Slashdot Mirror

New Scientist

New York Times

CS Monitor

Nope.

Nice try, but you'll have to do better next time.

Can't bribe or influence an AI the way you can humans; so it's a no-go for replacing any existing government.

Yes, you can.
Google "algorithm bias site:slashdot.org".
There are literally a dozen articles here on Slashdot about bias on social-sensitive algorithims. If they can be biased (and they can), their developers can be lobbied or even bribed.

Here, I'll give you not one, but five well-documented examples of AI showing prejudice in their algorithms.

My google fu is a bit weak right now, but apparently, I was wrong about which group stated it. It was the French Academy of Sciences, not the Royal Astronomical Society. Same idea. https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]

So let me get this straight: You're citing the fact that hundreds of years ago (1794), when man didn't know where meteorites because there was no decent evidence for it is exactly why you should dismiss climate change even though there is evidence for it.

Many scientists agree that Dark Matter exists. Dark Matter is merely the result of torturing a misunderstanding beyond reason. It does not actually exist in any way, shape, or form.

Incorrect. Many scientists agree that something exists which we can't fully explain. For now they are calling it Dark Matter. For now they do not have a complete knowledge on its properties in the same way that scientists didn't know all the properties of all the sub-atomic particles that exist; that doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles never existed.

There are very few things that I believe, but I take it as a matter of faith that General Relativity is as close to real Truth as humans have found. Dark Matter is not predicted by General Relativity.

No and there are many things that General Relativity cannot explain. What happens inside a black hole for example. General Relativity is also completely inadequate when it comes to particle physics. Do you dismiss both because General Relativity cannot explain them.

Now, what if gravity doesn't bend spacetime, rather gravity is a consequence of the shape of spacetime?

No, mass bends space-time. Gravity is the force we describe that process.

All the same equations describe the situation, but now, gravity is no longer a fundamental force. This can be described quite nicely in a primitive two dimensional manner: Any change in the rate of time flow will result in an acceleration towards the lower change in rate.

In what way does the many, many tensor equations of General Relativity not have gravity as a fundamental force?

It is actually much more subtle than that, but General Relativity continues working just fine. Gravity is just an illusion... but I would not recommend stepping off of a cliff. Your body will still be accelerated as would be expected if gravity were not an illusion.

Again, General Relativity does not explain what happens inside a black hole. Science has long known that.

Dark Matter and Gravity are illusions based on our limited understanding of the actual shape and nature of spacetime.

Again, how does that contradict my point? Dark Matter information is acknowledged to be something we don't know. Climate change is the opposite in that there is lots of evidence from many scientists affirming that it is 1) happening and 2) caused by man.

The obvious one about the Royal Astronomical Society coming to the conclusion that ROCKS DO NOT FALL FROM THE SKY and therefore, anyone who reports finding a meteorite is lying.

Citation Needed

My google fu is a bit weak right now, but apparently, I was wrong about which group stated it. It was the French Academy of Sciences, not the Royal Astronomical Society. Same idea.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

How does it contradict my point? ... And scientists are not fully sure of what Dark Matter is, but they are unequivocally stating that they donâ(TM)t know.

Many scientists agree that Dark Matter exists. Dark Matter is merely the result of torturing a misunderstanding beyond reason. It does not actually exist in any way, shape, or form.

There are competing ideas like quantum gravity but no one has been able to bring forth a verifiable model yet. That doesnâ(TM)t mean General Relativity is wrong.

There are very few things that I believe, but I take it as a matter of faith that General Relativity is as close to real Truth as humans have found. Dark Matter is not predicted by General Relativity.

Short breakdown:

Do a search with the term "gravity bends spacetime". See the results?

Now, what if gravity doesn't bend spacetime, rather gravity is a consequence of the shape of spacetime?

All the same equations describe the situation, but now, gravity is no longer a fundamental force. This can be described quite nicely in a primitive two dimensional manner: Any change in the rate of time flow will result in an acceleration towards the lower change in rate. (time flows faster for an object the further it is from another mass)

It is actually much more subtle than that, but General Relativity continues working just fine. Gravity is just an illusion... but I would not recommend stepping off of a cliff. Your body will still be accelerated as would be expected if gravity were not an illusion.

Dark Matter and Gravity are illusions based on our limited understanding of the actual shape and nature of spacetime.

Boy did you not get the memo on how this thing actually works.

LIGO searches for an extremely precise signal known as a "ring down" which is entirely unlike any kind of dump truck doing anything dump trucks do.

The problem is somewhat different: a dump truck plus exactly the right random noise might produce a nun-bun artifact in the shape of a ring down.

So it certainly helps to corroborate detections by having multiple detectors.

Grave doubts over LIGO's discovery of gravitational waves — 31 October 2018

I'm not going to read that article again just now, but as I recall it, the detection algorithm is not detecting objects at the two main LIGO installations independently, so that the detections corroborate each other, but combining both signals into what amounts to a single instrument (basically into a single sigma budget, rather than separate sigma budgets).

Secondly, the search is template-driven, scanning for exactly the kinds of ring-downs they expect (hope) to find.

Between these two things, it's certainly possible into deceiving yourself into thinking you've detected something you haven't detected.

(I haven't followed up on this data analysis challenge recently.)

Finally, the cosmic directionality of the two LIGO machines is terrible. I forget the exact number, but between the two machines, you get something like a giant banana whose length is 20% of the sky.

The Direction of LIGO's Gravitational Waves — 6 March 2016

That provides an introduction, but does not quantify the banana in square degrees that I can see on a quick revisit.

Ideally we would have four machines, and the machines would be partitioned for independent detection. Once the detection is confirmed to the same sigma twice, then all four machines can be combined into a single directional assessment, and then we can get hot onto neutron-star mergers in visible light.

"At some point, a space elevator will become economically practical"

bahahahahahahaaaa!!!! you ingravs are hilarious

"zero-g offers a lot of advantages for manufacturing"

yes we can see how hobbled we are by gravity, you literally said four sentences before that materials are improving... i imagine they are improving right here on earth

oh no how is that possible

it's not like technology always gets better

we don't need "zero g" (freefall actually) since we can already make atomically perfect spheres right here on earth

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

i t hought 3D printing will let us build things atom by atom

why do we need space

ingrav nutcase

No, they are going to melt by 2035. Count on it.

See also, regarding the causality direction of the temperature / CO2 correlation:

"Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

And a bit of history on this topic in case you missed it:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

[PS: I"m getting the timer now on AC posting...]

At the risk of escalating this "debate":

Could wind turbines withstand Category 5 hurricanes"
This is one of many articles about wind turbines handling high winds. They actually have a "hurricane mode" into which they can be placed.

Article in NewScientist" on failure of wind turbine in the North Sea. And I quote:.

Much of the evidence was burned, and Infinis and Vestas disagree on which was the key initial cause of the destructive fire: Infinis believes it was the loss of yaw control, while Vestas thinks brake drag more the root cause. While Vestas has produced its own report, an expert was not available to discuss its findings with New Scientist. Vestas has since fixed the brake problem. In future, the feathered rotor will not have the brake applied in high winds; it will be free to turn if it needs to. “Vestas no longer do this and have modified all turbines at Ardrossan to prevent application of the parking brake, which is now only applied during maintenance,” says Infinis spokesman Andrew Dowler."

Guess what? The article also says: When wind speeds reach 88 km/h turbine blades of wind turbines are usually twisted, or “feathered” ...

I stand by my assertion. I will agree that airframes are susceptible to failure at airspeeds that are only modestly higher than normal operating airspeeds, however propellers (l.e. turbine blades) are much more robust - again, like propellers on aircraft.

For grins, I tried calculating tangential velocity of propeller tips on a Cessna 172, given a prop diameter of 76" and an RPM of 2800. My math may not be correct, but I've checked it in Excel and I think it works out to 622 MPH. By your reasoning, you wouldn't even make it off the runway before the propeller self-destructed.

Airframes and propellers have totally different strength characteristics, no?

You can't fight globalism....err...neo-feudalism. They own the media. Here, read this

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

That's the narrative.

You must have head of the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period - and the many other examples of this. Even the Little Ice Age.

1. The Medieval Warm Period was localized to the north Atlantic region, with the pacific region getting colder. Current warming is increasing average temperatures across the globe.

2. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period (as per the link) is believed to have been solved.

3. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from ~300 to ~400 PPM since the 60s, in line with increased fossil fuel emissions.

4. The cause of the current warming is believed (by 90+% of the scientists investigating it) to have been solved. Spoiler alert it's the increasing atmospheric CO2.

The Thames Barrier has been closed 182 times since it became operational in 1982 (correct as of February 2018). Of these closures, 95 were to protect against tidal flooding

Sometimes they even close the barrier now at low tide to provide a place for excess rain to go because the rain plus higher tides would be flooding.

Sea level is rising and now rising faster than it has in 100s or 1000s of years.. That simply isn't in dispute.

Larger islands don't discount rising seas until they are overtopped. An island that's 1 foot above sea level can get larger with 6 inches of rise without shrinking - that doesn't mean there isn't a significant problem going forward.

Too late.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

That's not "quite a few", although thanks for reminding me of the Magnox design, making a total of 3. It's inherent in the CANDU design, where you push fuel through horizontal tubes in the original manner used by the Manhattan Project. Push them through so a fuel assembly stays there only a few months, and there won't be too much of the thermally hot or fissions too easily plutonium isotopes.

But those reactors are not the ones the lies were made about, I'm thinking in particular the hue and cry about that Japanese fuel in the early 1990s, here's the first link I found, by the New "Scientist" at that. Outright total lying, unless you define a "crude bomb" as one that requires 1kW of constant heat removal, quite a trick and makes the whole thing huge (refrigeration equipment plus generator(s) to power it), and a yield less than a kT.

I think I ready about gait recognition being pretty good now

Yep, FB and Google are pushing that tech hard, so they can recognize people whose faces are not visible in photos and videos.

This was 3 years ago. 83% accuracy based on secondary features like hair style, clothing, pose, limb lengths and ratios, etc. That was years ago: They are better now.

There is no escape, except if people will smarten up and stop using Facebook, Google, or others which do the same things. They must be put out of business.

Just say no.

This paywalled paper. Ties in with this article.

A lot is wrong with it. How hard is it? What information do you need? Can anything change with storage or reading to fix it? What? Your common sense doesn't take you far when it's right, and when it's wrong, it's even worse. https://www.newscientist.com/a... - here's a whole list of examples of common sense leading researchers astray. In short, common sense is easy when you already know the answer.

same shit different decade

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Elemental metal via electrolysis requires a hellish amount of electrical power, that's why aluminum is the easy win for recycling since 90% the energy saved.

They could well up carbon emissions if China uses this method with all the lovely new coal plants they're building globally to fuel their offshore manufacturing.

Remember kiddies, it doesn't really matter what the USA does any more for global carbon emissions, it matters a great deal what China's policies and methods are, and what India's will be in about 3 decades. Every time I post this truth some idiots here start whining about "per capita"...which is bullshit when the planet's carbon making "capita" are under Chinese policy.

Did you mess up your units or just fail math horribly?

Crazily enough it's accurate enough for purposes of demonstrating relative bandwidth. People naturally have trouble believing it at first because the eyes move so fast without much conscious thought and mind does a great job of tricking itself.

The best way I know of to dispel the illusion human eyesight is focus on this text with your eyes and then try and read something else on the screen without moving your eyeballs. For myself and setup of my display anything more than 6 lines down is illegible without cheating.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...
Human optic nerve is about 10 mbit/s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wired ethernet is generally 1000 mbit/s
1000 / 10 = 100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actual usable 5ghz wireless people actually get at reasonable distance is something like 100mbit/s.
100 / 10 = 10

https://www.hdmi.org/manufactu...
HDMI 2.0 is 18 gbit/s (18000 mbit/s)
18000 / 10 = 1800

The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.

If you look up "Scientific Wager" in google, chances are at least a couple of the top ten results reference this bet. For example, here and here.

the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out.

The graph is showing that every available temperature data set, whether it be it from USA or UK, land or satellite, and even those by skeptics - all show the same thing. Temperature is warming by about 0.2C/decade. The later period is warmer than the former. The climate modeler had greater insights into the mechanisms that affect global mean temperature than the solar physicists. The winner is clear.

For more authoritative reportage, you can read this nature article from when the bet was made, this New Scientist's article on Five scientific theories decided by wager, or this Russian article on why the losers welched, even though they lost.

Is that what the news on slashdot is now... every time two random dudes make a bet, if one does not pay up, it's an article on slashdot?

This wager was written up in Nature at the time of the bet. It was included in New Scientist's Five scientific theories decided by wager It is included in Wikipedia's article on scientific wager.

If your wager is literally included in the definition of a scientific wager, then I would not be shocked to find it written about.

That leaves Hubble with only two fully functional gyros. At any given time, Hubble needs three of its gyroscopes to work for optimal efficiency.

