolution, I seem to remember it was harder to get the specs I wanted though

I have a T480s, and have accepted it's probably not as bombproof as my old T420. The screen is not great, but it works fine indoors. However, the keyboard is stellar and it comes with a 3 year warranty like any £1000+ machine should do (*cough* Dell *cough*). It seemed to me the only advantage of a comparable XPS was a better, high-resolution screen. However, I'd rather not have the hassle of scaling in i3 + Linux, since 1080p 14" is already really small.

@mrrmc I'll take your word for it, could never figure out how to make Windows not a pain in the ass to use

@mrrmc I agree to a certain extent, but if devs aren't passionate about quality of software then what hope has the industry got?

@Stuxnet I don't go around shitting on Windows users, and if I did I'd get ready to argue properly. That's my position. I don't mind if you rant about Linux, but ranting about Linux users (with no qualification) is asking for it.

@Stuxnet I think a sensible human would perceive your original comment to be fairly combative, hence "shots fired". The original post was far less so, so all I see is you shitting on Linux users.

If that wasn't your intention, a simple apology would've ended it. Acting like you do now makes you seem arrogant and cowardly: telling people to "shh", and "drop it", or what motherfucker? You act like a dick, I'm gonna call you on it.