Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Programmer Dude]

We all do this, simply by typing statements that do not include
weasel words about opinions. It's no big deal.

Dodges the question. If you go back and re-read, I think you'd
find my perceptions all qualified as exactly such.

Environment and (lack of) shared experience are vital issues here.
We've already done this to death.

Dodging again. I've shown how *much* in common we share. Have you
shown ... well, anything other than a repeated assertion?

At the time I called you on your assumption, you weren't betting
the farm on it. My comment was aimed at what you said, not on who
you are.

Dodging again. The question *specifically* asks you why you would
characterize what I *said* as "glib".

I carefully qualified my statement with the word "perceived", a
clear indication that I was stating an opinion, not a proven fact.

More evasion. Obviously it was a statement of opinion. I asked
you why you felt free to express that opinion considering that you
are *necessarily* ignorant of what went into it.

Not to me. When I make a statement, only I can know what I imply
by it.

Yet you feel free to characterize other people's statements.
Yet you seemed very upset about my "blowing smoke" statement,
despite repeated explanations of its intent.

I said "I saw what I perceived to be a glib assumption". That is
a statement of my opinion - and indeed it remains my opinion. It
is not a claim that your assumptions are glib, merely an
indication of my opinion on the matter.

So,... despite my demonstration of the thought and analysis that
support my opinion, you *continue* to be of the opinion that the
analysis is glib? Wow.

And just what *is* the difference between your expressed *opinion*
of something and a "claim" about something?

I find this downward spiral into ad hominems most regrettable.

A possible solution: stop characterizing the opinions of others
and just debate the topic.

(a) Perhaps we /have/ seen signs of it, and failed to recognise them.

Possible. I've tried to demonstrate the low probability of this,
but I know you're not convinced despite the disparity in analysis.

(b) Perhaps we have seen such signs, and indeed recognised them.

Clearly not.

(c) Perhaps there are no highly intelligent animals.

Possible. Even likely, since observations tend to support this.

(d) Perhaps the intelligence in question is one which causes
little or no damage to the environment, so we just haven't noticed.

Possible. It seems *to* *me* that intelligence would manipulate
its environment in some fashion. Nearly all animals already do
that do some extent, so imagining that greater ability brings
greater potential for manipulation seems likely.

(e) Perhaps there's some other reason that I haven't thought of.

Possible. I would assign a low probability here also simply due
to the sheer numbers involved. How likely is it that no one has
thought of "it" over all the centuries involved.

What makes you think I desire any direction over another?

Because the direction above argues against the point you've been
arguing all this time (to wit, the putative alienness of animal
intelligence).

I merely point out some possibilities.

Understood. The debate has been about the *probability* of those
possibilities. I'm trying to understand why you assign such an
apparently high probability to what I consider an outside chance.
You haven't provided much analysis or logic *OTHER* than your
*presumptions* about animal behavior.

It's not so much a suspension of disbelief as a thought-experiment.

You are willing to give your thought experiment enough credence
to be unwilling to assign even a 75% probability that a very
duck-like thing is, in fact, a duck.

After all, we acknowledged the basic *possibility* that things are
not as they appear in the first round of posts.

What makes you think there are only four, and what makes you think
they're fundamental? (Presumably, current scientific opinion....

Yes, but whether they are fundamental or limited to four is moot.
The question is about the likelyhood of a space-faring race failing
to discover electricity.

Well, current scientific opinion is "best guess so far", which
makes it a good guess but not a perfect one.

Indeed, but still moot. We discovered and used electricity LONG
before we derived our imperfect interpretation.

Remember that Newton reigned supreme for a century or more, and
then Einstein turned the universe upside down.

Einstein opened new doors and *extended* Newton's discoveries.
Newton still works just fine--but only in a specific FoR.

Regardless, the point is the EM force is the most obvious of the
*known* four forces and is, I would argue, almost impossible to
NOT discover. Electricity was, after all, known to the ancient
Greeks (as static electricity).

And, regardless of whether they are fundamental or the only four,
the point is it is ****incredibly**** unlikely any advanced
society could fail to discover electricity. And...

No, I won't argue /in favour/ of not discovering electricity. I
do not, however, concede that the discovery of electricity is a
necessary pre-condition to the development of intelligence,...

No one has suggested it is a pre-condition.

...nor do I concede that an intelligent species will necessarily
discover electricity as a consequence of that intelligence.

Bringing us back to the question: Are you seriously suggesting a
space-faring race could fail to find one of the *four* fundamental
forces of physics?

So, your answer is yes?

I continue to maintain that your belief may be misplaced, whilst
remaining fully open to the possibility that it may not.

You seem to have been arguing the possibilities are not as obvious
as I--and most pet owners and animal trainers--would find them.
I've tried to give you clear-cut examples that demonstrate how
evident the (low level) communication really is.

You asked for other possible interpretations. It is hardly my
fault if you don't agree with those other possibilities.

Your "interpretation" doesn't match observable facts.

Note the word "mischaracterisation".

Note my reply that there clearly is *no* *absense*, because there
is a *visible* *reaction* of reluctance. That it *is* reluctance
is strongly supported by similar reactions in situations I *know*
her to be reluctant about. Same cues.

See "mischaracterisation" above.

None of the above is a "mischaracterisation" of "absense of
understanding". Absense of understanding would be a blank
expression or no reaction. This is also demonstratable by
simply issuing a "command" she doesn't know. The difference
between the two is OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT.

It's not a premise for me.

I know. The point is logic, observation and analysis support *MY*
premise that we share some form of low-level communication.

I think this premise clash is at the root of our disagreement,

For me it's why you continue to credit what I consider to be very
slim chances as so viable. I'd just like to understand what drives
that in the face of the evidence.

Sure. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I see no issue
here.

Then there should be no issue wrt the smoke blowing, right?

I've asked four people so far, [...] Each gave the answer that
the use of the word "childish" is /not/ insulting.

Interesting and--to me--surprising.

I didn't ask them why they answered in that way, but it's fairly
clear to me that they answered on the assumption that the [...]
behaviour in question was in fact childish, and so it is likely
[...] that they were really answering a question along the lines
of "is it an insult to /call/ an adult's behaviour childish
if that behaviour /is/ childish?" - which is not the question I
asked, mark you!, but is IMHO the real question anyway.

Very well. I may remind you of this should I chance to need to
express an opinion about behavior of yours.

 

[Edward G. Nilges]

I suspect you are confusing science fiction authors.

How awful of me to confuse what are entertainments for children at
best.

Isaac Asimov is most closely associated with his Laws of Robotics.
I'm sure Clarke has said something about robots -- I guess the
Rama novels might be thought of that context -- but I don't think his
thoughts about them can be simplified to a few laws.


What a silly statement... If you wish to ascribe intelligence to
humans, then it is manifest that intelligence does not lead automatically
to a realization a prohibition on killing is axiomatic. If you
wish to say that humans are not intelligent (doubtless supported by
this thread!) then certainly any of our musings on intelligence must
be suspect.

The very ability to think truly hypothetically demands that we suspend
any received notion that we know what intelligence is, and quite a
number of thinkers have indeed concluded that intelligence (understood
as a precondition for thought) winds up generating prohibitions on
killing.

"Suspense of received notions" is often misinterpreted to mean a
fallback to a default position, a mixture of demotic opinions and
emotions so prevalent as to be confused with a lack of belief. What
"suspension of received notions" means instead at all times a
minimalism in which we refuse to assume (in this case) that we know
enough about intelligence to even disambiguate it from a phenomenon
such as an intelligent emotion, say that of a scientist engaged in a
long proof, or a mother figuring out how to pay for groceries. The
phenomenology refuses to separate the "emotional" attraction of the
scientist, let's say, his need, to use his own notations as more
persipicuous and somehow not really distinct from the truth itself:
this notion presents itself strongly, for example, in the work of
Edsger Dijsktra, a computer scientist.

This was the concern of 17th century philosophers, not "science":
"science" was of limited interest to Spinoza as compared to the need
to come up with a single, coherent account INCLUDING ethical norms AND
indeed an emotion not reducible to "pure" thought: for the intelligent
man's love of truth in Spinoza is not separable from the truth itself,
which (as recent events in America should show) cannot exist apart
from its admirers.

The definition of intellgence as able to survive outside of basic
ethical norms resembles a space opera in which cosmonauts disport
themselves in conveniently available space-suits, for the goal of
classic American and British science fiction to preserve, for
commercial resale, a sort of American wild-west story AFTER the
willingness to read about Red Indians and cow-boys had waned as long
ago as the 1930s.

A silly transplanation of what was the brutalization of man by man
occured, to Mars or Venus, and in this transplantation, the
colonialist exploiters had to be given gear in the form of
tight-fitting and rather lewd rubber and glass suits so as to be safe
while eradicating whatever native peoples might exist on Mars or
Venus, or converting them from lotus-eating to go-ahead commericial
schemes.

I realize that from the beginning, science fiction writers REVERSED or
thought to have reversed neo-colonialist polarities by making the
story come out in favor of the brown men in space: indeed, Star Wars
was this sort of furry fantasy. The singular lack of intelligence is
evident in the fact that the polarity is unchangeable, and as soon's
we, the furry and adorable, conquer Darth Vader, we then get to
oppress them, or whatever formerly invisible Palestinians may
exist...while continuing, owing to the originary fantasy, to think of
us as furry and adorable, and for this reason all the more above
criticism.

This probably generates the modern-day technonerd's false belief that
anything like "intelligence", measured by the Stanford-Binet scale,
even exists and (in nastier cases) is positively correlated with a
white skin or (in recent manifestations) membership in northern Indian
"high" castes. For he can imagine himself as protected from the need
for anything outside of symbolic intelligence by this rubber suit.

...

Well he did write a book about it. He's also written wonderful books
about the need to cherish the Earth's resources. However I don't

The emergence of operatic words like "cherish" usually indicates that
the mind emitting them is organized into two regions.

Once consists of an "emotion-free" science.

The other echoes with words like "cherish", dogs, fluffy bunnies and
the laughter of children.

Never do the twain meet.

believe he is (was?) involved in any serious attempt to build such
a tower. It's not technically feasible with currently available
materials (As Clarke recognized -- his novel is based on a fictitious
fiber that has far more strength than any currently available even
in the laboratory). It appears that because we do not live
in paradise, you wish no one to dream...

Excuse me, but how Utopian is a space ladder to which only
corporations, militaries and the occasional crazed fatcat has access,
and why should we dream about it? For pennies a day, all children on
the earth could have access to clean water, and I suggest that the
space ladder fails a test of basic fairness.

Also I'm confused about why the lost of the Ross ice shelf
would be thought so grim. There are far worse environmental
catastrophes underway. And you probably have it confused with the
collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.
(see http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/)
There is some speculation that the Ross ice shelf may follow,
but it there are no indications of that yet.

My error was to refer to the "Ross" ice shelf and of course, I mean
the more recent Arctic collapse. It puzzles me why you fail to mention
it except in the "scientific" spirit of downplaying a pattern that is
evident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3132074.stm

The fact is that last May, an Antarctic collapse occured, and was
followed this fall by an Arctic collapse. This is unprecedented, and
while it is occuring, the US President is maintaining that "the
American lifestyle is not negotiable".

Note that ice on the Antarctic continent
itself seems to be growing in the past few decades, so that the
collapse of ice packs does not seem to presage sea level rises.

Of course, climate effects will be chaotic and not in any one
direction. For example, the Arctic collapse released fresh water and a
larger release could destroy warming ocean currents that effectively
make Britain inhabitable.

The loss of the Arctic ice cover is probably of far more
consequence to global climate and conditions.

Right-o. I stand corrected.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

The justification the scientific community has for rejecting
creationism is that the scientific method doesn't apply to it:

---------------------
No, it applies fine, and fails.

1) Creationism that alleges some "Gawd" created the world in 7 days
simply fails the fossil record, since that is disallowed by the
evidence.

2) But any creationism that alleged that the world was created by a
Gawd who left no trace of having done this and which Gawd intentionally
left a fossil record just as it is found for us to find would not be
subject to being assailed because it would be a meaningless assertion.

Creationism cannot be proved false, because any objection can be
brushed away by saying "God is testing you" or something similar.

