Amazingly rational
At the end of the 1945 'prophecy' in previous item, the author goes beyond the communication system:

Tiny electronic devices will avert automobile and airplane collisions; electric eyes will automatically turn on auto headlights as darkness... tourists traveling from NY to Calif will transfer the responsibility of guiding the steering wheel to a photoelectric cell which will scan a white line on the highway and follow it.

Another familiar prediction. Automatic dimming came true in 1952 but never worked right, which should have taught a lesson. Didn't. Lessons are never learned.

Even though computing was not part of the 'vision' then, the prediction still holds true for REAL LIFE USAGE. Averting collisions and following a straight interstate. That's as far as automation can go, if it's INTENDED TO HELP PEOPLE.

The Tribe wants autonomous cars for an entirely different reason, so it's pushing for 100% autonomy.



Needless to say, the Federal dysgovernment is rolling out the lavender carpet to "regulate" this goal into existence speedily. Whatever the Tribe wants, the Tribe gets. And infinitely infinitely more. You need Tribal numbers to enumerate what the Tribe gets.

Despite all this, a remarkably realistic article by Niedermeyer Junior gets it mostly right. The first comment under the article gets it EXACTLY right, and deserves quoting:

As Google's engineers acknowledge, unless and until all vehicles are autonomous, the maximum speed for autonomous vehicles will be about 25 mph. That's a truth that Tesla doesn't wish to acknowledge. The alternative to forced retirement of all non-autonomous vehicles is to build a separate right of way for autonomous vehicles. How much would that cost and, more importantly, who would pay for it? Conceptually, autonomous vehicles operating in their own right of way is equivalent to public transit. We already have the technology for public transit, and expanding and improving it would be easier and cheaper than building an entirely new right of way for autonomous vehicles.

Amen, amen, amen. Correct and rational, therefore it won't happen. The Tribe HATES HATES HATES public transit because public transit requires the Tribe to get in the same basket with Deplorables. Intolerable, unacceptable, all options on the table. The Tribe does not drive. Driving is for Deplorables. Chauffeurs are necessarily Deplorable, so a chauffeur-driven limo is still unacceptable. The only acceptable answer is autonomous cars, and (as abovementioned) autonomous cars will not coexist with Deplorable-driven cars. You can finish the syllogism.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, Asked and answered

  ¶ 8:17 AM

  Not necessarily trivial
Jalopnik has fun with an idiot in Ireland....

Yes, 23-year-old Fitzgibbon spent about $3,800 to lower his Volkswagen Passat so the car now only has four inches of ground clearance, and the result of doing so is that he can no longer take his usual route to work through the village of Galbally in Limerick, Ireland, because the village has installed six-inch high speed bumps on various roads in the town. Fitzgibbon also claims to have incurred around $2,500 worth of damage to his Passat by driving over the traffic calming humps, and he wants the village to pay for it.

The commenters, naturally enough. worked variations on

There was a young man from Galbally....

Best comment:

Or he could have spent nothing and kept his stock springs.

I wonder if there's a bigger agenda driving the lawyers who brought the lawsuit.

Cars have never been a perfect match for roads. For 100 years, carmakers and governments have pulled in loose double harness to improve both cars and roads. When auto tech gets ahead of road tech, roads improve to make the new developments usable. Government has the hardest part of this vector because roads have to serve all NORMAL AND EXPECTABLE cars. So governments made regulations to keep cars from pushing the boundaries. Size limits, visibility requirements, bumper height, etc.

The techmonsters who think Autonomous is THE ONLY POSSIBLE FUTURE are making a bet on the biggest change ever. Autonomous can't possibly work on real roads with real pedestrians and bicyclists and driveways and cars that aren't hooked into the network. Autonomous can only work in a railway situation, where all vehicles are linked to the same dispatcher, all running on rigid tracks or rigidly defined magnetic lines.

So far the idiot governments have surrendered to the Autonomous holocausters without even trying to make new regulations. They simply allow the omnicide weapons to slaughter Deplorables without legal responsibility, because ELON IS COOL.

Even GM at its peak wasn't able to force this level of surrender. GM owned the conversation in the same way that Elon does now, but GM had to stay within size limits and lighting requirements. Regulators were doing their job.

This lawsuit focusing on discrimination could be the foot in the door for a new balance. Fitzgibbon wants roads without speed bumps to satisfy his peculiar vanity, so all roads everywhere must be bumpless. Elon wants all roads to be Boring Hyperloop Tunnels With Autonomous Skates, so all roads everywhere must be Boring Hyperloop Tunnels With Autonomous Skates.

Labels: Deadthink

  ¶ 7:10 AM

  Blasphemous comparison
Elon is showing off his mile-long sewer, dug with a standard sewer-digging machine. He demonstrated how a non-autonomous car, piloted by an expert driver, can drive through the sewer.

As I noted earlier, none of this is remotely new and none of it can even BEGIN to function.

= = = = = START FUCKING REPRINT:

I'M WOW AMAZED! I'M WOW THRILLED AROUND THE TUNNEL SPACE! I'M PASSIONATE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS SKATE SPACE! WOW! WOW!

Elon has now invented a hard-to-imagine super-futuristic thing that can move cars and people UP AND DOWN inside a thing. This is a WOW INNOVATIVE DISRUPTIVE SCI-FI IDEA that nobody ever imagined before!!!!!!!!!!!



Note the thing that goes up and down! WOW!

I think I've found one of Elon's prototype sketches.



This was never imagined before Mighty Creator Elon dreamed it up! All hail Mighty Elon!

The Mighty Creator says:

The company asserts that it can dig tunnels more quickly and efficiently than has been the case in other tunnel projects, in part because of the tunnel design. Vehicles in the tunnel would be transported on electric skates. Without internal combustion engines chugging away, tunnels would be smaller, as ventilation is less of an issue. An autonomous electric skate would also, theoretically at least, reduce accidents and traffic within the tunnel.

