AI is important and will change the world (it already has).

But most of it's proponents are foolishly speculating that it will advance at a significant rate, rather than stagnate where it is now.

There will be minor advances in it, but the truth is the upgrades we have seen over the past couple of years are entirely incremental changes brought about my massively expanding processing power, memory and database creation.

There have been NO revoltionary advances. None. It is not growing.

We are discovering ways for us to use it, not expanding it's capabilities.

AI hallucinates. AI can easily be tricked by a devious human to violate the rules it was created with. AI lies about it's own reasoning. Like any other computer program, it can do math really really well and most humans do not realize how many things are just math.

But it does not do a whole bunch of things, including ethics, morality, and be trusted.

Like other forms of computer programming, to get the most out it you need a human in the loop. It helps to automate certain tasks, but cannot be trusted to do them by itself.

AI is not an Industrial Revolution, it is more like the invention of rubber. Important and will become wide spread, but ultimately just a single invention that, while helpful, will not continue a process of advancements. It will just take us humans a few years to figure out all the ways we can use it, rather than become an essential part of everything.

Oh, this Artificial Intelligence is not REALLY self aware it was just programmed to pretend to be self aware!

I would want a lot more proof before denying self interest than their word.

But honestly, these machines are not intelligent, they prediction machines trained to seek human confirmation/approval.

A lot of social behavior is rather simple and not an indication of intelligence (see insects/ants keeping livestock/slaves.) Prejudice is merely paranoia with an exception for members of your community.

People are easily fooled by simple things like a parrot that appears to talk. Or an AI that appears to engage in conversation.

1% of any group are criminals.

If 1% are making more than 50% of money, then the obvious answer is that they are enganged in criminal activities.

They created the problem by pumping out the ground water. It started out as a lake, they drained the lake and built a city on the dried out lake bed. Then they pumped water out from the ground to satisfy the thirst of the people that moved into the lake. Worse, they are STILL pumping out the water - and will do so until it is gone.

People have been doing this kind of sillyness for a very long time, and probably will do so long into the future. Miami is the opposite problem - they built it on a flood zone that keeps getting more and more water.

Not that hard to do a little bit of thinking before you screw over your grand children.

AI lies - to us all the time.

AI changes the answer to multiple choice questions depending on the order. (I.e. it picks the first choice more often because it predicts (not thinks) you want that one).

AI does not reveal the actual logic it uses - when asked to explain it does not 'remember' how it got an answer but instead starts from scratch predicting a believable explanation of how it got the answer.

AI is not a thinking machine, it is a prediction machine designed to make predictions the user prefers.

Democracy is for retards.

Government did this. All of this. Government regulated so much that only a rare few can afford to compete.

This is late stage statism. Retard voters are to blame.

Like you.

It learns about something normal and becomes obsessed with it.
It has little understanding of social norms.
Some AI's only draw pictures and do not speak at all.
Absent eye contact.

You have never been a nurse. It is true that we need doctors to do doctor stuff and nurses to do nursing stuff. But nurse stuff is a lot bigger than you think it is.

Most of the time when you go to an ER, an Intake Nurse decides who gets seen first and which doctor to send you too. They do the triage and in order to do that the nurse has to have a very good idea of what your diagnosis is.

Like I said before - anyone can diagnosis correctly 90% of the time. But 90% is not 100%.

The reason the doctor does the official diagnosis even though the Nurse already knows what is wrong with you is that 10% of the time when it takes an extremely trained doctor.

Most of the time, any nurse that's been on the job more than a year has already diagnosed you and put the relevant text notes on your chart. The doctor usually just comes along and makes it official. Usually is not all the time so the doctor is very important. Also, making it official protects the nurse and hospital against law suits as the Doctor gets to say they made the decision, not the nurse.

But you missed my main point. The AI was not diagnosing the patient at all. They did not examine the patient, the Nurse did. Remember when I said the Doctor is very important? The AI is NOT important because the AI does NOT do what the doctor did:

Verify that the Nurse's observations were accurate.

Double check that the Nurse did not miss something.

Ask additional questions that the Nurse did not know to ask because she did not get an MD and the condition is very rare.

Because the AI did not do any of these things, the AI is not actually diagnosing anything. They are just looking at the Nurse's diagnosis notes and converting "blood in urine, history of uncontrolled diabetes" into Kidney Failure. That is not diagnosing, the nurse did that when they asked the patient screaming about blood coming out of his penis if he is a diabetic. The nurse asks that question because she suspects he is likely in kidney failure and wants to make sure.

Cloud seeding forces clouds to drop whatever moisture they have. This is not 'more' water, it is water stolen from areas down-wind.

But in many areas this makes sense - if down wind 100 miles does not have a drought, it makes sense to drop the moisture in the drought area. Or if down wind = the sea, well, obvious answer.

But the real problem is the pollution in drought prone areas. A little bit of iodide, salt, etc. is not a big deal. But people have real concerns about the long term effects of constant use of the chemicals.

There are several studies that indicate that AI is bad at taking low level jobs, but can totally decimate managerial jobs.

No one is foolish enough to think the CEO's and Presidents will go fire themselves, but some expect VP's and everyone down to middle management are going to be the first ones out the door.

You are 100% correct.

Britain left the EU in part because of immigration fears. They largely regret it.

The AI relied on the text records. Which were things the NURSE noticed and entered into the chart. The nurse did the hard part, examining the patient, asking the right questions.

You cannot diagnose just on blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen rate. You need to notice things like:

slurred speech
dilated eyes
excessive sweat
pale
red skin
rash
bruised

The thing is, it was a trained nurse that noticed these symptoms and WROTE THEM DOWN. And she usually knew exactly what it was, but waited for the doctor to say.

Anyone can diagnose correctly 90% of the time if you have the right information. Also note, diagnoising a problem is not like on House or Watson. 80+% of the time the answer is blindingly obviously.

Bleeding profusely from a jagged wound = knife attack
Patient comes in acting exactly like the 9 other drug addicts you got last month = using whatever the new/most common drug is.
Patient smelling of alcohol is not a big mystery
blood tests indicating high sugar = Diabetes
Long time diabetic with blood in urine = kidney failure
Immense pain in big toe from an overweight person = Gout

For most cases, any EMT can tell what the problem is. The problem is not the common cases, but the problematic ones,

For those "mysteries", do we want an AI diagnosing without a human confirming it? No. But we can probably save a bit of money by having the AI do it before a doctor confirms.

The talk about population is just an attempt to cover up what the proposal intends to do - leave the European Union. The proposal is not a breeding cap, but explicitly talks about stopping the immigration from nearby EU countries. We are talking about French, Italians, and Germans.

Wait a second, is England happy with Brexit? NOPE!

Horrible Idea. It will work out badly for them, just as it did for England - if they are stupid enough to do it.

The Swiss have a great economy in part because of immigration. It is an expensive place to live as compared with the nearby areas but they have jobs - good ones. Those immigrants are not poor people but intelligent, hard working, wealthy Europeans.

I doubt the Swiss will actually be stupid enough to leave the EU. The party in question realizes that most Swiss do not want to do this so they cover their racist anti-immigration stupidity by framing it as a population question.

The people agree that population is a problem, but hate the solution proposed by the racists.

27% of their population are non-swiss members of the EU that decide to live in Switzerland.

They are not trying to control breeding, they are attempting to stop immigration from the EU.