and destroyed multiple fields of STEM research

Interesting claim....

Can you give me a list of / citations of such?

The fact that you're unwilling to pay the incredibly low price of attaching even a pseudonym to your statement speaks volumes. Not even by mentioning it in your AC post.

You should read the actual words you quoted. I answered the question asked... then you responded saying "it's obvious they were asking a different questions". What a dipshit.

Geez there seems to be a lot of rage about the FCC potentially enforcing a law LONG on the books for broadcast TV to give equal time to political candidates on both sides of the fence, especially during an election year....

If he wants the Dem.....let him also schedule the Rep. candidate, maybe both on the same show...eh?

Because real punishment is only for brown people. Corporations are the whitest white people.

ROTFLMAO....

OH man, you got me with that one. If you really believe this type of shit, you are REALLY gone over the deep end my friend.

I guess all those non-white business owners that have incorporated are all secret undercover white nationalists.....hahaha.

Man, what a vivid and exciting imagination you have there...

You pull a trigger with intent, and someone dies. That doesn't mean you intended to kill a person. The entire chain of events are evaluated to determine if you committed murder or manslaughter

Or...self defense...that's one of the more important ones there that you forgot.

HTH.

I wish someone would make a DSLR that was compact and as easy to use as a phone. I'd be interested in that. Fixed lens would be okay, I'm not going to carry a second one anyway. Even just a USB dongle that used the phone for all the processing and for the view screen.

DSLRs are old tech...go for a modern mirrorless camera.

Go take a look at the Fuji compact mirroless cameras they even have a few fixed lens offereings that might suit your use case...give them a look.

I'll likely be getting the iPhone 18 Pro Max....in either 1 or 2 TB configuration.

I"m currently on the iPhone 12 Pro Max and the better life is starting to get a bit weak and the electronics are starting to show age a bit....I want to be able to shoot RAW and such on it for video...so, it's about time for me.

As you can tell, these phones last me a LONG time, so I drop some cash....but over time It seems worth it to me. An extra $100 or so? No big deal.

Because it's almost always better to spend someone else's money than your own. Failing that, it's almost always better to spend future money rather than current money. The "almosts" are there because the terms have to be scrutinized, but if the terms are good... you hang onto the cash and revenues you have. Having cash gives you flexibility and enables you to take better advantage of opportunities. And if you end up not needing the cash for anything, you can always invest it. This may not be the first rule of business, but it's got to be in the top ten.

It's honestly a good rule for personal finances, as well. If someone offers you a million dollar loan at 2% interest, your immediate answer should be "Can I get more"? And for more quotidian stuff, it's better to front-load income and defer expenses whenever and wherever possible. Pay bills when they're due, not when they arrive. Use a credit card and pay the balance off every month, letting you keep your money in your account for longer, interest-free. These strategies allow you to make some money by investing it, of course, but mostly it gives you flexibility if you need it. Which if you have decent savings you never should... but it's still better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

There is an increasing body of evidence that this is also how human reasoning normally works. Usually, we make decisions first and only afterwards (if necessary) engage our reasoning ability to generate an explanation of our decision. Experiments show that we're actually just as good at explaining decisions that were the opposite of the ones we made, assuming we can first be tricked into believing that they were our decisions.

Of course there are cases where we engage in lengthy, logic-based sequences of reasoning to derive a conclusion, especially if we've spent many years in higher education that trains us to think that way. This is particularly true when we reason in groups, exchanging ideas and critiquing others' reasoning and conclusions. It appears that for most of human history this is probably the primary way we employed reason, though in such social reasoning the goal is less to ensure accurate results than it is for the most skilled and smartest debaters to get their way (thereby improving their genes' probability of survival)... though it's still the case that making better arguments is the best way to "win" and that better arguments are more likely to be at least directionally correct. I'm sure you've noticed that your own reasoning gets better when you attempt to order your thoughts to potentially present them to a critical listener. This even works quite well when the "listener" isn't able to be critical; hence the utility of "rubber duck debugging". Of course, discussing with an intelligent and listener who is engaged in trying to critique your reasoning and offers their own counterpoints for your critique works even better.

It shouldn't surprise us that AI exhibits similar characteristics. Their core structure is at least notionally modeled on the neural networks of our own brains, and they're trained on large bodies of our text. Their evolution over the last few years also models our thought processes. The first hugely-successful LLMs just produced output without any sort of "thought process". That quickly ran into limitations, then someone came up with the idea of feeding their output back in and enabling them to engage in "self-talk" during which they could evaluate, criticize and improve their conclusions. This "reasoning overlay" looks at least superficially similar to the stream-of-thought self-talk that we engage in when thinking our way logically through a problem. And again, much like us, when LLMs do engage in a longer chain of thought, they actually can explain their conclusions by looking at the sequence of steps they went through.

There are also ways in which human and AI cognition differs substantially, of course, and in many ways AI thinking is far inferior to human cognition. Some of this is based on their different approach to context. An AI with a 1M token context window can keep at its "fingertips" far more precise context then we can -- we struggle to remember more than about 7 numbers for more than a few seconds -- but we're much better at maintaining a "big picture", which we achieve not by remembering everything but by being better at selectively extracting the most salient bits (I expect that improving AI ability to do this will be one of the next large steps forward in capability).

Any way, the point is that AI "thinking" is far more similar to ours than you credit it to be.

No one can really define what "real AI" is. As for whether it will try to kill us... it is utterly impossible for us to say what AI might or might not do as it continues to improve. Your point about its reward system is potentially valid, but with a little thought it's pretty easy to come up with ways in which a superintelligence might destroy us while trying to serve us. Even more to the point, we don't know what the "derived" motivation system inside the systems is. We can't look inside. Observing the self-talk stream-of-consciousness gives us some insight, insight that we actually can't have into humans' thought processes, but it's not definitive.

Do some reading about "instrumental" vs "final" goals. I highly recommend Nick Bostrom's book, "Superintelligence". It's pretty old and quite dated in a lot of ways, but it gives you the tools to think usefully about these questions.

Explain why, when they got rid of the oversight of Southern states and their voting, the states literally moved the next day to reduce the ability of minorities to vote, then

Err...no one or no groups have been prevented from or reduced in ability to vote to date.

Please cite rules and laws hindering anyone's ability to cast a vote? (Aside from those that are NOT citizens, which is against the laws and have been for ages).

How often do we see a police dept ousted because a bunch of their officers had a racist group chat going? Is that not systemic?

Actually it is quite rare to hear about this...therefore I'd posit that this illustrates that it is NOT systemic or pervasive in today's society.

You're never going to root out racism totally....you still see it coming from all races in virtually all societies....but it is not systemic and is not an assumed everyday occurrence, especially not in the US.

Ahh...the good old days.

Besides, didn't she make a better Nurse Chappel?

Did you guys ever actually believe that land of the free stuff? Wow.

I did and still do...we're MUCH more free than the rest of the world....unlike places like the UK we don't arrest people for insulting someone online or hurt feelings for a comic routines....or where was it that got someone arrested for playing Kung Fu Fighting?

Sure a lot sucks here in the US, but it sucks a whole lot less than everywhere else in the world.

Otherwise...why are so many people trying to come here?

How voting works in civilized countries is ranked choice.

OH fuck off.

No, it's not perfect here in the US, but it works enough for us....

I'm seeing how these other "civilized" countries do it, with the coalitions and such....and it seems even more of a cluster fuck that we have here in the US.

No, I'll stick with how we have it here....and we can tweak it as needed.