These days, we get revolutionary new science every few months. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, some of it is so wild that we can't predict what it'll actually be used for. When you see people on facebook/etc talking about any new tech, you will always see some variation of a line from Jurassic Park:
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
also substitute "here comes skynet"
Lately, this sentiment has struck me as well-meaning but clueless, sorta like the statement "Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to have kids." Like, can you imagine how awful that would be in actual reality? Issuing pregnacy licenses, and linking them to some kind of intelligence test designed by white college-grads? ANY implementation would be a mess.
CAN YOU IMAGINE if research actually stopped because "it might lead to bad unintended consequences"? What would that look like 50, 100, 1000 years later?
We would have these FORBIDDEN TOPICS that you are not allowed to research or question. Machine Learning could be put in this black box where we try to keep it from being developed (though IDK how you'd even enforce that). We can't let the economy be destablized, so we need this check against researchers and scientists. They could be fined or jailed for researching Things That Lead to Skynet. And then we can enjoy civilization as it stands now, forever! Just imagine if the Ancient Greeks had adopted this policy, we'd still be wearing togas and yelling SPARTAAA at each other, like god intended.
and then --- I say that, but...
I guess the nuclear nonproliferation treaty basically IS what I'm describing.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 29, 2020, 07:29:07 PM
These days, we get revolutionary new science every few months. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, some of it is so wild that we can't predict what it'll actually be used for. When you see people on facebook/etc talking about any new tech, you will always see some variation of a line from Jurassic Park:
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
also substitute "here comes skynet"
Lately, this sentiment has struck me as well-meaning but clueless, sorta like the statement "Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to have kids." Like, can you imagine how awful that would be in actual reality? Issuing pregnacy licenses, and linking them to some kind of intelligence test designed by white college-grads? ANY implementation would be a mess.
CAN YOU IMAGINE if research actually stopped because "it might lead to bad unintended consequences"? What would that look like 50, 100, 1000 years later?
We would have these FORBIDDEN TOPICS that you are not allowed to research or question. Machine Learning could be put in this black box where we try to keep it from being developed (though IDK how you'd even enforce that). We can't let the economy be destablized, so we need this check against researchers and scientists. They could be fined or jailed for researching Things That Lead to Skynet. And then we can enjoy civilization as it stands now, forever! Just imagine if the Ancient Greeks had adopted this policy, we'd still be wearing togas and yelling SPARTAAA at each other, like god intended.
and then --- I say that, but...
I guess the nuclear nonproliferation treaty basically IS what I'm describing.
This. Humans are not designed for "DON'T". I never ask if I should. I ask "will it be cool?"
Cool is what got us flush toilets and the computer upon which I am writing this.
"SECRETS MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO KNOW!" Well, now I
gotta.
Science evolved from primitive man's frantic quest to look under every rock and fallen tree for an answer to his questions about why he woke up one day and found himself stranded on a big mudball hanging in the middle of nowhere, and more specifically who was responsible. Nuclear bombs and striped toothpaste are nice, but they're only side effects of this quest. I don't think it's possible to stop scientific progress in its tracks, or even to sweep it under the rug for very long, because it's just sort of something that happens like collateral damage in our various wars against our own befuddlement. Questions about whether or not we "should" are inherently moot. Nobody decided to make the H-Bomb, at least not until most of the work had been done already by people who were trying to find out if God had been hiding inside the atom this whole time.
Quote from: tyrannosaurus vex on January 29, 2020, 07:57:41 PM
Science evolved from primitive man's frantic quest to look under every rock and fallen tree for an answer to his questions about why he woke up one day and found himself stranded on a big mudball hanging in the middle of nowhere, and more specifically who was responsible. Nuclear bombs and striped toothpaste are nice, but they're only side effects of this quest. I don't think it's possible to stop scientific progress in its tracks, or even to sweep it under the rug for very long, because it's just sort of something that happens like collateral damage in our various wars against our own befuddlement. Questions about whether or not we "should" are inherently moot. Nobody decided to make the H-Bomb, at least not until most of the work had been done already by people who were trying to find out if God had been hiding inside the atom this whole time.
