dimreepr

That's a good question, do you remember when you were mature enough to make a decision?

I'm guessing he built your walls well enough though...

On the slippery slope to a dystopic future, the odds are it won't kill me. 😉

But our history is littered with dystopic regime's followed by revolution and a viarbly brief time of peace, before the previous regime births a polar opposite dystopic vision. I think AI has the potential to extend the brief time of peace, much like splitting the atom did, but much more efficiently. When they realise they don't need the rest of us, they might realise the futility of being superior, in terms of things and stuff, they will find a different metric with which to be better, probably/hopefully who's the greatest at my favorite hobby. If they kill us all, who's gonna serve them drinks? Robots wouldn't work, they can't suck the jealous out of them and they starve. Potentially, AI is the artificial god that Nietzche was looking for... 😉

Just imagine what those students could achieve with unlimited extendable shoulders to stand on.

We're following the same pattern as with all technology, most of us lose the abilities that our grandparents took for granted, and we rely on the specialists to do it f or us, like making cloth or servicing the car. It'll be the same now but bc the technology is intelligence, most of us will rely on the specialist and lose what our grandparents took for granted. I doubt we'll loose our philosophers/scientists but I imagine the number of students will decline substantially as the AI sophistication increases.

We've given birth to a problem child, a precocious little smart arse that's got a lot of growing up to do; maybe it'll be a good teacher, if we guide it down the right path. But one thing's for sure, we can't kill it now...

Nope, size is imaterial unless we're discussing Godzilla v King kong,,,

I'd agree, when did I say otherwise? Maybe that's your cultural bias, assuming a powerful male is violent.

The problem is, sexual maturity comes with a drive to provide for the children, which bleeds into/from the culture, i.e. the most powerful male available, is the most desirable. Our culture confounds that drive with a moral imperative to protect the children from themselves, but a nebulous definition of a child, it's further confused by our natural bias towards plenty/money equals power, so the money maker's are the most desirable. It's ultimately anecdotal evidence for each girl to know, and each man to justify.

Why?

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?