I found this from thirteen years ago:

In the meantime, engineers have continued planning for the two-gyro mode ... Tests of the mode, in which onboard computers only used data from two gyros, showed the resulting images were nearly identical to those taken with three gyros. One of scientists' main concerns about switching to a two-gyro system had been that âoejitterâ in the telescope would produce blurry images.

I think it's probably the fittingly named "Enormous Theorem" on Symmetry that took dozens of mathemeticians decades to complete. That runs to over 15,000 pages just for the calculations, and even the "guide" runs to a further 1,200 pages.

I pretty much agree with your post, except:

The Milgram experiment proved that it's trivial for otherwise well-adjusted humans who are polite and civilized to become exactly that kind of monster.

It proved nothing of the sort; the experiements were misrepresented (and 'selectively' reported) both by Milgram himself and subsequent generations, and the intuitively appealing (shock!) idea has entered our culture as a 'scientific fact'.

I'm afraid you'll need a need a New Scientist sub, or access to the March 14th issue, to read the rather less shocking reality of his experiments, and what they did and didn't show about human nature.

Here are some references. You can make up your own mind I guess.

"When an ice cube melts in a glass, the overall water level does not change from when the ice is frozen to when it joins the liquid. Doesnâ(TM)t that mean that melting icebergs shouldnâ(TM)t contribute to sea-level rise? Not quite.

Although most of the contributions to sea-level rise come from water and ice moving from land into the ocean, it turns out that the melting of floating ice causes a small amount of sea-level rise, too.

Globally, it doesnâ(TM)t sound like much â" just 0.049 millimetres per year â" but if all the sea ice currently bobbing on the oceans were to melt, it could raise sea level by 4 to 6 centimetres.

Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level."

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

https://physics.stackexchange....

"When you learned about Archimedes back in elementary school, your teacher probably told you that a floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Although an ice cube pokes up out of the water, when it melts, the level of the water should stay the same. Extrapolate this concept to an iceberg floating in the oceanâ"a bigger version of the ice cube in your water glassâ"and you would think that melting icebergs shouldn't contribute to sea level rise. Well, you'd be wrong, say geoscientists at the University of Leeds.

In their study, published this week in Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers used satellite observations and a computer model to assess the impacts of melting icebergs. The total amount of floating ice that is turned into ocean water each year is equivalent to 1.5 million Titanic-sized icebergs. Due to differences in the temperature and density of the ice and water (the seawater is warmer and saltier than the icebergs that float in it), when the icebergs melt, the resulting ocean water is 2.6 percent greater in volume than the volume of water that the iceberg had displaced."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

"In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice wonâ(TM)t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration."

http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom...

There are plenty more, but if that doesn't convince you then I imagine nothing will.

You think that an iceberg that is floating in the water has not raised the level of the ocean (ever so slightly), but it will when it melts?

Slightly, yes, due to the fresh water melting into the salt water.

"Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level."

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

(I'm not the person you replied to)

1. Icebergs are going to melt anyway, it doesn't matter where they do it

2. "if all the sea ice currently bobbing on the oceans were to melt, it could raise sea level by 4 to 6 centimetres."

I wouldn't worry about it.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Perverse Incentive: DO NOT, under any circumstances, make any products. That way, you don't infringe anything. Just sue everything who happens to 'infringe' on your excessively broad patents.

The patent system should force inventors to *demonstrate* their invention to a panel of peers, whose responses should be considered.

This boy, for example, should have been forced to demonstrate his unique method of swinging to playground buddies:
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

There seems to be some confusion over them. Since they're impacted by G and since you need them to measure G, they're an important part of the story.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...
https://www.sciencealert.com/p...

Basically, they work off state changes. Caesium atoms that generated pulses of radiation as they changed energy level, the wobble of aluminium atoms, the motion in a quantum gas of strontium.

They do not, and never have, work(ed) from radioactive decay.

107 cases across the whole U.S., vs over 40k in Europe.

I wonder where the Russians have really been targeting - and succeeding.

The U.S. has long been much more immune to ideological persuasion than elsewhere.

dichloroacetate is probably what OP is referring to

...garbage out.

If the training data is biased, the AI will learn to be biased. There have been numerous reports on this.

Only in places where there is limited cooling water

You make it sound like they just built the plants in the wrong place.

