Of course the Commander Data character could think. Behaviourally, he demonstrated it all the time, comprehending his surroundings, forming goals, predicting outcomes, acting, assessing etc to meet those goals.

The really fake part was how Cmdr Data was unable to act as if he were emotionally affected by the situations he found himself in.
Put it this way: If you can make artificial intelligence of the level of a Cmdr Data, you can make artificial affect as well.

Affective processing (attachment of emotional tone and import to conceptualized aspects of context, in perception, memory, and thought) is almost certainly a necessary reasoning-prioritization mechanism, for an agent-housed artificial intelligence tasked with both its own survival, the welfare of team members, and general situation comprehension and handling.

There is never enough time to perceive all aspects of a context, to associate it with all possible related memories, and to pursue all possible hypotheses and plans related to it and to what to do next. You need selection of topic and aspect to focus perception on and to think about, dredge up, and plan about. Emotion-tagging and emotion-tagged associative organization of memory storage, provide such prioritization. Absolutely necessary to high-functioning and focussed functioning in complex evolving contexts. You can't even turn a context into a "situation model" until you've emotion/relevance prioritized the aspects to the perceivable context.

If you want to be thought of as knowledgeable on a subject like this, you might consider learning the difference between silicone and silicon.

Also, for the record, your distinction between AI and MI is BS. There have been many varieties of AI research, some inspired more by ideas about human brain function or human cognition, and some inspired less directly by those and more focussed on best exploiting computer-of-the-day capabilities.

All attempts which are not purely theoretical are implemented, and have since day 1 been implemented, in computing machines (which, needless to say, are artificial), so you are splitting hairs.

Whether the advanced computing research specialization of the day gets called by its proponent part of AI or not has nothing to do with fundamental distinctions, and more to do with funding fads and buzzwords-du-jour.

The thing with complaining about government, see, is that it's equivalent to volunteering (to become part of a better government, or define and implement a better government system.)

Oh, you don't want any government?

Best of luck with that. Say hi to your new gang leader overlord (Mr. Ben Dover), and mind you stay on his good side.

A turing test is testing such human experience aspects as:
- aculturation (what the person has been taught through education and socialization during their whole life up to that point)
- bias in expression based on typical human likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances

Tarzan / wolf-boy would probably fail the Turing test based on the first factor. Might be very intelligent though.
Second aspect is just characteristic of a particular type of being that makes use of intelligence. Intelligent aliens would also have likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances, simply based on also being self-interested "keep it together" beings, but the specifics might be very different, and would cause a fail of TT.

These experiential and situational and specific-agent-needs-desires-avoidances aspects have very little to do with the essence of intelligence.
General intelligence is probably better assessed through specific carefully designed tests designed to assess:
1) Concept learning, procedure learning capability in arbitrarily general contexts
2) Prediction of situation outcomes with novelty in situation presentations.
3) Ability to answer questions or take actions that show comprehension of essential / invariant aspects of situations, after opportunity to learn similar situations through either direct sensory input or linguistic instruction.

Oh shit!

Who's there?

> Iran

Iran who?

> Iran away.

> Knock knock

Who's there?

>Iran

Iran who?

>Iran for office but as soon as I got there they locked the door and threw away the key.

is perfectly ambiguous sarcasm/non-sarcasm, for which a tag is really needed.

love the unbalanced sarcasm tag.

Plus there's the wee matter of the halting problem, where it's not possible in general to prove whether a program will output something, never mind to prove what it will output.

Never mind the problem of bugs in the logic of your program correctness proof.

I prefer to just issue a disclaimer, for example:
Imagine this in all caps:

The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee of this software agrees with the proposition that software is too complex to be warranteed for safety or fitness for use or purpose or sale.
The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee agrees that all non-trivial software is likely to have undetected bugs and unknown consequences of known bugs.
The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee waives the right to hold the software developer or vendor/lessor/licensor or operator liable for the presence or consequences of any software bug or behavior, known or unknown.
Having this understanding of the nature of software, the user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee accepts and uses the software as is and assumes all risk and liability for its use, and agrees to waive all claims upon the software developer and/or vendor/lessor/licensor or operator for damages due in whole or in part to failure or dangerous or damaging behavior of the software.

not so good for your hunting buddies.

(or bed partner for that matter.)

Don't shoot til you see the golds of their eyes.

When analyzing a still picture/scene, your eye moves its high resolution central area of its camera around the low level visual features of the image. Thus the image is processed over time as many different images.
The images in that time sequence occur at slightly different locations of the visual light-sensor array (visual field) and at slightly different angles and each image has considerably different pixel resolution trained on each part of the scene.

So that would still almost certainly give some robustness against these artifacts (unlucky particular images) being able to fool the system.

Time and motion are essential in disambiguating 3D/4D world with 2D imaging.

Also, I would guess that having learning algorithms that preferentially try to encode a wide diversity of different kinds of low level features would also protect against being able to be fooled, even by a single image, but particularly over a sequence of similar but not identical images of the same subject.

You evidently have no idea what a bacterial growth curve with finite resources is.

http://textbookofbacteriology....

An electric car is a much simpler system than an internal combustion car.
It has many fewer different parts.

If you applied the economy of scale cost reduction curve that happened with the expansion of regular vehicle sales volume to EVs, you should be able to sell them for less than regular cars.

All that's missing is the courage and vision to make the leap (oh, or a carbon tax, to provide a boot in the pants to the manufacturers that don't do the courage or vision thing.)

The real reason they don't want to sell them is there will be next to no money for the manufacturer and dealers in the maintenance lifecycle of EVs.

with a moron like that in charge.
enough said.

As long as we realize that there's well over 1000x more money backing the "fossil fuels don't cause global warming" shills as those, if any, promoting the scientific view.

And that's only direct revenues to fossil fuel industry, compared to scientific climate research funding. It doesn't even include the monetary value of industries currently optimized to depend heavily on fossil fuel.
Essentially, those with a stake in 2/3 of all kinds of economic activity have an incentive to lie and say everything is fine.

Those with most credibility are those who speak AGAINST their own short term interest. I benefit from the fossil fuel economy, I hypocritically use the products of it, but I still insist that we have to suck it up and change it radically starting yesterday. I'll take what disadvantage comes, because I know our current path is incredibly dumb, incredibly dangerous, an incredibly selfish FU to all future generations. It's so indefensible that people just deny it like it was a cancer diagnosis. LA LA LA LA can't hear you. My whole lifestyle is based on a completely indefensible way of doing things? Don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA.