We're not talking about a majority of scientists in a climate science talking about an undefined threat. We're talking about almost all of them or or less agreeing about a defined threat with firm scientific foundations, including assorted observations and theoretical explanations.
Scientists warning against AI are warning against what is essentially a phantom. We don't know that strong AI will appear (I think it will, but that's not a universal opinion), and we especially don't know what form it will take. It could, under some circumstances, be very bad, but it will likely require the ability to do more than email and make phone calls for that. I agree that we want to consider consequences, but not that we should shy away from a field of study because it might, under unknown circumstances, go bad.
Except that I don't have to pick one thing or another to believe whole-heartedly. I can be uncertain. Wars of conquest should not be started over doubtful information.
Better to take out Iran now and remove the largest motivator for ME nations to go nuclear.
The biggest motivator to get nukes is to avoid being invaded. Attacking more countries means more countries think they need nukes to defend themselves.
Um, how did it work for Obama? Bush could not run again, so he wasn't running against an incumbent. The bastard was being thrown out on January 20, 2009 no matter what.
Ad hoc subversion of the law is the definition of antisocial behavior.
In other words, the French Resistance and the Civil Rights movement were quintessentially antisocial? Appealing because you think a law is invalid is antisocial? ShanghaiBill is talking about working within the legal system and sharing his views. What's antisocial about that?
Yeah, Adam Smith talked about that. The problem is that the boost in pay is temporary. If the economy settles down and doesn't grow, worker pay goes down. (Smith's example was China, a wealthy country with really poor people, ironically.)
Which country are those poor dying in? That might give insight into WHY they are dying. Hint: it's really none of the things you are talking about.
GP said "But most of the distribution problem is between the ordinary people and the rulers.", which looks reasonably accurate to me. Quite a few governments in crappy countries really don't care if their citizens starve.
Bad figuring. You're only talking about 0.25^8 if the trials are truly independent. If they were all on one breathalyzer, it's reasonably likely that the breathalyzer was bad.
I've got one phone line coming into my house. Either it is busy, or it isn't. If it's busy, it can't be used for an outgoing call. Therefore, the computer can't make such calls significantly faster than I can (it will presumably dial faster, so it may be slightly faster). It does take much of the work out of prank phone calls, but I don't remember the people I knew who were into prank phone calls trying to avoid the hypothetical drudgery.
Nope. What LLVM was doing was working with a place that recommends candidates who are neither white men nor Asian men. LLVM didn't actually assign an intern slot to that place. In the meantime, you enjoy privilege as a white male. You're more likely to be taken seriously. You're more likely to have your resume picked out for an interview. There's plenty of other ways you benefit. I don't see you complaining about those.
However, let there be some extra consideration for people that don't look like you, even when you have an advantage in less formal ways, and you whine.
I'm not claiming that you're crying because you are white. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, and you're crying because you don't want to give up any unfair advantages you've got.
If my car detects crashing, and doesn't get instructions from me in a certain period of time, it will attempt to call emergency services and give them my location.
Actually, I liked "Slaves of Sleep". (That's fantasy, doesn't refer to science, and doesn't really make sense in ways that I could ignore.) Then I tried reading "Ole Doc Methuselah". That cured me.
Not to mention the moral issue of forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth. I don't think there is any other situation in which one entity has the right to the body of another. If my brother were dying, and only a transplant from me would save him, there's no legal way to make me cooperate.
What's your problem? ShanghaiBill sees a moral issue, and acts on it legally. Nobody has any moral obligation to support the law, just because it's the law.
you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio
Nope. The reason TV and radio are sanitized is because they use public resources, specifically chunks of the EM spectrum. The spectrum is public property, and there are rules about what you can do with it. Cable isn't sanitized, because it doesn't use public property directly, and the First Amendment applies. The Net isn't sanitized, for the same reason.
There's lots of issues that would cause me not to vote for a candidate, sure. If neither candidate fails on that account, I have to make a decision on smaller things. It's an inexpensive political maneuver that might pay off in a small way.
This is a politically driven action designed to elicit political results, not an appeal to reason designed to actually get something done
Depends. If it carries, like maybe eighty percent of the population prefers, it gets something done. If it fails, it still has a political effect which will make it more likely to restore NN in the future.
This is politics. The way to accomplish things in politics is to do political things. You don't have to practice politics, but unless you're involved to some extent (perhaps by contributing money and voting) you've got no influence on what's going to happen.
The decisive action against the Second actually dates to 1986, when owning an automatic firearm made after that date became illegal. Because of that bill, civilians can't buy modern infantry rifles. The Second mentions militia, which is military, so if it had any intent it was to allow people in general to own military weapons.
They don't have to. Religion doesn't do well in a modern country. Even in the heavily religious US, "none" as a religious affiliation is growing quite fast. It may take a while, but religion as a force in the world is fading. (Which is fine with me; religion as a force in this world has a pretty bad track record, far worse than religion with no political power.)
However, assume that they have a religion that's reasonably compatible with one or more human religions. I'd expect that to have a massive effect.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about a majority of scientists in a climate science talking about an undefined threat. We're talking about almost all of them or or less agreeing about a defined threat with firm scientific foundations, including assorted observations and theoretical explanations.
