dimreepr

It depends...

So far the only argument that Marx was wrong, is that it hasn't happened yet. I say it has never been so close to fruition bc the economy is now truely global and the number of people that can't earn a living wage is growing fast, especially in "the wealthy countries" where the slums are brushed under the carpet bc they're built on land that's jealously owned by someone who demands rent. In feudal England, the land that can't be used profitably was given to the people, so they could at least scape a living, known as a common .

Indeed, sometimes we forget that we're still monkey's IIRC in a study of monkeys who were asked to do a task that would either get them a grape (best) or a piece of cucumber (nice), they were happy with both; but if they saw a monkey do the same task and got a grape, when they only got a cucumber, they'd throw it at the tester in a fit of rage. We see it as fair, if we perceive that their work is worth a grape, but when our piece of cucumber isn't enough to enjoy, most of us start looking around for someone to throw our faeces at, rather than plan an appropriate strategy to even thing's up. The angrier we get with the Trump the further down the rabbit hole we follow his version of sanity. I wonder how many of us truely believe that, if the midterms go against him and he becomes a lame duck, he'll stop waddling on...

It doesn't, my point has been the nebulous nature of who is to blame in a court of law; Pablo Escobar built his own prison with an escape hatch. "what-is-the-legal-significance-of-evidence-provided-by-ai" AI will become ever more significant in line with it's perceived value.

If nothing is true (and it is), then consciousness is something, therefore consciousness can only exist in something When I'm dead, I'll have nothing to say. 😉

The truth about facts are, a lot of them will be wrong in a year or two...

Neither does mine, but the internet still work's...

I think it's both very complicated and very simple: "The limits of my language means the limits of my world." - Wittgenstein Culture is one of many filters that determine both truth, and to a lesser extent, facts; most of what we think of as objective facts, is via an editor of some sort...

It's kinda religious, but without the grounding of a wise decision...

I've got a tenner, that says, if he returns, he'll disagree...

No, it's far more nebulous than that... Wasn't the internet built to bypass any stoppage?

Perhaps, but did you even consider the possibility that I was agreing with you?

This is the article that triggered my question... I'm suggesting that in a court of law, this co-founder could argue that he has washed his hand's of any responsibility due to his warning of the danger his AI presents, even if he continues to work on the project.

That really looks like an assumed authority...

We have an AI creator 'Anthropic' warning us that we're in danger of losing control of AI development since they're writing their own code. Is 'Anthropic' at fault for the consequences of ignoring that warning?

Indeed, how often do some people get angry, when you innocently ask them to explain how <insert true fact> actually works; and it's true throughout the IQ bandwidth/spectrum/humanity... It usually comes from an assumed authority...

And we're back to the orbiting teapot, the title of the topic is "Could aliens ever visit earth?" and even you seem to be admitting it's highly, verging on the impossible, unlikely; so what's the point? Indeed and the ship had to be 70,000 tons, to balance the forces IIRC.

You said yourself, I'm paraphrasing, 'Why would a space faring civilisation waste resources visiting a gravity well, when all their needs are met'. Besides, if travelling slowly wouldn't they be more susceptible to being dragged into the well? A teapot orbiting Jupiter, is perfectly possible but since I can't interact with it, it's not worth the effort to justify it;s existence.

I have no idea, but it is plausible, Napoleon was loved by many and equating him with a pig is not acceptable; you should see some of the law's in some American state's. 🙃 I did hear it from a source of trust tho... I was thinking more Wittgenstein "The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

In France, it's illegal to call a pig Napoleon...

Doesn't that explain the Fermi paradox? You may as well be talking about the teapot orbiting Jupiter...

Not at all, facts requires faith for us to accept them, truth is just waiting for us to prove it wrong, again... Why are they required? I can sit here and ponder many thing's and I have no direct information on anything beyond what I think I'm experiencing. Who taught you that?

Really? Intelligent life has to evole somewhere, that retains an atmosphere to live in, long enough to develope an intelligent approach to escaping a gravity well that retains an atmosphere, but prohibits an escape,,, Seems like a fine balance...

"To kill a mockingbird" would be a more appropriate type of fiction in this reality... 😉

It's a very narrow window of the definition of intelligence, for instance "catching up" to what? For instance, the ability to communicate; I saw a meme the other day on FB, I think, that said the higher the IQ the less able they are to communicate with"normal" people.