EPTOf course in most Christian theology, the conception of God is one who exists in every physical and non-physical aspect of their conception of the world, but whatever.
I don't know why he has to make everything so complicated.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 692
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Of course in most Christian theology, the conception of God is one who exists in every physical and non-physical aspect of their conception of the world, but whatever. I don't know why he has to make everything so complicated. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
In Pascal's wager, on the other hand, it's god we're talking about, so there's less reason to presume rationality or an objetive function that would be negatively affected by punishing. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On April 13 2018 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: ighpisrtnsrthsr, you guys don't get the indifference/impersonality and the vantage point of view in this.So what I think xMZ is trying to say is a God probably exists, and if it does exists, we shouldn't care for its existence. Of course in most Christian theology, the conception of God is one who exists in every physical and non-physical aspect of their conception of the world, but whatever. I don't know why he has to make everything so complicated. to cut it short, i'll change that part into: a next level/plain of existence probably exists and if it does exists, we(at this point in evolution) shouldn't care for it. i'd replace 'care' there too because it adds an emotion/feeling but whatever; if you can't reason it, then feel it(or don't actually). and by saying that i'm not trying to impose a limit on thoughts and feelings, i'm merely pointing at the disadvantages of our nature. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On April 18 2018 04:41 Epishade wrote: Will my shower drain get clogged if I poop in the shower and then stomp it down the drain? Only scientific experimentation can bring you an answer to this question. | ||
|
bloooargh
United States28 Posts
On April 18 2018 04:41 Epishade wrote: Will my shower drain get clogged if I poop in the shower and then stomp it down the drain? As the parent of a three-year-old, the answer is no. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On April 18 2018 04:41 Epishade wrote: Will my shower drain get clogged if I poop in the shower and then stomp it down the drain? Poop generally won't clog the drain. Several other bodily fluids are safe for drain as well. Hair on the other hand will clog the drain. Source: Military barracks showers | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
Is it gay if I make out with another dude, but only as practice for when I make out with non-dudes? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11640 Posts
Pretty much all professors of gayology agree that as long as you think about women, it is not gay to make out with men. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
| ||
|
ieltstips
Australia1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 24 2018 10:27 Scip wrote: What is the google proxy? I think the IP was like 8.8.8.8 but I can't remember the port, and can't check due to a very interesting internet situation I've got going here Their public DNS server IPs are 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 if that helps. I know I had to use those when my ISP’s ones were funky. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On April 24 2018 11:36 Danglars wrote: Their public DNS server IPs are 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 if that helps. I know I had to use those when my ISP’s ones were funky. Do I set those up as proxy servers or do something else with them to set them up as proxy I need to put in port as well | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On April 08 2018 15:43 xM(Z wrote: then we're still on the definition. you're describing an obsessive compulsive (human)disorder. even if i take it as true and paperclips are its new black, there's no way it's the only value/variable/action it can weigh. 1)i'm here: pref·er·ence (prĕf′ər-əns, prĕf′rəns) n. a. The selecting of someone or something over another or others b. The right or chance to make a choice meaning it(the AI) can and does fathom other alternatives but in your example you chose to forgo that alternatives exist so: - when presented with alternatives and paperclips is chosen, it needs to be a reason(the machine needs to respond to why?; if the reason and the why don't exist, then paperclips is hard-coded in its program by you which makes your so called AI not an AI at all); - when presented with alternatives and paperclips become an obsession then the AI would do what people do: try and fix it. i see the AI as continuing from 'the best' humans forward not cycle through the failures of the flesh(obsessive, possessive, depressive plus other vanity-esque features). (see: and you're cycling through every (solved)human flaw you know. rise above the clouds: you are the worm and AI is the new human. do you think of the worms and how much of an obstacle they are to you?. come on ... at best, i'll give you collateral damage here(which is another can of worms in and of itself+ Show Spoiler + mostly because it implies that the AI is stupid on some levels) Edit: forgot about Uldridge - i'd argue that memory is not required for AI existence, but for its survival; then i'd argue that is not the memory(storage) that would best facilitate that, but the speed and the ability with which one can access the actual/immediate/physical information about <things one wants to learn>. memory is a flaw even in human construction since it enables mistakes based on 'wrong' readings; or rather, a memory is as good/objective as the sensors reading the soon-to-be stored information are. It sounds like Simberto has read or listened to some of Eliezer Yudkowsky's work, because the paperclip maximiser is his example of how he thinks "artificial general intelligence, even one designed competently and without malice, could ultimately destroy humanity". The artificial intelligence that you are referring to would be further in the future I think, whereas the paperclip maximizer is an example that would be more likely to happen in the nearer future. Eliezer's caution is that if the alignment problem (how can we make sure the AI's goals will align with ours or be to our benefit) is not solved, which he thinks could take an extra 2-3 years longer than creating general AI that is not properly aligned, that is where he thinks the danger lies. I think the most important definitions that people need to be aware of when discussing AI is the difference between general and specific intelligence. From what I have heard we are still quite far away from achieving powerful general AI, and we don't have a lot to fear from specific AI (such as those that mastered GO etc). What I'd be worried about is a powerful general AI that has access to or is able to create specific AI, and is not correctly aligned with our (human) goals. | ||
| ||
