andrewcellini

evolution may get involved

Did it ever stop being involved?

Since nobody wants to start, I will......

No discrimination.

Religious freedom.

Public safety.

Guns allowed, though regulated.

Add some more guys.

There needs to be more detail on what you mean and how you're going to carry this out.

What constitutes discrimination? How will you enforce laws against it? What kinds of punishments or rehabilitation will be available?

What does it mean to have religious freedom? How will you protect it?

What will you do to keep the public safe, and what do you mean by that?

How will you regulate guns? Which guns are allowed?

Did you end up figuring it out?

My apologies, I think I misinterpreted your position.

It's quite alright, I'm probably not the most clear when expressing my views about political and social issues.

Although the concern you express is a legitimate one, the evidence for its occurrence in the UK is very thin to non-existent; I've certainly never read of it anywhere and we are in the sixth year of those people being allowed by law. I think, like most things of this nature, you have to do a risk/benefit analysis and it would seem the risk is very small in comparison to the sense of inclusiveness, respect and dignity that these people will be deprived of if they are not permitted.

I agree (as I even mention it's rare and have given a news article showing no rise in sexual crime in states which protect trans individuals), to clarify again I don't think that policing bathrooms is the right idea in any circumstance. Imagine the logistics of trying to identify individuals who are trans; do people carry and are they even willing to carry such documentation just to use a bathroom? Are we to require special licenses? And imagine the time delays for actually being able to use the facility.

Did you guys learn bayes theorem?

edit: though you may not need it after all. your teacher is talking about a conditional probability where the | or / in your notation refers to "given __" where after the | are some conditions, P(having disease| positive test), you're given P(not having disease| positive) = .04, this is not the probability of having a positive test.

Ermm your first link is about a sexual predator who identifies as a transexual who assaulted people in a shelter. Do you think these bathroom laws would have prevented him from raping?

Can you read? First to clarify as you seem to miss my point, neither case is of a person who is actually transgender and both are claiming they can use facilities of the opposite gender in areas where trans individuals are protected under law to do so, the perceived loophole I mentioned. Second, no I clearly stated that these laws wouldn't have an impact, do I have to repeat my question how would you know the individual is a predator? How would you know they're actually transgender? Laws on both ends, attempting to protect the rights of trans individuals to use the facilities corresponding to their gender identity or quashing the rights of trans individuals to protect the rest of the population, seem ineffective at eliminating sexual predators and bound to infringe someones rights if they're legitimately enforced, and I personally don't want bathroom guards from either camp blocking my way.

You seem to think I'm claiming that trans individuals are the predators which I am clearly not; I'm talking about the rare individual who gets the idea in their head they can use these laws which allow trans people to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity as a means to hurt others.

Are you aware that rape is illegal anyway, as such, raping someone is a crime and his being a transexual has no bearing on his being a criminal or a rapist?

And I never said it was. Thank you for trying to put words in my mouth.

Despite the fact he wasn't a transexual and he did not identify as a woman or transexual.

The point in even mentioning these cases is that people, and it is certainly rare as it's hard to find such cases, use laws protecting transgender individuals use of bathrooms of the gender they identify as a means of preying on others. This is contrary to your claim that this never happens or has never happened.

What other motives? Is there a history of this occurring? Have there been sexual assaults or rapes by men who pass themselves off as transgender to access the women's bathrooms? The answer to that is no.

What other motives? At least in these two cases, sexual:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-strips-in-front-of-girls-in-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

To say this never happens would be incredulous and, as I said previously, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the individual is passing themselves off as trans unless, perhaps, they were to do something lewd and illegal. This isn't to say that there will be a rise in sexual assault given some perceived loophole in the law as such a rise isn't evident in the data for parts of the country with laws protecting trans individuals: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019

 

Yes. And?

Well firstly, it seemed as if hormone replacement therapy and the like were your implied criteria for a person to be trans. Secondly, how would you know, given that not all people who are actually transgender actually go through such things, that a person is actually trans and not entering the bathroom for other motives? You probably wouldn't if you're basing your assessment on their appearance, and ultimately barring based on appearance would do nothing except potentially discriminate against those who are actually trans.

Unless you think men are going to go through the horrors of hormone therapy, breast implants and surgery just to be able to perve at your wife or daughter?

There are people, trans men and women alike, who do not for whatever reason go through or delay hormone replacement and various surgeries.

albinism has four stages

citation needed.

And before you rail against me please note I am not an expert; I can't find this information. According to the wiki there are two types, one which affects hair, skin and eyes pigmentation and the other just the eyes (oculocutaneous and ocular respectively).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism

Edit: Did find this though http://ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-1172-2-43

Is the locus (or loci) for the mutation(s) that leads to OCA albinism actually the same as that which produced european whites though? I'm having trouble finding the answer to this. Perhaps you can lead me in the right direction.

Do you mean the luminiferous aether? That was proposed as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, and there is no evidence of its existence. Here's a famous null experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Not sure how the higgs field and the aether are related as they serve different purposes. I suppose you can say they are similar as the higgs field and aether (at least it was supposed to) permeate space but that's about it.

so does this mean that plasma membrane is synonimous to cell membrane....? please explain further..thanks in advance

yup, you got it.

