She'll be right mate!

I said this:

You responded by saying rocks can think. Strong example of cognitive bias.

You're wrong here, and you refuse to cure your ignorance.

ok look. "Thinking" is defined with extreme mathematical rigor. It's not completely defined, but we can definitely rule some things out.

Of course, I don't have time to explain all the math here, so as an example I used the fact that rocks don't think. However, some people like you idiotically tried to argue that rocks do think. You are a moron! Why are you even arguing that??? Get off the internet for a while.

This isn't some kind of 'our neutrino observatory is bigger than your neutrino observatory' contest.

That's exactly what it is. When your science depends on a big expensive piece of hardware that most or (best) nobody else has, that's what you tend to talk about. Especially in press releases and grant applications.

Neural networks generally don't extrapolate, they interpolate

You could test that if someone were willing to define what they mean by "generally" I suppose. I think it's fairly safe to say that they work best when they're interpolating, like any model, but you can certainly ask them to extrapolate as well.

I thought not. Your "main point" is based on two logical fallacies. You might be familiar with the saying "two wrongs don't make a right." Your "reply" was a third.

It was based on solving a maths equation.

True.

There's a big and very obvious difference between "scientific research" and "mathematics".

Ehhhhh

Nobody was out there putting clocks on satellites

Technically true, but they were definitely doing experiments. The inconsistencies in Maxwell's electrodynamics and previous physics were the hot topic of late 19th century physics. To the point where various people thought resolving them would put the finishing touches on physics. Even the popular account includes the Michealson-Morely experiment.

Einstein himself says in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (i.e. the special relativity paper):

It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two
cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. ...
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good.

There were a whole bunch of relevant experiments. Lorentz reviews many of them in "On the influence of the earth's motion on luminiferous phenomena”, published in 1886.

Anyway, the author's point is not that AI can't think because it can't find the consequences of equations. Regular old numerical simulations and logic engines are pretty good at that, no AI required. His point is that AI can't think because it cannot generate ideas out of thin air, presumably the "pure reason" of ancient greek philosophy, and he uses Einstein as an example.

And as a supporting argument he used a fallacy. That's my point.

Running underground cables isn't the panacea many think it is, however. On my shelf in the office, I have a fulgurite, which in this case is a lump of melted metal from a power line that was underground and struck by lightning. It's cool looking, kinda like an eagle's claw.

Meanwhile, in the newer section of my neighborhood, they got rid of the unsightly power lines in our back yards and replaced them with breakout boxes and transformers in the front yards. The phone ones are especially beautiful, tilting over, rusting away, and who wouldn't want a nice concrete transformer pad right there in the front yard? The aesthetics aspect was oversold, and when there is a lightning strike, the whole front of the yard is often dug up to find the damaged spot - it isn't always obvious.

Read the book, your degree program failed you.

After listening to some 911 calls, I wonder how the AI system handles panicked calls. Sometimes the human operator has to do some serious calming of the caller to get anything intelligible out of the person making the call.

Not to stand up for the UK - which seems to be attempting to emulate 1984, just 40 years too late - but trying to show Russia and China as shining beacons of free speech isn't a very good comparison. Vladimir doesn't always arrest people who dare to speak, sometimes they just fall out of windows onto the street. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

I take it that death for saying the wrong thing isn't what you advocate for?

But to the topic at hand, a 911 system based on AI instead of actual intelligence AKA a human deciding what the problem is and responding correctly - well that AI system is a bucket of suck. It is the opposite of what those systems are supposed to do. People will die.

I don't think UK qualifies as a Western Democracy anymore.

It's historically a representative democracy, but the representation has been corrupted by outside influence, including political parties,
and has thus fallen to despotism.

Apple forces nothing on me, and file conversion is a fact of life for professionals. If it is some sort of terrible imposition to you, copying the files in the first place is too much trouble, no matter the platform. It is as "difficult" as opening the program, control-A, then click okay.

You have a terminal case of being argumentative and the need to somehow be right. This weird discussion has lost any point other than to watch you squirm trying to be right, and entertain us. And your anal sex inclusion in the discussion is level 1000 creepy.