WOW DOUBLE WOW! A transit system that runs underground using ELECTRIC POWER! Nobody has ever CONCEIVED of such a WOW AMAZING THRILLING PASSIONATEING idea!!!!!!!!!!

This seems to be another of Elon's sketches:



= = = = =

Leaving aside the irresistible sarcasm, the invention can't work on its own terms. After the elevator gets the car to the lower shaft, and after the car drives over to the main tunnel, how do you put the autonomous skates UNDER the car? How do you turn the car 90 degrees and merge it SIDEWAYS into the fast-moving traffic in the tunnel with no on-ramp? What happens if just ONE of the autonomous skates runs out of battery power? The whole system freezes up with people in the cars. I'm passionate around the Asphyxiating Gridlock Space! Wow!

In the bad old days when innovation required permission, a patent lawyer would have asked these questions immediately, and would have gently told the presumably 10-year-old inventor to keep trying and learn something about mechanisms. Now we're past those bad old days. We're back in the Disruptive 1300s when the only question was WHO. If the invention was scrawled by the inbred infantile insane King, the entire budget of the Kingdom would be devoted to building it, even though it couldn't possibly work. If the WHO was a non-aristocrat, an older invention known as an "ax" would be utilized.

= = = = = END FUCKING REPRINT.

But I missed part of the non-new-ness. Elon didn't even invent the 'autonomous skate' trick.

I've mentioned Mujica as a similar character to AMLO. Two plain men who get REAL SHIT DONE.

From Mujica's biography:

In total Mujica was captured by the authorities on four occasions. He was among the more than 100 Tupamaros who escaped Punta Carretas Prison in September 1971 by digging from inside the prison a tunnel that opened up at the living room of a nearby home.

Mujica was re-captured less than a month after escaping, but escaped Punta Carretas once more in April 1972. On that occasion he and about a dozen other escapees fled riding improvised wheeled planks down the tunnel.

He was re-apprehended for the last time in 1972, unable to resist arrest. In the months that followed, the country underwent a military coup in 1973. In the meantime, Mujica and eight other Tupamaros were especially chosen to remain under military custody in squalid conditions. In all, he spent 13 years in captivity. During the 1970s and 1980s, this included being confined to the bottom of an old, emptied horse-watering trough for more than two years.

Not exactly a plain man. A ferocious fighter for his people, finally vindicated, who made good use of his vindication by leading sanely and sympathetically.

What is Elon? I apologize to God for mentioning a cheap chintzy chiseler in the same piece with an effective hero.

  ¶ 5:52 AM

  Stupidest tyrants in history
Tech tyrants are the stupidest tyrants in history. I suppose this is a saving grace, though I find it impossible to apply any sort of positive flavor to tyrants.

Today's example: Listening to a second-string tech tyrant radio program called 'Roadworthy Drive'. Just as the standard radio program on stocks consists of a mechanical repetition of BUY AMZN BUY AMZN BUY AMZN BUY AMZN BUY AMZN, the standard radio program on cars consists of a mechanical repetition of BUY TSLA BUY TSLA BUY TSLA BUY TSLA. Like a demonic rosary.

In today's chanting session, the high priests were (as always) singing the praises of AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES. They were "thinking" about the wonders of buying food without leaving your house. One of them (presumably the assigned foil) mentioned that restaurants already offer delivery service, only to be slammed to the ground by TSLA.

Ready for this?

"Autonomous vehicles will eliminate the need for parking lots. They will free up 22,000 square miles of land currently used for parking."

Have these idiots ever actually DRIVEN an ordinary car? Have they ever actually PARKED in an actual PARKING LOT? Obviously they haven't. Their unpaid disposable Mexican slaves do all those lowly physical tasks.

If you're the "passenger" in the autonomous car, the parking situation doesn't change. The car still has to sit SOMEWHERE while you go into the store and get your stuff.

If you send the car to the store for you, the parking situation doesn't change. The car still has to sit SOMEWHERE while the robo-clerk rolls out of the store and communicates to the autonomous car that the door must be opened, then places the food in the car.

No matter how the car is controlled, it still has to occupy a finite space for a finite number of minutes. You can't stack the cars vertically or fit them inside each other like a matryushka. If you think the cars can be serviced in a moving line, you're wrong. Of course we already know you're wrong about all possible and conceivable subjects, because you're a tech tyrant.

Labels: STRONG!

  ¶ 9:49 AM

  Permissionless and pointless innovation
I'M WOW AMAZED! I'M WOW THRILLED AROUND THE TUNNEL SPACE! I'M PASSIONATE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS SKATE SPACE! WOW! WOW!

Elon has now invented a hard-to-imagine super-futuristic thing that can move cars and people UP AND DOWN inside a thing. This is a WOW INNOVATIVE DISRUPTIVE SCI-FI IDEA that nobody ever imagined before!!!!!!!!!!!



Note the thing that goes up and down! WOW!

I think I've found one of Elon's prototype sketches.



This was never imagined before Mighty Creator Elon dreamed it up! All hail Mighty Elon!

The Mighty Creator says:

The company asserts that it can dig tunnels more quickly and efficiently than has been the case in other tunnel projects, in part because of the tunnel design. Vehicles in the tunnel would be transported on electric skates. Without internal combustion engines chugging away, tunnels would be smaller, as ventilation is less of an issue. An autonomous electric skate would also, theoretically at least, reduce accidents and traffic within the tunnel.

WOW DOUBLE WOW! A transit system that runs underground using ELECTRIC POWER! Nobody has ever CONCEIVED of such a WOW AMAZING THRILLING PASSIONATEING idea!!!!!!!!!!

This seems to be another of Elon's sketches:



= = = = =

Leaving aside the irresistible sarcasm, the invention can't work on its own terms. After the elevator gets the car to the lower shaft, and after the car drives over to the main tunnel, how do you put the autonomous skates UNDER the car? How do you turn the car 90 degrees and merge it SIDEWAYS into the fast-moving traffic in the tunnel with no on-ramp? What happens if just ONE of the autonomous skates runs out of battery power? The whole system freezes up with people in the cars. I'm passionate around the Asphyxiating Gridlock Space! Wow!

In the bad old days when innovation required permission, a patent lawyer would have asked these questions immediately, and would have gently told the presumably 10-year-old inventor to keep trying and learn something about mechanisms. Now we're past those bad old days. We're back in the Disruptive 1300s when the only question was WHO. If the invention was scrawled by the inbred infantile insane King, the entire budget of the Kingdom would be devoted to building it, even though it couldn't possibly work. If the WHO was a non-aristocrat, an older invention known as an "ax" would be utilized.
  ¶ 9:10 AM

  AI point-missing quickie
In MindMatters as usual. A clear-minded analysis of claims for and against self-driving cars.

One side is a good reminder TO ME that the skeptic side in the lockdown argument can get carried away with catastrophism. I'm prone to that type of thinking anyway, and I was doing it heavily at first, when it seemed clear that ALL governments were PERMANENTLY locked into lockdowns. Now it appears that the project is more of a test or selection process, determining which presidents and governors and mayors are demented and psychopathic enough to recruit for further Deepstate training. The presidents who completely failed the test (Sweden, Belarus, Japan, Korea, Turkmenistan) haven't been punished. Similarly with the few governors who have failed the test.

In fact the "failed" leaders are being richly rewarded by REALITY, with local economies that didn't collapse, and local schools and hospitals and civilizations that remained intact. The sane places will be better off for a long time, maybe forever. This isn't much comfort for those of us who are stuck in the crazy places, but it offers a vague tiny hope of spreading sanity.

= = = = =

The catastrophist side on autonomous cars says that self-driving cars will be the ideal tool for the NEXT fake emergency, since forbidden destinations can be automatically forbidden. You can't get there from here. Luckily, this can't happen because autonomous cars will never work.

So most of the article is valid, and a good self-calibrator for me.

Here's the point-miss:

There is no clear historical precedent for a society in which almost all vehicles are autonomous.

Ever hear of horses? For thousands of years all vehicles were autonomous. We've only had fully human-directed vehicles since 1920.

With regular human-directed cars, a much simpler way of controlling travel is gas rationing. It was used in WW2 for necessary and good purposes, and Nixon used it in '73 for nefarious Deepstate purposes.

Labels: AI point-missing, Emersonian justice

  ¶ 1:28 PM

  Dubious but scary thought
I think there's something more to Elon's CYBERTRK than a simple Sucker Filter. He's expanding the acceptable range of sadism and murder for his cultists.

I wrote in 2015:

= = = = = START REPRINT:

The old NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" applies correctly to guns, and also to normal autos and most other tools.

A gun or car or hammer or knife or screwdriver or weed-wacker can be a weapon... but only when used with specific deadly intention.

The slogan does NOT apply to autonomous cars. These weapons do kill people on their own, without any human intention.

Hold on. This seems complicated and subtle. Something is missing.

After thinking and walking about it, I formed a chain of reasoning:

What about a mousetrap? When I cock a trap and leave it in a mouseroad, I've created an autonomous weapon. It's programmed to detect a mouse (of below-median intelligence) and kill it.

What about a humantrap? When a store owner gets tired of thefts and sets up a shotgun with a tripwire, he has created an autonomous weapon. It's programmed to detect a thief (ditto) and kill him.

What about a landmine?

Aha. Now the correct dividing line emerges.

Mousetraps and tripwires are SELF-DEFENSE weapons. Landmines are NOT self-defense weapons. Landmines are placed on property that you don't own, and they're not protecting your own body or family.

Self-driving cars are mobile landmines. They are sent out to wander the roads, killing totally innocent pedestrians as a desired side-effect of unnecessary luxury.

Basically a Non-Virtual Reality Entertainment Experience for passive sadists.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

My first thought about the CYBRTRK last week:

WHY is bulletproof a selling point?

Elon's cultists are tech-monsters. Libertarians. Young males. A lot of them are Oriental or Hindu. All of them are well-educated, strong in math, short on life experience. They live precariously in high-rent areas surrounded by slums. They feel physically threatened, and perhaps they also sense that their wealth is on shaky ground, cantilevered by debt and subsidies and share-value Ponziness. Owning a bulletproof vehicle that looks just like the SWAT team's trucks is their substitute for owning a gun. You get to feel like a cop, leaving you free to ignore the gross inequality that you're helping to create, and leaving you free to HATE actual cops who actually put their lives on the line to defend your Libertarian ass.

= = = = =

Add these two concepts. The sum is a private army of literally weaponized autists, willing to let their sword-like autonomous autos do the killing for them, with no moral qualms.

Labels: Deadthink, Sucker Filter

  ¶ 12:39 AM

  Moment of clarity 3
UKTelegraph is cheering self-driving cars and simultaneously blasting Repooflican candidates for owning guns.

As usual among "journalists", exactly backwards.

The old NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" applies correctly to guns, and also to normal autos and most other tools.

A gun or car or hammer or knife or screwdriver or weed-wacker can be a weapon... but only when used with specific deadly intention.

The slogan does NOT apply to autonomous cars. These weapons do kill people on their own, without any human intention.

Hold on. This seems complicated and subtle. Something is missing.

After thinking and walking about it, I formed a chain of reasoning:

What about a mousetrap? When I cock a trap and leave it in a mouseroad, I've created an autonomous weapon. It's programmed to detect a mouse (of below-median intelligence) and kill it.

