"Intelligence" and "consciousness" are two different things. Intelligence is easy to demonstrate: solve a general selection of problems.
But that argument leads to the conclusion that "artificial intelligence" is demonstrated by the computer in my car which knows to turn my windscreen wipers on when it's raining.
Consciousness is by definition not provable by just about anything.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And, in fact, I know it exists, because I am conscious (even if the rest of the universe is not).
Believers in the possibility of artificial intelligence like to ignore the problem of consciousness, dismissing it as something unscientific or not provable. This then lets them claim that something like a chessc omputer is intelligent.
Qualities like consciousness, loving someone, appreciating the beauty of a piece of music or acting selflessly may be impossible to fully describe or recreate mechanistically, but you can't simply dismiss them as unreal.
Or do would you claim that you have no idea whether your friends and family are conscious ?
Yes, I would claim that. I assume that they possess consciousness and self-awareness, because they are human, and I am human. But I have no objective, falsifiable test to distinguish self-aware objects from objects programmed to behave as if they were self-aware.
But you are not saying that you have "no idea" whether other people have consciousness. Realistically, you know that they do, and a rock doesn't. You are just saying you can't prove it absolutely.
But this is true of almost anything, including whether the external world even exists or if you're the now legendary Brain in a Jar.
Nor do I believe that such a test can exist, anymore than you can test if people have soul.
No, there is ample evidence of consciousness, but none that souls exist.
If we really want to water the term "intelligence" down so that is applies to any clever algorithm, then perhaps we should spend a few minutes contemplating what it is we plan to call an actual intelligence, once we get that far.
Aren't Americans supposed to be free to associate or join with any political activity, especially in the Land of the FREE??
Ask anyone who was hounded out of their job in the 1950s by Senator Joe McCarthy for going to a cocktail party where communist party members may have been..
Publc opinion is a terrible way to measure risk. That's why people are afraid of terrorists and sharks and paedos and snakes rather than cigarettes and driving and tea cosies.
I find it hard to believe that there are really more tea cosy related deaths than from terrorists, sharks, paedos or snakes.
As a hitchhiker you're asking a random person for a lift, which is statistically very safe indeed. The probability that a randomly selected person stopping his/her car is not only a criminal but a criminal who would target you is very small indeed.
But the person stopping their car is the very opposite of a randomly selected person. They have made the deliberate choice to stop.
Unless you live in a society where hitchhiking is the norm, your argument is flawed.
Or are you upset over his concept of freedom and asking how far can the government intrude?
If you approach every subject on the assumption that everything governments do is evil, you don't really add much to the conversation about how far governments should be allowed to go, as your answer is always going to be "nowhere"..
Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.
Claiming that you have gluten allergy when you don't seems to be harmless. You just pay more for food that doesn't taste as good; hurts nobody but your wallet and your taste buds.
You are also increasing the collective stupidity of mankind, which is generally considered to be Not A Good Thing.
The fact is, you do not want government getting into this... freedom to make your own choices and freedom of religion is FAR more important...
Freedoms of choice, religion or anything else are only absolute in your own heart and head.
Once you start to affect other people, your freedom gets limited. You are certainly not free to choose to murder someone without consequences.
Something like vaccination is a simple utilitarian decision of a society that the good of the majority outweighs the freedom of a few. If you want to live in that society, you have to accept that decision, just like you have to agree not to murder your neighbour.
The point is how you spread around the tax burden. Companies like Apple are paying less tax than they should, which means that others (i.e. ordinary tax payers who can't arrange for their income to be transferred overseas) are paying more than they should.
Also, it is incorrect to say that all companies can simply increase their costs to cover any increase in the amount of tax they pay. There is such a thing as price elasticity or inelasticity with consumers: otherwise Apple would be charging a million dollars for an iPhone.
And, of course, you're one of the very bright ones, and you could have been a billionaire tech PhD at the age of 12 if only those evil teachers hadn't marked you down in subjects you had no interest in, like English.
Truly, society's worst prejudices are against the most brilliant and successful, dragged down into burger flipping by the sheeple.
You should counter propaganda with the truth, not more propaganda.
We should not be treating these groups as though they're a threat to our very existence, requiring us to set aside all our values. But it's probably too late for that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Intelligence" and "consciousness" are two different things. Intelligence is easy to demonstrate: solve a general selection of problems.
But that argument leads to the conclusion that "artificial intelligence" is demonstrated by the computer in my car which knows to turn my windscreen wipers on when it's raining.
Consciousness is demonstrable, even just within one's own head.
Consciousness is demonstrable only within one's own head.
Strictly speaking, you can't prove to me that anything has an objective existence outside of my own head, but that doesn't really get anyone very far.
Consciousness is by definition not provable by just about anything.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And, in fact, I know it exists, because I am conscious (even if the rest of the universe is not).
Believers in the possibility of artificial intelligence like to ignore the problem of consciousness, dismissing it as something unscientific or not provable. This then lets them claim that something like a chessc omputer is intelligent.
Qualities like consciousness, loving someone, appreciating the beauty of a piece of music or acting selflessly may be impossible to fully describe or recreate mechanistically, but you can't simply dismiss them as unreal.
