Only if you define "thinking" as something that only a living being is capable of. That is the basis of all arguments "in the literature", by which I assume you mean "poncy philosophical literature".
Funny, given that no supposed-AI has ever attempted a real Turing-type test, let alone passed it.
A real Turing-type test would be based on the "imitation game" and would involve a group of people, each told to converse with the candidate AI while trying to convince a panel of expert judges that they are, in fact , a real person while the other is an AI. Of course the AI would be doing the same thing in reverse. At the end of the conversation, the judges would have to decide which one they think is human, and which is the AI. Every time a new challenger was selected, a new panel of judges would also be selected.
This would be repeated many hundreds of times. At the end, if there was any statistical correlation between the judges opinions and the correct answers, then the AI would have failed.
But what if that is not the case? Does that mean that the AI is "intelligent"? No, it just means that the test was too easy. Thus, the most a Turing-type test can demonstrate is that an AI is a failure, but not a success.
And these effects are so rare as to be negligible. If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. Give them up to some responsible people and go back to your cave.
In any case, keep your disease-ridden children away from mine.
As for the rare cases where one can be asymptomatic and yet contagious, that's a risk you'll just have to take.
Fuck you, my children and I do not "just have to take" that risk so you can live in your Randian fantasy land.
And it is by no means rare: people can be infectious long before their symptoms become obvious.
It's not like vaccination eliminates that risk; even ignoring the fact that it isn't 100% effective, those who are immune can still be carriers.
It doesn't need to be 100% effective. 99% is fine.
The most effective response in this case is to practice basic sanitation measures and limit direct contact, regardless of vaccination status.
You clearly know fuck all about infectious disease transmission.
Damn right, if what they are feeding their kids is inadequate to maintain their health. Malnourished kids are taken away by CPS all the time, and they should be.
What are you talking about? The fan is on the inside of the building that the ATM is mounted on. That way the fan actually improves the flow of cooled air into the machine.
What the fuck are you talking about? You made a point about the Kock brothers, jbengt showed that you are full of shit (as have hundreds of others) and you reply "Yes, I'm sure no other billionaires would think to do that"
That's why, when I last bought glasses, I bought two pairs:
progressives for day-to-day use and single-focus pair for computer use. Tell your opto that you plan to do this, and he/she will write you two prescriptions, one for each.
And by the way, Zenni in the U.S., and ClearlyContacts in Canada both provide excellent value.
Citation or bullshit. Even if the average driver goes at a reasonable speed without speed limits, there will always be asshats who drive at unsafe speeds because they think they are F1 drivers when in fact they suck.
Once again, Dawkins demonstrates that he knows nothing about probability. His intuitions about what is likely or unlikely are based on nothing but his feelings, and that is not science.
Absent the belief in God, your scriptures become nothing but a pile of mutually contradicting fairy tales. Therefore, using scriptures to prove the existence of God is inherently foolish. Trying to prove the non-existence of God is equally foolish.
To understand why god's existence is exceedingly unlikely that god exists, we have to consider the enormous problem of explaining god's existence in the first place.
Wrong.
Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with what you can or cannot explain. Maybe the reason you can't explain it is because it doesn't exist. Or maybe it's because you haven't collected enough evidence. Or maybe you just haven't figured it out yet. None of those explanations is any more "probable" than any other.
If you can show that some event occurs more often than chance would predict, then we can say that event is relatively probable. It has nothing to do with your intuitions about what seems likely or unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you define "thinking" as something that only a living being is capable of. That is the basis of all arguments "in the literature", by which I assume you mean "poncy philosophical literature".
Funny, given that no supposed-AI has ever attempted a real Turing-type test, let alone passed it.
A real Turing-type test would be based on the "imitation game" and would involve a group of people, each told to converse with the candidate AI while trying to convince a panel of expert judges that they are, in fact , a real person while the other is an AI. Of course the AI would be doing the same thing in reverse. At the end of the conversation, the judges would have to decide which one they think is human, and which is the AI. Every time a new challenger was selected, a new panel of judges would also be selected.