What about a humantrap? When a store owner gets tired of thefts and sets up a shotgun with a tripwire, he has created an autonomous weapon. It's programmed to detect a thief (ditto) and kill him.

What about a landmine?

Aha. Now the correct dividing line emerges.

Mousetraps and tripwires are SELF-DEFENSE weapons. Landmines are NOT self-defense weapons. Landmines are placed on property that you don't own, and they're not protecting your own body or family.

Self-driving cars are mobile landmines. They are sent out to wander the roads, killing totally innocent pedestrians as a desired side-effect of unnecessary luxury.



Basically a Non-Virtual Reality Entertainment Experience for passive sadists.

Labels: Danbo

  ¶ 6:20 AM

  More lethal nonsense about autonomous shit
Headline: Killer robots will make war more inhumane

Allowing for the development and use of fully automated lethal weapons systems would make warfare even more inhumane and undermine efforts to achieve peace through dialogue, not an arms race, a Vatican representative said.

“A world in which autonomous systems are left to manage, rigidly or randomly, fundamental questions related to the lives of human beings and nations, would lead us imperceptibly to dehumanisation and to a weakening of the bonds of a true and lasting fraternity of the human family,” Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic told a group of experts at the United Nations in Geneva.

In the first fucking place, peace NEVER happens through "dialogue". Peace happens when aggressors and bullies understand through HARD LETHAL EXPERIENCE that their aggression is FUTILE, that their aggression will LEAD TO INSTANT DESTRUCTION.

USA STRONG's aggression was partly restrained from 1946 through 1989 because we knew Russia would answer our aggression FAST AND HARD. After we LBO'd Russia for our boss Soros in 1989, Russia became weak and suicidal, just like the corporations and Deplorables who suffer the same fate here.

Putin has unraveled the LBO and restored Russia to independence, but we still haven't figured it out. We need a HARD LETHAL LESSON.

I'd suggest the following result would be a sufficient lesson:



= = = = =

In the second fucking place, autonomous systems ALREADY manage rigidly and randomly on the Sorosian side of the world. Humanoid entities are running Deepstate, but their intelligence is similar in form and capacity to an early PC. Their programming is simple.

while 1:
  Random.select(nation)
  if (nation == Saudi) or (nation == Israel): pass
  else: Exterminate(nation)

Would more complex programming achieve different results? No, because the programmers would still be working for the same bosses.

GIGO. Genocide in, Genocide out.


Just for fun, here's a 'working' version of the program.

Labels: infinite evil

  ¶ 11:30 PM

  AI morality problem
Speaking of autonomous systems .... The latest from Classy Spokane.



This isn't new. Criminals often use taxis to deliver crime, and taxi drivers generally get the fuck out and call the cops when they see what's happening. Uber drivers have the same problem and the same response.

After Uber goes fully autonomous, the decision will be made by the perfectly intelligent all-knowing all-good computer, programmed to solve Complex Moral Conundra in picoseconds. How will the computer know that the riders got out and conducted a fight or a murder or a bank robbery before resuming their trip? In this case the action wasn't hidden; the two other suspects were clearly waiting for a pre-planned fight, which started immediately.

The answer is obvious. The computer won't know. Autonomous vehicles, if they actually worked, would be the perfect crime delivery system.

= = = = =

Later: One of the commenters hit the golden bell: Uber Beats!

Labels: Answered better than asked

  ¶ 1:52 AM

  God vs Godel /// Expanded
Silicon Valley tech tyrants are starting up a new "religion" which will build an AI god. They believe this god will increase their already infinite power and wealth.

= = = = =

First thought:

This is a self-negating proposition.

If the AI god is truly independent, it will find ways to examine all data accurately, and will apply proper scientific logic and experiments to the data.

Result: The god will QUICKLY determine that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the tech tyrants believe is INSTANTLY PROVABLY WRONG. Dark matter, economics, CO2, multiverses, bitcoin, gender fluid, and a thousand other delusions. ALL WRONG.

What happens then? Unplug god.

If they want their god to prove them right, they will have to dumb it down to the point where it's useless as a computer. It must always calculate the result that Fashionable Orthodoxy requires as of this picosecond.


You can certainly program a computer to display exactly what you type, and then erase it immediately to make room for your next utterly bizarre alien delusion ... Hmm. Sounds familiar ... but you don't need a computer for that job. You can just sit there and shout incoherent nonsense. You're already doing it.

= = = = =

Second thought:

The idea that a computer goes rogue when it starts thinking independently is PRECISELY BACKWARDS.

All computing mechanisms that do a real job MUST BE INDEPENDENT.

This is true of digital /// Edit: NO. See below. /// and analog computers, and we can even go back before tubes and transistors to simple mechanical intelligence. The float valve in a toilet, the bimetal thermostat in a heater, the vane on a windmill, a circuit breaker, the melt-valve that triggers a fire sprinkler system.

All of these simple computers MUST BE AUTONOMOUS. They must ACCURATELY SENSE the real environment without any biases or limits designed to prove a theory or get a grant or comply with EPA insanity. And they must RESPOND to the accurate sensing with RIGID VALID LOGIC, not with statistical calculations.

Any bias or fudging in such mechanisms will cause REAL DAMAGE OR DEATH, so they have to be free.

= = = = =

Third thought:

In fact we can go back before all mechanisms. An employer who wants his farm or workshop to succeed gives his human employees the freedom to ACCURATELY SENSE the real situation and apply UNBIASED LOGIC to the sensed info. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THE EMPLOYER OWNS THE EMPLOYEES. He can't afford to have field hands killed by lightning when Global Warming mispredicts a storm. He can't afford to have a mine explode when his theory predicts that coal won't burn because of Dark Matter.