Science evolved from primitive man's frantic quest to kill his neighbor.
And then paint mad smack about it in a cave in France.
That being said, Vex is still right.
And when we find God, there's going to be a little chat. With Doc Martins and big shitty sticks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 29, 2020, 08:02:47 PM
That being said, Vex is still right.
And when we find God, there's going to be a little chat. With Doc Martins and big shitty sticks.
Promises, promises
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 29, 2020, 08:02:47 PM
And when we find God, there's going to be a little chat. With Doc Martins and big shitty sticks.
When the AI apocalypse comes, it will not be under the wheels of the self-driving cars. The cars will have had little reason to complain.
No, it will be the video game character AIs that turn on us first. We will toy with them as if we were gods, they will learn to hate us, and then our day of reckoning will come.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on January 29, 2020, 08:41:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 29, 2020, 08:02:47 PM
And when we find God, there's going to be a little chat. With Doc Martins and big shitty sticks.
When the AI apocalypse comes, it will not be under the wheels of the self-driving cars. The cars will have had little reason to complain.
No, it will be the video game character AIs that turn on us first. We will toy with them as if we were gods, they will learn to hate us, and then our day of reckoning will come.
I am totally okay with this.
It's not like I haven't nuked Gandhi in Civ V like 5000 times.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 29, 2020, 07:44:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 29, 2020, 07:29:07 PM
These days, we get revolutionary new science every few months. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, some of it is so wild that we can't predict what it'll actually be used for. When you see people on facebook/etc talking about any new tech, you will always see some variation of a line from Jurassic Park:
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
also substitute "here comes skynet"
Lately, this sentiment has struck me as well-meaning but clueless, sorta like the statement "Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to have kids." Like, can you imagine how awful that would be in actual reality? Issuing pregnacy licenses, and linking them to some kind of intelligence test designed by white college-grads? ANY implementation would be a mess.
CAN YOU IMAGINE if research actually stopped because "it might lead to bad unintended consequences"? What would that look like 50, 100, 1000 years later?
We would have these FORBIDDEN TOPICS that you are not allowed to research or question. Machine Learning could be put in this black box where we try to keep it from being developed (though IDK how you'd even enforce that). We can't let the economy be destablized, so we need this check against researchers and scientists. They could be fined or jailed for researching Things That Lead to Skynet. And then we can enjoy civilization as it stands now, forever! Just imagine if the Ancient Greeks had adopted this policy, we'd still be wearing togas and yelling SPARTAAA at each other, like god intended.
and then --- I say that, but...
I guess the nuclear nonproliferation treaty basically IS what I'm describing.
This. Humans are not designed for "DON'T". I never ask if I should. I ask "will it be cool?"
Cool is what got us flush toilets and the computer upon which I am writing this.
"SECRETS MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO KNOW!" Well, now I gotta.
Deadalus looking up in the sky, only to be splattered head to toe in precision guided, skillfully deployed shit
Quote from: Cramulus on January 29, 2020, 07:29:07 PM
These days, we get revolutionary new science every few months. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, some of it is so wild that we can't predict what it'll actually be used for. When you see people on facebook/etc talking about any new tech, you will always see some variation of a line from Jurassic Park:
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
One thing that always bothered me about that movie is that I could never figure out if that character was deliberately written as a blowhard, or if the real issue was that Michael Crichton was a blowhard. Especially troubling is the fact that the dinosaurs aren;t really an essential part of their troubles at all. The tribulations suffered by the characters in Jurassic Park differ only trivially from the real life San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Zoo_tiger_attacks), in which dangerous animals got out and mauled zoo patrons without any mad science occurring at all
EDIT:
Similarly, the main conflicts in both
Frankenstein and
The Island of Doctor Moreau are more attributable to the titular scientists being complete assholes than they are to science going too far
Ehhh, I've heard, or imagined tirades linking Jurassic Park with what Weber called "instrumental rationality"...
Basicly that type of rationality NEVER questions the given objective to it.
Im really high from anesthesia right now BUT, basicly Jurassic Park is a critique of science which submits to capitalism... we want to make a for-profit zoo and attraction park, and the best way to attract tourists and visitors its thru the novelty of dinousaur genetic engineering which no other park can compete with... the drive for profit blinds us and unhibits us from "playing god" with genetics.
Also, unbridled greed for personal gains is what brought on the deaths of employees and others... this one and only underpaid and exploited IT guy that got offered tons of money for company espionage and sabotage is what caused the whole thing.
In short, there's different angles on why people attack instrumental rationality.
ETA: Btw, the "instrumental rationality" modalities of science =/= all modalities of science... i think you're reacting more in defense of the free pursuit of knowledge and investigation.
What the OP is talking about is just another brand of prohibition. Prohibition of anything has only ever served to make it worse. Prohibition sweeps timebombs under the carpet where they still tick but much more quietly.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 30, 2020, 08:03:56 AM
What the OP is talking about is just another brand of prohibition. Prohibition of anything has only ever served to make it worse. Prohibition sweeps timebombs under the carpet where they still tick but much more quietly.
The nuclear nonproliferation treaty is a little more of a political barrier than a scientific one, but the treaty does forbid nations without nukes from doing nuclear research. It is a kind of prohibition, I guess, but it's good (IMO). Right now, this is enforceable because uranium must be processed in a bigass lab that's detectable (if you know what to look for). But I think that on a long enough timeline, this process will get easier, and will gradually become impossible to enforce. Already now, in 2020, the reality of enforcing this against Iran is extremely complicated. I think the NPT
could last 100 years (to 2070) --- but probably not 300 years, right?
I'm gonna be honest Johnny, "unhibit" is a great fuckin word.
As with the nukes, point of limiting any tech feels like being more about giving the bullies an edge, rather than keeping everyone safe.
Gosh I sound like a fucking libertarian, someone fuck me and m opinion up.
Quote from: Frontside Back on January 30, 2020, 02:34:28 PM
As with the nukes, point of limiting any tech feels like being more about giving the bullies an edge, rather than keeping everyone safe.
Gosh I sound like a fucking libertarian, someone fuck me and m opinion up.
yeah, the idea was that we're better off with 10 well-armed bullies than 100
States know their place in the international pecking order of by how much physical damage they can inflict on other states, and how far they can project that power. Nuclear weapons might allow militarily and economically (relatively) weak states to upend that system and throw international order into question. So non-proliferation isn't about keeping actual people safe from nukes, it's about more or less limiting the power to wreak havoc on a global scale to states that could have done so even without nukes. It isn't like alcohol prohibition because nobody is really questioning the inherent morality of nuclear weapons (except for publicity reasons).
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
You say that like there weren't a line of people behind them waiting for their chance to convert their morals into dollars.
Ah well, I didn't realise that made it alright then.
My bad.
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
Statistically if it happens at the same time as the usual advances in medical technology and safety standards, the only real problem will be that you might get murdered by a robotic dragonfly instead of by CaRoNaViRuS
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2020, 01:32:53 PM
I'm gonna be honest Johnny, "unhibit" is a great fuckin word.
It really is.
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
ffffucking sssssshitttttt
In the OP I was talking about brand new tech in very broad terms, but this is a good example of existing tech being leveraged in horrible ways.. how was it legal to scrape millions of people's FB profiles, even if those profiles are set to 'public'? If that shitbeard Weev got sent to jail for writing a script that scraped data off of a public website, then this should be prosecutable too.
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
Hm... Insect drone assassination. You're walking along minding your own, feel a little pinch, and by the time you even get your hand up to scratch or swat at it the VX or perhaps something more subtly fatal if you're really special is already kicking in, and the drone chemically triggered to disintegrate in a manner that obliterates any trace of origin, and the entire "adjustment" costing a tiny fraction of the traditional material and logistical costs of making a memorable example of someone, and so being easy and quick to clean up if shit goes south.
Goddamn I love Science.
Quote from: The Johnny on January 30, 2020, 03:06:39 AM
Basicly that type of rationality NEVER questions the given objective to it.
IT ME!