Or do would you claim that you have no idea whether your friends and family are conscious ?
Yes, I would claim that. I assume that they possess consciousness and self-awareness, because they are human, and I am human. But I have no objective, falsifiable test to distinguish self-aware objects from objects programmed to behave as if they were self-aware.
But you are not saying that you have "no idea" whether other people have consciousness. Realistically, you know that they do, and a rock doesn't. You are just saying you can't prove it absolutely.
But this is true of almost anything, including whether the external world even exists or if you're the now legendary Brain in a Jar.
Nor do I believe that such a test can exist, anymore than you can test if people have soul.
No, there is ample evidence of consciousness, but none that souls exist.
If we really want to water the term "intelligence" down so that is applies to any clever algorithm, then perhaps we should spend a few minutes contemplating what it is we plan to call an actual intelligence, once we get that far.
"Master", I imagine.
He comes across like an unholy combination of APK and the "Navy Seal with 300 confirmed kills" copypasta.
What's wrong with being a landlord?
It's not edgy, disruptive and agile.
Aren't Americans supposed to be free to associate or join with any political activity, especially in the Land of the FREE??
Ask anyone who was hounded out of their job in the 1950s by Senator Joe McCarthy for going to a cocktail party where communist party members may have been..
This shit has been going on for a long time.
As for filming guests in the home, ask a local lawyer.
Why, because they can afford a really good camera?
Not in the US in my opinion.
Publc opinion is a terrible way to measure risk. That's why people are afraid of terrorists and sharks and paedos and snakes rather than cigarettes and driving and tea cosies.
I find it hard to believe that there are really more tea cosy related deaths than from terrorists, sharks, paedos or snakes.
As a hitchhiker you're asking a random person for a lift, which is statistically very safe indeed. The probability that a randomly selected person stopping his/her car is not only a criminal but a criminal who would target you is very small indeed.
But the person stopping their car is the very opposite of a randomly selected person. They have made the deliberate choice to stop.
Unless you live in a society where hitchhiking is the norm, your argument is flawed.
um... bollocks?
Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record, doesn't mean they're squeaky clean - it just means they haven't been caught yet.
But at the risk of stating the totally fucking obvious, if they do have a criminal record then they're definitely not squeaky clean.
It is true, but essentially meaningless, to say that we are all potential criminals.
Yet he did more to save their asses than ALL of the RAF.
I hope all you brits are still ashamed of yourselves.
Yeah, if only he could have made it to the US, he'd have been welcomed with open arms. It was a real haven for left wing gays in the 1950s.
So I've been in meetings all day, then finally get home and I saw this story on /.'s feed. I thought, "ah, it'll be good for some immature homo jokes"
By "meetings" I take it you mean "school lessons"?
Keats wrote some superb poetry for a woman named Fanny Brawne.
And Fanny Craddock was a 1970s celebrity TV chef.
I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Obviously you're dramatically increasing the chance of dying young, but it's all about priorities.
Or are you upset over his concept of freedom and asking how far can the government intrude?
If you approach every subject on the assumption that everything governments do is evil, you don't really add much to the conversation about how far governments should be allowed to go, as your answer is always going to be "nowhere"..
Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.
Claiming that you have gluten allergy when you don't seems to be harmless. You just pay more for food that doesn't taste as good; hurts nobody but your wallet and your taste buds.
You are also increasing the collective stupidity of mankind, which is generally considered to be Not A Good Thing.
The fact is, you do not want government getting into this... freedom to make your own choices and freedom of religion is FAR more important...
Freedoms of choice, religion or anything else are only absolute in your own heart and head.
Once you start to affect other people, your freedom gets limited. You are certainly not free to choose to murder someone without consequences.
Something like vaccination is a simple utilitarian decision of a society that the good of the majority outweighs the freedom of a few. If you want to live in that society, you have to accept that decision, just like you have to agree not to murder your neighbour.
Homeschool! (State monopoly on education would be vile.)
Homeschooling is basically child abuse.
"If I let the government outlaw murder, what's to stop them eventually outlawing religion/free speech/whatever."
Business taxes should be based on where the economic activity occurs, not where the business is registered.
Precisely. Most of Apple's business does not occur in Ireland (or the Cayman Islands, or wherever).
If (say) 50% of Apple's profits are made in the US, they should pay tax on that 50% of total profit in the US.
Ultimately, all taxes are paid for by taxpayers
Well, yes.
The point is how you spread around the tax burden. Companies like Apple are paying less tax than they should, which means that others (i.e. ordinary tax payers who can't arrange for their income to be transferred overseas) are paying more than they should.
Also, it is incorrect to say that all companies can simply increase their costs to cover any increase in the amount of tax they pay. There is such a thing as price elasticity or inelasticity with consumers: otherwise Apple would be charging a million dollars for an iPhone.
Truly, society's worst prejudices are against the most brilliant and successful, dragged down into burger flipping by the sheeple.
We should not be treating these groups as though they're a threat to our very existence, requiring us to set aside all our values. But it's probably too late for that.