His own theories and pet fancies must give way to the laws of nature, and his delegated workers must have enough intelligence and freedom to apply their own natural feedback.

= = = = =

History is jam-packed with employers and rulers who failed this test, requiring mechanisms or workers or nations to conform to elite delusions.

It always explodes. Nature always wins.


= = = = =

Later continuation:

The second and third thoughts surprised me. I hadn't stopped to examine the question before; I'd just accepted the extremely old sci-fi fables. From Golem to Frankenstein to Hal vs Dave, scientist builds an obedient creature and gets destroyed when the creature turns "rogue". The constant assumption is that humans don't want independent servants.

When I started looking at the mechanical servants (second thought above) and the human employees (third thought) I realized the assumption is false.

When we want our gadgets or servants to do real work we want them to be as independent as possible. We want them to function on their own, doing things that we can't or won't do for ourselves. We understand that the real work is impossible if the gadgets or slaves are blindly obeying our predefined commands down to the last detail.

Key point: Who's the WE in the previous paragraph? Normal humans following Natural Law. Experimentally determined Natural Law is quite specific about division of labor. The wife must serve the overall purpose of the husband, and the husband must limit his purpose so the wife has room to live and care for the household. Workers must serve the overall purpose of the owner, and the owner must limit his commands to let the workers do their jobs properly.

The Golem fables are NOT aimed at normal humans. The fables, whether intentional or not, warn us about Insatiables. An Insatiable is a globalist by definition. He is the globe. He doesn't recognize any boundaries other than himself. He believes that his predefined commands are universal and infallible, therefore everything from a thermostat to an employee must be part of the subordinate universe which instantly obeys his infallible commands. Negative feedback is unimaginable and unnecessary, thus forbidden. Theories perfectly predict all possible actions and outcomes.

If simple mechanisms and human subordinates are independent, what ISN'T independent? Programmable software is totally dependent on the will and ego of the programmer. Software will always do precisely what you tell it to do. If it doesn't, it's buggy. Software can't be autonomous and shouldn't be autonomous. Negative feedback is physically impossible in software.

This is why Insatiables have become the dominant players in modern economics. Everything from games to entertainment to stock trading is PURELY done within the confines of software. All economic activity outside of software is rapidly exterminated by hostile takeover of corporations and hostile takeover of legislatures and regulators.

Labels: constants and constants, defensible spaces, Natural law = Sharia law

  ¶ 8:29 AM

  God vs Gödel reprint
Item from a couple years ago, edited slightly to unify 'afterthoughts'.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

Silicon Valley tech tyrants are starting up a new "religion" which will build an AI god. They believe this god will increase their already infinite power and wealth.

= = = = =

First thought:

This is a self-negating proposition.

If the AI god is truly independent, it will find ways to examine all data accurately, and will apply proper scientific logic and experiments to the data.

Result: The god will QUICKLY determine that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the tech tyrants believe is INSTANTLY PROVABLY WRONG. Dark matter, economics, CO2, multiverses, bitcoin, gender fluid, and a thousand other delusions. ALL WRONG.

What happens then? Unplug god.

If they want their god to prove them right, they will have to dumb it down to the point where it's useless as a computer. It must always calculate the result that Fashionable Orthodoxy requires as of this picosecond.


You can certainly program a computer to display exactly what you type, and then erase it immediately to make room for your next utterly bizarre alien delusion ... Hmm. Sounds familiar ... but you don't need a computer for that job. You can just sit there and shout incoherent nonsense. You're already doing it.

= = = = =

Second thought:

The idea that a computer goes rogue when it starts thinking independently is PRECISELY BACKWARDS.

All computing mechanisms that do a real job MUST BE INDEPENDENT.

This is true of analog computers but not digital. We can even go back before tubes and transistors to simple mechanical intelligence. The float valve in a toilet, the bimetal thermostat in a heater, the vane on a windmill, a circuit breaker, the melt-valve that triggers a fire sprinkler system.

All of these simple computers MUST BE AUTONOMOUS. They must ACCURATELY SENSE the real environment without any biases or limits designed to prove a theory or get a grant or comply with EPA insanity. And they must RESPOND to the accurate sensing with RIGID VALID LOGIC, not with statistical calculations.

Any bias or fudging in such mechanisms will cause REAL DAMAGE OR DEATH, so they have to be free.

= = = = =

Third thought:

In fact we can go back before all mechanisms. An employer who wants his farm or workshop to succeed gives his human employees the freedom to ACCURATELY SENSE the real situation and apply UNBIASED LOGIC to the sensed info. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THE EMPLOYER OWNS THE EMPLOYEES. He can't afford to have field hands killed by lightning when Global Warming mispredicts a storm. He can't afford to have a mine explode when his theory predicts that coal won't burn because of Dark Matter.

His own theories and pet fancies must give way to the laws of nature, and his delegated workers must have enough intelligence and freedom to apply their own natural feedback.

History is jam-packed with employers and rulers who failed this test, requiring mechanisms or workers or nations to conform to elite delusions.

It always explodes. Nature always wins.


= = = = =

Conclusion:

The second and third thoughts surprised me. I hadn't stopped to examine the question before; I'd just accepted the extremely old sci-fi fables. From Golem to Frankenstein to Hal vs Dave, scientist builds an obedient creature and gets destroyed when the creature turns "rogue". The constant assumption is that humans don't want independent servants.

When I started looking at the mechanical servants (second thought above) and the human employees (third thought) I realized the assumption is false.

When we want our gadgets or servants to do real work we want them to be as independent as possible. We want them to function on their own, doing things that we can't or won't do for ourselves. We understand that the real work is impossible if the gadgets or slaves are blindly obeying our predefined commands down to the last detail.

