Delta1212

How many people are you prepared to see die before you'd change that opinion? It regime change is/were possible without loss of life I would be 100% for it. However, North Korea have a military of 6.5 million and have been preparing for the eventuality you are in favor of for decades. I don't think we'd be doing idea human rights any good in North Korea by killing several hundred thousand North Koreans.

Not just North Koreans. South Korea would get hammered. Seoul is not far at all from the DMZ and even without nukes, conventional North Korean artillery should be able to reach it from across the border.

They don't do any of those things in Chaucer's English, either. Outside of maybe a few experts and devotees of the field, but the exact same thing could be said about hieroglyphics.

Their definition is vague and even they say sociopath and psychopath is overlapping. They also say the word has contradicting definitions.

 

Difference between computer and AI is that AI is a subset of computer. The kind of computer he was referring to was a simple tool.

Now an AI is able to make intelligent decisions of it's own, it is not simply a basic tool. Now if an AI became so smart it could make intelligent decisions indiscernable from a human, we still would not know if it was a pzombie or if it had any awareness inside of it.

On the other hand, we technically don't know that about any of our fellow humans, either.

You win half the argument, I concede the point that it was invented, it was not invented in one single day or year, but was slowly grown and born.

 

However, though it is "sort of" evolving, it is sheltered from natural selection process in a way...people and societies tend to stick with outdated and ineffectual words and it is difficult to remove them from society. Essentially, it rarely undergoes any kind of culling process of bad genes, cancers mostly just stick with the language more or less.

Words and even grammatical forms are constantly being introduced and culled from daily usage. Language actually evolves pretty rapidly, especially when populations of speakers are isolated.

 

Small changes are generally noticeable within lifetimes, usually between older and younger people. Patterns of change are easily visible within a matter of generations. It usually takes many centuries for divergence to the point of total incomprehensibility to really develop, but that's still faster than most megafauna speciate.

 

But there are areas/tasks in which the the level, of intelligence, is equivalent; the question then is, how many specialised AI computers does it take to equal a polymath human?

 

The number of computers is irrelevant, because they talk; so the only relevant question is, 'what's the lead time?'.

They have to be designed to actually talk, though. Nobody has built a supernetwork linking up all of the various skills currently available, nor built a network capable of assembling all of those skills into any kind of coherent whole.

 

Also, be careful conflating skill with intelligence. There are many animals with individual behaviors that approach or surpass what a human is capable of accomplishing, but that is not the same as having human-level general intelligence. The fact that we have designed networks whose single specialized skill happens to fall into an area that we have traditionally assigned to intelligence has more to do with the lack of evolutionary pressure for Go-playing ants than because the skill in question requires human-like intelligence to do well with.

 

I am a big proponent of AI and its potential, and I do wonder a bit about what the threshold for subject experience is and whether we have crossed it yet if we ever possibly can. Especially with some of the more advanced object recognition systems where are essentially building internal models of meaning out of the raw visual data that they are presented with. Is that enough to get quails out of, or is there something more that is required?

 

Regardless, it is important to understand what our more advanced AIs are actually doing and how that relates to intelligent behavior and learning ability. This is a subject where there tends to be a major disconnect between the perception of how smart an AI needs to be to perform a certain task and how smart it actually needs to be.

 

AlphaGo and its ilk are extremely impressive, but nothing thus far is anywhere close to a true general intelligence AI.

 

I think the path we're currently on certainly leads there, and that the challenges are mostly ones of engineering, funding and technique rather than high level concept, but just because you can see the broad strokes of how to get from here to there doesn't mean that we are already there.

 

I think it's more like, a human-level intelligence with an inhuman intellect.

Even the best ones currently don't really have human-level intelligence, though. There are some that can do specific tasks better than unaided human can, but that isn't really the same thing.

Youtube video A.I. is progressing faster than you think gives some interesting examples of how quickly AI is progressing. In addition Google has developed an AI coprocessor that is an order of magnitude faster than existing graphics processing units recently used for AI. The rate of improvement in AI is surprising; thus, IMO it will occur faster than we imagine.

I've been following AI development pretty closely for roughly 5-10 years now, and it's well past the point where I've begun seriously wondering about about whether some of them have any kind of subject experience or not.

 

(Keeping in mind that I'm talking about a level on par with my wondering about the internal lives of bugs rather than anything approaching human-level intellect).

While I agree it is unlikely to have changed the result I wonder if that isn't a naive position. Both England and the USA were target by hackers during elections and both saw stunning upsets that went against the margin of error of polling. Almost reflexively I reject conspiracy theories. We have no hard proof that the vote was manipulated via hacking directly. That said I imagine the hackers celebrated on election night. I am sure they feel as they they suceeded. Things falling there way in unprecendented fashion isn't proof though. Unfortunately the governments and positions the hacks sought to help won so there is little interest amongst the winners to investigate their own victories too vigorously.

