We do actually have some litigation in that direction, but it's all on the level of financial incentives rather than a true lockout. The incentives are strong enough and Healthcare companies are greedy enough that everyone generally plays ball, though

Machine learning researchers and engineers understand the structure of their models, just not what each individual weighting is (there can be millions or more) for each simulated neuron, as these are found by a training process (which again is something known to the creator or team of creators) using known information.

The above process can literally be achieved by a complex calculator and is in no way deserving of ‘rights’

Just had a whole month of 50s and a few 60s in a area I have lived for 40 years.

Used to be a a whole lotta snow to play in around here when I was younger.

I grew up sledding this entire month and building snow forts.

ahh thats not really single payer thats state funded Medicare/Medicaid plans -- similar in concept but not in scope or savings (where single payer fully locks out players and forces them to negotiate costs or lose the market access).

Maybe let's first give rights to animals that are killed everyday so you could eat a steak and then we can talk about this scenario.

Well sure, but they'd have the same issue with humans than too. Those scenarios will likely have to be escalated and escalated positions will still have to be held by humans. It's the simple things that have to get resolved over and over again, basic questions, that sort of thing.

Oregon. We've got two versions essentially, one for poor people and one for old people. Both are absolutely fantastic, and the only problem with the poor one is the drop-off limit should be like, tripled.

And they’ll use this amazing tech breakthrough to make the best targeted ads for us!

I'm more convinced that we may never create an AI with sentience. An AI will likely always mimic it though.

However, I do think an AGI and ASI are inevitable. Sentience isn't required for such things to exist.

Such intellegence just has to be similar to the alphago or alphafold models, except capable of doing all human cognitive tasks at that level or higher, and needs to be able to operate autonomously.

There are organisms that behave like this in the world, albeit not intelligent as we consider it or even alive, but still incredibly complex, autonomous and adaptable.

>There isn’t any possibility of true consciousness from a computer.

Imagine admitting we don't' know what consciousness is and yet still being absolutely certain that you can distinguish when something is or is not conscious. As if applying the qualifier "true" changes anything about that. You want to know what drivel looks like, there you go...

​

>Actually assigning rights to a computer itself shows a poor understanding of what a computer is…

Really depends on what you definition of computer is here. If you are assuming a calculator, phone or desktop, then sure, I would grant you that. But to assume you have any idea how the "black box" works within machine learning algorithms demonstrates your gross misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

The actual people who build these "machines" do not fully understand the logic behind much of the decision making being made. That's the entire reason we utilize machine learning.

​

It's crazy just how little humility people show in regards to this subject. My entire argument is that we don't know enough and need to better understand this and people somehow manage to have the hubris to think this problem is already solved.

[removed]

[removed]

The ironic thing is you're questioning legitimate science because you're susceptible to the corporate psyops that have taught you to do your own research on youtube.

It's not that it's not understood, but not fully understood. For instance, you can know enough about gravity to be able to regularly predict the path of a thrown ball or to figure out how much thrust is needed for orbit without fully knowing how gravity is "communicated" over the vastness of space.

Enough is known about quantum entanglement for us to build computers using the phenomenon, even if there are still plenty of things about quantum physics we still don't fully comprehend.

There’s no test needed because only morons (or those ignorant of how computers work) would think otherwise

Perhaps that's what the Ancient Aliens Gregg Baden goes on about want you to believe!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Braden

LOLOLOL started to laugh as soon as I saw "current narrative"

[deleted]

None of this (absolute drivel) is a good argument for giving robots ‘rights’.

There isn’t any possibility of true consciousness from a computer.

At most, if robots are created somewhat anthropomorphically, regulate how humans interact with them publically so as not to outrage common decency (ie not make other humans uncomfortable).

Actually assigning rights to a computer itself shows a poor understanding of what a computer is…

[deleted]

but he has a youtube video, so it must be true! /S

The key is going to be having microbes that can fix the nitrogen utilizing crushed lunar regolith as a substrate. Millions of people have been growing using hydroponics, but you have to add nutrient, and that will become a problem without there being as much available nitrogen on the moon.

We are not killing the planet - the planet will be just fine - we are killing ourselves and a bunch of other complex lifeforms. The rest of the post is bogus, OP should be ashamed.

[removed]

[deleted]