dimreepr

Indeed, but no more useful...

The evolution of AI can be wrong, but it will get better...

I think there's yin-yang aspect to this question, the other side of the AI coin is, perhaps, a more acceptable version of 'soma' from 'a brave new world'. Most of us are perfectly content with an external source of validation, if it's roughly human shaped...

This is the reason, I think, that a written language degrades, in terms of understanding across cultures, both different cultures and generational cultural drift (evolution); whilst the spoken word remains understandable across generation's and culture's.

Philosophically speaking, you do fit a well known stereotype; typically, not long lived 'in these here part's'... 😉

I'll have to give it some thought, bc I seem to be missing something important...

I'll be honest, it struck me as a verbose version of the same metaphor. My understanding is, the second tick rate is invariant (my apologies if I've used that word incorrectly, but it seems appropriate), so whatever frame one is in, only seems distorted from the outside.

I get that it's unrepresentative at a certain level of understanding, but can you think of a better metaphor for those of us that don't speak maths fluently?

Then it's just your opinion and therefore has no value in the discussion, besides your conflating a cultural tendency/stereotype with an individual personality. 😉

Why?

Historically, gay behaviour just meant flamboyant. My point was, culture alone isn't enough to suppress a strong/extreme personality type; much like a strong willed sexual "deviant"... 😉

In cases like this, ethics is the acceptable face of a moral deviation; a very slippery slope... Indeed, who are we to demand the doctor's damage themselves, for us? "The risk Socrates himself faces is obvious but, as he explains it, the danger he faces is far less grave than the one the jurors may inflict upon themselves: Rest assured that if you kill me – since I am the person I say I am – you wouldn't harm me more than you harm yourselves."

History suggests not, a gay person will always shine through...

Besides, where else would we find useful soldier's (heroes)? The topic has a very "A Brave New World" type vibe...

Your natural bias, like everyone, sometimes blinds one to the truth; the wise among us, try to wake the rest of us up to the possibility that one's hero is just another person, that's as blind as we are. The Ubermenche is the guy that can pursuade us to say "meh" when we find out that David Bowie used an autotune... 😉

You could ask, what would the ubermensh do?

Human failure; and the enlightenment it may contain... What happens if I mistake a lie for a truth???

Indeed...

My only caveat is the difference between immortal and mortality...

Context would be key to a difinative translation, the old foxhole argument does muddy the waters sumwhat... But some do think, IIRC, that he accidentally killed someone in a drunken fight; how many alcoholics, other than some priest's, think about god at all? That about sums it up... +1

Seriously? What a foolery... 😉

Well, no one has managed it so far, so how would you know what is required to succeed?

Climate change is always real, and some things always die as a result; we are uniquely privileged to be able to see it coming, yet stupid enough to close our eye's until it's all over...

Imagine my pleasure at your condescension... 😉 Perhaps, but an imergent quality is awfully difficult to pin down... When did I say it did?

So you agree with me... I think Jesus was an alcoholic, until his spell in the wilderness, and they tend to put the booze first...