Nuclear plants have some pretty difficult requirements for location. You need somewhere that is geologically stable, where there is sufficient space and isolation to build the plant, waste storage and security apparatus. It needs a supply of water for cooling. It needs to be sheltered from severe weather and natural disasters as far as possible. And it has to have good infrastructure to keep it supplied, connect it to the grid and allow staff and emergency services to get in and out.

Your Forbes link doesn't open for me, but I note that when it gets hot in the US nuclear plants have to shut down because the sea gets too warm: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...

Not to mention the inland ones suffering from droughts. https://www.newscientist.com/a...

The mirror was over-budget, and behind schedule, and management at Perkin-Elmer wanted to ship it. The mis-assembled instrument was the contractually agreed method of mirror acceptance, and the one used in the figuring process. When engineers found after the figuring that simple tests showed that it was incorrect, P-E management didn't care, and didn't tell NASA.

I find no evidence of this. I'm not saying I don't believe you. The fact that they should have known is good enough, but we don't know who cheated. It might not have been management.

Ironically, builders of large ground-based telescopes normally test mirrors two or three different ways, and continue testing until results agree. Crucially, Perkin-Elmer ignored tests with a smaller 'refractive' null corrector which used lenses rather than mirrors. NASA says the refractive instrument was 'much cruder', and that -- unlike the reflective null corrector -- it was neither 'certified' to measure spherical aberration, nor intended for precise measurement of the final surface figure. It now appears that the cruder instrument gave the correct result.

The Justice Department asserted that the two companies knew or should have known about the defect. Hughes officials said Monday that they agreed to the settlement only as a goodwill gesture because NASA, the Hubble sponsor, is a valued customer.

What could go wrong?

Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.

That's very unspecific, and goes against climate scientists' overwhelming consensus, specifically that recent calculations concludes that the Earth is warming orders of magnitude faster than from natural forces. Neither "normal climate variability" nor "heat waves" seems to account for past data, nor is able to predict future trends better than AGW.

High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.

And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.

I couldn't find a source that only night temperatures will increase -- what's yours? The closest I could find was this article explaining why night-time temperatures are warming faster than day-time temperatures. They're both still warming though.

By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").

Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...

http://www.surfacestations.org/

You do not take into account how that data is used and verified. A quick search presents convincing skeptical arguments that these measurements are still reliable as a whole, as they show the same corroborating trends whether they're urban or rural, or lumped into random groups (which would emphasize any inaccuracies from placement of stations):
https://skepticalscience.com/s...
https://skepticalscience.com/B...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (5 min video -- UQx DENIAL101x 2.4.1.1v2 Building a robust temperature record)

How many hundreds of thousands have died from fossil fuel "incidents", compared to the nuclear fatalities you can count on your fingers?

That is a lie, and you are a liar. Chernobyl killed/is killing at least 4,000 people (according to the lowest credible estimate) and Fukushima will have killed at least 400 people due to radiation exposure, not to mention the 1,600 who died due to the evacuation. You have to count those people, because they only had to be evacuated because it was a nuclear plant. If it had been any other kind of plant except maybe liquid sodium solar thermal, it would not have been necessary. (You wouldn't want to be around a containment failure in one of those during a flood!)

You're also engaging in the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Fossil fuels are also dangerous and wrongheaded. There are ways to generate power other than fossil or nuclear. HTH, HAND!

Aluminum was more valuable than gold before Deville came along and figured out electrolysis in 1859. Guess what made that process so cheap that we now throw piles of aluminum cans away without a thought -- not that we should?

Cheap electricity.

Guess what? You can extract iron from ore using electrolysis as well.

Iron Metal Production through Bulk Electrolysis
Green Iron

> Nuclear has a waste problem and a fallout risk This is correct, but as many others pointed out: There is no continuous research to solve (or improve) this nuclear waste problem. For example, What happened to this research that proposed using Lasers to transmute nuclear waste? https://www.newscientist.com/a... Only Europe followed this research: https://eli-laser.eu/

Don't be bummed. Planet 9 really may be from outer space .

To weigh them in the manner you suggest they would have to have built in associations between places and these racial groups.

I'm not sure what your programming experience is, but "AI" based on neural nets is not programming in Prolog. Times, they are a changing!

Cite proof.

There are a number of examples from the last few years that support GP's assertion. (Sorry, last couple may be partially paywalled.)

The source code can be audited.

