The difference is that you aren't specifically going to be facing a set of rules that are controlled by a script. That is not what Artificial Intelligence is, in actual fact.

Yes, you will be facing a computer program but that program will essentially be granted the capability to perform withing the operating envelope of the airframe and weapons loadout. Any innovation you as a human can achieve, can also be achieved by a true AI. This is what true AI is after all. I write programs called scripts for basic network and systems support and administration. My scripts are limited by what I tell them to do. An AI could assess the situation, determine the best response and process the commands necessary to do my job without my direct intervention.

The difference is more then mere semantics. It is an exponential increase in capability. Far too often, Hollywood movies have hammered home a point that humans can always outsmart computers. And yes, today we can always THINK better then computers. This is because a normal computer doesn't think. But once that capability exists (Artificial Intelligence) that computer can write programs itself, do it in milliseconds, and implement that code all in the time it takes the above average human response to even recognize that a new problem exists.

The article specifically is a report that this about to be tested for the first time.

Developers are constantly tuning game "AI" such that human players can remain competitive. Thus there are almost always various levels in the game to establish "hardness".

If we ever find ourselves pitted against a weapons platform that is computer controlled and has no artificial limits set, I fear we as combatants would find ourselves outmatched and outclassed, every time.

This is a technological advancement that IS going to happen. So, in that regard, I would much rather see that advancement aimed at our foes, such as they are, then at us or an ally.

I'm paraphrasing here but it goes something like this...

If you want to domesticate a herd of wild hogs, you begin by scattering corn on the ground. After a few weeks of this, you come in and put up one side of a square pen. Again, you let the hogs get used to the fence. It can't harm them, it's just one side. Then, a few weeks later, you put up another section. This continues until you have the entire fence created. The last step is to rush in and close the gate before the panic sets in.

So many objections have been made in recent years against the "slippery slope" argument. However, those objections rarely can provide definitive proof that such an argument can't be valid. To deny that such a thing as you illustrate in your post isn't possible isn't logical.

Human nature is such that any plan, implemented in stages over the course of generations is likely to succeed. It doesn't matter if that plan is for the good of society as a whole or good for the masters of a society. If that plan is conducted in stages and with patience, it is hard to convince the herd to stampede.

Zoom won't encrypt communications between users of the free version because they want to make money and encryption is a compelling additional feature. The marketing pitch is that you won't be protected from police if you go the free route. This is a good business strategy and nothing more.

A problem with that argument is that if you own the method of distributing (the town square) what you consider to be the "civilized" argument then any "barbarian" that opposes your opinion can find no place in your town square.

If you own the method of distribution of information, you get to decide what information gets distributed. Not being willing to acknowledge that fact is disingenuous at best.

Say what you will about the fairness of this fact.

I don't do much in the stock market but I definitely took advantage of the drop in price. And since it contributed in triggering another drop in stock prices overall, I didn't let complaining about the impact on the market distract me from getting back in the market.

One man's broken egg is another man's omelet. Which is to say, I didn't start the fire but don't get mad at me if I roast some marshmallows.

If you believe that Trump suggested that you should inject bleach or disinfectant you clearly didn't listen to what he actually said but instead got your information from some other source. And if you then decided to follow the advice you think you received, you are in fact, that stupid.

And no, I don't think I need to bother posting links to the video that is so easily found by a simple search.

Good god damn, you idiots. 90% of the shit that man says is a mumbled bowl of nonsense but at least have enough respect for yourself to pin blame on him for the real crazy shit he says.

There is a chance that cases where there were multiple contributing causes of death (co-morbidity) they were separately counted in each of those groups. As an example. A person with COPD contracts Covid-19 and subsequently dies. There are some instances where that patient was counted under COPD and Covid-19. This did not happen in large numbers but it did happen. I am searching for the link to the report I read but this was several weeks past and I didn't make a copy of the link at the time.

This may be one of several issues that resulted in a rise in over-all death counts.

Additionally, the US NIH and CDC have both stated publicly that if a patient with co-morbidity factors that include Covid-19 died, they were definitely counted as part of the Covid-19 pool of reported deaths. So if someone with heart disease has a massive heart attack and dies, the cause of death was still listed as the virus. This also has had the added effect of artificially raising the total morbidity rates for the pandemic.

Yeah, because pretty much every OS has those old archived drivers baked in now.

The more they stay the same. Except, nothing really has changed here in the last 20+ years. Although AMD occasionally managed to outperform Intel for periods of time, Intel would continue to claim the lion's share of years at the top of the list. And AMD was always the value leader.

I'm glad to see that as a company, AMD is performing better financially. Intel needs a strong competitor to keep them on the right innovation track. But Intel has way too much depth in their bench to allow AMD a chance to dominate them like Intel has been able to dominate AMD for decades. Can you imagine how much we'd be paying for CPU and other processor tech if AMD had failed?

I would agree with almost everything you say except for the isolationist claim. Rejecting globalization in some regards does not equal isolation. Many citizens of the US believe we have gone too far in the direction of globalization and one of the reasons for Trumps popularity is his accomplishments thus far in pulling the US back a bit. The US is not nor will it ever be an isolationist nation like it was prior to WWII. But we will also likely resist any continued efforts to become part of a EU like member state.

As far as cutting funding is concerned, an argument can be made that a super majority of the funding going to most of the world's multi-national organizations comes from the US. And it is prudent for the US Government to occasionally put the other members in check to make sure our fair interests are at least being considered.

And finally there are the moral considerations. When the UN puts countries like Iran and N. Korea on human rights councils and obvious shills like the current head of the WHO in charge, it not only is prudent to try to change the course, it becomes crucial for long-term survival.

Considering that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives more funding to the WHO than China, by a huge amount perhaps Chinese influence won't really change all that much.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda...