Check his nightstand for books on how to kill your wife.

Yet you can't provide these transcripts, nor evidence that they were genuine or, indeed, existed at all. Interesting.

A forged image is VERY VERY different from a difference in interpretation. If you can't see the difference, then I'll assume that you have no actual objection to falsified images and that you will offer no criticism of ANY such image posted by ANY side for ANY reason or purpose. Only, we both know that that won't happen. You'll criticise those you fantasise as enemies and hold triumphant those you see as allies, no matter what is done, nor to whom. You have no interest in truth, only tribes.

Frankly, you aren't a geek or a nerd, you're just an idiot.

If you want to find anything that is unverifiable or unfalsifiable about the work of Dr John H Conway's theorem, you are welcome to do so and publish a rebuttal paper. If you don't, then I will accept that as evidence that you didn't bother to check the theorem or did and found that your claim doesn't hold water.

QM works just fine with Relativity. There are two areas which give any problems, gravity and time. However, Quantum Field Theory requires neither to exist, and therefore there is no particular grounds to think that this is remotely of concern.

No, unless and until they can produce a gallon of gasoline chaper than pumping oil out of the ground, refininging it, and shipping it to the gas station -- an economic miracle if you think about it

This makes sense for remote, off-the-grid locations where you have access to renewable power like solar that you don't pay for by the kilowatt hour. You could make enough gas from a modest setup to meet an inidvidual's needs.

I use a definition I've extrapolated from the Turing Test:

In maths, if f(x)=g(x) for all x, then f=g

However, for humans, f(x) isn't a razor-thin line, it's a band that follows a normal distribution, so we have to modify this a little. AIs also don't produce an absolute result but a band that, again, follows a normal distribution. (Nobody demands identical neuron firings between humans for the same stimulus, or even by the same human for the same stimulus.)

If the band for f(x) predominantly lies within 1 std dev of the mean value of g(x) at that point, then, functionally, f(x)=g(x)

Ok, that's closer. But we haven't defined x, f, or g.

Let's extend this out. Let x over an interval be the steps during any non-random conversation. f and g are how the AI and the human mind progress during that conversation. Let x, overall, cover ALL the conversations, regardless of who with, held over some non-trivial period of time (say a year). This period has to be long, because what you want to measure is not how much the person remembers but how much the person's brain (and therefore responses) have altered as a result of each conversation, because that is a key aspect of intelligence. Memory is not nearly as important as the change in the model itself, and you need sufficient time to model those changes.

Why measure a continuity? Because intelligence is about rationally proceeding through a chain of thought, not instantaneously having a thought. An AI can certainly be capable of that, and LLMs do indeed proceed, but do they proceed in a manner that we can map within the known bounds of intelligence? That is the important question. Individual thoughts and decisions aren't important, sequence is.

There is a second aspect, which is orthogonal to this, which was raised by Dr John H Conway and, independently, by Professor Roger Penrose, which is of free will.

Conway proved, mathematically, that you cannot achieve free will through anything that is deterministic OR random, that free will has to be a fundamental property of a particle or of physics itself if humans are to possess it. He did not show they did possess it, he only showed that if free will exists, it has to be found in something within physics itself.

Penrose's argument is actually not that dissimilar in that he, too, argues it has to be a fundamental property of physics. He argues that, for free will to work, you need retrocausality - the collapsed state of any quantum system MUST precede the collapse itself in some manner. That's not actually too difficult in QM, as time is not fundamental but an emergent property and therefore the chronological order is merely what we observe and has no relationship whatsoever to the events themselves.

So far, Penrose's argument is unproven (unlike Conway's), but we have to consider the possibility that he is correct. If he is correct, then LLMs won't do the job, you'll need a quantum computer that therefore possesses the precise property needed.

Depends. If "do" is interpreted as per the Carry On films, then possibly it does.

If "do" is interpreted to mean "can actually be deemed even vaguely like", then you're absolutely right.

The big problem with fusion is the investment in it.

The International Monetary Fund estimates it costs $11 million every minute in subsidies to keep fossil fuels working.

The entire investment over the past 60 YEARS for fusion comes to around 3 days of fossil fuel investment.

We don't have to match dollar for dollar, although that would be very nice and I'm sure it would improve things a lot. Spending the equivalent of a fortnight's fossil fuel investment in fusion research (more than quadruple the total spent to date) each year for the next 5 years would almost certainly yield working fusion reactors that were extremely cheap to run.

Once you're over the crest, then you can not only cut out most of that fusion spending, but you can cut out most of that fossil fuel spending as well.

It's one thing to man-rate a *technology*; but the *production processes* and supply chain need to be equally robust. The Apollo Command Module was flown a half dozen times before any manned mission.

Apollo was a project that had economic scale. Many test objects were created and many beta units produced of critical components like the Command Module. While managing larger scale processes has its own challenges, the fact that the processes are *repeated* make them easier to debug.

The low pace of manned missions in the current era adds to their risk. You can man-rate the *technology*, but (a) it's minimally tested and (b) produced artisinally instead of industrially. There were, perhaps, 180 space suits of various types produced for Apollo (not all of which flew), which while below "industrial" production quantities was a lot of repeittion of the operations needed to make them. The astronauts on Artemis missions will be wearing suits produced at a rate of a handful over a decade.

While the hindsight and experience from sixty years of manned space flight reduce the technological risk, that is offset by the production quality risk from low cadence production. Assembly personnel and even vendors can turn over between production orders.

I see this as a rich-get-richer scenario. Smart people, the ones who can outthink statistical parrot, will be able to use its speed at processing and digesting massive quantities of data to improve their productivity. People who can't outthink the things will have to use them *credulously*, and thus become functionally dumber than ever.

1. Wrong place.

2. No, he didn't.

3. If you're going to equate remark with a deliberately forged image, then you're arguing there's no difference between calling something monopoly money and actually paying employees wages with actual monopoly money. Y'know, I don't think too many judges would accept that argument. But if you want to try it, to prove your point, I'll happily admit I'm wrong if you can win in court.

You are ignoring recall votes. If you cross the threshold, a senator or representative must stand for a fresh election. This can be weaponised very very easily. You simply need enough repeated recall elections to exhaust either the voters or the candidates (or the corporations, who have to provide time off for voting). At which point, they'll either have to scrap recall votes or you reach a point where a minority party can gain the seat.

The system was designed specifically to permit the lizards to abuse process to control the system through plausibly deniable mechanisms. But a system that's been designed specifically to be the sub is the sub to whoever can hold a whip.

So your options are to vote for a lizard or the wrong lizard might get in.

You haven't considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you don't need to vote for a lizard, that you can vote for someone who is intelligent, rational, and NOT corrupt.

If you cannot imagine voting for anything other than party-picked lizards, then you will never be anything more than a fly.

1. Would you like me to list the people who were taken away by the Republican junta without warrants or due process? The list is rather long and I don't know if Slashdot has the disk capacity for it.

2. Deliberate perversion of evidence for the explicit purpose of damaging a defendent is denying them due process. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That is what due process is.

1. There were no fakes, cheap or otherwise, posted by the Biden administration.

2. Unless you are saying that this woman was a top-ranking official in the Biden administration, then it is not "turnabout", it is orchestrated violence against someone who has not wronged you or been involved in any activity you believe (falsely, as it turns out) of having wronged you. Unless you are proposing that any time a Republican insults a Democrat governer, any innocent Republican can be arrested completely at random under a "turnabout seems fair" doctrine, then you don't believe turnabout is fair in the slightest.