The US vote wasn't really outside the margin of error. Most of the polls conducted in the run up to the US election, especially the consistent and high quality polls, are national polls rather than state polls. Hillary's national total was pretty close to where the polls pegged her: the votes were just not distributed in a way that would have allowed her to win. That's not something that is adequately captured by the way polling has generally been conducted for US Presidential elections.

 

 

Im not sure what you mean by "just a model"? Experiments were done to see if in fact our universe is a projection of data from 2D sphere surrounding the visible universe. You seem to suggest that the idea is just some tool of some sort that isnt meant to be taken as reality, but just a way to explore deeper into the physics of our universe. The experiments suggest that the idea that we are in fact simply projections of data from a 2D universe was taken seriously by the experimenters, and not merely a tool for mental experiments.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/12/08/reality-check-the-universe-is-probably-not-a-hologram/

There is not a clear cut difference between those two things when you dig into the nuts and bolts of science.

 

All of our rigorous descriptions of reality are really just models used to predict behaviors, and all of those models are tested in various ways to see how well they line up with actual results and where there are gaps that need to be filled or that might require a new model.

 

They're like maps. You can have topographical maps and road maps and maps depicting rainfall and satellite maps.

 

All of these maps represent some aspect of an area, and if you ask which is the best map, the answer will depend on what exactly it is you want to know about an area. But none of them are the "real" map. As always, the map is not the terrain. That doesn't mean that you can check the map against the terrain to see how accurately it is being represented.

Yes, I understood, but see the last sentence.

 

Esentially, I don't think people are dull enough to think that there are other untested systems like that? Couldn't that be inferred from the results anyway?

 

I mean, maybe the publicity about card counting was good to start them thinking about a system, but couldn't they very quickly figure out if it worked based on the results?

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you have not had very much extended contact with hardcore gamblers.

 

Also see: The entire thread leading up to this discussion

 

It depends on the game. While cards are probability based, the issue is that cards get eliminated and the shuffle isn't perfect. The roulette is a great example of what you're talking about. It's basically a coin flip with more sides but there are still people who are convinced that the wheel is rigged.

 

 

 

But doesn't this indicate that they didn't love counting, rather than they did? The profits were going up because they were eliminating those who counted cards. Smaller number of people who count cards = lower chance of them winning = higher profit for the casino.

 

I guess the point about people thinking they had a similar system stands, but I think they would have tried to use it regardless of whether they knew about card counting.

I think the point is that they love card counting for the publicity, rather than the card counters themselves. They ejected card counters, thereby demonstrating to the world that card counting is effective and convincing the gamblers who are all convinced of their own systems in other games that the house can be beaten, even though the things they are trying themselves don't actually work.

 

It is not so much the win rates over time - nor is it a long process; a well trained pit boss can spot a counter very quickly, definitely before they make a decent amount of cash. After a substantial but not huge number of hands the betting and playing technique of a counter is recognizable - it no longer follows best practice nor most common practice.

Yes, actually I guess you're right. I would imagine the abnormal betting rhythm would become fairly obvious to someone who knew what they were looking for.

How do they know you are counting? Because you are winning more than expected?

If you're doing it in your head, pretty much. Although it takes more than a one-night winning streak to get banned. Generally, the people get caught after going back to the same casino continuously. Casinos invest a lot of their security budget in tracking people on the floor in order to detect abnormally large win rates over time.

Is card counting just remembering what cards have already been used?

More or less, although especially when multiple decks are in use, it can become unrealistic to remember all of the cards that have come up vs which ones are remaining, so most card counting systems are a bit simpler than just trying to remember the cards themselves.

 

For example, you can keep a running score that different cards add to or subtract from as you see them so that you can tell when a deck is running "hot" based on the weighted value of the remaining cards even if you don't remember specifically which ones you have or haven't seen yet.

Wait.

Would a computer program that predicts the numbers make it illegal?

A properly dealt game of blackjack has a slight advantage to the house that switches to a slight advantage to the player if you can effectively count cards. A properly run lottery does not provide any advantage to someone with a machine that picks numbers for them.

I'm wondering if the friend might have been involved with more than just "calculating" the numbers to pick each week.

They're sending in a destroyer now.

Yes, to set up a more robust missile defense against further strikes by the US from shipboard. Probably a smart move as it allows them to both somewhat check our own offensive capability and respond with a show of military force that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) escalate the situation appreciably.