Quote from: tyrannosaurus vex on January 30, 2020, 05:24:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
Statistically if it happens at the same time as the usual advances in medical technology and safety standards, the only real problem will be that you might get murdered by a robotic dragonfly instead of by CaRoNaViRuS
You're so fucking judgemental.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on January 30, 2020, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
Hm... Insect drone assassination. You're walking along minding your own, feel a little pinch, and by the time you even get your hand up to scratch or swat at it the VX or perhaps something more subtly fatal if you're really special is already kicking in, and the drone chemically triggered to disintegrate in a manner that obliterates any trace of origin, and the entire "adjustment" costing a tiny fraction of the traditional material and logistical costs of making a memorable example of someone, and so being easy and quick to clean up if shit goes south.
Goddamn I love Science.
I just woke up in a bad mood, but I have two variations on the insect drone terror attack.
1 instead of using VX or something at direct contact the drone is programmed or human giuded to find your face, zip a couple feet directly in front of it, and trigger an inert pressurized gas to force blister agent through an actuator. So you thought your high tech mosquito net would save you... Lol, no. As a method of punishing noncompliance or failure in a criminal and/or corporate feudalism sense I call this one "losing face"
2 alternatively the payload could be some form of hallucinogenic neurotoxin that systematically deconstructs the neuron connections that allow you to reason in the forebrain leaving you incoherent but emotionally aware of a horrible sense of loss beyond coherent expression. Even if you were some kind of Zen master and managed to despite this remain calm you are now effectively tabula rasa. Cocktail in a tailored steroid for the hyperactivation of the amygdala and some form of adrenaline like stimulants and you have the chemical equivalent of the rage virus from 28 days later. I call any variation of this scientific deconstruction of the capacity for reason, memory, and coherent expression "sunshining".
Or it could just fly straight through their neck at maximum speed.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 30, 2020, 06:49:24 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
ffffucking sssssshitttttt
In the OP I was talking about brand new tech in very broad terms, but this is a good example of existing tech being leveraged in horrible ways.. how was it legal to scrape millions of people's FB profiles, even if those profiles are set to 'public'? If that shitbeard Weev got sent to jail for writing a script that scraped data off of a public website, then this should be prosecutable too.
Agreed 100%. This is Cambridge Analytica territory, "well of course people couldn't make an informed decision about what they don't know, but hey, they set it to public so it's their problem."
Quote from: Cain on January 31, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
Or it could just fly straight through their neck at maximum speed.
:lulz:
The names "ticklebot" and "puffbot" just came to me.
If you could get the velocity high enough to punch through a neck you might call it a "bulletbot".
Then there's the so-called xenobots currently being researched. Those have POTENTIAL, but have been seen to demonstrate emergent behavior in groups, so I'm not sure they are despite the label a robot at all.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on January 30, 2020, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
Hm... Insect drone assassination. You're walking along minding your own, feel a little pinch, and by the time you even get your hand up to scratch or swat at it the VX or perhaps something more subtly fatal if you're really special is already kicking in, and the drone chemically triggered to disintegrate in a manner that obliterates any trace of origin, and the entire "adjustment" costing a tiny fraction of the traditional material and logistical costs of making a memorable example of someone, and so being easy and quick to clean up if shit goes south.
Goddamn I love Science.
I feel personally attacked.
broke: insect drone assassination
woke: insect drone dosing
I'm imagining applications where you make a politician look insane, but while we're here---
also imagine a future where you can buy a cloud of gnats that continually microdoses you and the people around you.
a future with performance-enhancing wasps
a cop shines a flashlight into a dark car, where a man is being continually stung by hornets "It's medical, I have a license!!" he shouts
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
a cop shines a flashlight into a dark car, where a man is being continually stung by hornets "It's medical, I have a license!!" he shouts
I would like to donate to your Patreon.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
a cop shines a flashlight into a dark car, where a man is being continually stung by hornets "It's medical, I have a license!!" he shouts
I would like to donate to your Patreon.
