Installing Windows of any kind is a security risk that can lead to death, on this much I agree with the AI. I still believe anyo e should be allowed to do it though.

I am 100% pro Israel, against Islam, against Hamas, there is no such thing as Palestine. People should be able to fuck whoever, if it is consenting adults.

Government power is evil in itself. Taxes are theft, laissez faire capitalism is the best economic system for long term benefits.

Climate change is real. Immigration is fine as long as there are no welfare systems based on taxes. ruzzians should be contained by a mote with alligators and lasers.

Feminism, welfare systems, urbanization is causing the declining birth rates, this cannot be easily reversed, we will suffer because of this more than from the changing climate as a species.

People must be able to own any weapon systema they can afford. Governments must be decentralized, presidents shouldn't have more power than city mayors. Democracy fails hard because of power monopolization. Power must be decentralized. Property taxes, death taxes, income taxes, capital gains, dividends must never be taxed.

Schools, health care, infrastructure, everything must be private, paid for by selling bonds. Governments must charge fees for use, not rely on taxes. Fees must be directly paying for services rendered, never used for things other than the services rendered.

Money is what the market decides, most of the time markets decide that gold is money. Governments must never be allowed to print money, they may coun it for a fee.

Trade must always be free of all and any government involvement.

etc.etc. I know how this will be moded, but that is the point of this thread.

I forgot Blue-ray was even a thing.

The only reason I can't insult the paper more is because of the weakness of my quantum mechanics knowledge. But from the perspective of computer science, the paper is weak and disappointing.

It's all neurons, baby. All neurons.

"Nothing in our math that would generate consciousness?" Wait till you find out there's nothing in any of our cosmological models that would generate the Internal Revenue Service.

Yes. Barely paraphrased.

This article is really an example of the God of the gaps argument, or perhaps the argument from incredulity fallacy, which basically boils down to "science doesn't have an answer for it, so there must be some superlative, transcendent explanation." The possibility that science might later obtain such an answer is discounted.

The authors are victims of Dunning–Kruger: despite their abundance of academic qualifications, they can't even fathom that might be committing a debunked theological trope (and numerous fallacies besides), as they believe they have nothing to learn from those icky, sloppy, backward soft-humanities people from a century and a half ago—yet they are so supreme in their own self-righteousness as shepherds of the True Wisdom of Physics that they feel no hesitation at all to arrogate for their discipline anything that others have failed to conquer.

Yes, it is tradition for shitty philosophers to say "humans can do X, but computers can't do X," even though a rigorous definition of "doing X" has never been provided and may never be possible.

We don't really have a concrete functional definition of what it means for a human to know/understand something (much less "apprehend" it), but the current thinking from AI researchers is almost certainly that it is within reach of a sufficiently powerful LLM with a robust memory mechanism and the ability to make online batch updates. So hearing this No-True-Scotsman crap that boils down to "universe contains X but computers cannot contain X," where X = "read Douglas Hoffstadter while smoking a pipe and sounding, like, deep, man" is absolutely a fossil from ten or twenty years ago.

I realize we're shitting on a paper with four PhDs and a Nobel prize behind it, but come on, guys. If you're going to wander into religious studies, do your homework first.

Then consciousness is the subjective experience of homeostasis—not a quantum effect. That particular pool is too shallow to yield any other interesting fruit.

Yes, that is the problem with the paper in question—it is a giant emesis of jargon meant to bewilder and subjugate peer reviewers so it can smuggle in its narcissistic, premodern slop about consciousness (and therefore observation) being a fundamental physical property rather than an emergent one (which is unrelated to the physical interactions that we euphemistically and somewhat problematically call observation).

Hey, hey. We're picking on the quantum consciousness crackpots in this thread. Go do your No-True-Scotsman dick-measuring somewhere else.

Really more of a demonstration of the weirdness of entangled photons than anything else; the operant mechanism is still a physical interaction, not some grant-farming pseudo-empiricist checking in on the results.

All of these physical phenomena would still occur as they do even if there were no stinking apes in the entire goddamn universe to gawk at them.

It's worth mentioning that a drill will quickly open most of these locks, with less skill required than a lock picker.

So it does give them control.

That's what Google as a corporation wants to do eventually. Individual developers do not.

The sad thing is you don't even realize that this sentence you wrote is a contradiction. You're a fanboy.