It's also the only kind of art that exists, will ever exist, or even can ever exist.

Unless you're one of those spiritualists who think artistic talent comes from ~the human spirit~ instead of something more mundane and deterministic such as 'the artist's wartime experiences as a child' or 'exposure to hundreds of other artists of that genre'.

Funny enough, the Bible specifically bans it (you shall make nothing in the image of anything). But, the Bible goes on to say that mankind will disobey and continue creating things in the image of God's creations. Until one day, in the end times, mankind will succeed in creating life: so that the "image" can speak, make great miracles, rule and subjugate humanity (known as the Anti-Christ)

It will force humanity to take its mark on the right hand or on the forehead (without which you can't buy nor sell anything) and worship it as a god for 3.5 years, killing all those that reject it., At which point God will intervene to put a stop to the madness.

That's an almost 2000 years old science fiction... lol

I don't think we have anything to worry about if that robot in the picture is trying to use his TRS-80 Color Computer backwards.

> For example: randomness can be modelled as an information process. It's probably one of the easiest ones there is. It only seems complex because our brains are bad at handling iterative probability, or even non-linear change

You can model stochastic systems, but a turing machine cannot produce a non-deterministic output. You can model the random system as a whole, but there is no rule saying when each particle will decay.

It could be some variant of superdeterminism/bohmian nonsense, but that's even more mystical than souls. A block universe or many worlds doesn't tell you why you're the you experiencing one branch and not the you experiencing another.

What SandAndAlum means is that the Chinese Room Experiment shuffles the responsibility for explaining humanity's (self-oriented and essentialist) viewpoint of consciousness onto the computer. It just takes human consciousness as a given that doesn't have to justify itself, and certainly not through reductionism.

Because if our mode of consciousness did have to justify itself by the same rules of the computer in the Chinese Room Experiment, we'd fail in the same way the computer would fail.

I don't think you understand quantum.

>There is the kinda-open question of whether there are physical phenomena that cannot be modelled as an information process.

Spiritualists pretend like there is so they can have a scientific justification for crap like souls and telepathy, but from a materialist perspective: no, there isn't. If it can't be modelled as an information process, it doesn't fucking exist.

For example: randomness can be modelled as an information process. It's probably one of the easiest ones there is. It only seems complex because our brains are bad at handling iterative probability, or even non-linear change.

But that just means we're weak babies with simple minds, unable to comprehend the full consequences of our actions. It doesn't mean that it's actually a difficult thing to simulate in an information process, and it certainly doesn't mean that there exist physical phenomena that cannot be modelled as an information process. Because, again, such things don't and can't exist outside of spiritualists' imagination.

I probably would not hold the same standard to search engines, but with more understanding about how the search algorithms work, I could change my mind. Even if YT removed the ISIS videos at issue in the case that was heard yesterday from its algorithm, if someone just searched: "ISIS videos" and the videos came up, then I think it falls within the 230 exception, because they are merely hosting, not promoting, the videos.

Again, using the bookstore analogy, search is much more like saying to the employee: "I'm looking for information as to X" and being told its on "aisle 3, row 7 and shelf 2." In that instance, its a just a location. What you do with that location is up to you. Just because you ask Yahoo! where your nearest car dealership is and the nearest bar is doesn't mean that Yahoo! is liable because you were driving under the influence.

When you add in "promoted" search results, it gets stickier, because they're selling the advertising. So, if you asked where the nearest car dealership is, and they gave you that information and then also sent you a coupon for 12 free drinks that are good only on the day you purchased a new (to you) vehicle, that's a different story, and they may be liable.

Short answer is yes. Whether a commons, billboards or bulletin board - all these are policed and laws applied. If you trip on a manhole in a town square and fall down breaking a leg, the council is liable. The days of the Internet being the wild west are over and frankly good. Humans don't need a space to express themselves - we need a tool to build better lives, spread equality and opportunity and beneficial connection. Not flat earthers, terrorists and other low life losers and criminals.

This is what people don’t seem to get. It’s so odd people aren’t thinking of this.

Internet is interfering with the ruling class ability to indoctrinate and misinform. It also allows people a certain degree of free association, something else they don't like. Doh, of course they are doing everything they can to make it useless. This is 21st century equivalent of burning books (their favorite pastime), that's all.

oh man thank god I never stranded in doing kinds of service, this efficiency measurement is insane. But is it even necessary when run by an AI?
Future: Lonely people calling empathic service hotlines ;)

and this kids is what happens if you give control over the internet to like three monopiles

[removed]

Just curious, as I completely get where you are coming from, but would you consider the same standard for a search engine? The algorithm requires your input to search for something. Should Yahoo! be liable for the websites on the search result if they are organized by and algorithm that tries to bring the most relevant results to your query?

Right now, AI is largely augmenting the workflow by making decisions while workers carry them out. But the tech is getting more advanced. More from the story:

>Charlie started out with simple tasks such as greeting callers, saying, “Hi, I’m Charlie, your digital assistant,” and asking basic questions, such as, “Please tell me why you are calling today.” After learning to route callers to the proper department, she was able to reduce average call-handle times by 36 seconds, or more than 10%, Ms. Cloud said.
>
>Charlie is a quick study. By late fall, she was trained to handle a water-leak claim (“Is this a major leak?”), while using empathy (“I’m sorry to hear about your leak”) and determine the urgency of the issue (“Are you able to shut off the water yourself?”) She then booked a contractor to come out for the repair. From start to finish, Charlie’s processing time took less than two minutes compared with a human, who averages eight. She now handles 15% of claims volume and is expected to handle 20% by next year. Chief Transformation Officer Kim Ratcliffe said she hopes Charlie can take over 40% of calls eventually.

-mc

Again you don’t do this for any other business. You are ardent in your defense because you like one of them. That’s not how laws should be written. Again if they are incapable of adapting then they shouldn’t be in business. And I have yet to see you argue that. Just that they would go away.

We have plenty of history before the internet existed where they caught bad guys. We have plenty of mass shooting with by guys with red flags on the internet that weren’t stopped. The FBI adapting to the times is not an argument that it would worse if it were removed. That’s you speculating. And if we just wanted it to be easier for the government to find bad people we could allow them without a warrant to full access of peoples phones and computers. Laws are made with both idea of freedoms and the ideas of limits in those freedoms.

I am not saying what the laws should be by the way, I am saying that you cannot argue that things must stay the same simply because a company might go out of business or it is harder to track bad people.

[removed]

When you make a chip with just as many transistors as a calculator, does it automagically become a calculator? No, it needs to be wired for the job and you need to program it. In the same way, neural networks need weights and biases, their "training".

You can get the calculations going, but where are you getting the training data to make art and music superhuman? Because that's what the argument is about. Are you going to model the subjective appreciation of it? That doesn't work that way because you can't write a loss function for what "better" art is.

Standard caveat: things that work in mouse models rarely work in primates.

YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, just about all of these "general services" that allow third party participation are on the chopping block. If the protections granted by Section 230 are removed/diminished we have a far more restrictive internet.

Another unintended consequence would be making it harder to track the "bad people." If you remove their presence from social platforms, they will continue to operate -- just harder to track. Which was one of the unintended consequences of the law against websites that were targeted for human trafficking. They became a lot harder for law enforcement to track down.

[deleted]

Interacting with ChatGPT feels so fast that I legit would not be surprised if there's a functional Qubit machine at the helm.

The speed of coherent language is just wild

[removed]

And launched three replacements at once, with about 80% of the features between them.