Forgot your password?

Comment: it was in my original post (Score 2) 80

No fan of the Republicans here, but enforcement is the Executive Branch's bailiwick. :/

yeah...I addressed your point, directly...from the post you responded to:

> enforcement: GOP excuse: "can' money to do it...we got us a budget crisis b/c of government spending"

the GOP controls the budget...exec branch included...this is the end of the discussion

Comment: because: Republicans (Score 3, Insightful) 80

"why not go after the worst offenders?"

"go after" means the Federal Government to **enforce** laws or pass new ones

Republicans block every effort to pass new Net Neutrality laws or enforce currenet ones

> enforcement: GOP excuse: "can' money to do it...we got us a budget crisis b/c of government spending"
> pass new laws: GOP excuse: "can' laws are 'regulation' and that's bad for business and jobs"

So the answer to "why not go after..." is simply BECAUSE REPUBLICANS

if you must contradict my dual thesis...policy and laws exist and we enforce them...Republicans and Democrats control that...on both issues my thesis is that Democrats want to "go after verizon, comcast" and that Republicans oppose such actions by vote and by administrative must show Republicans who advocate for both Net Neutrality AND increased enforcement/regulation on big teleco's specifically if you want to have a discussion

Comment: proved my point (Score 1) 279

by globaljustin (#47428699) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

"Free will" is undefined, unexplained magic, and thus of no scientific meaning.


right...that means the reverse is true....***science cannont disprove the existence of "free will" either***

which agrees with ORIGINAL POST said the exact same's even in the title...

questions of "what is intelligence?" and "what is free will?" are **not answerable by science**

"free will" and "intelligence" are socially constructed words to describe observations of human behavior....they "exist" as concepts only in the context of human interaction

you can say "free will is an illusion" but that doesn't take away my ability to sue you in court if you violate my "free will" by drugging me and raping me

so I'm cannot disprove the existence of "free will"

Comment: pedantic response (Score 1) 132

you're trolling...but I want to respond for posterity as it is theoretically possible that someone could be misled by your response.


and you can take that money and exchange it for dollars **anywhere they exchange money**

you're attempt at finding fault in my conclusion is completely official monetary issuing body accepts BTC

again...when I can pay my taxes and mortgage with BTC it is "money" until then it is a hobby currency

Comment: science & computing not philosophy (Score 1) 279

by globaljustin (#47425243) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

another thing, you missed my point (which I put in bold text) completely

my point was that discussions of "what is intelligence?" ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC OR COMPUTING QUESTIONS

sure, investigating how the human brain works is science...

and trying to make a faster/better computer by applying that knowledge is science...

but arguing language and definitions of abstract concepts?

philosophy major's job

Comment: logical contradiction & you agree with me? (Score 1) 279

by globaljustin (#47425161) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

you criticize me for saying something, then tell me that the OP was right **for saying the same thing**

OP's point, which you're deliberately missing, is that whatever intelligence is, it is not an observer-relative thing which demands that the observer be unaware of the mechanism

that was MY point...

intelligence IS NOT OBSERVER RELATIVE...that's why the Turing Test and Lovelace Test are completely unusable and foolish as a test of acheiving "artificial intelligence"

because they can **move the goalposts**

you're agreeing with me, getting upmodded...but talking as if you have presented a counterpoint

Comment: all tautology & frankenstein (Score 1) 279

by globaljustin (#47425101) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

In particular, if one could hypothetically replace someone's brain with a computer and not know the difference then the computer must necessarily be intelligent, insofar as humans are intelligent

simply untrue...

why? your scenario is incomplete

what is the **context** of this test of the computer-brain hybrid person?

how long do i get to talk to them? can i spend all 24 hours of each day with them? I have many more questions about the complexity of the 'test' for this frankenstein

the whole notion that "if people think it is X then it is X" is a tautology...tell that to your philosophy friend

Comment: you can steal 'not-money' (Score 1) 132

article headline is stupid...

ruling that something can be stolen does not prove it is "money"

anything of value that can be owned can be stolen (in monetary terms)

"money" is a dumb word to use as a milestone

BTC's problem is that it is not accepted as payment for things like taxes, mortgage payments, car's not accepted's a hobby currency

when you can pay your mortgage or taxes with BTC then it is "money"

Comment: philosophical discussion only not science (Score 2, Interesting) 279

by globaljustin (#47422099) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

So if someone figures out how the brain works, and is about to describe its function, then people will no longer be intelligent? Intelligence is a characteristic of behavior. If it behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent. The underlying mechanism should be irrelevant.


you describe "behaviorism" which is a thoroughly discredited and reductive theory

the ***whole conversation*** is about ***the underlying mechanism***

the "Lovelace Test" is more rigorous, but how it will affect computing I cannot say, because the Turing Test itself is a time-wasting notion.

the problem: questions of "what is intelligence" are Philosophy 101 questions...not scientific or computing questions...and we hurt our industry when we overlap the two

just because we can prod a human to make them do something, or dose them with a chemical or whathaveyou, doesn't mean we have disproven the existence of "free will"

we will map every neural connection in the human brain soon, this doesn't mean all humans will become remote controlled techno-zombies

people take other's freedom by many means:
by gunpoint
emotional manipulation
through blackmail
too much alchohol
the Frey Effect
threats of loss of work

so learning how neurons work is just another potential addition to that list

the point: humans have free will and it can be subverted in many ways, this does not have any implications in computing

Comment: Kludge Me A River (Score 1) 580

by globaljustin (#47419047) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Tools are simpler and easier to use than ever

No, they aren't.

*some* HTML5 & CSS3, but those standards had to be developed *in opposition* to what the W3C wanted...which was, as GP pointed out...more of the same

"The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs. This Archaeology of Errors...

GP's only problem is that they assume that the "enormous stack of kluges" was not done with intention.

Take the HTML standard and the fight between the W3C & the WHATWG....the W3C wanted to the new standard to include bits that make it easier to track what users do and use DRM, and they stalled any attempt to change the standard

Only b/c of the WHATWG do we have HTML5/CSS3, and a functioning internet to even discuss this issue.

My point? GP is right...why?

**many coding problems are by design to make artificial scarcity**

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp