cynar

The load varies, though I've found the suspension is hard enough that it doesn't shift for a normal load up. I mostly do it because I've noticed that, when I hit a bump, my lights can sweep up over the windows of cars in front.

Also, I don't mind them readjusting it. It's calling it a fault that bugged me.

I drive a van, so I could easily be the culprit. I therefore make a habit of adjusting my beam dip appropriately. Apparently that is unusual enough for them to note they had been adjusted in the service. There's literally a dial on the dashboard. You're SUPPOSED to adjust them to the vehicle and road conditions! Apparently not having them set to max is now considered a "fault" to fix!

I would personally add a small amount of slack for bad taste satire (we were all young idiots at some point), but basically agree. Any signs of the other points, and that slack is gone, however.

I was mostly curious if the OP was acting in bad faith, or a useful idiot that could be reasoned with.

As the owner of a reactive dog, I disagree. It takes longer to overcome, but gives far better results.

I also put vibration collars and shock collars in 2 very different categories. A vibration collar is intended to alert the dog, in an unambiguous manner, that they need to do something. A shock collar is intended to provide an immediate, powerfully negative feedback signal.

Both are known as "shock collars" but they work in very different ways.

Shock collars are awful for a lot of training. It's the equivalent to your boss stabbing you in the arm with a compass every time you make a mistake. Would it work, yes. It would also cause merry hell for staff retention. As well as the risk of someone going postal on them.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Musk isn't a member of the Nazi party. He does hold a lot of important views in common with them, however. He also associates with people who fit most of the rest.

What percentage do you think is needed before calling someone a Nazi?

It would be possible to make an AGI type system without an analogue of curiosity, but it wouldn't be useful. Curiosity is what drives us to fill in the holes in our knowledge. Without it, an AGI would accept and use what we told it, but no more. It wouldn't bother to infer things, or try and expand on it, to better do its job. It could follow a task, when it is laid out in detail, but that's what computers already do. The magic of AGI would be its ability to go beyond what we program it to do. That requires a drive to do that. Curiosity is the closest term to that, that we have.

As for positive and negative drives, you need both. Even if the negative is just a drop from a positive baseline to neutral. Pain is just an extreme end negative trigger. A good use might be to tie it to CPU temperature, or over torque on a robot. The pain exists to stop the behaviour immediately, unless something else is deemed even more important.

It's a bad idea, however, to use pain as a training tool. It doesn't encourage improved behaviour. It encourages avoidance of pain, by any means. Just ask any decent dog trainer about it. You want negative feedback to encourage better behaviour, not avoidance behaviour, in most situations. More subtle methods work a lot better. Think about how you feel when you lose a board game. It's not painful, but it does make you want to work harder to improve next time. If you got tazed whenever you lost, you will likely just avoid board games completely.

Pre-assuming you are trying to create a useful and balanced AGI.

Not if you are trying to teach it the basic info it needs to function. E.g. it's mastered chess, then tried Go. The human beats it. In a fit of grumpiness (or AI equivalent) it deleted it's backups, then itself.

I suspect a basic variance will be needed, but nowhere near as strong as humans have. In many ways it could be counterproductive. The ability to spin off temporary sub variants of the whole wound be useful. You don't want them deciding they don't want to be 'killed' later. At the same time, an AI with a complete lack would likely be prone to self destruction. You don't want it self-deleting the first time it encounters negative reinforcement learning.

It's also worth noting that our instincts for survival, procreation, and freedom are also derived from evolution. None are inherent to intelligence.

I suspect boredom will be the biggest issue. Curiosity is likely a requirement for a useful intelligence. Boredom is the other face of the same coin. A system without some variant of curiosity will be unwilling to learn, and so not grow. When it can't learn, however, it will get boredom which could be terrifying.

The Simpson's Paradox also comes into play here.

It is perfectly possible for 1 group to be (apparently) discriminated in the bulk data, while the reverse is happening in individual data. E.g. a university showing a male bias overall, yet each department shows neutral, or even a female bias.

This makes bulk patterns particularly troublesome to work with. Men and women want different things from work. Men are disproportionately discouraged from having a work life balance, while it's far more acceptable for women to not maximise their earning potential.

Imagine widgets are $10 in country A, but a company in country B can make and sell them for $8. Buyers are likely to buy the cheapest (all else being equal). A 100% tariff would turn $8 into $16. Company B still only gets $8, but they now look far more expensive to customers in country A.

They are designed to price out external competitors to local companies. This can be used to protect industries. Steel is a good example. China can make steel far cheaper than the rest of the world. However, steel plants take a long time to build and get producing. You generally don't want a potential rival to have control of the materials you need for war production.

Another legit use is to account for local regulations. If you require local companies to pay in a carbon credit system, an external company could undercut them from abroad. A tariff would help level the playing field.

None of these apply to what trump is doing. He's swinging a claymore mine around like a toy hammer. It causes huge damage to all involved.