 

This is what I would consider a heightening of tensions rather than a likely spark for anything larger on its own.

 

Edit: Actually, adding this because the above is a bit speculative on my part in response to Russia saying they were going to do essentially that, but not necessarily singling that ship out as part of that plan:

 

At the very least, military "drive-by" showings where a country sends a large ship or some planes through an area that technically they are perfectly free to occupy but that will make the other guys nervous is a common way of showing displeasure without doing anything overtly violent. We've been doing similar to China over their technically illegal construction in the South China Sea.

 

It would be weird if Russia was putting a single destroyer into position as part of any plan for actual military action. You'd see a lot more movement or little at all. Not something comparatively small and obvious like that.

As it seems, Russia is pissed off now.

And is now actively calling it an illegal act of aggression.

This means?

Probably not much on its own. That's pretty much what I would expect them to do at this point. It's the international relations equivalent of shaking your fist.

 

The real question is what else they'll do about it. Most likely just some heavier bombing of areas held by people we like but won't feel honor bound to defend militarily, and that'll be the end of it until and unless someone tries pushing the envelope again on one side of the other.

Assad shouldn't have chemical weapons. It is something that the U.S., UN, and Russia all agreed with back in 2013. Sp provided the airstrikes are targeting Assad's chemical weapon arsenal that are the right thing to do. Even if it was a "false flag" attack. Assad isn't suppose to have chemical weapons.

 

I don't believe it was a false flag attack. I believe Assad felt embolden by the fact the White House seemed to be implying a shift in policy. Sec of State Rex Tillerson had indicated that he expected Assad to remain in power at the conclusion of the civil war and we (U.S.) had stepped up our campaign against ISIS in Syria in recent weeks which was benefiting Assad.

 

I agree about Turkey. It is a real concern. That is why the U.S. cannot afford a go it alone approach here.

 

Assad denied it but he also isn't suppose to have Chemical weapons per international argeements. So provided all we are targeting are the Chemical Weapons we are acting within standing policy.

Have Russia and Assad acknowledged the existence of the weapons, though? I've seen a lot of denials about the attack but I'm unclear on what their position is as to whether Assad even had the weapons. I mean, he clearly did. But there is a difference between us knowing that and him admitting it.

 

What Assad did is a war crime. We (U.S.) have an obligation to our allies around the world to hold to our various commitments to rebuke such acts. Bombing Assad's arsenal was the correct call in my opinion and is in keeping with standing U.S. policy. As iNow pointed out what happens next is the big question. I would like to see continued bombing directed at eliminating WMDs. Additionally I would like to see the U.S. work through the U.N. security counsel with our allies (Germany, England, Australia, etc) on a plan for charging Assad with war crimes. I do not want to see U.S. go into Syria on the ground.

 

Other issues to consider here is the stability of Turkey and the ongoing refugee crisis. If U.S. forces push into Syria in an attempt to both crush ISIS and Assad at the same type fighters and refugees will press into Turkey which how the portential to destablize Turkey which is already stressed. Also I believe Putin is more intelligent that the current White House. That makes everything the U.S. considers doing alone dangerous. We need our allies. We cannot make independent choices here.

Yes, Turkey is a big issue with pretty much any decisions relating to Syria. As a member of NATO, they are nominally a close ally, but Erdoğan has taken them from secular democracy to theocratic dictatorship-in-all-but-name in record time, and their interests in the area don't perfectly align with the rest of NATO's thanks to their own Kurdish separatist movement. Further destabilization in the area is only going to exacerbate both of those problems, neither of which are good for us.

 

Assad agreed to give up his weapons and Russia agreed to ensure it happened. Policy was put in place in 2013. Any attempt to Syria or Russia to interpret this as a new act of aggression which isn't in keeping with standing commitments would be inaccurate.

They also technically deny that Assad did any such thing as far as the chemical attack is concerned. We all know it's bullshit, but if they were spoiling for a fight, their current position on the issue would make the US strike an "unprovoked attack."

 

But they aren't spoiling for a fight so they won't respond to it as such even if they'll yell about US aggression a bit.

Considering we bombed a Russian Ally, doesn't that mean it's war that has been declared?

 

Honestly, I probably have very little idea what I'm talking about so I'm mostly just gonna sit back and ask questions for you guys.

Assad could probably interpret it as an act of war if he wanted to, and Russia could then interpret it as an attack on an ally if they wanted to.

 

But right now, nobody wants that. The US doesn't really want to be on the ground in Syria right now. Assad certainly doesn't want the US invading. And Russia and the US don't really want to get into a shooting war with each other.

