I don't care if you respect my education or not.
Great! Then why do you give two shits about my opinion?
How did you decide which schools take legacies?
I don't. The schools themselves do that.
If you want me to respect your education, then don't get it from a school where they graduate students just because their parents/grandparents etc... gave the school a bunch of money.
Except you are entirely missing the point. The medical subject is irrelevant when saying what's being transplanted. By convention, what is being transplanted where is determined entirely from the surgeon's point of view, not the subject's. And that convention says that it's the smaller part which is being transplanted to the larger part.
What the functions of the parts being transplanted are, or their relative importance to the subject, is utterly irrelevant in terms of which is the subject and which is the object (of the transplant).
I'm not saying I agree with the convention, but it is what it is.
You're not wrong, but that's not the point I was making.
The determination of what is being transplanted is made from the surgeon's point of view, not the subject's. And from the surgeon's point of view, what's being transplanted is whichever part is smaller
Like if you put your old battery in a new car, you've replaced the battery in your new car. You wouldn't say you've replaced your old battery's car.
If all of the people coming out of your school have diplomas, but no clue
This is precisely the reason I just toss any application from someone who went to a school that takes legacies...
The convention is that it's the smaller part which is being transplanted, not the larger.
So technically "head transplant" is accurate, if somewhat misleading for the layperson.
How is excluding someone from a job based solely on gender not sexism?
That's easy, it's down to the current attempt to redefine "sexism" to mean ONLY "systemic sexism" or "discrimination + oppression". Therefore by that definition it's IMPOSSIBLE to be sexist against men, since they hold the "power" and aren't "oppressed".
Companies exist to produce profits
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?
... it is still largely a talent based industry...
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.
No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI...
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?
Well, no, they don't, but I'll agree that some do.
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?
Only by AI researchers.
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.