Morality is a product of civilisation and community. It’s the ability of groups to decide on a single set of rules by which they would lime to be treated by, as breach of those rules can cause physical or emotional harm. And then there’s simple evolution, where certain “moral rules” allowed civilisations to survive and thrive better than others.
At no point is “god” required here.
Currencies going up in value tends to not be great for an economy, as people will save instead of spend. It stops being a currency and becomes somewhat of an asset. A slowly depreciating currency tends to foster the most economic growth.
“In an April 2008 article in Vanity Fair magazine, the journalist David Rose published confidential documents, apparently originating from the US State Department, which would prove that the United States collaborated with the PNA and Israel to attempt the violent overthrow of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and that Hamas pre-empted the coup.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)#:~:text=In an April,empted the coup.
You have some reading to do.
There is no police for international matters.
There is, it’s called a UN Peacekeeping Force.
Hamas to power in 2007 and broke all past agreements with Israel and started to launch rockets into Israel. This lead to the blockade.
Hamas seized power after a civil war, brought on by an attempted coup by the PA backed by the US and Israel. This attempted coup led to the Hamas attacks on Israel. They did not randomly break all agreements and started shooting rockets.
Hamas was always deeply unhappy with the Israeli presence, but they hadn’t become really openly violent before that point.
If you started to fire your gun on my home at random hours I would have locked your door from the outside and set your home on fire with, or without, your family inside. This is common sense.
What the fuck is this insane statement. Call the police?
Doesn’t higher interests mean more money is spent paying those interests, meaning less money is available to spend on other things which in turn reduces the monetary supply in circulation which curbs inflation?
Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?
Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.
You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything
Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.
Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.
Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.
But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).
In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.
except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service
Can you read?
No, that’s “Download to file” or “Download and save”. Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just “downloading”, doesn’t mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.
The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.
For example your second source says “downloaded over the internet” and since YouTube doesn’t allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.
Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device, otherwise you can’t view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.
Terrorism is more about the intent rather than the result. Did Israel intend to instill terror in the civilian population or did they genuinely try to target Hezbollah militants (and perhaps didn’t care much about any civilian casualties)?
Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.
Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.
What they didn’t prove, at least by my reading of this paper, is that achieving general intelligence itself is an NP-hard problem. It’s just that this particular method of inferential training, what they call “AI-by-Learning,” is an NP-hard computational problem.
This is exactly what they’ve proven. They found that if you can solve AI-by-Learning in polynomial time, you can also solve random-vs-chance (or whatever it was called) in a tractable time, which is a known NP-Hard problem. Ergo, the current learning techniques which are tractable will never result in AGI, and any technique that could must necessarily be considerably slower (otherwise you can use the exact same proof presented in the paper again).
They merely mentioned these methods to show that it doesn’t matter which method you pick. The explicit point is to show that it doesn’t matter if you use LLMs or RNNs or whatever; it will never be able to turn into a true AGI. It could be a good AI of course, but that G is pretty important here.
But it’s easy to just define general intelligence as something approximating what humans already do.
No, General Intelligence has a set definition that the paper’s authors stick with. It’s not as simple as “it’s a human-like intelligence” or something that merely approximates it.
Yes, hence we’re not “right around the corner”, it’s a figure of speech that uses spatial distance to metaphorically show we’re very far away from something.
Not just that, they’ve proven it’s not possible using any tractable algorithm. If it were you’d run into a contradiction. Their example uses basically any machine learning algorithm we know, but the proof generalizes.
Our squishy brains (or perhaps more accurately, our nervous systems contained within a biochemical organism influenced by a microbiome) arose out of evolutionary selection algorithms, so general intelligence is clearly possible.
That’s assuming that we are a general intelligence. I’m actually unsure if that’s even true.
That doesn’t mean they’ve proven there’s no pathway at all.
True, they’ve only calculated it’d take perhaps millions of years. Which might be accurate, I’m not sure to what kind of computer global evolution over trillions of organisms over millions of years adds up to. And yes, perhaps some breakthrough happens, but it’s still very unlikely and definitely not “right around the corner” as the AI-bros claim (and that near-future thing is what the paper set out to disprove).
Haha it’s good that you do though, because now there’s a helpful comment providing more context :)
I’m surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don’t think I’ve ever had it crash on me.