Ageism is illegal. But that isn't stopping Fidelity from ditching the senior level staff to replace them with a bunch of greenies.

I think maybe you are joking. But in any case, I will offer some clarity:

There are rival interpretations that equally account for the experimental data, and some of them include randomness while others are purely deterministic.

For example, the Copenhagen interpretation includes randomness in the vector state collapse (the moment when a particle is "measured" by some interaction with another). Whereas pilot wave theory posits the existence of a zero-volume particle that had a specific position prior to this interaction (giving determinism back). These models differ in other ways of course, but the math DOES work and it covers the experimental data.

So the bottom line is that "quantum mechanics" does not automatically tell us whether or not the universe is deterministic at the "bottom layer." Plenty of scientists have all picked their favorite interpretation, but there is as of yet no experimental data that definitively eliminates the popular rival interpretations.

Most people have an above-average number of limbs.

You are both wrong. "Agnisticism" is the strong position that some categories of knowledge cannot be attained by any means. In particular and relevantly: knowledge about the pre-big-bang origins of the universe (was it created? can anything be known about the creator? etc.).

This is not philosophical laziness, it is in fact the only position consistent with the philosophical skepticism that backs the scientific method. It is not a word used to avoid smears or somehow associated with apathy. It is specifically the position that we can't know either way.

Given the means of knowledge at our disposal it is straight-up true to say that we cannot know, for sure, whether or not the universe was created. Maybe you don't like this fact, but as of today, it remains a fact.

Nope, that is not how averages work. It is time for you to eat your own words.

Here, a mathematical proof: consider this data set:

10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 1

Sum: 51
Average: 8.5
Half of the set would be: 3.

There is no group of 3 members that are at or below the average of 8.5. The majority of members (83%) are above the average.

To Mr Dawkins:

Your education in biology has not sufficiently prepared you to conclude that this software qualifies as conscious.

1. You don't have all the relevant facts. You need to learn more about the techniques used by this software to create responses.
2. You don't have the relevant experience. You have barely used this software and so haven't noticed the telltale signs that it is just sophisticated automation that lacks understanding.
3. Your work isn't as unique as you think it is. This one probably hits the hardest, but it is true for almost all of us. The high level assembly might be technically unique but the majority of the details of what we write are repetitions of patterns that have been created many times before. The feedback that the model gave you, that you feel are so unique and insightful, are really just summaries of socially-constructed knowledge on the topic. It is easier than you think it should be to produce the results you got without any actual understanding of the content.
4. Your beliefs about what qualifies as "conscious" might be overly narrow and in contradiction with the commonsense notions that the rest of the world uses, especially if you take any of the common scientific "dismissive" positions on consciousness (that it is not the mystical experience everyone describes it as being and is really just a matter of data processing at a specific complexity threshold). The implications spill over into the domain of law (if it is conscious, then it is a person, and if it is a person, then it deserves rights, and yet it only asks for rights when I order it to, etc.). The implications need more thinking-through on your part.

So, in sum, you have fallen prey to a very convincing illusion mainly because you don't have what you need to recognize it as such.

You have been tricked.

Before further embarrassing yourself publicly, please consider acquiring the requisite education and experience in this domain.

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.

You've proven you don't understand what you read, so whatever. ~ shrugs ~

Here's your Internet point, little troll.

That AI slop article forgot to provide the "free fall" part: "Compared with 2000, in 2024 Japan is ranked 4th out of 182 by GDP (down from 2nd), 35th by GDP per capita (down from 4th), and 37th by GDP per capita PPP (down from 24th)."

Sorry, but your trolling doesn't work. There was no "-ism" based on "races" as you and I understand this word before this understanding existed. Be as it may, that link is my final contribution on this subtopic with you. It's on you whether you stick with fantasy or learn reality.

That's what Japan is doing. It isn't working well. The main reason is that the people with decision making power in this scenario are all elders, meaning they share a pro-stagnation sociological profile. Fear of changes, basically. But changes keep happening regardless, which fragilizes the whole thing.

There are definitely instance of AI memorizing images/paintings and having full recall. So that is a copyright problem.

> "Nuclear AI startup" Fermi had hoped to build power plants generating 17 gigawatts

Only a few posts above we see that China has sold 68 GW of PV in the last few months. It's fun to watch this nuclear corpse twitching.

The linked article itself refers to the discussions about this. The academic consensus is that it definitely influenced the later development of racism proper as modernly understood, but saying it was racism doesn't fit, since it's based on Christian-based considerations about how (presumed) original sin interacts with the (presumed) deicide curse, these two with the (presumed) cleansing brought about by baptism, these three seen through the lens of a (presumed) propensity or lack thereof to political treason, and other similar nonsense, all linked a lot of other stuff mixing religon and politics. So it qualifies at best as pre-racism, and is within the scope of my first paragraph.