------------------------
In the second case I posed above that would be true, but that's
neither the Gawd that Fundies promote, nor does it lead to any
fuss over the fossil record, in fact that would ignore the fossil
record.

Arguments get more sophisticated than that, but that's the heart of
it: science ignores creationism because creationism refuses to be
scientific.

---------------------------
Science ignores religion when it fails to be scientific, but religion
also ignores science when it fails to be religious. Currently asserted
"Creationism" flounces around as if it were competing Science, and
because it does, it loses, because belief is the antithesis of Science,
the premise of Science is that we discover the Truth by Looking, and
NOT by believing faith dogmas blindly.

We seem to be in a similar situation here. You claim that there are no
"provable facts" against your case.

---------------
No, actually you have mis-cast the whole argument because you read it
poorly and understood it not at all before trying to talk about it.

I claim there are no provable facts available on Usenet. But that's
NOT pertaining to me, that's the nature of Usenet itself, NOTHING even
CAN EVER be proved on Usenet, because Usenet is not a venue that admits
to proofs.

You use the word "communist" to
mean exactly what you want it to mean without any care for the common
usage

----------------
The "common usage" has been rendered useless by being erroneous. If
you claim that Soviet Russia or Red China were "communist", then you
fail to disintguish between them and any prior feudalism. All such
prior feudalisms have exactly the same chaaracteristics as the Soviet
state and the Red Chinese govt., they make a select privileged minority
very wealthy and powerful.

This is NOT a meaning that has ever before been given to a "communism"
as the originators of the word intended it. For you to pretend that
there is a "common usage" that violates its most basic principles is
like trying to spell the word G.W. Bush thinks he is saying when he
SHOULD be saying "new-clear". It's wrong, he's wrong, and you're wrong.
The word is NOT "nook-you-lar". And THOSE are NOT "communisms" of any
kind, because NO communisms are EVER run by RICH PEOPLE! NOT EVER! In
fact they don't even PERMIT THE EXISTENCE of rich people, and that IS,
IN FACT, their ABSOLUTELY MOST defining characteristic!!!!!

(whatever that is) and you don't recognize any partial or
"halfway" cases of it as counting.

----------------------
There is no such thing as "half pregnant". All previous societies
can be said to be "halfway" cases, so that assertion is irrelevant!!
THIS society has socialistic features to it, but it is NOT ANY KIND
OF COMMUNISM!

Is this "theory" of yours a real
theory, or an just article of faith for you with no logic to it?

--------------------------
It isn't a theory at all. It is a knowledge that people will finally
arrive at this mode of government and society, because it is the only
direction in which human progress exists. All other directions lead
to horror and degradation of the human species. It is SO obviously
so that it CANNOT EVEN *BE* regarded as any mere "theory", it is The
Knowledge, The Truth.

Let me ask you this: under what conditions would you admit you are
wrong?

------------------------------
I can't think of any.

If this Communism is not our destiny, then it is not that Communism
is wrong, but then it is the Truth that we don't DESERVE to exist,
because then life and existence is meaningless. If Communism is not
something that perfects the enjoyment of life for humans, then the
alternative is that we are destined for and deserving of nothing but
mocking horror and mutual torture for however long an eternity before
we all die of depression and insanity.

Just to be fair, here's mine. I believe that a
somewhat-but-not-very-regulated capitalism is the most productive,
most humanitarian, and fairest system humans can come up with for
large nations,

----------------
Then have not looked at the results of it, and you are destined to
be reborn poor, and in lifelong degradation immediately upon your
impending death, and you are simply a deluded and viciously wrong
asshole with no conscience or good sense.

at least until our worldview drastically changes and we
develop telepathy or replicators or something. But I could be wrong.

----------------
Actually, you ARE wrong.

When there is an example of a large country which is prosperous for
(nearly) all and not ridiculously oppressive and draconian in its
legal system and it is not capitalist, I will humbly admit I was
wrong and agree that we should have been trying harder on
communism/socialism all along. So what would make you do that?

---------------------------------
That's like an illiterate with no education asking a math professor
who knows the right answer to a math problem what it would take to
change his answer.

And that's exactly the problem. A search on Google Groups reveals over
9000 instances of your name. If I had no work, school, or outside
responsibilities, I could search through that to find the plan you
assure us has been set out. But since I do, it would be considerate of
you to point me/us in the right direction with a link.

--------------------------
You could simply select the posts that were not merely return
insults and which contained the word "communism" and then read
my longer paragraphs seriously. Just doing that would educate
you. Is it that you have too short an attention-span for this?

Very true. Retyping is a waste of time. Especially for a theory as
complicated and comprehensive as yours no doubt is. Could you just
copy and paste a link into a text editor then, please?

-----------------------------------------
I'll do better, I'll go hunt some up for you, you poor little
retarded illiterate boy: See at end!

More generally, I have another question. Do you actually believe what
you're saying here? I mean really, do you? Because normally I'd
dismiss posting so constant and contrary as coming from someone
arguing for the fun of it. Hey, it can be fun to argue. But you've
written SO much, and it's been SO rude and nonsensical, that I think
you're serious about this.

--------------------------
I am indeed.

So why are you posting? You must know that
you aren't going to convince anyone of anything by calling most of the
population liars and refusing to produce any arguments. I mean... you
seem to genuinely care about this ideal world you're talking about,
but you couldn't be doing a worse job of persuading other people to
agree with you and help out. I mean, really.

--------------------------------
The Truth is the Truth. It persuades. It insults those who reject it,
the Truth is intrinsically offensive to those who are Wrong and Evil,
and Fraudulent Liars. The Truth need not propagandize.

See below:
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz (e-mail address removed) ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
--
Some Quotes of Mine:
--
Russia was NEVER communist, that was a myth told their poor by their
rich
to make them work for them. Our rich over here used it to scare
Amerikans
away from communism, when what they were actually being made to fear was
economic fascism by the Rich Right! You can tell a communism IMMEDIATELY
because EVERYONE is ARMED, NO one shoots, and a rich class doesn't
exist!!

Wake up!

Democracy LEADS naturally to communism!
Communism IS YOUR FRIEND! You've been LIED TO!!

WAKE THE **** UP!