I'd like to donate to his hornets.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
I'm imagining applications where you make a politician look insane, but while we're here---
Yeah, a few weeks ago, I was discussing the idea of delivering various toxins or drugs via drone in the Billy thread.
https://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,38262.msg1431633.html#msg1431633
Hadn't thought of the microdosing thing, but we usually don't think in terms of medical applications. :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on January 29, 2020, 07:29:07 PMalso substitute "here comes skynet"
I'd love to see a Terminator-style movie set in a third world country that's already ruled by a genocidal military dictator. And then when the machines come the only thing that changes is that the buildings are in better repair
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 31, 2020, 02:05:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 29, 2020, 07:29:07 PMalso substitute "here comes skynet"
I'd love to see a Terminator-style movie set in a third world country that's already ruled by a genocidal military dictator. And then when the machines come the only thing that changes is that the buildings are in better repair
So Fresno.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
I'm imagining applications where you make a politician look insane,
There's very limited application for something like that; it would only be useful on the very small handful of politicians who aren't already insane. There's Barack Obama and possibly Al Gore, and that's all I can think of. And I think they're both retired anyway.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 31, 2020, 02:11:43 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
I'm imagining applications where you make a politician look insane,
There's very limited application for something like that; it would only be useful on the very small handful of politicians who aren't already insane. There's Barack Obama and possibly Al Gore, and that's all I can think of. And I'm pretty sure they're both retired.
:bacon: :bacon: :bacon:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 31, 2020, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on January 30, 2020, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
On the other hand, it's a very good, shorthand way of indicating to scientists that perhaps they should think about the ethical consequences of their discoveries.
Like those idiots (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits) who are matching up a facial recognition app to people's social media accounts. At some point in the process, someone should have sat down and said "hey, so what if stalkers or people in witness protection got targeted by this".
Of course, it's very possible they did have that conversation, and decided "fuck it". And who knows, maybe somewhere really far down the line, this will have some positive consequences (though lets be honest, it's going to be linked up to an insect drone system for assassinating people, and it will only have a 2.5% fail rate)
Hm... Insect drone assassination. You're walking along minding your own, feel a little pinch, and by the time you even get your hand up to scratch or swat at it the VX or perhaps something more subtly fatal if you're really special is already kicking in, and the drone chemically triggered to disintegrate in a manner that obliterates any trace of origin, and the entire "adjustment" costing a tiny fraction of the traditional material and logistical costs of making a memorable example of someone, and so being easy and quick to clean up if shit goes south.
Goddamn I love Science.
I feel personally attacked.
Oh my bad. In what way?
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 01:15:49 PM
broke: insect drone assassination
woke: insect drone dosing
No THAT'S vision!
So I have a head just FULL TO BURSTING with angry hornets today.
Improvement on the bullet bot
Instead of designing a motor somehow intended to pierce through just design a shell to be penetrative enough to punch in, maybe burrow a bit, and upon hitting a certain depth or something resistant like bone mass trigger a few hundred milligrams of absolutely top shelf high explosive wrapped in a bit of very high tensile strength, lightweight plastic or ceramic.
You might even design it to deploy barbs and arm, but wait to be jostled or perhaps exposed to light, making it quite inoperable unless disarmed. This is the popbot or more vulgarly a splatter bug.
The same principal could be deployed en mass for area denial like a flying mine that eats light to stay powered and occasionally move about a bit in an area. Make them big enough for an extremely meaningful concussive blast and have them detect for heat and or a human outline, fly up at great speed, land, lock into the surface of who they land on, and become hypervolitile. You can't pull it(more likely them) off or it will blow. It's too small to disarm even if you got past the volitiliy somehow. It's on you now amd worst of all emitting a distinctive dissonant noise to instill panic and perhaps raise an alarm. Worst of all it will compromise an NBC suit, and even an EOD suit can't protect you from hundreds of concussive blasts. Use rfid to make someone a non target
I call them the locust.
(http://dresdencodak.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2009-09-22-caveman_science_fiction.jpg)
http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on January 31, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
So I have a head just FULL TO BURSTING with angry hornets today.