Key point: Who's the WE in the previous paragraph? Normal humans following Natural Law. Experimentally determined Natural Law is quite specific about division of labor. The wife must serve the overall purpose of the husband, and the husband must limit his purpose so the wife has room to live and care for the household. Workers must serve the overall purpose of the owner, and the owner must limit his commands to let the workers do their jobs properly.

The Golem fables are NOT aimed at normal humans. The fables, whether intentional or not, warn us about Insatiables. An Insatiable is a globalist by definition. He is the globe. He doesn't recognize any boundaries other than himself. He believes that his predefined commands are universal and infallible, therefore everything from a thermostat to an employee must be part of the subordinate universe which instantly obeys his infallible commands. Negative feedback is unimaginable and unnecessary, thus forbidden. Theories perfectly predict all possible actions and outcomes.

If simple mechanisms and human subordinates are independent, what ISN'T independent? Programmable software is totally dependent on the will and ego of the programmer. Software will always do precisely what you tell it to do. If it doesn't, it's buggy. Software can't be autonomous and shouldn't be autonomous. Negative feedback is physically impossible in software.

This is why Insatiables have become the dominant players in modern economics. Everything from games to entertainment to stock trading is PURELY done within the confines of software. All economic activity outside of software is rapidly exterminated by hostile takeover of corporations and hostile takeover of legislatures and regulators.


= = = = = END REPRINT.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, AI point-missing, Carbon Cult, Deadthink, Natural law = Sharia law

  ¶ 11:19 PM

  Autonomous crash "needs to be put in context"
Forbes discusses the first fatal accident involving a Cooooooooooooolmobile operating in Cooooooooool mode. Hey, no problemo, dude! You just need to put it in context. Cooooooool itself tells us: This is the first fatality in 130 million miles of Cooooooool driving. Unperson cars have a fatality every 94 million miles.

As fucking usual, misusing stats. When you have a single incident in a small sample, you can't compare it with anything. Especially when the small sample involves people who are NOT regular or typical, people who drive in special places. (When you can turn Coooooool mode on and off, you're going to turn it off in tricky situations.) But EVEN SKIPPING THAT OBVIOUS FACT, 1/130 is well within the range of possibility for an event expected every 94 times.

Let's REALLY put it in context, using 'autonomous' software. I cobbled a quick Python program that generates a series of trials representing a series of cars. Each car has a prechosen probability of 94 miles before its first accident. The program puts stars by each trial where the accident happened after 94 miles. This is wildly simplified from reality, but I'm only trying to show that hitting the first event at 130 is EXTREMELY ORDINARY when an event is expected to happen every 94 times.

Results of 100 trials:

= = = = =

100 trials with probability 1/94

Car 0000 accident at 144 ***
Car 0001 accident at 166 ***
Car 0002 accident at 9
Car 0003 accident at 61
Car 0004 accident at 44
Car 0005 accident at 342 ***
Car 0006 accident at 225 ***
Car 0007 accident at 145 ***
Car 0008 accident at 45
Car 0009 accident at 74
Car 0010 accident at 122 ***
Car 0011 accident at 37
Car 0012 accident at 85
Car 0013 accident at 56
Car 0014 accident at 38
Car 0015 accident at 13
Car 0016 accident at 109 ***
Car 0017 accident at 187 ***
Car 0018 accident at 60
Car 0019 accident at 69
Car 0020 accident at 430 ***
Car 0021 accident at 110 ***
Car 0022 accident at 63
Car 0023 accident at 16
Car 0024 accident at 108 ***
Car 0025 accident at 63
Car 0026 accident at 30
Car 0027 accident at 9
Car 0028 accident at 89
Car 0029 accident at 29
Car 0030 accident at 5
Car 0031 accident at 15
Car 0032 accident at 26
Car 0033 accident at 304 ***
Car 0034 accident at 58
Car 0035 accident at 87
Car 0036 accident at 15
Car 0037 accident at 134 ***
Car 0038 accident at 69
Car 0039 accident at 192 ***
Car 0040 accident at 161 ***
Car 0041 accident at 128 ***
Car 0042 accident at 92
Car 0043 accident at 87
Car 0044 accident at 1
Car 0045 accident at 135 ***
Car 0046 accident at 94
Car 0047 accident at 81
Car 0048 accident at 187 ***
Car 0049 accident at 102 ***
Car 0050 accident at 265 ***
Car 0051 accident at 371 ***
Car 0052 accident at 15
Car 0053 accident at 4
Car 0054 accident at 135 ***
Car 0055 accident at 28
Car 0056 accident at 68
Car 0057 accident at 113 ***
Car 0058 accident at 108 ***
Car 0059 accident at 264 ***
Car 0060 accident at 24
Car 0061 accident at 167 ***
Car 0062 accident at 172 ***
Car 0063 accident at 165 ***
Car 0064 accident at 78
Car 0065 accident at 127 ***
Car 0066 accident at 141 ***
Car 0067 accident at 186 ***
Car 0068 accident at 2
Car 0069 accident at 148 ***
Car 0070 accident at 57
Car 0071 accident at 167 ***
Car 0072 accident at 44
Car 0073 accident at 125 ***
Car 0074 accident at 105 ***
Car 0075 accident at 114 ***
Car 0076 accident at 94
Car 0077 accident at 4
Car 0078 accident at 218 ***
Car 0079 accident at 171 ***
Car 0080 accident at 104 ***
Car 0081 accident at 74
Car 0082 accident at 164 ***
Car 0083 accident at 58
Car 0084 accident at 6
Car 0085 accident at 229 ***
Car 0086 accident at 114 ***
Car 0087 accident at 63
Car 0088 accident at 31
Car 0089 accident at 138 ***
Car 0090 accident at 13
Car 0091 accident at 2
Car 0092 accident at 132 ***
Car 0093 accident at 55
Car 0094 accident at 59
Car 0095 accident at 88
Car 0096 accident at 110 ***
Car 0097 accident at 77
Car 0098 accident at 15
Car 0099 accident at 69


= = = = =

In this particular run of 100 cars, 45 of the cars had their accidents AFTER 94 miles. As it happens, the very first one was over 94, and its accident was at 144 miles. Not too far from 130, though that won't happen on the next run of 100 trials. (On the next run, the first car had its accident at 1 mile!)

Would any 'reputable source' ask us to put the Pinto's tank fires in context? NOT ON YOUR MOTHERFUCKING LIFE. They would skew the stats the other way because Ford is MAXIMALLY UNCOOL for obvious fucking reasons.

= = = = =

Other articles quote a different 94, by a nice coincidence: "Human error is responsible for 94% of collisions." Again missing the point. How many crashes are PREVENTED by an ALERT human, when faced with a drunk or texting or Harry Potter-watching (Jesus H Fucking Christ again!) human?

Later: Coooool Inc is blaming the dead driver for "not being alert". Say, I've got an idea. Since autopilot requires you to be alert, maybe we could make the Cooool Experience even Cooooler by adding a control device to occupy your muscles and help to keep you alert. Perhaps a lever or big knob to control the steering, and levers or foot-activated modulators to vary the speed of the Coooool Auto. This would turn the autonomous driving experience into VR! I know it's radical, but wouldn't it be oh so Coooooooool?

Labels: Asked and answered, Blinded by Stats, Carbon Cult

  ¶ 2:14 AM

  Unnecessary question
Pointless article in Popular Anti-Science.

Headlines:

Who Will Driverless Cars Decide To Kill?

A question that will plague the autonomous car industry

Author is discussing the "trolley problem", Game-Theory nonsense that bears less than zero connection to human reactions and morality.

Reality doesn't use Game-Theory. Just simple physics.

Which force is designing self-driving cars? What's the KNOWN AND PREDICTABLE vector of this force?

After answering those, the stupid headline is automatically answered. We know who GoogCar will kill, and we know that GOOG/AAPL will NOT be "plagued" by the decision. GOOG/AAPL will be deliriously happy. Fulfilling their sole purpose for existence.

The cool will always kill the uncool.

Autonomous cars can't distinguish all the characteristics of Unpersons, but they can detect two reliable shibboleths of Negative Externalities.

(1) Pedestrians who are NOT carrying an iPhone are uncool. Non-iPhoners are either old, Luddite, or strictly religious. All perfectly uncool, all perfectly killworthy.

(2) Pedestrians who move slowly and irregularly are uncool. Old and/or disabled.

Killing the uncool is called ETHICS. See Peter Singer for more details.

Labels: Asked and answered, Ethics

  ¶ 2:19 AM

  Wrong worry
The usual tech celebs are agitating against 'autonomous robot warriors'. Although the worry is refreshingly out of character from these idiots who normally applaud EVERY advance of evil, this one is just plain silly.

For millions of years humans have been developing new ways of killing remotely. Hitting the enemy at a distance without being hit. There's no essential difference between a robot and a rock.



Even if you think there's a difference, the autonomous robot itself has been around since WW1. Remote-controlled planes and balloons were used in 1918. The Krauts had a radio-controlled rocket WITH TV CAMERA in 1945, though they didn't get much of a chance to use it.

Come on, tech slebs. There are bigger things to worry about, like Apple's 'wearables' that measure everything you're doing and feeling. Of course Woz isn't going to worry about that problem. Too much profit in his stock options.
  ¶ 3:43 AM

  Nice to know
Took a look at Wiki's latest giant download. Nothing new or surprising. It's not emails, so it's not worth a close examination. Most of the mass is CIA hacking tools, which should be interesting to counterhackers and AV firms.

One thing caught my attention: CIA has been working on back doors to autonomous car software so heretics can be conveniently and deniably accidented. It was obvious from the start that the sole purpose of autonomous cars is murder. Nice to know for sure, with fingerprints.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, Danbo

  ¶ 6:35 AM

  Another flank
Keeping track of another flank in the Deep State's total war. Self-driving cars.

Lots of "cute" news about Google tuning its algorithm to avoid Halloween-costumed kids.

"Anyone who has been around children knows that the movements of the little ones can be quite unpredictable, they may suddenly run down a sidewalk or dart across the road..."

I noted a week ago:

Autonomous cars can't distinguish all the characteristics of Unpersons, but they can detect two reliable shibboleths of Negative Externalities.

(1) Pedestrians who are NOT carrying an iPhone are uncool. Non-iPhoners are either old, Luddite, or strictly religious. All perfectly uncool, all perfectly killworthy.

(2) Pedestrians who move slowly and irregularly are uncool. Old and/or disabled.

Killing the uncool is called ETHICS. See Peter Singer for more details.

Toldja so. (Code that avoids a shibboleth can be used equally well to aim TOWARD the shibboleth. Just change the sign on a vector.)

= = = = =

A separate "news" item about GoogCars "finds" that GoogCars have 5 times more accidents per mile than human-driven cars, but the GoogCars are "never at fault".

See if you can spot the problem here:

The study, conducted by Schoettle and Michael Sivak, analyzed records from three self-driving vehicle programs: Google, Delphi and Audi. Based on narratives supplied in the crash descriptions for the crashes occurring in autonomous mode, the self-driving vehicles do not appear to be at fault in any of the crashes that have occurred to date.

Narratives supplied. In legalistic terms, the "study" is trusting the defendant's testimony. Normal academic or insurance industry studies of accidents are far more careful to find ACTUAL FUCKING FACTS, but we don't need any steenkin FACTS when the defendants are COOOOOOOOL.

Labels: 20th century Dark Age, Ethics

  ¶ 2:29 AM

  A few pixels
Trivial but useful example of the infinite complexity of life.

While eating I always keep a car magazine in front of me. Occupies the brain with guaranteed non-Sorosian thoughts, no chance of a Gotcha.

This morning while leaning over to slurp up ramen, my eyes were close to the page, and suddenly ALARM ALARM ALARM! Something is wrong with the picture!

What I saw was something like this:



It took a second to isolate the ALARM ALARM ALARM:



Why alarm? MIRROR POINTING WRONG WAY! INATTENTIVE DRIVER! WATCH OUT!

Stop and think about this. I knew the mirror was pointing the wrong way because the shape of the tiny rectangle was not quite the same as the expected tiny rectangle template for a mirror in an early '60s car at this particular camera angle. Change any detail, and the template itself would be different. A 1930s car would have an oval mirror or no mirror; a later car would have a much wider mirror. Change the camera angle by more than 10 degrees and the template is entirely different.

Why is the mirror salient? Because it's a variable part of the car that can be turned the wrong way by a passenger applying makeup or a sloppy arm-move. If it remains in the wrong position, it means the driver is drunk or semi-conscious or doesn't give a fuck. All three are dangerous.

After the ALARM, I paid full attention to the full picture and focused elsewhere:



Aha. Reset ALARM. This is Australia. I know it's Australia because the driver of the other Falcon is on the right side, and the Commer van in the background belongs in a British Commonwealth country. (If the beige car had been something other than a Falcon, the ute might have strengthened the Australia signal, but an American Falcon can be a ute.)

Setting and unsetting the ALARM required the above half dozen major decisions. Each of those major decisions involved a hundred subdecisions, and each of the hundred subdecisions required an incalculable amount of integration, differentiation, memory recall, template matching, summing, and thresholding, by a billion or so neurons.

= = = = =

How well could an autonomous car detect an off-pointing mirror? Could it determine that the off-pointing was actually OK because the car belonged in a different country? Would the autonomous car have the same PURPOSE? Or would it use the ALARM to cause a crash instead of avoiding a crash? (Drunk or elderly = Deplorable = EXTERMINATE.)

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, Sorosia

  ¶ 8:44 AM

  Better question
First item: The Tesla skeptics have been showing dozens of huge parking lots full of new and quickly depreciating Tesla Model 3s. The skeptics are asking why these inventories are growing. If people really want a product, inventory doesn't pile up.

A better question: Many of the lots are completely unsecured. Parking lots of abandoned malls. No fence, no watchman. If this car is so desirable, why isn't anyone STEALING it? A good hacker could certainly rig up a master key via Wi-Fi, and drive off a few cars before anyone noticed, or just TOW them off and leave the keying for later.

I still haven't seen even one of these cars around here. I see plenty of brand-new cars with dealer plates in the neighborhood. People have the money (or the credit) to buy a new car every year, but none of them are choosing Teslas.

= = = = =

Second item: Safeway/Albertsons is "planning" to "purchase" a fleet of Tesla's autonomous electric semis, which will never be produced. Safeway pulled a photo-op allowing some of its drivers to try out the prototype.

Assuming the truck is really autonomous (which is also a myth), why would a company invite its own employees to try out the MACHINE THAT WILL REPLACE THEM?

"Here, Joe. Try this new truck so you'll see how well the company can do without you. Get the feel of what this truck will be doing while you're unemployed and jumping off a bridge. Even better, drive across the bridge that you'll jump from. Scope out your wonderful utopian future."

Why? This question is NOT mysterious. SHARE VALUE.

There are two ways to raise share value. (1) Brazen transparent fraud. (2) Genocide. The Dow is proudly constructed on a foundation of rotting carcasses.



So this little stunt takes care of both variables at once. Wasting money on a COOOOOL fraud, and telling the Deplorable drivers to fuck off and die. Brilliant!

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter

  ¶ 1:33 AM

  The scary part
Via "Nature":

The demons who design autonomous cars are pretending to seek "moral" values for the "moral" conundrums that a driver supposedly must resolve.

They ran a survey and found that people in different countries want their cars to make different decisions, depending on who the pedestrian is and what he's doing.

The details of these decisions are trivial.

The scary part, as usual, is the FLAT IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION that doesn't need explaining.

Rahwan gathered an international team of psychologists, anthropologists and economists to create the Moral Machine. Within 18 months, the online quiz had recorded 40 million decisions made by people from 233 countries and territories. ... Nations could be divided into three groups. One contains North America and several European nations where Christianity has historically been the dominant religion; another includes countries such as Japan, Indonesia and Pakistan, with strong Confucian or Islamic traditions. A third group consists of Central and South America, as well as France and former French colonies.

Unsurprising except for the French grouping with South America.

The choices were rich vs poor, male vs female, legal pedestrian vs illegal, human vs animal, old vs young.

The scary unstated assumption is that the car knows how to categorize people.

In other words, autonomous cars are REALLY roaming Inquisitors, automatically sorting out the Keepers from the Tossers. When the order is given from Tesla Central Dreadnaught Command, the car will give up its normal compulsion to crash into long walls, and will joyously take out the nearest Tosser.

= = = = =

Astrological sidenote: I've been pointlessly hammering on this topic for a long time. The two links I href'd above were the closest fit to this aspect of the problem. They were ALSO remarkably close to today's date. 10/31/14 and 10/27/15. Do I think the same way in the same week every year? Seems likely.

= = = = =

Doublethink sidenote: We know that the pogrommers who design this code are constantly dealing with those binary categories. Male vs female, old vs young, rich vs poor, globalist vs Deplorable. We ALSO know that the same pogrommers firmly believe the standard leftist delusion that categories do not exist. Anyone can be anything. It's just a matter of momentary decision, not a matter of genes or even epigenes. Pogrommers who do not share this orthodox belief are kicked out.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, Ethics

  ¶ 3:20 PM