Permitting existence of a rich class to hold all wealth leads to
universal
envlavement of everyone BUT a privileged rich class and the installation
of
bombs or electronic controls in our chests and brains and the eternal
enslavement of all your children and children's children. The problem
with
capitalism is that someone is allowed to WIN EVERYTHING, and thereby to
control EVERYBODY! This needs to be absolutely prevented FORVER by the
most
vicious use of arms and individual hatred and murder ever seen on this
planet, or we shall become like the rest of the galaxy, silent, no radio
signals, no visitors, because they are all enslaved by their rich castes
who never bother to go anywhere, but rule in plutocratic luxury and hide
from other like themselves who may wish to expand their empires!
Ever wondered why the aliens don't come?

Think back, capitalism is merely a disguised form of feudalism, wherein
the powerful bullies force the weak and frightened to do ALL the work
for nearly NUTHIN' while they live in luxury and have everything.

Capitalism had to happen when they needed smarter slaves to get any
further. They disguised the ownership of people with the ownership of
property instead. Sure, the people they supposedly freed, but they
kept the engine people needed to stay alive, the biological natural
world as THEIR property, and they didn't give it back to everyone
they originally stole it from. This became capital and allowed them to
continue to control people now as interchangable slaves that they didn't
NEED to own to keep them working, they simply starved the ones who
wouldn't
work for them, the homeless. They use these dysfunctionals as an example
of what will happen to YOU if YOU don't slave for them.

Oh, you say you get paid for your work, eh? Do you own your home
forever free and clear? Why did you have to buy yours? The rich
didn't have to buy THEIRS! They inherited it and your house from
their ancestors! If you work for a man for $5 an hour, and you have
to pay him $10 an hour to get him to work for you, do you not grasp
that you're merely HIS part-time SLAVE?????

Orignally there was NO ownership of land and we were people born
unto this world, we used and held it in common and used it for food.
But the bullies who started feudalism burned out the peaceful
tribes and stole them into bondage and took their land! In keeping the
world and freeing the people they kept HALF OF YOUR BODY, your body
won't
work without the rest of the natural world and the food it produces,
your
body INCLUDES the natural non-motile earth! But you were serfs and just
didn't know any better, you thought you were really free, when all they
did
was sell you your chains and pay you to keep YOURSELF in bondage!

You should be BORN owning a home, because as many of your ancestors
built
all the buildings with the sweat of their labor as that rich kid over
there
born just as naked and stupid as you were, maybe MORE! So why are you
working more than half your life buying a house from some rich asshole?

Why don't you BE MEN AND RISE UP AND TAKE BACK YOUR PLANET, YOU
IDIOTS!??
Why do you work for a tenth of what the rich make without DOING
ANYTHING!?
Why do you accept working FOR someone when THEY are NO BETTER than YOU
ARE?

Why do you not take your guns and take it all back, divide it all
equally,
start a democratic form of economic system where everyone is paid
equally
per hour of labor, and forbid ANYONE to EVER AGAIN own the home of
ANOTHER
or take it and evict them for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!?? When will you
learn!?

This DEMOCRATIC way *IS* what EVERY liberation movement of the last
thousand years is all about, starting first with the revolt of the lords
and the Magna Carta, and extending down through feudal society freeing
more
and more layers of it a little bit more a step at a time, freeing serfs,
the American Revolution against monarchy and European hegemonic
feudalism,
freeing blacks from slavery, freeing of women, banning child-labor,
women's
suffrage, the voting rights act of 1965, abortion rights to de-slave
women
from male dominance, sexual freedom, and onward! These were movements to
free and equalize people more and more! Democracy ALWAYS heads toward
more
freedom and equality, capitalism/feudalism/slavery ALWAYS heads AWAY
from
that freedom and equality! The NATURAL DIRECTION OF DEMOCRACY AND
FREEDOM
IS DIRECTLY TOWARD TOTAL EQUALITY IN ECONOMIC COMMUNISM!! Not MERELY
having
the right to vote for political leaders and then have to them fight
against
wealth and industrial corruption for the rest of us, but having the
right
to CONTROL ALL economics, to decide who gets to have and use the world,
and
to decide it ALL DEMOCRATICALLY! DEMOCRACY ACTUALLY *IS* COMMUNISM!

Who decides whether a person owns this or that? Why *WE* do, ALL of us!
If we did not agree to defend one person's right to keep what he has
gotten fairly by our standards, then HE DOESN"T OWN IT because the rest
of us wouldn't defend him if someone wished to knock him down and take
it away from him!!! Therefore the PEOPLE ALONE have the right to decide
who owns what about EVERYTHING! ALL ownership of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING
derives from the democratic authority of the majority, and from NOWHERE
ELSE! That is why eminent domain exists, that is why the government can
tax individuals, that is WHY!!

And THAT is WHY we CAN, AS A DEMOCRACY, decide to end wealth and to make
the current practices of unequal-wage-rental-mortgage-enslavement
ILLEGAL
and why we could merely vote and make EVERYONE the OWNER of the house
they now reside in and make houses non-sellable FOREVER!! We should
permit
exchange of houses without any other material consideration, but no
other
form of exchange! We can remove the 2/3rds of all earnings that goes to
the
idle rich from their hands and return it to the average wage-earner in
this society, which would more than double our personal buying power!!

The Rich just don't want you to KNOW that! That's why the big
anti-communist
disinformation program in the 20th century against communism, when it
didn't even really exist. Russia was a modern feudalism, nothing more.
Instead of a king and rich nobles they had the privileged families of
the
Politburo who used the army to collect goods, sell them abroad, and then
sock the money into off-shore accounts and after the wall fell they
started
up business as the Russian Mafia, which they always owned ANYWAY! The
Russian masters housed their slaves in concrete hovels stacked for easy
cleaning in huge apartment buildings, while THEY had dachas on the Black
Sea and country villas!! THEY drove while everyone else walked or rode
the
bus! THAT'S NOT COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!

WAKE UP! THEY LIED TO YOU! WAKE THE **** UP!!

The problem is that republicans don't really represent American PEOPLE,
but only American DOLLARS, rich capitalists, and you see that money is
being given the vote in the form of what publicity money can buy in
media.
Those who fancy themselves Republicans who are NOT rich themselves are
the most stupid and pitiful class of people, because they have been
laughably but successfully brainwashed not even to be on their OWN
SIDE!!

