Comment Re:This is worse than mythology. (Score 1) 391
What's the motivation for the AI to do that?
It's a cheap way to remove humanity as a risk factor.
What's the motivation for the AI to do that?
It's a cheap way to remove humanity as a risk factor.
Because an AI that does what you need an AI to do is not actually an intelligent, free-willed machine.
That depends on a) what I "need" it to do which may be contrary to your assertion, and b) what the AI actually does.
Male rabbits can't form a new rabbit without female rabbits.
So a female rabbit is part of the right conditions. Next.
The rock is just as self-describing; scan the rock see what its made of and that is the information required by a suitable 3rd party contraption to create a new rock.
No. The chemical compound is not the rock. You also have to scan in the processes by which the rock was formed. And rocks don't actually have a means to sustain their non-existent information patterns anyway.
I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW
You mean the "there's no need to explain what doesn't exist" model? I think you are mistaken.
I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them.
Then let's speak of these models which actually accurately model current and future climate and stop wasting our time with those that don't.
What if the sun, or something extra-solar, is causing global warming? Doesn't matter. We should do what we must (within reason) to reverse it, even if we're wrong about the true cause.
Nonsense. You now have a system that at best is much harder to control with human action than expected. The solutions that work for a system strongly controlled by human action fail when those conditions no longer hold.
Nor is there such a compelling reason to do anything about the global warming. A good portion of the environmentalism argument is that global warming is human-induced and hence, should be reversed as an artificial imposition on the world. If it is not human-induced, then the moral compulsion is no longer there.
You might disagree that it's a good plan (and I do), but at least it's something.
Doing nothing (well, continuing climate research, but not acting on it) is also doing something. You have to show that your something is better than nothing.
Right. Playing with your gun teaches the ability to resist road rage. Are you even listening to yourself?
Try it. Then sound off. B-)
Oh yea? How? If doctors aren't blinded when they diagnose measles or choose to call for the lab test, how do you distinguish their bias from vaccine effectiveness?
"IF". What's the point of your argument? If doctors' bias really is that relevant and I doubt it is, then use the allegedly less biased lab test for testing your hypothesis.
The phrase "life form" is not a synonym for "being alive".
And "non sequitur" is not a synonym for "relevant". As I already noted, the processes by which the rabbit stays alive also insure that the information which encoded the rabbit persists for some time in the environment. Just because the life form that is a rabbit doesn't endure as long in a population of purely male rabbits doesn't make it any less a life form.
From Merriam-Webster: life-form - the body form that characterizes a kind of organism (as a species) at maturity; also : a kind of organism.
That only makes sense, if you have clearly defined concepts of "species", "maturity", etc. We're outside of the narrow scope where that definition makes sense. Hence, the attempt to redefine terms like "life form" in ways that make sense, even when you aren't speaking of the narrow sense of Earth-like organisms with the sorts of characteristics of our more common life forms.
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
