Or perhaps the author thinks that it's morally acceptable for illegals to send their children to public school?

Guys, this is really silly. As Godel has already demonstrated, it is impossible for a machine to meet the criteria of consciousness. "Artificial intelligence" is a chimerical idea and is not possible.

"Imitative intelligence" would be more accurate. A machine may be able to hold a facade of "intelligence," but any semblance of intelligence has been derived from its creators.

The claim that the machine "synthesized an argument" is misleading. Machines are not capable of a priori. The machine simply sorted information giving the appearance of a synthesized argument. The author projected this activity of synthesizing an argument onto the machine, but that is not what happened.

Then the author of the article made the incredible claim that the machine does not have bias, but just the same, they fed it a junk-food diet of newspaper articles & mental garbage.

This article is propaganda.

They're trying to persuade you to believe that machines can be intelligent, that machines will soon be just as or more capable than men at thinking, and that human mental faculties are mechanical. Perhaps the hope is that the general populace will eventually fall under of a large "appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam" umbrella and give up critical thinking altogether. This is already happening to people in STEM, who have largely ignored philosophy, and evidently cannot think rightly.

They've been passing laws in Canada using this technique for at least a decade. More recently there was the 'With us or with the child pornographers' comment by Vic Toews which pretty much ended his career. People are getting a bit more savvy to this type of bullshit.

My decades of experience say: this is a load of shit.

I do most of what you've described. Bicycles and motor vehicles are not the same. Bicycles don't deal death to motorists but motorists can very easily deal death to cyclists. This means the safest route is to travel on the sidewalk when traffic is heavy and there are no pedestrians. If there are cars in the vicinity of the stop sign, I (and most cyclists I've seen) will stop. In most cases I can think of, right-of-way rules apply regardless of being car, bicycle, or pedestrian - so don't use that to justify being an asshole. Clearly, cyclists should not be blasting through stop lights & stop signs without looking or yielding.

Things are rarely black and white. I applaud the Ukrainians ridding themselves of what appeared/was a corrupt government. As I understand, the Russians reacted to what appeared to be (and probably was) Western meddling. To me, this whole situation has been a matter of action-reaction. And at the very least, the Russians seem to have a sense of humour! Now that the Russians have had their fun, making a mockery of Western "democratic" nations, I really hope Putin decides to stop at the Crimea or else shit could get really serious.

That said, I hope you honestly don't believe you live in a democracy. I think that's very naive. Whether the government is Russian, or American, its unlikely its any friend of ours.