iNow

Internal. You’d still have a self-identity even if you’d never met another being in your entire life. Also, you don’t know what other people think of you. You only have your own filtered version of what you think they think about you. Keep in mind self identities evolve. How we see ourselves changes with experience and we have incredible power to author who we wish to be… at least to ourselves.

Logic dictates that thinking alone is unequal to evidence (of anything more than a thinking person). Equally, "logic" is not evidence that bananas are yellow or ice cream is cold. Evidence in the form of logic. That's freaking hysterical.

Lol. I particularly liked when he pissed on the antibiotics. ‘Murca!

A good idea, for what?

I’m sure our OP who made this post over 7 months ago and who hasn’t posted a single time since is grateful for your reply.

As studiot alludes, bulb type matters here, and more so what gasses are contained inside.

I agree completely with what wtf says here. Tried highlighting the same in my very first replies which were brushed aside. Lol. No, and besides, a hammer isn’t the correct tool for chair building. Maybe a saw and a spokeshave, or even a grinder? Here yet again we agree. Here, however, we do not. This view of modern AI is simplistic to the point of uselessness, especially when considered in context of machine learning where most of the algorithms and programs running didn’t come from human programmers. However, let’s just ignore that for the sake of argument and accept your stance that the program is just flipping bits according to an algorithm… how is that any different from how the human mind works? After, we’re just flipping sodium and potassium channels on a biological substrate. We’re just an algorithm running on a meat computer. Your stance could equally apply to us, and that would be absurd. I’m suggesting it’s absurd also to apply it to modern (and rapidly developing) AI.

Try the authors website at their university, or even just email them to request a copy. It’s pretty rare they wouldn’t happily send you a free copy.

Isn’t that the core challenge being addressed by this case since technically the AI is the inventor, not him?

I think of it a bit like a parent being eligible to control earnings of a child. In the same way, the creator is seeking eligibility to control earnings from the inventions of its AI.

The core issue here is one of ownership and who owns the rights to harvest profits from said inventions, not whether AI is human / people in the same way a corporation is. That’s just where the lever is being inserted in the legal system by the lawyers. It’s practical / strategic. It’s not philosophical / definitional.

Unfortunately right now, they’re a bit like the dog who caught its own tail (taking Kabul far sooner than even they expected). They will not let the country be used by terrorists? That’s EXACTLY what happened yesterday. Their country was used by terrorists. Hell, they aren’t even able to let the country be used by airplanes at this point.

Criminal justice and legal systems vary from one country to another, so generalizations like these require caution. Out of curiosity, which country’s criminal justice system do YOU primarily have in mind while making these posts?

So maybe there's no "one size fits all" approach is the take-away here. Some cancers must be cutout with a scalpel without any delay. Others are amenable to treatment and care... more like wounds that will heal with sutures than something to be extracted and discarded. As always, the devil is in the details... what are the thresholds / who decides? Who watches the watchers?

I am the law! Kidding aside, not practical or possible absent chips in brains and constant monitoring in a Minority Report / 3 pre-cogs in a vat kinda way. Of course prison and punishment are desirable to some, but it’s bc they tend to want retribution and state sanctioned retaliation… security theater in a kabuki style to assuage their fears and insecurities. Punishment and prison are not pursued in a deep seated desire for societal improvement or improved wellbeing for the population at large.

Decades of research in the field of psychology. I also went into more detail all those years ago, but that’s the gist. If behavioral change and societal improvement are the objective, then punishment is the wrong project plan / wrong strategy to use in achieving it. And that feedback is immediate. It’s a reflex. In crime, however, the punishment comes weeks or even months later so the association in our minds is lost. If you stole a bike and got collared right there at the bike rack, that’s one thing. But if you stole a bike then got arrested at your front door 3 weeks later, that’s something else entirely when viewed in terms of learning. You don’t give the rat in your experiment cocaine 3 days after solving the maze for the same reasons. The feedback must be immediate for the association to form strongly enough to alter behavior. Punishment teaches us not to get caught. It doesn’t so much teach us to avoid the criminal act entirely.

Ten years ago, I touched on this topic suggesting punishment teaches people to avoid getting caught, not to avoid the crime. I advocated for a focus on rehabilitation and argued that prison is largely a waste of money. https://thescienceforum.org/criminality-why-do-we-never-seem-to-learn-or-chang-t187.html

Wild Assed Guess

My doubt was well placed. Biden has rejected calls from other world leaders to extend the removal deadline and remains committed to being out by next week.

And yet you continue posting / failing to engage meaningfully Don’t disagree. How do we meet those basic requirements is my question. Availability of resources isn’t the issue. Allocation of them (and accurately identifying those most in need of them) is.

Right. Okay. I thought maybe you wanted to have an intelligent conversation about this, but you’re contenting yourself with platitudes and flowery language. “Be better” and “be more awesome” isn’t a plan. It can’t be actioned. We share many of the same desires. I’m asking you how you wish to make them a reality, not convince me that we should.

Agreed, but you said we must prevent kids from turning bad. I asked how, and found the following bits too far removed to enable us to achieve that: Uhmmm… sure. Okay, but how does this prevent individual kids from turning bad? These too: How does that prevent kids from turning bad? I’m not following. Sounds like a bumper sticker. This last bit was the closest you came to giving a direct answer: Totally agree, but I can’t do anything with that, can we? Assume we have a magic wand / a blank check to prevent kids from turning bad. Gonna need much more detail than “put more effort and thought into their welfare” when asking the genie for those wishes or writing those checks. “Be more awesome” is a rallying cry, not a metric against which we can measure ourselves nor a plan to get there. Prevent kids from turning bad is a laudable goal, but is a complex and extremely nuanced objective.

Since you replied to my question with new questions of your own, I don’t feel any more clear on what you’re actually proposing.

Who gets to make that decision, and what are the objective metrics / thresholds when doing so? What does this look like in practice? Is there like a pill you can give them, maybe shock therapy, cut out parts of the brain? How do you operationalize it?

Then it would depend on your coworkers and students... customers... suppliers... and all other relevant variables. You're looking for a binary answer to a question which lives on a spectrum.