Scientists warning against AI are warning against what is essentially a phantom. We don't know that strong AI will appear (I think it will, but that's not a universal opinion), and we especially don't know what form it will take. It could, under some circumstances, be very bad, but it will likely require the ability to do more than email and make phone calls for that. I agree that we want to consider consequences, but not that we should shy away from a field of study because it might, under unknown circumstances, go bad.
Except that I don't have to pick one thing or another to believe whole-heartedly. I can be uncertain. Wars of conquest should not be started over doubtful information.
The biggest motivator to get nukes is to avoid being invaded. Attacking more countries means more countries think they need nukes to defend themselves.
Um, how did it work for Obama? Bush could not run again, so he wasn't running against an incumbent. The bastard was being thrown out on January 20, 2009 no matter what.
In other words, the French Resistance and the Civil Rights movement were quintessentially antisocial? Appealing because you think a law is invalid is antisocial? ShanghaiBill is talking about working within the legal system and sharing his views. What's antisocial about that?
As long as he wasn't convicted on the basis of bad math, I'm only mildly unhappy about it. I still don't like bad math, being a bit of a math addict.
I hope so. However, there have been plenty of other despotisms that would not pass food to the intended recipients.
Yeah, Adam Smith talked about that. The problem is that the boost in pay is temporary. If the economy settles down and doesn't grow, worker pay goes down. (Smith's example was China, a wealthy country with really poor people, ironically.)
GP said "But most of the distribution problem is between the ordinary people and the rulers.", which looks reasonably accurate to me. Quite a few governments in crappy countries really don't care if their citizens starve.
I'd like to point out that many people in their 50s can write coherently and judge things on the basis of facts. The generation isn't a total loss.
Bad figuring. You're only talking about 0.25^8 if the trials are truly independent. If they were all on one breathalyzer, it's reasonably likely that the breathalyzer was bad.
I've got one phone line coming into my house. Either it is busy, or it isn't. If it's busy, it can't be used for an outgoing call. Therefore, the computer can't make such calls significantly faster than I can (it will presumably dial faster, so it may be slightly faster). It does take much of the work out of prank phone calls, but I don't remember the people I knew who were into prank phone calls trying to avoid the hypothetical drudgery.
Prank and malicious phone calls have existed for a long time.
Nope. What LLVM was doing was working with a place that recommends candidates who are neither white men nor Asian men. LLVM didn't actually assign an intern slot to that place. In the meantime, you enjoy privilege as a white male. You're more likely to be taken seriously. You're more likely to have your resume picked out for an interview. There's plenty of other ways you benefit. I don't see you complaining about those.
However, let there be some extra consideration for people that don't look like you, even when you have an advantage in less formal ways, and you whine.
I'm not claiming that you're crying because you are white. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, and you're crying because you don't want to give up any unfair advantages you've got.
If my car detects crashing, and doesn't get instructions from me in a certain period of time, it will attempt to call emergency services and give them my location.
I think the prefer to be called "little stars".
Anyway, I'd bet those stars were stars of color once, then turned white.
Actually, I liked "Slaves of Sleep". (That's fantasy, doesn't refer to science, and doesn't really make sense in ways that I could ignore.) Then I tried reading "Ole Doc Methuselah". That cured me.
Not to mention the moral issue of forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth. I don't think there is any other situation in which one entity has the right to the body of another. If my brother were dying, and only a transplant from me would save him, there's no legal way to make me cooperate.
What's your problem? ShanghaiBill sees a moral issue, and acts on it legally. Nobody has any moral obligation to support the law, just because it's the law.
Nope. The reason TV and radio are sanitized is because they use public resources, specifically chunks of the EM spectrum. The spectrum is public property, and there are rules about what you can do with it. Cable isn't sanitized, because it doesn't use public property directly, and the First Amendment applies. The Net isn't sanitized, for the same reason.
There's lots of issues that would cause me not to vote for a candidate, sure. If neither candidate fails on that account, I have to make a decision on smaller things. It's an inexpensive political maneuver that might pay off in a small way.
Depends. If it carries, like maybe eighty percent of the population prefers, it gets something done. If it fails, it still has a political effect which will make it more likely to restore NN in the future.
This is politics. The way to accomplish things in politics is to do political things. You don't have to practice politics, but unless you're involved to some extent (perhaps by contributing money and voting) you've got no influence on what's going to happen.
Actually, "vote the bastards out" isn't all that effective. Have you looked at the number of incumbents who lose elections for Congress?
The decisive action against the Second actually dates to 1986, when owning an automatic firearm made after that date became illegal. Because of that bill, civilians can't buy modern infantry rifles. The Second mentions militia, which is military, so if it had any intent it was to allow people in general to own military weapons.
They don't have to. Religion doesn't do well in a modern country. Even in the heavily religious US, "none" as a religious affiliation is growing quite fast. It may take a while, but religion as a force in the world is fading. (Which is fine with me; religion as a force in this world has a pretty bad track record, far worse than religion with no political power.)
However, assume that they have a religion that's reasonably compatible with one or more human religions. I'd expect that to have a massive effect.