That's idiotic. Companies most certainly DO NOT exist "to produce profits".

Companies exist to make products or provide services. Profits are a side-effect that act as an incentive for people to form companies to provide products or services. The raison d'etre of a company is to PRODUCE something - the profits from efficient overproduction are just encouragement for those with the means to produce something of value to the rest of us.

The fact that there are people like you who have lost sight of the real reason why companies exist - to provide products or services - and think they exist solely to line the pockets of the rich - is the major travesty of modern capitalism. It's the rot at the core.

Aren't the atmospheres on gas giants so thick and dense that we could make "Cloud Cities" that float on top of the thickest/densest parts of the atmosphere?

Of course, you are aware that the concept of "talent" is utter bullshit, right?

Yes, people have differences in "natural ability" but that accounts for less than 1% of the variability in performance. The vast majority of differences in performance are accounted for by practice, training and experience.

You realize you just contradicted yourself right? If your definition of AI is correct, then what you are researching doesn't count as AI because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you are NOT an AI researcher, and there is no "AI field" because there's no AI to study.

At best that would make you a proto- or pseudo- AI researcher.

On the other hand, if my definition is correct, then you can actually be called an AI researcher, but doing so proves my initial point. Just the fact that you call yourself an AI researcher belies the fact that you don't even have the conviction of your own beliefs.

I will agree there are a small number of people who research AI - but only consider "strong AI" to be true AI - however they're a pretty small minority and they qualify what they mean by stressing the true or strong bit in order not to confuse the other AI researchers as to what they're talking about.

P.S. did you have any posters, papers or talks at AAAI 2014? Perhaps I saw some of your stuff. What area are you working on?

LOL - true

I am sorry, but you are wrong. I was at the AAAI conference this year, and there were thousands of AI researchers there working on some pretty amazing stuff, but not one of the people I talked to was like "oh, yeah, we're not doing *real* AI, we're just faking it"

Whether you like it or not, things like neural networks, genetic algorithms, deep learning, data mining, decision trees, fuzzy logic etc... are ALL real AI. Simply because it doesn't fit your Hollywood and TV induced concept of what AI is, doesn't make them any less AI. To call them something else would be asinine, and basically amounts to telling a whole field of research that they aren't doing what they think they're doing. Do you also think that cars explode on impact?

What you are talking about is called "strong AI" or "artificial general intelligence" (AGI) - which is an entire subfield of AI.

You're the kind of person that would tell a pilot that they're not REALLY flying because they're strapped into a vehicle, and not outside in the air buck naked and flapping their arms, aren't you?

Not true. While I disagree with your "ask a human on the street" approach, if you DID ask a human on the street whether Deep Blue or Watson were AI, they would say "yes" because they've been reported in the media as being so.

I beg to differ:

http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

Those are the same thing.

The entire field of AI disagrees with you.
What you really mean is it's not AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) if it isn't self-aware.
AI is already here, and it's all around us: in your washing machine, in your dishwasher, in longshoreman cranes, in your car, in Google, in Facebook etc...
Both Deep Blue and Watson were essentially "just a look-up program" yet they are considered actual AI, just not the self-aware, generally intelligent kind.

I, for one, am *shocked*. The CIA *lied*?!?

Shocked, I tell you.

The difference being that the ECoG system appears to simply lay the electrode mesh on top of your cortex, traditional direct neural links involve actually puncturing and penetrating neural tissue with many tiny pins.

Unless we're somehow going to regulate laser pointers like guns, it would be far more effective
LOL - yeah, because "gun regulation" in the US has proven *SO* effective at reducing gun crimes! Training an army of ninja squirrels to steal laser pointers from kids would be cheaper and more effective...

It's all THREE???

Wow. Just... wow. I had no idea.

ALL climatologists are idiots who don't know about the scientific method, the whole thing is being covered up by some pseudo-religious apocalyptic cult AND "Big Green" has more money than "Big Oil"?

Jesus H. Christ! We have to do something! We have to tell someone! This is scary HUGE!!!

Why hasn't this gotten out yet? Who's got a stranglehold on this? We need to stop them ASAP.

Wait, what was that click, are they listening to this?

Nevermind, I have NO idea what you're talking about, this AGW thing is *totes* real! (*wink* *wink*)

Ok, I give. You've clearly got this all figured out, climatology is obviously pseudoscience.

I'm curious though, since you've got better reasoning skills and insight than all the climatologists, how did they do it?

How did they get all the climatologists to think they're doing science when they're not, and to come to the consensus that AGW is real? I mean manipulating an entire field of academia is some pretty scary, nex level shit.

Are all climatologists just idiots? Is it some kind of conspiracy? Is it because "Big Green" is simply out-spending "Big Oil" to buy scientists' favour?

You have to help me out here, without your brilliant insights and superior reasoning, I don't think I'll be able to figure it out on my own - and I need to know! The uncertainty is frightening.