This is not the way to do that. This would force them to censor anything that could possibly be right of as contribution to anyone.

Google's breakthrough: It could be/could not be an ad until it's observed, at which point it is an ad.

what is "reason"? humans simply have more neurons firing in an insanely efficient manner.

when ML reaches the same number of "neurons" firing, it will produce the same kind of results. then it will be focusing on increasing the efficiency.

there is nothing special about humans

An animal which cannot, or will not, improve their body on their own, of their own volition, especially when they have a means of doing so is an animal, correct?

Except when it requires them to overturn law for multiple decades...

how do you think humans learn? by being forced to read and learn from a ton of existing material... as a blubbering mass of baby fat, you don't know how to speak, write or do anything unless someone shows you from EXISTING MATERIAL.

There's a Gene Hackman joke in that article title somewhere.

Not even comparable. The problem isn’t that Isis video are being looked up or are being missed from being removed in a timely fashion. It’s that their reckless poorly written algorithms are suggesting Isis videos after people look at unrelated topics. It’s not the content gatekeeping as the sole issue here, it’s that algorithms are promoting terrible content that is dangerous because it decided it would keep engagement to sell ads. They control that algorithm, they have responsibility for the content they promote just like a normal publisher can be liable for their content. They crossed the line from host to publisher when they started using algorithms to curate content.

Don't be an idiot, the supreme court is not the tool for that

you're posting on reddit for fuck's sake, if you don't think 230 should exist, stop using things that only exist because of it

I mean, they do under 230, they absolutely fucking do, until SCOTUS decides they can't

Even pre-230 the algorithm wouldn't be the problem, after all, book stores were not liable for the content of every book they sold, even though they clearly had to decide which books are front facing

The algorithm front facing a video that should be removed is no different than a book store putting a book ultimately found to be libelous on a front facing endcap, the bookstore isn't expected to have actually read the book and vetted its content, merely having a responsibility to remove it should that complaint be made known

The only people that think they are connected to the universe are using hallucinogenics. The universe is under no obligation to cater to us in any way.

We are all machines. We are biological machines, made of meat and chemicals. If an AI made of silicon and wires thinks it is experiencing emotions, that is as valid as an meat based object thinking it is experiencing emotions.

This is the real deal. All this hype over AI is little different than the hype over cryptocurrency a few years ago. No, we're not gonna have automated luxury societies without money or employment within our lifetimes. Quantum computing otoh will actually be a revolutionary thing.

No one asked, nor does anyone care

You can safely bet most rulings from a conservative court will be "Congress needs to make a law"

So is the solution just to not curate content at all? If that's the case, social media would be overrun with porn, conspiracy theories, etc.

So you're saying if I went to a library and told them that I'm doing research on a paper about gangs and asked for any gang related materials they had and they give me a list that the library should then be considered aiding and abetting gangs?

>If you’re already old then you will probably stay that way.

Νο.

Νο one is working on stopping metabolism from creating damage, but instead reversing aging. Whether it's Aubrey de Grey's damage-repair approach, Altos Labs' Yamanaka based cellural reprogramming, etc.

It's called rejuvenation medicine.

Can we apply this to Fancy Rats so they live longer than 2 years? 🥺

[removed]

Not really. Anti-aging will most likely be a preventative measure, not a treatment. If you’re already old then you will probably stay that way.

This is great lol

Cool haven't heard any quantum computing stuff in a while

Although it seems nobody cares much. AI is zooming ahead even without quantum

How would the internet work if companies like Twitter couldn’t curate trending topics over porn?

That makes a lot of sense.

very interesting. I always wondered about the hostility towards the quest to defeat aging and thought it was always just the crab mentality of people too afraid to take it but also afraid of being the only aging person in their social circles.

guess this reasoning is more rooted in reality.