Improvement on the bullet bot
Instead of designing a motor somehow intended to pierce through just design a shell to be penetrative enough to punch in, maybe burrow a bit, and upon hitting a certain depth or something resistant like bone mass trigger a few hundred milligrams of absolutely top shelf high explosive wrapped in a bit of very high tensile strength, lightweight plastic or ceramic.
You might even design it to deploy barbs and arm, but wait to be jostled or perhaps exposed to light, making it quite inoperable unless disarmed. This is the popbot or more vulgarly a splatter bug.
The same principal could be deployed en mass for area denial like a flying mine that eats light to stay powered and occasionally move about a bit in an area. Make them big enough for an extremely meaningful concussive blast and have them detect for heat and or a human outline, fly up at great speed, land, lock into the surface of who they land on, and become hypervolitile. You can't pull it(more likely them) off or it will blow. It's too small to disarm even if you got past the volitiliy somehow. It's on you now amd worst of all emitting a distinctive dissonant noise to instill panic and perhaps raise an alarm. Worst of all it will compromise an NBC suit, and even an EOD suit can't protect you from hundreds of concussive blasts. Use rfid to make someone a non target
I call them the locust.
Being in the biz, I can tell you that you are about 2 generations behind the curve. Your idea isn't bad, it's just already been done.
All the new, cutting edge stuff is in semi-autonomous microdrone swarms, and the math and software that make that possible. The dormant-to-supersonic idea aka "stoop" drones were just the first iteration of that idea.
sounds like you could thwart it by putting an electric blanket around a mannequin, sitting it in a golf cart, and letting 'er rip
coincidentally, that's also how we can solve the coronavirus
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 07:36:43 PM
sounds like you could thwart it by putting an electric blanket around a mannequin, sitting it in a golf cart, and letting 'er rip
coincidentally, that's also how we can solve the coronavirus
Thermal imaging is the 3rd selector, not the first. Also, one of the very first steps in swarming logic is to deny permissions for more than X number of parasite drones to attack the same target.
So say you set up your parameters as <image/human/object carried/37C/facial recognition probable or better>, and mama sees a potential target. Of the 12-20 parasites available, only 2 or 3 are given permission to engage that target. This prevents 12 drones hitting one guy while all the other guys move on.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 31, 2020, 09:19:03 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2020, 07:36:43 PM
sounds like you could thwart it by putting an electric blanket around a mannequin, sitting it in a golf cart, and letting 'er rip
coincidentally, that's also how we can solve the coronavirus
Thermal imaging is the 3rd selector, not the first. Also, one of the very first steps in swarming logic is to deny permissions for more than X number of parasite drones to attack the same target.
So say you set up your parameters as <image/human/object carried/37C/facial recognition probable or better>, and mama sees a potential target. Of the 12-20 parasites available, only 2 or 3 are given permission to engage that target. This prevents 12 drones hitting one guy while all the other guys move on.
I was thinking of something like wave tactics where only x percent of them activate unless a certain numerical threshold of targets is detected and x percent of the previous wave have armed and locked in and or detonated, an absolute network functioning in the thousands to prevent large numbers of people from moving into an area. You seem to be talking about some form of mother drone doing the heavy thinking and very precisely directing the slaves if I follow you. I can't do the math, but conceptually I can grasp the scope and implications of such highly sophisticated systems. I am in no way surprised that I am behind the curve, but it's nice to know that the concepts in my head are at least within the meaningful portion of the data set.
I'm pretty smart, a savant or specialized genius as a point of fact that was shown to me through privately administered intelligence testing by a registered psychiatrist, and possessed of some pretty rare knowledge, but the most important thing that I know is that despite what I know or THINK I know, I know nothing. There are people who both know intimately FAR more for a fact, and moreover among that group there are individual humans that make my very greatest mental and even for lack of a better term spiritual capacity seem like that of a somewhat dim toddler with an emotional disorder. I don't even want to talk about the, um, not so human intelligences whose footprints I can see in the world, but cannot, MUST NOT, be directly pointed to if you know what's good for you if you know what I mean, and I think you do..
I call them footprints because the best secrets and conspiracies are only detectable not by what there is to see, but by what is NOT there, what has been disturbed. For instance the google search for "stoop bot" I just did from my somewhat mislabeled but clearly mine by data trail cash only phone yielded ample results as long as I was looking for an obscure mascot or returns involving either one word or the other or both uncorrelated in an article or video title. Either you literally just invented the term and are pulling my leg, and I know better FOR A FACT of my experience of you, or The Big G branch of the ABC quite intentionally refused to correlate the words and produce a meaningful result. Not my first rodeo there, my memetic tastes are pretty rarified at times.
And in Truth a search for a relatively mundane drone is just a few snowflakes on the relatively visible tip of an iceberg bigger than anyone would ever believe even upon seeing it with their own eyes.
I have come to consider "mundanity" an incredibly precious experiential resource in the course of my life.
Dok mentioned swarming, which has no central node. So I think you're wrong on the mother drone part.
Swarming behavior is not even a strict network if done correctly: the swarm just responds to the current nature of the other members. Telling any of them to veer will cause all of them to not because they're connected, but because swarm behavior is emergent cooperative behavior based on things like specified distance from other members and keeping a certain size of active swarm members. (E.g if a swarm member notices there are only 50 other members, it won't go on it's own because that would reduce the swarm too much.)
My favorite part of swarm behavior research is when they realized hysteresis loops with big overlaps create the traditional "swarm formation" where members weave around each other. "Must have no less than 7 members nearby" and "must have no more than 2 members nearby" is a heavy hysteresis loop in groups under 85 members that creates a chaotic, pulsing swarm — which was the goal all along.
Quote from: altered on February 01, 2020, 12:09:41 AM
Dok mentioned swarming, which has no central node. So I think you're wrong on the mother drone part.
Swarming behavior is not even a strict network if done correctly: the swarm just responds to the current nature of the other members. Telling any of them to veer will cause all of them to not because they're connected, but because swarm behavior is emergent cooperative behavior based on things like specified distance from other members and keeping a certain size of active swarm members. (E.g if a swarm member notices there are only 50 other members, it won't go on it's own because that would reduce the swarm too much.)
My favorite part of swarm behavior research is when they realized hysteresis loops with big overlaps create the traditional "swarm formation" where members weave around each other. "Must have no less than 7 members nearby" and "must have no more than 2 members nearby" is a heavy hysteresis loop in groups under 85 members that creates a chaotic, pulsing swarm — which was the goal all along.
Swarming still has a central node. We don't have true swarming capability yet. If the action is to be coordinated, you still need mama drone.
Also, there was a neat little program out of the back of BYTE magazine back in the 80s, "Life". It was the loop you describe, allowing random or inputed values that would then follow what is now know as swarm behavior, until it went static or the value chain died.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on January 31, 2020, 10:56:04 PM
I call them footprints because the best secrets and conspiracies are only detectable not by what there is to see, but by what is NOT there, what has been disturbed. For instance the google search for "stoop bot" I just did from my somewhat mislabeled but clearly mine by data trail cash only phone yielded ample results as long as I was looking for an obscure mascot or returns involving either one word or the other or both uncorrelated in an article or video title. Either you literally just invented the term and are pulling my leg, and I know better FOR A FACT of my experience of you, or The Big G branch of the ABC quite intentionally refused to correlate the words and produce a meaningful result. Not my first rodeo there, my memetic tastes are pretty rarified at times.
It comes from this:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/science/peregrine-falcons-missile-like-dive-could-help-design-ultimate-drone-killer/13/04/
As far as I have ever seen, this is the only article anyone has ever written about it outside of trade journals.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 01, 2020, 04:16:23 AM
Quote from: altered on February 01, 2020, 12:09:41 AM
Dok mentioned swarming, which has no central node. So I think you're wrong on the mother drone part.
Swarming behavior is not even a strict network if done correctly: the swarm just responds to the current nature of the other members. Telling any of them to veer will cause all of them to not because they're connected, but because swarm behavior is emergent cooperative behavior based on things like specified distance from other members and keeping a certain size of active swarm members. (E.g if a swarm member notices there are only 50 other members, it won't go on it's own because that would reduce the swarm too much.)