Not in any meaningful sense it can't, no, because it's not the code that results in the decision, it's the combination of the algorithm & training. Neural nets are essentially 'black boxes', and what goes on inside them to arrive at the decision is a mystery, even to the people that programmed them.

I should point out that I generally agree with most of what you've been saying in your posts on this topic, but, as much as we might wish it otherwise, on this I think the others have a valid point. I'm sure they (the "AI's") will get better but, in the meantime, it's probably wise to maintain a certain degree of skepticism regarding the process & outcomes.

I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Yeah, I would, but I've used enough mod points in this thread to tip the balance towards an anonymous post. I can live without a reply anyway as, because I won't get an email informing me of one, I probably won't read it anyway... Whibla.

To weigh them in the manner you suggest they would have to have built in associations between places and these racial groups.

I'm not sure what your programming experience is, but "AI" based on neural nets is not programming in Prolog. Times, they are a changing!

Cite proof.

There are a number of examples from the last few years that support GP's assertion. (Sorry, last couple may be partially paywalled.)

The source code can be audited.

Not in any meaningful sense it can't, no, because it's not the code that results in the decision, it's the combination of the algorithm & training. Neural nets are essentially 'black boxes', and what goes on inside them to arrive at the decision is a mystery, even to the people that programmed them.

I should point out that I generally agree with most of what you've been saying in your posts on this topic, but, as much as we might wish it otherwise, on this I think the others have a valid point. I'm sure they (the "AI's") will get better but, in the meantime, it's probably wise to maintain a certain degree of skepticism regarding the process & outcomes.

I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Yeah, I would, but I've used enough mod points in this thread to tip the balance towards an anonymous post. I can live without a reply anyway as, because I won't get an email informing me of one, I probably won't read it anyway... Whibla.

Sally Adee, a reporter for 'New Scientist', writes about how the US military strapped electrodes to her head during sniper training that put her in a mental state of effortless concentration known as "flow", and was a short cut to becoming an expert sniper*.

If they can do the one, I won't be surprised if they can do the other. Won't be surprised if I'm wrong either.

*http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/02/09/better-living-through-electrochemistry/

(paywalled) https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328501-600-zap-your-brain-into-the-zone-fast-track-to-pure-focus/

Re: " If the Electric Universe model wants to be taken as real science then it needs to have the explanatory and predictive power necessary to account for all of these evidences at least as well as dark matter."

The answer to the riddle of dark matter is as follows:

(1) At the interstellar scale, gravity is a localized force. This should be common sense, for if the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, the next nearest star would generally be around 4 miles away (this analogy goes by the name of the "Burnham Model"). Simple algebra argues against stars gravitationally interacting with one another at the interstellar scale.

(2) And if you were to actually ask a theorist for proof that Relativity applies at the largest scales, the more honest ones would admit that they lack such proof:

Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility, by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones (2013), p10:

"Combing through the library, I found a well-known textbook on galactic dynamics where the authors state:

'It is worth remembering that all of the discussion so far has been based on the premise that Newtonian gravity and general relativity are correct on large scales. In fact, there is little or no direct evidence that conventional theories of gravity are correct on scales much larger than a light year or so. Newtonian gravity works extremely well on scales of 10^12 meters, the solar system (...) It is principally the elegance of general relativity and its success in solar system tests that lead us to the bold extrapolation to scales 10^19 - 10^24 meters ... [3]'

Wow! Fancy that. Two leading experts claim that the law of gravity has been well tested in our solar system only -- a tiny fraction of the universe that corresponds to a single snowflake in all of Greenland. Scientists seem drawn to the 'elegance' of the theory, which is not really a scientific criterion. I often confront physicists and astronomers with this quote. Usually they shrug and reply airily, 'That is indeed true, but why shouldn't the law of gravity be valid? So far, there is nothing better to replace it.'"

- J. Binney and S. Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 635.

(3) Wal Thornhill has provided a conceptually simple explanation for gravity which may or may not be correct (I suspect he is close). What is important about his conjecture is that it shows us an example for why gravity might be a localized force. His explanation goes like this:

- Every particle within each atom is made of orbiting ~0 mass charges.

- Every subatomic particle is distorted by the presence of others to form a tiny electric dipole.

Like magnets that are free to rotate, all the electric dipoles in protons, neutrons and electrons line up to produce gravity.

Neutral atoms distorted by gravity induce an electric field inside of a body.

