dimreepr

Indeed, it depends, what algorithm and how does it relate to human thinking?

If memory serves, a North Korean dollar bill was a perfect copy, and like money it's dependant on trust. I'm not a subscriber to the view that evil is only subjective. One can axiomatically assert the "golden rule" and derive the notions of good and evil from that. It depends on how deep you want to dig, it reminds me a of a Richard Feynman lecture, in which he tries to explain magnetism as a force. "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - someone famous... ATM the future of AI is scarey enough to prompt societal push back, as in Australia banning children from social media. The political pundulum will always swing towards the extreme; philosophically, a benign dictator is way to go, realistically a computer is our best chance of achieving that goal.

It might be a hologram, depending on one's perspective... 😉

When the inputs that benefits certain people, as in the current problem's with social media, is a glimpse that can be frightening; but the evolution of an AI, with a reasonable facsimile of the 3/4 law's of robotics, is potentially the closest approach to the sunlight uplands. "The fundamental problem with dealing with computers is that one can't negotiate with them." I see that as the fundamental reason a computer is beneficial to society; the judiciary shouldn't be negotiable... That may be true, but they still decide who gets to vote...

There are thing's that are true in science, the axioms; everything else is a temporary truth, or target for every scientist to shoot at.

The printing press is the start of information technology and was a liberation of information, a classic double edged sword. The evil side of democracy is, even the fool's get a vote. The good side of dictatorships are, the idiots can be ignored. Camera's are capable of exposing everything, let them who are without sin cast the first stone. The hidden authoritarianism in all societies is self, and it's never evil.

That's a lot of tech... I'll bet there's a computer involved... Indeed +1 But when a "law enforcement officer", on a whim, can decide to be a judge and executioner; the event horizon, has already been crossed...

Bear in mind that humanity is just as scared of the shadow's, as is 'Ozymandias' the greatest of Kings. 😉 It's like Batman v Superman, a hidden joke by Spiderwoman...

The printing press is part of the technology, you're suggesting is encroaching on your freedom and control. The digital audit trail, I would argue, is harder to fake, or destroy, than a printed document; I acknowledge that no system is perfect or free of fakery. Any dictatorship worth it's salt, will be the sole arbiter of reality. Technology is never the problem, it's the insidious nature of an ageing demography and the rose tinted nature of their vision.

This is the brave new world mr Huxley foretold (if we replace genetics with technology), I find it a strange dystopia in which everyone's happy, though... Do you believe that you're stupid? What if you are? Would that mean you make stupid decisions?

A hotbed of human confirmation bias; I guess it's you and here's why you've confirmed that??? I would love to see a series, in which no one is a traitor and all the murders are done randomly... How many season's would it take?

You're missing a whole section of government in western societies that seek to reduce the potential of a king to own everything; that being the separation of powers between different levels of homophobia. Mechanism of hidden authoritarianism, tends to eliminate the option to vote, rather than present a cognitively disonent argument, as a potential choice. You're falling into the trap, that dictators tend to place before the 'Dunning and Krueger' devotee's... 😉

I was trying to simplify the human equation, into those that can understand the lesson and those that can't, fate is just another word to fill the gap between... When one understands a thing, it can be difficult to understand why other's can't; for instance, some apples aren't delicious. Most of the above, in reference to agency, depends on the teachers we most trust, in a much more complicated spectrum of humanity.

That's the problem with a text out of time/context, it's always going to be open to the bias of our culture; which circles back to my point, even science isn't immune to the potential dislocation of text and meaning, dependant on which time/culture we choose to use as a cypher.

That's kinda my point. Removing subjectivity, scientifically, is hard work, not everyone can or even understands why it's necessary. Not everyone is capable in the 'reasoning process', I refer to my spectrum, in an ideal world science and religion work hand in hand, much like a court of law and the application of justice; scientists understand the world for the rest of us and we're content with the answer's. It's like 'the matrix' and the hypothesis that the humans rejected the "happy world" bc of their natural rejection of a peaceful contented scenario; to which I call bullshit.

No, I mean every accepted religion and their version of the concept. If we simplify humanity, and put the scientifically literate at one end of the spectrum and the uneducated (by which I mean the illiterate among us) at the other; fate removes subjectivity from the other end of 'our' spectrum, bc our agency has been removed from the equation.

I'm sorry but I can't let this pass, "religions don't"? Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity? Two different system's with different approaches, both effective (arguably), so I find it difficult to dismiss an approach to life, that was historically successful.

Why?

I wish I could, but the clown car is center of attention, while the kingmaker places his pawn...

Indeed, but the right stuff is difficult to determine if we decide to declare the leaf as legitimate currency; we may need to burn down a few forests... 😇

The problem with religion is, the bible is stuck in the time it was written and our context has changed over time; if the speed of light was a thing in the bible then it would be a reasonable axiom, from which to calculate, the likely shift in context, and therefore, a greater understanding of what was written.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Trump seems determined to bankrupt America (He's writing cheque's that nobody can afford)", energy is just a side effect.

Doesn't that mean a theory is less than?

That's what I thought, just not why I thought it... I was thinking of the beginning, and where the energy came from, for a quantum fluctuation to be significant...

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe Assuming absolute zero means no movement, would that mean electrons stop orbiting the protons?