The problem is allowing arbitrary numbers of unary operators. If you allowed ++ increment it would be trivialized even easier. Could even do all complex numbers with only 2 twos.
If you don't allow arbitrary numbers of unary operators and only a finite set of binary operators then you will only be able to represent a finite number of numbers. You need at least one "useful" unary operator for the problem to remain interesting.
How did you jump to that conclusion? The agent will be limited by the capabilities under its control. We have the technological ability to cripple world now and we don't have the technological means to prevent it. Give one AI control of the whole US arsenal and the objective of ending the world. Give another AI the capabilities of the rest of the world and the objective of protecting it. Would you feel safe?
> We have the technological ability to cripple world now and we don't have the technological means to prevent it
Humans have prevented it many times, but not specifically by technological ability. If Putin/Trump/Xi Ping wanted a global nuclear war, they'd better have the means to launch the nukes themselves in secret because the chain of command will challenge them.
If an out-of-control AI could discover a circuitous way to access nukes, an antagonist AI of equal capabilities should be able to figure it out too, and warn the humans in the loop.
I agree that AI development should be made responsibly, but not all people do, and it's impossible to put the cat back in the bag. The limiting factor these days is hardware, as a true AGI will likely need even more of it than our current LLMs.
Out-of-control AI is sci-fi fearmongering, it's not about worming through systems. It will be doing exactly what it was placed there to do. It will be a human failing that puts armageddon in it's hands. And since humans have NO MEANS to prevent armageddon (The predominant policy is in fact doubling down on destruction with MAD), there will be no way to place AI in command of this defense. The asymmetrical relationship between destruction and creation will mean there will never be a defense.
They could get rid of this phenomena if they had the train schedule end in a lively area. Meaning the last train arriving an endpoint is followed by a single last train that only goes halfway. I imagine that extra half-route is opposite that most passengers are traveling though.
The whole article is "This design isn't optimized for me" and "No one else prioritizes my priorities". Empathy is something one can develop with practice if you take the self-reflection to recognize things from others perspectives. Their "Nobody cares" can easily be redirected back to author with how little other perspectives they consider. Multiple times their "objectively" better thing is worse for some.
Find out what "agree to work" means, they may have very different ideas then you on what effort they're asking for. Also you only need to be in good graces with registrar office until classes begin. So maybe just say what they want to appease them then make long timelines, slow roll and eventually ghost when you have your diploma. "As a solo dev this will take over a year", "I don't want to stress the API during registration season", "My employer doesn't allow me to work on volunteer projects"
They're using bureaucracy to save face for themselves. Once this is out of view, they're going to forget about it.
I think most of the criticism comes from those worried it will lead to worse conditions. As long as the primary goal is education and reintegration, then it's great. If it becomes a program of squeezing unwilling prisoners to undercut competition then I have big problems with it. I fear the natural course will be cutting prison funding and putting pressure on these programs to bring in money to fund prison necessities.
I see what you're saying for sure. but at the end of the day, allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration, and simultaneously is drastically lowering the likelihood that those inmates will return (and cost more taxpayer $).
I guess what I mean is, they can't end up squeezing prisoners any more than they already are: in many places 8 hour prison jobs paying less than 50 cents a day, when a phone call costs $3.00+ an hour and a single ramen noodle costs $2.00+.
That stuff significantly contributes to the prison mentality and group-think mindset of 'the authorities are your enemy'. Even if you don't come in with that mentality, after being surrounded by it in conditions like that, you'll very likely be brainwashed by the time you leave and the cycle unfortunately begins.
> allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration
No. This CANNOT be part of the argument for prisoner's having jobs. If we as a society have decided that the only route to protecting society is to strip people of their rights and freedom, the we MUST be the one's to fund it. I don't have a problem with prisoners having jobs, in fact I definitely agree that it needs to be a part of rehabilitation. But a system that depends on abusing others to prop itself up should not exist. And this system cannot exist and deliver the actual results we want of correction and rehabilitation if there is a monetary incentive because there will always be someone that will come along and selfishly twist the system for their own gain.
I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).
> I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).
80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released, with the rest going to commissary. Maybe a monthly disbursement if voters want to be paternalistic about it.
When convicts are released on probation to a halfway home, it should be with a pocket full of change so they can start rebuilding their life - buy a beater car to be able to commute, put a down payment on their own place, and so on.
> 80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released
I’d rather they be allowed to use that money as they see fit while still incarcerated, unless there is a specific reason not to (e.g. history of financial crimes).
For instance, people in jail might have kids or sick parents, and should be able to help support them now if needed.
That’s a great point! If they have dependents, prisoners should absolutely be able to send money to them as they earn it without restriction.
I don’t want to deprive them of even more agency than we already do, but I do think there’s a moral hazard to letting prisoners spend all that money themselves while incarcerated. Commissary prices are ridiculous but there’s only so much they can spend on ramen and toiletries. Even a minimum wage of $10/hr is plenty to drive the black market for drugs out of control which will just make the long term situation worse for everyone (thanks to corrupt prison guards more than anything). It’s unfortunately paternalistic but
pragmatic.
Like the OP I have an ethical objection to prisoners subsidizing their own incarceration. If society wants to protect itself by taking away peoples’ rights that’s fine, but we should be willing to pay for it. Being released without a pot to piss in is just adding insult to injury and perpetuating a cycle of crime.
I see where you are coming from, and I am not saying you are fundamentally wrong at all.
What I can say, is that at this point in my life, I am genuinely happy to be able to not only pay taxes, but additionally offset some of the taxpayer money that my decisions cost. Regardless of whether or not I feel like I still belong here at this point, I made those decisions and I knew the consequences. I am just grateful to be in a position where that is even an option, because so many are not.
Indeed. If I have to ask myself questions like "was this product made with forced labor?", "what about coerced?", and "where is the line drawn?" then the right answer is to just walk away.
I agree it's intimidating. I think the way to counter that is good player aids. If you have a really well designed reference in front of each player, then the teach is often "see that second line, well this is how that works". Also the teacher should read the rules ahead of time, so they can can summarize or go in more details depending on the comprehension of players.
Those videos often gloss over a lot of specific details (e.g. round-up or round-down) and thats fine to gloss over in teaching also. If the first game runs smooth and gives the game experience, they're more likely to play again than if you have to stop and dig through reference multiple times. You can always look it up after so you do the second game more correctly.
A backdoor bypasses legitimate access mechanisms. Whether it is a backdoor or not depends fully on whether you believe lawful intercept is a legitimate access mechanism. And I think the law is on the side of it being not a backdoor.
We've had multiple bills proposed by multiple countries for government mandated backdoors. Multiple articles refer to how these bills would create backdoors, multiple computer security experts say the bills would create backdoors in the software. Under your definition of the word they'd all be using the word incorrectly because logically no bill could create a legal backdoor by definition.
It's seems there's a semantic schism on "the point in software where security is weak enough (either purposefully or unkowingly) for 3rd party access by a 3rd party" and "the point in software where security is purposefully weakened for 3rd party access by the legal requirement of a 3rd party" there's definitely a distinction but I generally conflate the two, perhaps incorrectly, under the word backdoor.
If you've got another more appropos word for this purposeful and legal weakining of security for non primary user/provider access I'd love to know it because sadly I feel I'd use it fairly often in the coming years.
These articles use the word "backdoor" for effect, for example <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/08/apple-adds-a-...>. The bills you refer to by multiple countries simply want their own in-house wiretapping apparatus, because they don't want to be dependent on the US. Specifically, I'm thinking of EU's "chat control". Ironically those who oppose it are unwittingly doing the bidding for a more powerful US. The internet is fully wiretapped and there is no end in sight.
No they use the word backdoor because there is no better word for these pathwatys/purposefully created weak spots in access to the software. Seriously please give me one that emphasises the security detriment to the 1st party user and i'll happily use it instead.
I'll also add that ironically those who don't oppose these bills are unwittingly doing the bidding of strategic adversaries as demonstrated quite adequately by the PRC here.
A backdoor in the technical sense (which is the real topic of this whole conversation) is one that bypasses the known way of entry. For an "End to end encrypted" communication channel, a backdoor allows someone to view the communication without being on either of the "ends".
The problem is not whether the backdoor was legally mandated or not, and whether legal authorities are misusing them or not, the problem is that it exists. And the existence by itself is enough to let someone ignore any legal mandates and view the comms.
