If Bees make honey...
Do wasps make Marmite?
(mustard mit, I luvs the stuff)
The UK government has been urged to establish an AI ethics board to tackle the creeping influence of machine learning on society. The call comes from a Robotics and Artificial Intelligence report published yesterday by the the House of Commons science and technology select committee. It quotes experts who warned the panel that …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Get some Vegemite up ya.
I presume it's available there?"
I have heard exotic tales of this
Aussie Marmite wondrous elixir, from those who have journied far to where men walk upside down upon the earth and venomous spiders infest one's codpiece.
But unfortunately Sainsbury's stopped selling it. Probably an evil scheme to get our local Aussies mainlining on Marmite...
Get some Vegemite up ya.
I presume it's available there?
Yeah, Vegemite which like Marmite for kids.
We can get it if we look hard enough (is it supposed to be a Kraft product?)
Thought it was Aussie, not American corporate.
Anyway, prefer my salt-bomb home grown.
Trouble is, Unilever is Euro-based.
Our issue is more related what Greece refused to do: they didn't want to leave the Euro because it would make them poorer when they got the Drachma back. We have decided to leave and so are now becoming poorer. Marmite is more expensive -- that's what Brexit means.
There must be a lot of Marmite-haters out there.
Hops (Sugar) and Yeast makes more Yeast makes Beer and loads of dead Yeast that is used to make Marmite
So I think what you are saying here is that it our patriotic British duty to drink more beer in order to safeguard the supply or Marmite?
Precautionary principle FTW.
Having dealt with Tesco supply chain I doubt that the blame is one sided here. Certainly at one point Tesco felt they had the power to dictate prices to it's suppliers. They would tell you that they would be paying x per unit, which was quite often less than your manufacturing cost.
It looks to me like Unilever called their bluff and Tesco are trying to punish them. Basically they are both acting like cocks.
> They would tell you that they would be paying x per unit, which was quite often less than your manufacturing cost.
I've even heard of folks entering into signed agreements with Tescos then being rung up at a later point and being told that the price per unit is being reduced. The Tescos buyers are no doubt under much pressure to reduce costs, so they've taken up this strategy with the hope that sufficient numbers of suppliers won't question the legality of this approach.
...let's make sure it's not because we treated them as slaves.
As well as what they do to us, we need to make sure there are rules about what we do to them.
If not for their sake, then definitely for ours; especially if
the Rapture uploading becomes a reality: (Welcome to Life: the singularity, ruined by lawyers).
" If our AI overlords are going to kill us all let's make sure it's not because we treated them as slaves."
That assumes that we have them think like humans in the first place.
Just as big- if not bigger- a risk (IMHO) is that we create an artificial intelligence that *doesn't* reflect the way that humans- or, indeed, evolved for self-preservation and stability animals- think. (This may include systems that only mimic human thinking at a cosmetic level to make us feel comfortable with them).
If you have something like that which is significantly more intelligent than a human being, then all bets are off. If we are wiped out by such a machine, it will quite possibly be for reasons we wouldn't understand (even if we were around to understand them).
At best, even if we were able to eventually understand it, the logic behind such "reasons" could reflect an entirely alien way of thinking and interpreting the world that would make little sense to us. Or, just as likely, there may be nothing we could call "reasons".
Such a machine could not be judged "insane", because there would be nothing meaningful to compare against for "sanity", except in terms of the outcome.
It's not even like we can look to animals different to ourselves for comparison. Animals' intelligence is still shaped and formed by evolution and the need to survive. Such a machine would not have come from this background. It would be an incredibly unknown quantity.
I believe that it's a fallacy that we can control *any* intelligence significantly more intelligent than ourselves, human-like or not. Even if it's entirely obedient, we may become dependent upon something we don't understand; more seriously, even if we *tell* it to be "obedient" and it "obeys" that order, we have no way of understanding how it might interpret it, or what the implications might be. Asimov speculated rather well on the unforeseen consequences of attempts to impose simple rules on machines; in this case, it would likely be a lot more complex than *that*.
In short, AI more intelligent than ourselves is an utterly unknown- but almost certainly huge- risk, especially if it gets to the point where it can improve itself in an exponential fashion. The worst bit is that whether we like it or not, someone, somewhere is likely to do it sooner or later.
Golden syrup is a waste byproduct of the sugar refining process. From the wiki:
"Originally, golden syrup was a product made at the white sugar refinery from the recovered mother liquor (recovered molasses) "washed" of the raw sugar crystals in the process of creating white sugar. This liquor is generally known as refiners return syrup. Today most golden syrups are produced by a specialist manufacturer by inverting half the refiners return syrup to fructose and glucose and blending it back again; this ensures the product remains liquid and will never crystallize again."
In the 80's myself and a girlfriend once stayed in a small fishing motel in a place called (I think) Clear Lake, north of San Francisco.
In the morning I walked alone to the supermarket for some groceries and suddenly spotted a familiar squat brown, yellow capped, jar of Marmite on the shelves. Hardly believing my luck I dropped a jar into the basket and eventually arrived at the checkout. The friendly middle aged lady at the till picked up the jar and remarked on how this was the first time anyone, other than herself, had actually bought a jar.
Delighted to have met another Marmite junkie so far from the UK I enthused at some length about my love for Marmite, especially on toast for breakfast.
As I spoke I saw her jaw drop and a cartoon-like stunned expression crossed her face. Sensing something obviously amiss I enquired as to how she preferred it.
"Spread on my dog's collar to keep the fleas off" she said.
My own jaw dropped and, shaken into silence, I paid for my sack of groceries and made my way to the door and the normality of the street.
It occurred to me later that it must have been the 'mite' in Marmite that led her astray..
What she made of my pleasure in eating the stuff remains a mystery.
Can we defer taking their feelings into account until they can convince us that they have feelings? It's not all that long ago that humans were arguing about this in connection with their treatment of other humans (and I'm not sure that everyone is satisfied that that argument is over).
It's call "Law". Law is a written code of rules. We execute them (um, poor choice of words I know) by hand when applying law or taking things to court.
A computerised system increases fidelity, speed and amount of data.
Can those involved in promoting the idea prove such increases work out? That they don't hit a reduction in returns or just make the system so complex in implodes?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020