 

Wars depend on at least one party recognizing a state of war. If someone wants a war, they can label even fairly minor things as acts of war. If nobody wants a war, some much bigger things can happen without sparking one.

 

The question is always "Where exactly is the line in the current environment that each party feels they cannot allow to be crossed without having to respond?"

 

A single air strike from the US that was given a call-ahead so the target wasn't caught unaware and thereby minimizing casualties, especially for Russia, might piss off Putin and Assad, but it isn't going to cross that line quite yet.

 

If Putin feels that some fist shaking and strong words are an appropriate response, that's as far as it will go.

 

You get wars in two scenarios: At least one side wants a war and feels confident they can win. Or both sides feel that backing down at each step along the way would be worse for them than escalating.

 

Nobody on that side is chomping at the bit for a war against the US, and this wasn't something that they apparently think they can't back down from. So no war. Not yet, anyway.

I can agree with that.

 

A draft is highly unlikely.

We're not currently stressed on the number of troops we have.

Now the idea that this may happen isn't impossible. Just saying that it doesn't seem likely.

 

We bombed them for using chemical weapons on what would be considered syrian refugees if they left the country. So if we see them all as terrorists, we just intervened on the side of terrorists. Which I, nor most people, don't think of it that way.

 

And, if you say that this would have been approved by the UN and Congress anyways, why does being drafted play into what Trump did? The end result would have been the same just 3-4 days later.

 

 

 

 

Also, delta, I still see Syria as no threat to the United States. Perhaps it has the ability to resist the United States and make it hard to invade/immobilize/stop them, but they pose no to little of an actual threat to the US. Is this thinking flawed?

Syria does not pose a threat to the United States, no. However, there is a difference between "does not pose a threat" and "can be cleaned up in a couple of months with little resistance and minimal casualties on our side."

 

There is also a major difference between "Syria is not a threat to the United States" and "invading Syria is not a threat to the United States." As has been mentioned, Russia considers Syria to be a close ally in the Middle East, and there is already Russian military heavily involved in the country on the side of the Syria government. A US invasion force attacking the Syrian government would get very, very messy very quickly.

Desert storm? I know for a fact I probably don't have all the details there, so could someone fill me in slightly more on this before I say something stupid?

The sequel. Iraqi Freedom seemed like it was going to be US forces steamrolling through resistance. And that's exactly what it was. At first. And then it wasn't.

I see where you are coming from but I think this is firmly in the hands of the military and part of long-term military thinking on how certain conditions would be dealt with if they arose.

 

I like it too, or aspects of it, but I just get the feeling, perhaps wrongly, that you are very principled towards the 'no harm' aspect of that philosophy.

Even if the military is fully handling things and Trump is just rubber stamping plans made by smarter men, the military is a hammer and not every problem is a nail. When you want a tactical response, you turn to the military. When you then don't want that response to escalate further, you turn to other institutions, and I'm less than confident that the other instruments of government are in full working order.

 

The State Department is barely staffed at the top levels right now and who the hell knows whether Tillersom is even competent yet. He even has Kushner unofficially pulling State Department duties. Trump has been provoking a lot of people around the world, and I'll even admit that at least some of them deserve a little poking with a sharp stick, but without a fully functional State Department, he's tinkering with live ordninance without an explosives expert on hand.

It has my support morally. Trump decided to bomb the military airbase(not just some airport) that held planes that had launched chemical attacks upon citizens and may have been getting ready to launch more.

Deciding to immediately destroy those assets may or may not have helped stop any further chemical attacks from happening. While I can't confirm he stopped further chemical attacks, waiting for congressional support and UN approval might have been too long.

And while I agree he should get go ahead by both groups before doing military action, I can't say I'm terribly against him doing this.

 

It wouldn't so much be a war as a matter of how long it would take us to completely annihilate the Syrian government. We could go in full guns blazing and have the place cleared in 2 months with minimal casualties on our side, but the collateral damage as well as all the innocent lives lost would make that a bad idea.

And you say a non-credible president. He has military advisers. I'm positive some of them support him declaring this attack.

Two points. I was 13 when we invaded Iraq and had much the same thoughts about how that war would go as to what you are currently describing re:invading Syria.

 

Second, it's not so much Syria itself that is the problem. It is the fact that Assad is considered a close ally in the region by Russia. They're already on the ground there, so you're hardly going to see the US waltz through that territory unopposed.

I have very mixed feelings about this and will straight up admit that a large part of that is that I do not trust in Trump's ability to negotiate complex diplomatic waters.

 

There is a marked difference between boldness and stupidity, but it is often difficult to distinguish between the two at the opening salvo.