A rich minority can make it look to the idiot public as though they are
a majority when they are a tiny minority, and pop-opinion is subject to
being swayed by artificial manipulation of "peer-pressure", which is the
phenomenon of people feeling as though they can "belong to the group"
by agreeing with the common opinion, when what they see as the common
opinion of the rich-owned media is NOT the common opinion, but is
instead
just the anti-social deceitful selfish paid desires of the very few in
the cadre of the super-rich who control vast wealth and and wish to grow
their wealth completely to the DETRIMENT of the public good!

----------------------
Surprisingly *I* do TOO, but what we have right now is totally and
completely the OPPOSITE of that!! Some people earn vastly more than
others for no apparent reason other than market manipulation! A few
own the homes of the majority and threaten to evict them if they
don't settle for artificially low wages and pay exorbitant rents
and home mortgage and equity prices, and then go broke when they
pay for their retirement or prolonged expensive death in their old
age and the family winds up selling the house they worked so long
for back to those SAME rich bastards at fire-sale prices and the
cycle starts all over while the relatives see their inheritance go
to pay off a few bills!

What we need is EQUAL wages per hour BY LAW, with the new medium of
exchange being the labor hour, so that ALL wages are EQUAL AND EARNED!
We need to totally FORBID speculation and investment and control ALL
investable wealth by democratic governmental power, locally by elected
committees who decide how all land and common resources will be used!

We need EVERYONE to be given the home they live in, since their
ancestors
built all these buildings, and by rights of labor they OWN them ALREADY
and should NOT be enslaved by the rich to pay for their fancy house and
6 vacations per year!! The rich need to be reduced to the same as the
rest of us and forced to get HONEST work where they actually WORK!

---------------------------------------
There isn't any "hard-working bunch down the road", and THAT mythology
is nothing but the brainwashed dogshit propaganda version handed you by
the rich to divide and conquer you. In actuality Americans work quite
equally hard and are diligently equal across a broad expanse of the
population, except in groups and regions where there is simply no
opportunity. Nor is there any sentiment even among the dreadfully
poor that they should simply be handed ANYTHING! They all want to
work at a rewarding job, virtually the same opinion as you have inside
your mind. The only DIFFERENCE is that you HAVE such a job and the
education to perform it!! A number of people simply don't know a
thing about how to GET that, but very few don't want it. The few
derelicts wandering around trying to self-medicate are an EXTREMELY
tiny group of people who were SO damaged as children or who are ill
with untreated bipolar schizophrenia, and psychotic and severe
depressive
illnesses and which are being ignored because profit medicine cannot
find a paid-for way to justify capturing and treating them. This gives
SOME of us the delusion that THESE are "the poor", and they AREN'T!

There are only a few people who are crippled or retired who deserve
support, and the rest of us SHOULD be earning our way and should be
paid the SAME WAGE PER HOUR AS ANYONE ELSE IS! It is this artificial
garbage assertion that "money can earn money", WHICH IT CANNOT, that
demoralizes everyone from bothering to be HONEST in this society!
Money does NOT earn money, only LABOR earns money by producing
real value! NO one should be permitted to be paid for anything but
actual LABOR! And people must be FORBIDDEN to own ANYONE'S residence
BUT THEIR OWN!


Actually most people work, and they work hard. Usually the poorest
workers work harder than anyone else!

If you ONLY wanted what you earned fairly by LABOR, then I'd say that's
fair. But if you want to get rich by investing in a business and then
paying your workers a tenth of what you make, or if you want to get rich
by just somehow "winding up with money" for no apparent PRODUCTIVE
reason
due to marketing or stock manipulation, or rental housing or mortgage
investment, or any OTHER form of criminal gambling, well then I think
everyone like you should be dragged to the curb and shot through the
head! THAT should be ILLEGAL! *SO* UNBELIEVABLY ILLEGAL AND SO
TORTUROUSLY
punished that it terrifies you out of EVER thinking to even TRY it!!
Steve

I see liberals as having a touch of "You people go out, build
businesses, work extra hours, and then give me some of it,
because I have *needs*.

--------------------------------------------
Bzzzt! No, but thanks for playing. Are you REALLY SERIOUSLY SO FUCKING
IGNORANT that you really think that ANYBODY believes that? Do you NOT
see how if you had been born someone else that your life and your
abilities
would be quite different, or do you dumbly wish to mewl at us that God
just
loves you better and would make you rich and famous in ANY life you
found
yourself in, and that all "those other people" must "just be LAZY OR
SOMETHIN'!!!" You're not really just THAT fucking stupid, are you?

You see, there IS NO FREE WILL!!!!! Repeat it to yourself, THERE IS NO
FREE
WILL! We are born into the life we are born into with NO control of
that!
You are NOT a "self-made-man", you were made by your external
circumstances
and accident of upbringing. You do NOT HAVE ANY more right to think you
deserve what you have, than you have to believe that OTHERS deserve
whatever THEY have! NO MATTER HOW LITTLE THEY HAVE! This means that if
you
have an education and a nice family and a good job that YOU ARE JUST
LUCKY!
ANYBODY IN YOUR LIFE WOULD HAVE DONE EXACTLY AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY WOULD
BE
YOU!!

SO now, what do you owe to others for YOU being SO FUCKING LUCKY THIS
TIME
AROUND THE WHEEL OF LIFE????? How do YOU want to be treated in your NEXT
life? Do you want to be pitied and left to be stupid or do you want to
be
educated and get a good job TOO, despite a bad start? What do you want
for
your kids, do you want them to have no food, no medical help, and no
luck
in this life at ALL? Do you see the person in that other man's eyes? HE
IS
YOU IN YOUR NEXT LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to get a break from bad
luck NEXT time, you have to GENERATE IT THIS TIME!!

That's an intentional overstatement, still that's my twist on the concept
that the undefined "they", either govt or the successful, are responsible
for taking care of "me" because darn it, I have needs and goodies should
flow my way to meet those needs.

----------------------------------------------
Wake up and pay attention, Moron, NOBODY thinks that! The allegation
that
they DO is due merely to mental illness that the rich tend to suffer
from!
Nobody can REALLY be that stupid without being abused! The rich are rich
partly because they hate people for what people always did to them, it's
NO
WONDER that they have NO idea what people are REALLY about!