Prophets live and die for little more than a more complete understanding that they share with a world that sacrifices itself unto destruction.

This and your op offer little more than poetry. You're essentially posting your conclusions without providing some sort of argument for them to follow. I can reply with something akin to what iNow said:

I'm not sure what else can be said as you offer no context, though I doubt that prophets long for a complete understanding of the world when what they do amounts to making stuff up, and there is no evidence that supposed prophets had any contact with the supernatural.

That depends somewhat on the problem that it is exploring the solution space of. You have to have some sort of starting parameters one way or another.

I agree, and it would be somewhat pointless to introduce these hypothetical machines without a problem to solve.

+1

You would need to hardwire or teach the AI a violent set of responses, when you could program or teach it a set of responses to the situation that are entirely unlike what a human would have.

Assuming it has an accurate model of reality, if it's allowed to search the solution space unhindered and it comes to a solution with high utility which happens to be taking some violent actions or includes a violent action among the sequence of actions then why would it need to be taught or even built with those responses? Do you mean built to have access to necessary tools? Having an internet connection might be enough to do some dangerous, potentially nuclear things.

 

 

Let’s not run around in circles on this point; the number of people on this planet and what we’ve accomplished, super intelligence should be a given, because for us to fear such a machine it’s wit must exceed the collective wit of humanity.

Whether its the machine that burst into tears or a super intelligence, these systems learn. You do acknowledge that your machine that bursts into tears can potentially learn to do otherwise right? What if it learns to fight back whether by force or by implicating the aggressor in a crime which ruins their life or by taking something dear from them?

I don't know why you're hung up on super intelligence. The simple example in this video is scary, and it's a stamp collector:

It seems like the kind of fears you're thinking of are more grand and terminator esque than some simpler ones that are also scary though not as action packed.

 

 

If it can't outwit us, what's to fear?

Seemingly nothing, but who's to say it can't outwit us? We haven't established what it learned on, how it compares to humans in solving problems etc, just a dangerous connection between red and anger/violence in some hypothetical machine which tells us nothing about its wit; really that's all we've doing by loosely constructing these hypothetical machines.

 

 

Never the less, what's to fear from a machine that just bursts into tears when challenged?

Whatever the tears are made of.

What of a machine that gets uncontrollably, perhaps homicidal angry as the sight of the color red? It's quite obvious you'd want that to be shut off.

 

 

Super intelligence has to be a given in this thread.

That's not clear given the op.

 

 

Then we're back to my post #40.

 

 

I agree that it depends on Sam's experience (sticking with Sam and not your "super intelligence"), so what is that? How and on what data has he learned to achieve the intelligence he already has? Another possibility is a creator with little foresight.

...

Thus, it seems reasonable that the first sam will not have emotions; of course, this may be an incorrect assumption.

I agree.

Emotions may be necessary, but they introduce additional scary scenarios. For example, what if sam falls in love, and his heart throb rejects sam in favor or a person. What will sam do?

To what extent can he identify his emotional states and the emotional states of others? Is this also on par with humans or is it "quicker" as are his reasoning and problem solving skills? If he only has the ability to recognize his own emotional states then he won't consider others, but he could also learn to recognize others emotional states and act on them.

I guess a better question is how emotionally intelligent are we starting him off? Knowing that might help answer what he'd do.

If sam is truly clever, it would eliminate the threat without being implicated in anything illegal.

Why would the law be of Sam's concern? I'd be afraid of clever ways of hiding evidence or preventing his implication in any crime.

If it isn't that clever, maybe sam should not exist.

Again, what if Sam is clever enough to avoid being a suspect? Or what if Sam is clever enough to persuade legal figures to aid him?

I think part of the problem in understanding what he would possibly do is how vaguely defined Sam is.

Suppose there is a sentient artificial man (sam) who is unemotional and logical more or less like humans, except quicker. Sam might decide to be either theist, agnostic or atheist. Except for religious reasons, sam would have no reason AFAIK to kill people.

What if Sam finds a human or all humans threatening to his survival? I'd think that'd be a solution in the space of possible solutions to the problem of a human pest. I'm not sure how beneficial such a decision would be but such actions may carry high utility in certain contexts, perhaps if Sam is threatened with being permanently shut down by his creator.

 

 

As Ed suggested that is a semantic tangent to the OP, but the question remains “what is there to fear?” to which the answer seems to be a great deal, admittedly, not from this particular computer but imagine a future iteration that can think for itself and is able to outwit our best strategists?

Sure that's a possibility, and I left open such a possibility with the inclusion of "yet."

If Artificial Intelligence were in existence at this exact moment there are several possibilities of what will happen.

1. Classic Terminator problem

2. Bio-Mechanical equality

3. Advance Rate of development

AI exists at this moment, and thankfully the first of your possibilities hasn't happened yet. Here's a recent example of AI which learned to play the board game go and beating a master player 5 out of 5 games: http://www.nature.com/news/google-ai-algorithm-masters-ancient-game-of-go-1.19234

I agree with Ed, it seems you're conflating specific artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence. This AI isn't going to take over the world but will play a mean game of go.