This would be repeated many hundreds of times. At the end, if there was any statistical correlation between the judges opinions and the correct answers, then the AI would have failed.
But what if that is not the case? Does that mean that the AI is "intelligent"? No, it just means that the test was too easy. Thus, the most a Turing-type test can demonstrate is that an AI is a failure, but not a success.
And these effects are so rare as to be negligible.
If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. Give them up to some responsible people and go back to your cave. In any case, keep your disease-ridden children away from mine.
As for the rare cases where one can be asymptomatic and yet contagious, that's a risk you'll just have to take.
Fuck you, my children and I do not "just have to take" that risk so you can live in your Randian fantasy land. And it is by no means rare: people can be infectious long before their symptoms become obvious.
It's not like vaccination eliminates that risk; even ignoring the fact that it isn't 100% effective, those who are immune can still be carriers.
It doesn't need to be 100% effective. 99% is fine.
The most effective response in this case is to practice basic sanitation measures and limit direct contact, regardless of vaccination status.
You clearly know fuck all about infectious disease transmission.
That's what libertarians don't seem to understand: "crony capitalism" the the only form of capitalism.
Can they tell parents what to feed them?
Damn right, if what they are feeding their kids is inadequate to maintain their health. Malnourished kids are taken away by CPS all the time, and they should be.
Look up "Straw Man Argument", shithead.
And yet in Germany "the socialist shithole" virtually everybody is better off than in America.
Seig heil, asshole.
A truly progressive tax:
Only tax regressive idiots like you.
About $10 on a $2000- $5000 machine.
What are you talking about? The fan is on the inside of the building that the ATM is mounted on.
That way the fan actually improves the flow of cooled air into the machine.
And how are they going to block the holes in the back?
You need LastPass or KeepPass. Completely eliminates that problem.
This is in China.
The same thing would probably cost $48,000 in the U.S.
So, undaunted, they built it again.
And it sank into the swamp...
That's because it would be too cruel to leave the citizens of backwards states,
in other words red states, to the mercy of their ignoramus leaders.
What the fuck are you talking about?
You made a point about the Kock brothers, jbengt showed that you are full of shit (as have hundreds of others) and
you reply "Yes, I'm sure no other billionaires would think to do that"
WTF is that supposed to mean?
"Scientific studies" and "Business school professors" have nothing to do with each other.
That's why, when I last bought glasses, I bought two pairs: progressives for day-to-day use and single-focus pair for computer use.
Tell your opto that you plan to do this, and he/she will write you two prescriptions, one for each.
And by the way, Zenni in the U.S., and ClearlyContacts in Canada both provide excellent value.
Of course, there will always be idiots too.
Yeah, like that's the whole fucking point.
The only way a machine can identify idiots is by their excessive speed.
Citation or bullshit.
Even if the average driver goes at a reasonable speed without speed limits, there will always be asshats who drive at unsafe speeds because they think they are F1 drivers when in fact they suck.
Once again, Dawkins demonstrates that he knows nothing about probability.
His intuitions about what is likely or unlikely are based on nothing but his feelings, and that is not science.
Absent the belief in God, your scriptures become nothing but a pile of mutually contradicting fairy tales.
Therefore, using scriptures to prove the existence of God is inherently foolish.
Trying to prove the non-existence of God is equally foolish.
To understand why god's existence is exceedingly unlikely that god exists, we have to consider the enormous problem of explaining god's existence in the first place.
Wrong.
Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with what you can or cannot explain.
Maybe the reason you can't explain it is because it doesn't exist. Or maybe it's because you haven't collected enough evidence.
Or maybe you just haven't figured it out yet. None of those explanations is any more "probable" than any other.
If you can show that some event occurs more often than chance would predict, then we can say that event is relatively probable.
It has nothing to do with your intuitions about what seems likely or unlikely.
And then this makes a good summation of the point...
Uh, what point?