dimreepr

A whole, in some cases, legal industry is built around it. There's anecdotal evidence of young teenage girls, that are naturally attracted to the sex industry, Tracy (something) is famous in the porn film industry (70's 80's IIRC) bc she was 15 and lied about her age to get a part, no doubt there's a study or two that confirm that. The only issue here, is the level of coercion involved, with the caveat that there's money to be made. Just to be clear, I'm not in any way trying to defend "the perp" or devalue the claims of the victim's; due process is the only means to examine the caveats fully and fairly, if only money wasn't involved... 🤑

There is no shortcut to understanding and AI is the proof... If we assume that AI knows everything, then it's easy to prove that it doesn't understand what it knows... 🤔

Thanks guy's for all the answer's (nice link @MigL)... But the question, assuming one winner, is the difference between buying a ticket or not. I see it as 1 degree of separation (50:50), as in not buying a ticket doesn't mean you won't subsequently, be in possession of one. So given the probability of winning is very large, one toss of the coin at such an early stage of the equation, wouldn't be all that significant in my choice "to pay a voluntary tax on my optimism"...

There's a big difference between a legal technicality and a moral obligation, like intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. If a young girl offered one sex, then it could be argued that one is innocent of the intent to harm; just that one got caught up in one's hormone's. On the other hand, how do we know that she wasn't groomed? One account is believable, two accounts are suspicious many accounts are damming.

The national lottery is currently running an ad campaign (It could be you), trying to persuade us to buy a lottery ticket. It got me wondering if the odds were 'significantly' different, if I don't buy a ticket? It's math above my pay grade, so feel free to work out the number's for me. 🙂

I think so.

OK,but please explain why I'm mistaken?

Probably a stupid question, but doesn't time effectively stop from the POV of the observer at the event horizon?

If he's dead,, why are you wasting our time, trying to defend a man, whom you can't possibly know to be innocent?

Your describing a functioning democracy, all be it a terrifyingly binary knife edge ATM, but what it's not, is a hidden authority; bc of those pesky journo's.

We can't, imagine a two dimensional character living in the clock, it can only say cuckoo when the big hand changes to being fully erect. 😉

Indeed, but maintaining a positive association post conviction is very suspicious, if only for the fact that they feel entitled enough to not care if it's suspicious.or morally wrong.

He's taking a very British approach to foreign policy, talk loudly and slowly and if they still refuse to understand, invade their country and shoot them for being stupid. "The king is dead, long live the king"... Who do you think the king maker has their eye on?

Nish Kumar, on BBC sounds, is far more entertaining... What makes you think that this is an argument?

It also has the benefit of creating the conditions, in which he can excuse the use of actual troop's and, perhaps, martial law; I think his only chance of his third term. @KJW he still has to dance for the people, politically, and the US is still a democracy, however tenuous it's grip; I still have faith in the US massive... 🤙

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?