Dark Helmet 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (7149) comment rss

  • On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 06:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...

    "how can you code love"

    We're back to the question of a supernatural soul, otherwise the obvious answer is "the exact same way it's coded within human beings"....

  • On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 05:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...

    Well, then I'd lean on you for these kinds of discussions, since I was a psych major and sure as shit don't have the biology or CS background to actually do the damned work, but I saw this as a end-around the problem (meaning to "grow" the program as you would a fetus).

    I remember in Jurassic Park when everyone wondered how the hell you'd get dinosaur DNA out of fossils. It seemed impossible. It WAS impossible, but you could get it out of preserved biting insects that had dino-blood in their gullets.

    Same, albeit likely less impressive, revelation....

  • On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 05:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...

    "OTOH with our AI children, we'd have to explicitly instruct them to be bad, in order to instil human character likeness."

    It seems to me that this assumption requires to other assumptions.

    1. True randomness could not be built into an AI system

    2. We cannot program our AI to adapt new, self-generated code (behavior) based on experience.

    I would disagree with both of these assumptions....

  • On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 05:40am

    Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...

    "By their very nature, programs are sets of mathematical instructions."

    As I wrote about in Digilife, in some aspects of Digital Philosophy Theory, the very nature of NATURE may be represented as a complicated set of mathematical instructions. While my book was obviously fiction, and lord knows I don't have the kind of science or math background to speak in depth on the practical applications of the theory, I tried to tackle the problem of self-awareness by a computer program in the most realistic and pragmatic way I could imagine: which was to avoid taking on the goal directly.

    What the characters in the book suggested was that if you got the basic cellular math correct at the very early stages of human development (still a ridiculous task), say of an early stage fetus, and were also able to program the math for natural development of that fetus, you don't have to "program" and adult, you just let the fetus grow as naturally as you can.

    The question, it seems to me, isn't whether we can program self-awareness. The question is one of the soul. If the soul as we know it exists, it likely exists outside the realm of our ability to program for it, and self-awareness as a result is a fool's errand. If a soul is really only what we call the complex result of our natural development (meaning we call it that because we don't yet understand what it is in terms of a physical, natural thing), then there is no soul to program and self-awareness becomes a math problem again, not a problem of the supernatural....

  • On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: You're flat LYING here:

    You know who else made lists of people to be persecuted? Hitler, that's who. OOTB = Hitler.

    /Godwin

  • On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 12:34pm

    Re: You're flat LYING here:

    Speaking of lying, I have yet to get your response to my request regarding your un-instigated and massively hypocritical ad-hom attack on me in an earlier thread? Do you wish to demonstrate any kind of credibility, or are you refusing to respond (as you've accused Mike of doing)?

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sigh...then log in.

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 08:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Ootb, you're still an asshole. AJ, it is you who is not an ashhole in this aspect."

    Again, I disagree. The entire purpose and method by which AJ brought Hume up (and has since run off to hide somewhere) was misleading at best. He's attempting to say Mike referenced Hume in a way he never did (again, I know exactly what comment he's referring to). In other words, he's an asshole and a liar...

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 08:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Right? Can you imagine the horror of being married to AJ and having to deal with this argumentative semantic nonsense on a daily basis?

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 08:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Hey, Out_of_the_blue! In case you're reading this, for this one thing, at least you're not pulling things out of your ass. I apologize, I admit, I got it wrong."

    Not to pile on, but it was AJ hiding as an AC that brought Hume up, not OOTB, who I'd imagine has no idea whom Hume is to begin with....

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 08:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "who the fuck are you that he should take time out of his busy schedule to just drop everything to answer your question."

    Why are you not responding on this point, Blue? I've specifically called out your hypocrisy and your tapdancing attempt to pretend like you didn't ad-hom me specifically. Your refusal to respond, or apologize for your un-instigated attack is quite telling, I'm afraid.

    In fact, I think I'll make this comment a First Word, just to make sure you have all the best opportunities to see it....

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 08:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "In that article where Mike said copyright has both property-like and non-property like aspects, he never once even mentioned the word Hume. So hasn't_got_a_clue is pulling things out of his ass again."

    No, actually, Mike has mentioned Hume before (I know exactly what comment AJ is referring to), but at no point did Mike, or anyone else at Techdirt, "insist" that we have to use Hume's definition. In fact, it's been repeated by all of us here at Techdirt that appeals to authority are poor forms of argument. In fact, Mike made that same point in the comment to which AJ is referring to.

    This, specifically, is a wonderful example of how AJ takes portions of comments out of context, cherry-picked from long ago to attempt to smear another person because he doesn't have a valid argument or point to make. It'd be disgusting if I thought anyone here was stupid enough to fall for it....

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 07:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "he insisted that we use Hume's definition of property from three centuries ago."

    And where exactly did he insist this? If he didn't, your entire rant is baseless. If he did, I'd fucking love to see it....

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 07:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "who the fuck are you that he should take time out of his busy schedule to just drop everything to answer your question."

    "@"Dark Helmet": I didn't address you, why are you responding?"

    Dick_Helmet was an obvious reference to me. Why are you pretending otherwise? It was an obvious ad-hom when you constantly decry them. Hypocrisy defined.

    "Will you go on record here under penalty of perjury that you never reply to my posts except visibly and under your Dark Helmet account?"

    Yes, I absolutely will. On the off chance that you think there was a case when an AC was indeed me, or any other account for that matter, tell me where it was and I'll happily confirm, under penalties of perjury, each specific instance. I do not post here except under my account. End of story, full stop.

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 07:01am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dear lord, JUST MAKE A FUCKING POINT! This is about more than Mike, for Christ's sake....

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 06:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "who the fuck are you that he should take time out of his busy schedule to just drop everything to answer your question."

    Self-correcting typo: "your use"

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 06:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "who the fuck are you that he should take time out of his busy schedule to just drop everything to answer your question."

    I have an account, Blue. BTW, you're use of ad-homs while constantly decrying the use of ad-homs is pure hypocritical gold. Nicely done....

  • On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 06:49am

    Re: Re:

    I was searching for this, but you found it first. AJ, you've been shown Mike's answer. Care to make an actual fucking point?

  • On the post: It's Important To Learn From Business Model Failures As Well

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2012 @ 03:53pm

    Re: Failures = dog bites man story, Mike.

    Remember when your comment posts had an actual point, even if it was balls-explodingly stupid?

    Good times....

  • On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.

    Dark Helmet ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2012 @ 09:53am

    Re:

    Actually, that analogy is silly because the digital content we're talking about costs nothing to marginally produce in terms of copies. At the macro level, the only thing the entertainment industry needs to be concerned about is total dollars spent by people. If a pirate "pirates" $10k worth of digital content and spends $1k on digital content, he's an immensely better customer than the non-pirate who buys $500 worth of content.

    C'mon, this stuff isn't hard....

Next >>