Use cash - it's like bitcoin but it can't be tracked across the Internet.
Of course, if you take cash from some people and then give it to other people, well then you must be a criminal.
I was gonna say set your preferences to -5 AC posts, but I can't find the setting at the moment - did they get rid of it for beta? Somebody probably can post the link to the scoring prefs.
explain to my poor retard self how it has not passed
By definition, one in three means it failed to convince the average layman, when it gets better that one in two I will give it a pass.
Personally I think it's achievable today but as much as I admire Turing it's entirely irrelevant to the question of intelligence. It's mostly philosophical masterbation by people who misunderstand the modern definition of intelligent behaviour. For example I can't get a sensible reply when asking an octopus about it's garden but there is no denying it's a remarkably intelligent creature.
So now anything we understand is not intelligence?
I heard a great anecdote about this from an MIT proffessor on youtube. Back in the 80's the professor developed an AI program that could translate equations into the handful of standard forms required by calculus and solve them. A student heard about this and went calling to see the program in action. The professor spent an hour explaining the algorithm, when the student finally understood he exclaimed, "That's not intelligent, it's doing calculus the same way I do".
It could be argued that neither the student nor the computer were intelligent since they were simply following rules, but if that's the case the only those handful of mathematicians who discovered the standard form are intelligent. It should also be noted that since that time computers routinely discover previously unknown mathematical truths by brute force extrapolation of the basic axioms of mathematics, however none of them have been particularly useful for humans.
When people dispute the existence of AI what they are really disputing is the existence of artificial consciousness, we simply don't know if a computer operating a complex algorithm is conscious and quite frankly it's irrelevant to the question of intelligence. For example most people who have studied ants agree an ants nest displays highly intelligent behaviour, they have evolved a more efficient and generally better optimised solution to the travelling salesman problem than human mathematics (or intuition) can provide, yet few (if any) people would argue that an ant or it's nest is a conscious being.
Not according to HR.
We're already hiring for somebody with 5-10 years of Dart programming experience. HR says we have to.
Yeah. But they are really good at spectacular failure, and undermining long-term success prospects through want for cooperation...
Too bad they didn't feed the sharks consservtionist[sic] brains.
Too bad you feed your brain with fear rather than facts.
Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies
Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.
I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?
I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".
"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments