What he implies they are mistaken about is their own desire. What he has access to is information about behavior, not information about emotion. Actually, not even that. What he has action to is information about how much of his product was sold. To go from that to the claim that they really wanted his product but didn't know it he would have to have some pretty spectacular evidence, evidence only obtainable through mind reading.
I hear James Randi's foundation has a million dollar prize for people who can demonstrate their telepathic prowess. Surely being able to read the minds of 130 million people would qualify?
Telling people who feel like Elliot Rodger that they're not a victim. This will help because 1) they'll believe it, and 2) believing it will solve their issues with reality.
Or perhaps not.
Perhaps it will simply fuel their hatred even more, because now they're even having the reality of their emotions denied, as if they're somehow defective in that respect too.
Assigning victims and victimizers here is completely irrelevant to finding out what's actually wrong with this situation, and how to fix it.
No alcoholic or chain smoker plans to become addicted when they buy that first bottle of whisky/pack of cigarettes either, but that doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't take into consideration.
What this court case shows is that this woman is a poor judge of character. And instead of taking the opportunity to learn something, she just sues, making sure nothing is resolved and in fact (by winning) positively reinforcing her poor people judging skills.
When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.
Do you not see the difference between bundling a product with a different product and promising monetary rewards in exchange for a user using a product? Because that is what is being compared here.
read elections as electrons, and briefly had a mental image of me giving my best gal a pile of electrons after performing a feat of strength at a fun fair.
No matter whether that's true or false, in this instance the way the intelligence community has chosen to accomplish a goal runs directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, which is exactly what an enemy is.
Of course, how hard would it to paste a piece of cardboard over the display (in case the user interface is only accessible from the screen ads are shown on, instead of, say, paint) and tear out the speakers? Now you've got a free refrigerator.
I've always thought Han was a retard and never understood his appeal. If there were a religion on earth right now that would let you move things outside your body with your mind and reflect bullets with a blade of light, you best believe literally everyone would be an adherent. We wouldn't even recognize it as a religion; it would be the only belief-system around because of the immediate obviousness of its superiority to literally everything else. In fact, guns probably wouldn't exist either, because of how useless they would be. Oh you've got a gun? That's cool buddy, I can LITERALLY SEE THE FUTURE.
If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code? The universe would be filled with light-saber wielding telekinetic lunatics of all it took was wanting it hard enough.
I think a Star Wars/Cloverfield mash-up could be cool. The sith would set loose several huge Rancorrs on Coruscant to further the purposes of the dark side and then the jedi could carve them up and create buildings from the skin and bones that would grow on their own under the influence of the Light Side and turn Coruscant into a giant pulsating heart of Force. This would accidentally produce a tear in the Force and a new Chosen one would be born to restore balance. Twist: the one to bring balance to the Force is the first Rancorr able to become a Jedi. It mind-melds with the flesh-and-bone half of Coruscant and becomes a living planet capable of moving itself across the galaxy because of the number of Midi-chlorians it now commands, smashing itself into other worlds to absorb their life essences and drain Midi-chlorians from any Force sensitives.
Not that I'm defending people who write contracts here, but the notion of plain language is not unambiguous. What counts as plain is dependent upon the reader's level of fluency, and because not all native speakers of a language have the same level of fluency the notion of 'plain' differs from person to person. The reason clauses of a contract or often not plain is because of the use of specialist language. However, that specialist language has a specific function: reducing ambiguity. In order to make a contract more plain, more commonly understood language needs to be used, but more commonly understood language is necessarily more ambiguous, and thus open for interpretation. If there's one thing no one wants it's that their rights critically depend upon the interpretative powers of another person. This is why the words "In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court..." inspire such dread.
It is more useful to discuss the properties of things that can exist than it is to discuss the properties of things that can't exist, and therefore conscious AI is not like a Guardian Angel in the relevant aspect required to make the analogy work. After all, what he is drawing in question is the worth of the discussion, and because conscious AI is possible, the merits of its discussion outweigh the merits of the discussion of Guardian Angels.
Slashdot Mirror
What he implies they are mistaken about is their own desire. What he has access to is information about behavior, not information about emotion. Actually, not even that. What he has action to is information about how much of his product was sold. To go from that to the claim that they really wanted his product but didn't know it he would have to have some pretty spectacular evidence, evidence only obtainable through mind reading.
I hear James Randi's foundation has a million dollar prize for people who can demonstrate their telepathic prowess. Surely being able to read the minds of 130 million people would qualify?
I like that you (wrongly) used "incantations" there, because the Singularity is indeed closer to magic than science.