The idea is useful, even if incorrect, because it gives us a simple framework to think and pivot from. For example, it's easy enough to see that gravity should be a localized force with such a mechanism. And we've seen this sort of thing elsewhere -- namely, the Van der Waals.

(4) So, what is happening at the largest scales? We know enough at this point to have a good clue about it. Consider, for example, this clue whose importance has been completely missed by the mainstream:

Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of

Medical research is building a good body of evidence for therapeutic
LSD in conditions such as PTSD and intractable depression.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://psychedelicscience.org....

The story here is, likely, both a classic and a must-read for all AI researchers. Because even if no bug gets exploited, there could be other --and mystifying-- ways that an AI algorithm solves a problem.

Let me give you another example of a vindication which everybody missed for electricity in space doing things of importance:

In July of 2016, it was admitted that many galaxies exhibit two separate bulges:

Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of stars become elongated, creating a “bar” of stars that runs through the centre and tilts out of the disc’s plane. The combined effect makes the once-flat galaxy look like it has buckled under enormous pressure.

People who do not track the electricity in space debate would not see this as a vindication for those claims, but it certainly is.

Anthony Peratt simulated proper galactic rotation curves in the early 80's on government supercomputers without the need for any dark matter. . Look carefully at the simulation results, and you will see your two separate bulges.

Re: "To answer the is it even worth considering question, though- of course it is. And it has been, at great lengths. And plasma physics play a huge role in even standard cosmology. They just don't play a huge role in large-scale cosmology."

Let me give you a very simple example which I hope you will recognize as an earnest attempt to demonstrate how difficult it is to judge vindications when we are not actively tracking scientific controversies.

Today, for the first time, I noticed that a couple of galaxy artists were suddenly drawing the Milky Way's galactic bulge as a pair, as if a memo went out (which I missed). I had never before noticed this, but having learned about Anthony Peratt's galactic simulation as a pair of rotating Birkeland currents, I immediately tuned into this pattern.

To somebody who has not paid any attention to Peratt's simulation, the explanation offered in a July 2016 article would seem good enough to assume the issue is basically settled:

Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of stars become elongated, creating a “bar” of stars that runs through the centre and tilts out of the disc’s plane. The combined effect makes the once-flat galaxy look like it has buckled under enormous pressure.

But, hold on just a second. This is a completely ad hoc explanation. Although I have no doubt that somebody somewhere can generate a tweak to the original galactic models -- perhaps involving dark matter -- which can explain with actual numbers why this may occur in the conventional model, the fact of the matter is that this is a completely expected feature when you are modeling a galaxy as an interaction of two Birkeland currents. -- and the choice to refuse to systematically track the Electric Universe controversy has left everybody failing to recognize that this actually vindicates the against-the-mainstream claim.

You think that's just a coincidence? Okay, let's go back a few days to the release of these new pictures from the Juno spacecraft of one of Jupiter's poles in infrared. The article states:

Jupiter’s poles are a stark contrast to the more familiar orange and white belts and zones encircling the planet at lower latitudes. Its north pole is dominated by a central cyclone surrounded by eight circumpolar cyclones with diameters ranging from 2,500 to 2,900 miles (4,000 to 4,600 kilometers) across. Jupiter’s south pole also contains a central cyclone, but it is surrounded by five cyclones with diameters ranging from 3,500 to 4,300 miles (5,600 to 7,000 kilometers) in diameter. Almost all the polar cyclones, at both poles, are so densely packed that their spiral arms come in contact with adjacent cyclones. However, as tightly spaced as the cyclones are, they have remained distinct, with individual morphologies over the seven months of observations detailed in the paper.

“The question is, why do they not merge?” said Adriani. “We know with Cassini data that Saturn has a single cyclonic vortex at each pole. We are beginning to realize that not all gas giants are created equal.”

Once again, I sprung into action because I have tracked Peratt's work sufficient to understand the inherent geometry of electricity over plasma. In his efforts to explain petroglyphs as z-pinch instab

I can't give you an answer for general tech, but medical tech would be greatly advanced by the ability to put people into suspended animation.

Basically, if the person's body isn't *operating* - needing to breathe, needing to circulate, and so on - then repairs could be done much more effectively and cheaply,

I read where gunshot victims would be suspended temporarily as an experimental method a couple of years back.

Whatever happened to that?

Perhaps a combination of sudden hypoothermia coupled with sulphur dioxide treatment or something.