Your "building a successful business" is what causes all your
shit-workers to suddenly find they are not making anything like
they used to and can no longer afford health insurance for their
children. You see, a "successful business" means successful TO
YOU, and NOT to them, or did this escape you somehow? If you
arrange to make more than they do, when the same labor is being
done that has always been done, it merely means that YOU STEAL a
bigger share of it! Why did I say STEAL? Because you don't deserve it
merely for managing a market manipulation of the flow of money without
increasing your OWN personal productivity! You see, you CAN'T really
increase your personal productivity by buying a business and ripping
off your employees when you make five to ten times what they make
for no real reason of your actual labor result!


The rich own the legislative branch, the laws
themselves have been configured so as to make theft from the poor
legal and make theft from the rich ILLEGAL. And don't EVEN rag about
"well the rich don't rob the poor with guns", because that's bullshit,
who the **** do you think the police are? Now you'll say, "well I
don't see the police collecting big bags of money from the poor at
gunpoint." That's NOT the way it's DONE, DUMMY! RENTAL HOUSING is
theft that SHOULD be ILLEGAL! Mortgage housing should be ILLEGAL!

ANYONE claiming to own the house that another lives in is engaging in
a form of theft that the police defend FOR the rich because of
rich-bought
legalities and they have erected this system because it funnels VAST
QUANTITIES of money to the rich without them having to WORK for it!

In fact MOST of the wealth difference between rich and poor is, in
fact, "stolen" that way, except they own Congress so the law as it
stands
doesn't CALL that "stealing", but it *IS*! Why is it? Because no baby
born on this planet has any more right to any more of the earth and
our species' aedifices on this planet than any other, and if they CLAIM
they do they are simply LYING and stealing by means of organized crime!

In feudal times the soldiers just came and took half or 2/3rds of
whatever
you had stored for winter at spear point or sword point, but now this
is the way it's STOLEN! But it IS STOLEN! And that MUST CHANGE!


No. Cheating, lying, and manipulating without actually producing
anything of value is the way most rich make their wealth,

Really? I know people who have millions that they made
by hard work, a dime at a time.

--------------------------------------
You can't do that, do the math. What they DID was join their savings
with other lucky people who happened to have had no dire financial
emergencies in their lives, and who had high wages because of lucky
educations, in order to leverage other people's rightful monies away
from them by the process of price gouging/fixing and unfair speculation
upon crucial commodities by auction.

Imagine if a rich person goes to the auction where all food is sold
and buys all of it, and resells it at a price that takes all of any
remaining income the poor earn so that they are unable to save anything.
The rich gain via NO WORK, merely by speculation, and they ALSO wind
up in a permanentized condition that the rich can repeat monthly or
weekly and none of their poor neighbors can escape. Friends, that is
called enslavement! Then the other rich make it impossible for them
to ever buy their own home because they crank the rents up to consume
the remainder of any earnings they have, and they become chattel!!

This must be prevented in any decent human future even if it requires
killing anyone who suggests it till our species develops a permanent
speciel instinctive revulsion at any such idea. Anything less than
the elimination of all such get rich quick schemes that prey upon
the less lucky must be totally destroyed and those who even suggest
them must be wiped from the face of the earth till people never beat
their children for ANYTHING EXCEPT for saying shit like that!

Richard Steven Walz
26 September 2003

 

[JM]

So it makes me wonder... Will AI be capable of suffering from

clinical depression? Insanity? Psychotic AI running the military
systems.... now *there's* a movie!

It'd be worth having that sorta thing just to talk to a real Marvin!!! .

 

[Phlip]

Psychotic AI running the military
How would you know this hasn't already begun?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

[Suggestion: you read c.p, I read c.p, and this subthread has long since
ceased to be of interest to anyone in the AI camp; consequently, I've set
followups to c.p; I point this out merely to draw your attention to the
fact, so that you can reverse my decision if you think it appropriate so to
do.]

Programmer Dude wrote:

[I've snipped most of the ad hominem stuff. I'm getting sick to the back
teeth of it.]

Yet you feel free to characterize other people's statements.

If I have /mis/-characterised any statement you have made, I apologise for
that.

Yet you seemed very upset about my "blowing smoke" statement,
despite repeated explanations of its intent.

I was concerned by the overtone of intended deception. The explanations
seemed to me to be just as accusatory as the original statement.

So,... despite my demonstration of the thought and analysis that
support my opinion, you *continue* to be of the opinion that the
analysis is glib? Wow.

I saw what I perceived to be a glib assumption. I continue to believe that I
saw what I perceived to be a glib assumption. Your /subsequent/
demonstration of what you call your thought and analysis does /not/ affect
my perception of the original assumption at the time that I saw that
assumption.

And just what *is* the difference between your expressed *opinion*
of something and a "claim" about something?

I'll demonstrate. Here's a claim (one with which I happen to disagree):

"C is not a viable language for new developments."

Here's an opinion (again, one with which I happen to disagree):

"I don't believe C to be a viable language for new developments".

The difference in form is almost trivial, but it makes a lot of difference.

A possible solution: stop characterizing the opinions of others
and just debate the topic.

That was *precisely* what I have been trying to do, throughout.

Possible. I've tried to demonstrate the low probability of this,
but I know you're not convinced despite the disparity in analysis.

This isn't a matter of conviction. I am not particularly hopeful that
animals do have (very) high levels of intelligence. All I'm saying is that,
whether they do or whether they don't, we are unlikely ever to /know/ that
they do or that they don't.

Clearly not.

I think dolphins may count as a counter-example here. Also, please note that
my "we" was intended to refer (and I accept that I didn't make this clear)
to humans across the whole planet over the whole of history, not just to
authors and readers of 21st century popular science books and magazines.

Possible. Even likely, since observations tend to support this.

I'll buy "possible".

Possible. It seems *to* *me* that intelligence would manipulate
its environment in some fashion.

I accept your right to hold that opinion, but I don't agree that it follows
automatically. I don't see any sensible way to demonstrate this one way or
the other, either. Clearly, any intelligence that /can/ manipulate its
environment can presumably /choose/ whether to manipulate its environment.
If there is no choice, there is no evidence of intelligence. Example: the
beaver builds dams. Does it choose to do this? If not, is there any
evidence there of intelligence? IMHO, No. If it /does/ choose to do it,
knowing the consequences (both good and bad), then it strikes me that this
constitutes evidence (but not proof) of intelligence. And, if so, it would
count as an example of (a) above.

Nearly all animals already do
that do some extent, so imagining that greater ability brings
greater potential for manipulation seems likely.

If a creature is free to choose whether or not to manipulate its
environment, then we have to face the possibility that it chooses not to.
And if it is not free to choose, then the manipulation or lack thereof is
not a manifestation of intelligence.

Possible. I would assign a low probability here also simply due
to the sheer numbers involved. How likely is it that no one has
thought of "it" over all the centuries involved.

Low probability, sure, but of course I'm not "everyone", and others might
have thought of something that I missed.

Because the direction above argues against the point you've been
arguing all this time (to wit, the putative alienness of animal
intelligence).

"Putative" being the important word. I have defended the possibility, but I
do not suggest that the probability is high.

Understood. The debate has been about the *probability* of those
possibilities.

Then we are debating about different things.

You are willing to give your thought experiment enough credence
to be unwilling to assign even a 75% probability that a very
duck-like thing is, in fact, a duck.

I am willing to give my thought experiment enough credence to be unwilling
to assign arbitrary probabilities to unknowable propositions.

After all, we acknowledged the basic *possibility* that things are
not as they appear in the first round of posts.

Of course, it is more likely that they /are/ as they appear to us (Occam and
all that), but we /assume/ that "fact" at our peril.

Yes, but whether they are fundamental or limited to four is moot.
The question is about the likelyhood of a space-faring race failing
to discover electricity.

I don't know what the likelihood is. I suggest, however, that the
probability (however small it might be) is non-zero. And it's a big
universe out there. (Indeed, Douglas Adams postulated, albeit in fun, the
possibility of dolphins being a space-faring race (and electricity isn't
terribly easy to mess around with, in their environment). So it's not a
completely unheard-of idea.)

Indeed, but still moot. We discovered and used electricity LONG
before we derived our imperfect interpretation.

And we were intelligent long before we discovered and used electricity.

Einstein opened new doors and *extended* Newton's discoveries.
Newton still works just fine--but only in a specific FoR.
Regardless, the point is the EM force is the most obvious of the
*known* four forces and is, I would argue, almost impossible to
NOT discover. Electricity was, after all, known to the ancient
Greeks (as static electricity).

The new doors are the important thing here. Consider a race that has found
/other/ doors that we don't happen to have encountered yet, and they
haven't found /our/ doors (such as the "electricity" door); perhaps they
would be amazed to learn that we haven't found /their/ doors yet, and
perhaps they can't see why we make such a fuss about electricity.

Likely? I don't know. Possible? Yes.

And, regardless of whether they are fundamental or the only four,
the point is it is ****incredibly**** unlikely any advanced
society could fail to discover electricity. And...

I think you overstate the case. I agree that it's unlikely, but I don't
agree that it's incredibly unlikely.

Bringing us back to the question: Are you seriously suggesting a
space-faring race could fail to find one of the *four* fundamental
forces of physics?

So, your answer is yes?

Mu.

I don't agree that the question is well-formed. I will, however, say that I
seriously consider that the probability of the existence of a
non-electricity-discovering space-faring race is low but non-zero (and,
perforce, unquantifiable until we actually find one or show that none
exist).

You seem to have been arguing the possibilities are not as obvious
as I--and most pet owners and animal trainers--would find them.
I've tried to give you clear-cut examples that demonstrate how
evident the (low level) communication really is.

But what they /really/ demonstrate is how evident the /belief/ is.

Your "interpretation" doesn't match observable facts.

Of course not, but neither does yours, since it appears to rely entirely on
subjective interpretations of facts, rather than actual facts.

Note my reply that there clearly is *no* *absense*, because there
is a *visible* *reaction* of reluctance. That it *is* reluctance
is strongly supported by similar reactions in situations I *know*
her to be reluctant about. Same cues.

Consider a woman who cries when she is sad, and cries when she is given a
wonderful present. Does this mean that giving her a present makes her sad?
By no means! It only shows that a complex creature with a limited
expression range must map more than one emotion onto a particular
expression. We have no evidence that your perception of "reluctance" is an
accurate perception. Perhaps the dog is reacting in a completely different
way which you are misinterpreting.

None of the above is a "mischaracterisation" of "absense of
understanding". Absense of understanding would be a blank
expression or no reaction. This is also demonstratable by
simply issuing a "command" she doesn't know. The difference
between the two is OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT.

Ah, I see. Well, if it's obvious and self-evident, I can see there's no
point in discussing the matter any more. Clearly, it works for you, so it
works everywhere. void main, anybody?

 

[Gerry Quinn]

See below:
-Steve

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Phlip]

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

There is no honor in preying upon the weak.

[That means stop teasing Pol Pot and making him rant at you. Let him have
the last word, and you win.]

 

[Gerry Quinn]

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

There is no honor in preying upon the weak.

[That means stop teasing Pol Pot and making him rant at you. Let him have
the last word, and you win.]

I'm doing this for Steve's good, not yours.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[R. Steve Walz]

See below:
-Steve

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

------------------
I'm not aware of Pol Pot having a "program" that in ANY way resembled
mine.

By the way, disinformer, YOU aren't EITHER!

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

There is no honor in preying upon the weak.

[That means stop teasing Pol Pot and making him rant at you. Let him have
the last word, and you win.]

I'm doing this for Steve's good, not yours.

- Gerry Quinn

---------------
YOU don't even know what's good for YOU, let ALONE for ME!

But you should stop being a liar and confront the points I make,
or all you're going to get is insulted and trashed.

-Steve

 

[soft-eng]

Uh, you seem to be under the impression Britain formed an empire
by warfare. Before East India company had an empire fall into
its arms, Britain did not win any victories anywhere (except I
think there was a small remote island somewhere with nobody
on it, that historical Britain used to list as a "conquest".)