Telling people who feel like Elliot Rodger that they're not a victim. This will help because 1) they'll believe it, and 2) believing it will solve their issues with reality.
Or perhaps not.
Perhaps it will simply fuel their hatred even more, because now they're even having the reality of their emotions denied, as if they're somehow defective in that respect too.
Assigning victims and victimizers here is completely irrelevant to finding out what's actually wrong with this situation, and how to fix it.
They're called "hammers."
Any more than the houses of witnesses are. It is a place where information about the accused may be found.
That's true, vindictiveness is a character trait that entails a propensity to seek revenge.
No alcoholic or chain smoker plans to become addicted when they buy that first bottle of whisky/pack of cigarettes either, but that doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't take into consideration.
What this court case shows is that this woman is a poor judge of character. And instead of taking the opportunity to learn something, she just sues, making sure nothing is resolved and in fact (by winning) positively reinforcing her poor people judging skills.
When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.
That's just plain rude.
Do you not see the difference between bundling a product with a different product and promising monetary rewards in exchange for a user using a product? Because that is what is being compared here.
read elections as electrons, and briefly had a mental image of me giving my best gal a pile of electrons after performing a feat of strength at a fun fair.
No matter whether that's true or false, in this instance the way the intelligence community has chosen to accomplish a goal runs directly counter to the interests of the people it is intended to protect, which is exactly what an enemy is.
We can't see Higgs Bosons with our eyes, the LHC gives scientists an unfair advantage, and they exploited God's works without authorization to do so.
Of course, how hard would it to paste a piece of cardboard over the display (in case the user interface is only accessible from the screen ads are shown on, instead of, say, paint) and tear out the speakers? Now you've got a free refrigerator.
I've always thought Han was a retard and never understood his appeal. If there were a religion on earth right now that would let you move things outside your body with your mind and reflect bullets with a blade of light, you best believe literally everyone would be an adherent. We wouldn't even recognize it as a religion; it would be the only belief-system around because of the immediate obviousness of its superiority to literally everything else. In fact, guns probably wouldn't exist either, because of how useless they would be. Oh you've got a gun? That's cool buddy, I can LITERALLY SEE THE FUTURE.
Why don't they just invest in strong ropes, good bolts and a parachute, like literally every other rocket car?
That story doesn't need to be set in Space, require aliens, Jedi, Sith or the Force, and is told literally every day on the news.
If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code? The universe would be filled with light-saber wielding telekinetic lunatics of all it took was wanting it hard enough.
I think a Star Wars/Cloverfield mash-up could be cool. The sith would set loose several huge Rancorrs on Coruscant to further the purposes of the dark side and then the jedi could carve them up and create buildings from the skin and bones that would grow on their own under the influence of the Light Side and turn Coruscant into a giant pulsating heart of Force. This would accidentally produce a tear in the Force and a new Chosen one would be born to restore balance. Twist: the one to bring balance to the Force is the first Rancorr able to become a Jedi. It mind-melds with the flesh-and-bone half of Coruscant and becomes a living planet capable of moving itself across the galaxy because of the number of Midi-chlorians it now commands, smashing itself into other worlds to absorb their life essences and drain Midi-chlorians from any Force sensitives.
Not that I'm defending people who write contracts here, but the notion of plain language is not unambiguous. What counts as plain is dependent upon the reader's level of fluency, and because not all native speakers of a language have the same level of fluency the notion of 'plain' differs from person to person. The reason clauses of a contract or often not plain is because of the use of specialist language. However, that specialist language has a specific function: reducing ambiguity. In order to make a contract more plain, more commonly understood language needs to be used, but more commonly understood language is necessarily more ambiguous, and thus open for interpretation. If there's one thing no one wants it's that their rights critically depend upon the interpretative powers of another person. This is why the words "In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court..." inspire such dread.
Let's hope it can be replicated.
It is not logically impossible because the notion of a conscious machine is not self-contradictory.
It is not physically impossible because the universe has already given rise to at least one form of conscious machines (us).
Oops, looks like I do know what I'm talking about.
It is more useful to discuss the properties of things that can exist than it is to discuss the properties of things that can't exist, and therefore conscious AI is not like a Guardian Angel in the relevant aspect required to make the analogy work. After all, what he is drawing in question is the worth of the discussion, and because conscious AI is possible, the merits of its discussion outweigh the merits of the discussion of Guardian Angels.
Guardian Angels are both logically and physically impossible. AI comparable to human consciousness is neither logically nor physically impossible.
Please refrain from making analogies in the future.