My favorite part of swarm behavior research is when they realized hysteresis loops with big overlaps create the traditional "swarm formation" where members weave around each other. "Must have no less than 7 members nearby" and "must have no more than 2 members nearby" is a heavy hysteresis loop in groups under 85 members that creates a chaotic, pulsing swarm — which was the goal all along.
Swarming still has a central node. We don't have true swarming capability yet. If the action is to be coordinated, you still need mama drone.
Also, there was a neat little program out of the back of BYTE magazine back in the 80s, "Life". It was the loop you describe, allowing random or inputed values that would then follow what is now know as swarm behavior, until it went static or the value chain died.
That algorithm got refined into a better one in the 90s, Boids. Boids has no malfunction state and is automatically adaptive to new kinds of input (e.g. obstacle avoidance, time of flight, avoidance of aggressors). You can add goal seeking behavior and it works fine.
Boids is computationally cheap — a good simulation of 200 Boids with food requirements and predators ran fine on my 486 as a child, it would be possible to run the sim on a per agent basis with the equivalent of a cheap modern alarm clock — and really effective.
If I recall, the only problem with it is it has no provision for dispersal or even just splitting the swarm up, and attempts to work it in lead to erratic behavior. Not great for most practical applications where you want a swarm. (You want it to be able to decide "NO MORE SWARM EVERYONE SCATTER" in some instances for most all of those applications.)
There are some effective splitting ones, but they require big processing or a leadership figure.
Good to know even the current generation hasn't quite solved that problem.
Quote from: altered on February 01, 2020, 07:33:07 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 01, 2020, 04:16:23 AM
Quote from: altered on February 01, 2020, 12:09:41 AM
Dok mentioned swarming, which has no central node. So I think you're wrong on the mother drone part.
Swarming behavior is not even a strict network if done correctly: the swarm just responds to the current nature of the other members. Telling any of them to veer will cause all of them to not because they're connected, but because swarm behavior is emergent cooperative behavior based on things like specified distance from other members and keeping a certain size of active swarm members. (E.g if a swarm member notices there are only 50 other members, it won't go on it's own because that would reduce the swarm too much.)
My favorite part of swarm behavior research is when they realized hysteresis loops with big overlaps create the traditional "swarm formation" where members weave around each other. "Must have no less than 7 members nearby" and "must have no more than 2 members nearby" is a heavy hysteresis loop in groups under 85 members that creates a chaotic, pulsing swarm — which was the goal all along.
Swarming still has a central node. We don't have true swarming capability yet. If the action is to be coordinated, you still need mama drone.
Also, there was a neat little program out of the back of BYTE magazine back in the 80s, "Life". It was the loop you describe, allowing random or inputed values that would then follow what is now know as swarm behavior, until it went static or the value chain died.
That algorithm got refined into a better one in the 90s, Boids. Boids has no malfunction state and is automatically adaptive to new kinds of input (e.g. obstacle avoidance, time of flight, avoidance of aggressors). You can add goal seeking behavior and it works fine.
Boids is computationally cheap — a good simulation of 200 Boids with food requirements and predators ran fine on my 486 as a child, it would be possible to run the sim on a per agent basis with the equivalent of a cheap modern alarm clock — and really effective.
If I recall, the only problem with it is it has no provision for dispersal or even just splitting the swarm up, and attempts to work it in lead to erratic behavior. Not great for most practical applications where you want a swarm. (You want it to be able to decide "NO MORE SWARM EVERYONE SCATTER" in some instances for most all of those applications.)
There are some effective splitting ones, but they require big processing or a leadership figure.
Good to know even the current generation hasn't quite solved that problem.
An easy solution is to have the drones share the processing, but then the loss of members makes the whole dumber and dumber, causing more losses, in a feedback loop of failure.
As it stands, when mama drone stops talking, you can have a default of "return to launch point", "shut off and/or melt", or "attack any moving object".
So it's not nearly true swarm behavior. The math is pretty easy. The processing isn't, as you say.