For any history buffs -- I looked this up, the island referenced
above was called "Puloroon". (There were some people indeed
on it, and the island produced the Nutmeg spice.)

 

[Gerry Quinn]

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

It seems nearly identical, from the equalisation of workers to the
slaughter of dissenters. A little more agrarian in emphasis, but
perhaps that just means Pol Pot thought things out a little better.

By the way, disinformer, YOU aren't EITHER!

???

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Gerry Quinn]

But you should stop being a liar and confront the points I make,
or all you're going to get is insulted and trashed.

I'm still waiting for the translation of Aristotle that supports your
ridiculous claims in that arena. Your political views are
so intrinsically vicious and stupid that they constitute their own best
refutation.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Don Stockbauer]

You wouldn't be here if you didn't enjoy the entertainment!

- Gerry Quinn

One may change one's opinion of how enjoyable a gladiator bludgeon to
the death battle is in the middle of the match. Then jootsing is
sugges

 

[Cyrus Levesque]

<snip long and emotional explanation of what Mr. Walz believes would be a perfect world>

Thank you. That was very educational.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

[snip extreme leftist rant]

Could you clarify in what respects (if any) your program differs from
that of Pol Pot?

- Gerry Quinn

It seems nearly identical, from the equalisation of workers to the
slaughter of dissenters. A little more agrarian in emphasis, but
perhaps that just means Pol Pot thought things out a little better.

-----------------------------
Better? You have to be kidding. His was a war of revenge against the
powerful families represented ancient hatreds, and the blood of
thousands of years, it was a tribal genocide, it didn't even resemble
a revolution, it was merely bloody mindless revenge. His wasn't any
"communism", his was meting our equality through death. He believed
that "socialism" (his word) was incompatible with industrialized
civilization, which he saw as inherently evil more than he saw socialism
as a good, which was an old Cambodian village religious superstition,
and he forcibly ruralized the entire population and
simply killed any of them who seemed inept or unable to cope with
forced labor.

It's pretty unrelated to anything actually, and the US support of
the Sihanouk's city rule and the US carpet bombing of the countryside
is blamed for this gout of revenge spurting in SE Asia.

-Steve

 

[Tom McGlynn]

How awful of me to confuse what are entertainments for children at
best.
.... some snipped
The very ability to think truly hypothetically

.... long harangue snipped

This does seem to be the crux of the matter. When someone complains
about an author it's of mild interest that they actually
know who they are talking about. It lends a tiny bit of
credibility to their discussion. I actually prefer
to start with facts rather than hypotheses. As far as I can
tell there were three facts discussed in the post I originally
replied to. Two of them were incorrect (Clarke as the author
responsible for the laws of robotics, and the dissolution
of the Ross Ice shelf), one was at best half right (Clarke did
write about though he did not support building an orbital tower).

Now some things, the nature of intelligence may well be one,
require going beyond the facts. However, under the common notion
of intelligence, intelligent and moral men -- say Abraham Lincoln,
Woordrow Wilson, FDR as examples -- have acted in ways they knew
would kill many people. So it is observed that intelligence does
not equate with an axiomatic rejection of killing. Other intelligent
men have indeed come to the conclusion that killing is wrong under
all circumstances but they are in fact in the great minority.

You may wish to work with an uncommon definition of intelligence.
Your definition of intelligence might well lead to a rejection of
homicide in all circumstances. But then you cannot directly compare
your quantity with other authors' discussions of intelligence
since they are not talking about the same thing you are.

But please feel free to denigrate classes of literature of which
you have apparently no personal knowledge and continue to
spout philosophical blather. Arguments are always easiest unanchored
by factual content.

Regards,
Tom McGlynn

 

[Corey Murtagh]

After posting my reply to this message, it dawned on me where you (maybe)
had mis-interpretted the discussion.

I'm fairly sure I got the gist of it. I was disagreeing

When we were talking about duplicating a human mind, we were not
implying reverse-engineering the workings of the mind and building a
machine version. (I agree, that would indeed qualify as machine intelli-
gence and emotion). If you read the postings leading up to the message
you followed up you'll see that I was responsing to a suggestion that a
specific living human mind (actually Bill Gates' - although why he was
choosen as the candidate is beyond me!) be transfered from 'wetware' to
a machine. In my mind this is just Bill's mind running on different
hardware - it does not qualify as independent machine intelligence.

My assertion was that if the machine simulation was as capable of
thought as the original mind that was being simulated, then the result
is /machine intelligence/. The fact that the machine is a duplication
of a human mind isn't relevant, is it?

Your artist analogy is still invalid in this context, in my opinion
since what is being duplicated isn't the thought but the artist. If all
that the machine simulation produced was exact replication at every
moment of what the original was producing, then all you have is a copy
machine for the thoughts themselves. If the simulation was capable of
thinking independantly of the mind it duplicated, then the simulation
itself is intelligent.

That's my thoughts on the matter

 

[Corey Murtagh]

You can get the angle relative to the path of a moving signal source, if
you know its velocity vector, but it's very difficult to do so (at least
accurately) with a slow-moving object like a GPS satellite. If you know
the location of the signal sources at any particular instant then you
could triangulate your position.

Problem: knowing the angle to the source gives you no data about where
the source is, how fast it's moving, when it transmitted, etc. You have
to have complete information about the orbital parameters of the
satellite and the current time. Since quartz crystal timing is about as
good as you get in an affordable electronic device, and orbits are
distorted by complex gravitational effects up there, straight doppler
positioning is pretty much out of the question.

By triangulating under three or more satellites. Each beeping its
location and the time it beeped. Various calculations involving the
speed of light and trigonometry follow, but I wouldn't know about
that.

GPS uses the /transit/ time of a signal from a satellite to figure out
the distance between the transmitter on the satellite and the receiver
in your hand-held GPS unit. Given the /accurate/ distance from three
(yes, three) satellites, information on the orbits of those satellites,
and a very accurate clock, it is possible to trilaterate the location of
the receiver.

So... a GPS receiver must have a list of the orbital parameters of each
of the satellites in order to figure the location of each, and a very
accurate time measure ... better than the quartz crystal timing.
Updates to the orbital parameters are sent via the satellites
themselves, and the receiver's clock is updated constantly by reference
to at least four satellites... where the error is averaged to update
your clock.