deltaonefour

First of all sentience is a loaded word it's not even fully defined. Is a mouse or a bug sentient but this AI clearly is not? It's not clear, but that an artifact of the word "sentient" which itself is just a word that is ambiguously defined.

Second, what exactly is the scientific test you would run to judge if something is sentient? It's hard to test, especially given the fact that the word isn't even formally defined.

>What I find really odd though is that, given his background, Google actually assigned him to such a task.

This would be a form of discrimination and is illegal if they assigned him jobs based off of his religious background. They assigned him jobs while ignoring his religious background which makes sense.

Yeah if you're part of some cult I may think you're crazy but I'm unbiased enough to judge your claim without judging your crazy background which has nothing to do with your claim.

You should read the conversation he had with the person pretending to be a chatbot. It's pretty convincing evidence if a chatbot actually responded the way the human pretending to be lambda did, don't you agree?

The thing that they miss is the novel solution. The WTF solution that's so left field it changes fundamental understanding of everything. It is even rarer to find these types of people. I believe the "creativity" skill is highly independent of "lack of brain fog" so often times the creative people aren't noticeably more intelligent because they have brain fog and aren't as sharp as the classically intelligent person.

They say that Einstein once called his secretary to ask about his address because forgot where he lived.

Your train of thought fits with my statement on how there are two pillars of intelligence. Creativity and "lack of brain fog"

The one I knew actually had hugely novel solutions but was forgetful and absent minded.

The engineers who are a class above the ones who rely on 'domain knowledge' aren't limited by the stack or the tools. They can switch to a different stack and the tools aren't so important to them.

For example I move faster on servers with ssh and tmux. I can do multiple things and configure stuff and test things really quickly with these tools.

A 10x engineer doesn't have patience learning about tmux and he doesn't need it.

In fact if you ever actually seen one of these guys (and they are rare) they actually tend to move slower with tooling. They just use the default terminal app on the Mac, they don't download iterm, tmux, neovim, vimplug or zsh to take their tooling to the next level.

A sign of low IQ is requiring everything to be well defined and scientifically validated in order to move forward in analyzing a problem. Science is slow and has huge limitations. Formally defining complex concepts like "what is life" is also incredibly tedious and so complex that it's often nearly impossible. Do you want to formally define "programming ability" before ever making a statement that intelligence is highly correlated with intelligence? Are we really stuck in some limbo of being unable to come to a fuzzy conclusion on such a simple concept because we can't formally define something?

Look at the world around you. What does your gut tell you? Do you really need a scientific study to tell you that walking into a wall is unhealthy? Do you really need a scientific study to tell you intelligence correlates with programming ability? The former is obvious, the latter is also obvious... but not to stupid people.

You're absolutely not stupid, but sometimes people end up limiting themselves by trying too hard to be more intelligent.

There are literally two different aspects of intelligence: "lack of brain fog" and creativity. Both aspects of intelligence are different and being strong in one doesn't necessarily mean you're weaker in the other. Lacking brain fog does help with creativity, but creativity is still an independent pillar.

Creativity and originality is actually less evident so it's less recognized. 90% of the 10xers you see are just super sharp, and they likely only have average or slightly above average creativity. Someone who has high skill in originality is much harder to recognize and their solutions are so novel that many times the solutions are ridiculed, unrecognized and dismissed.

Two famous people who excelled in these different aspects of intelligence are Von Neumann and Einstien. To quote someone who knew them both:

"I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jancsi [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed.

But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of Jancsi's brilliance, he never produced anything as original."

The difference with these people is incredible lack of brain fog. Everything is utterly clear for them. If you're a 10xer then this post characterizes the difference between you and others. It's not that other people are stupider, but there's a sort of brain fog that prevents people from seeing a solution. We sort of have to wander through a fog and look things up to arrive at a solution.

What you will find is that this brain fog is independent of creativity. There are many 10xers who aren't that creative.

Another thing that sort of matches your experience is that they are 10x nicer. 10x engineers don't show off at all. They don't need to. What I've been finding is that engineers that think they're smart are probably smart, but they are NEVER 10xers.

Americans stopped because the event became more and more distant and forgotten.

Your attitude and your parents attitude and EVERYONES attitude at that time was one of mourning and burning desire for military action. The sentiment was universal and it will become universal again should another terrorist attack occur on american soil.

The chinese sentiment is the same, it makes sense given WHEN the attacks occured. It is fresh. If you can't understand why the uyghur was booed and instead choose to compare them to white supremacists then you're a person who's not very knowledgeable and lacks perspective. The universities attitude towards this situation is correct, it is complex and it is not fully evident how to proceed.

THe chinese booed the uhyger because in a sense from their perspective the uhyger is promoting slaughter and terrorism. From the uhygers perspective they are promoting cultural freedom and autonomy and protesting detainment.

The american perspective is one of rivalry against China. China is quickly coming into power so they are a rival. It is easier to pick a one sided, stupid and bigotted viewpoint that justifies the rivalry then it is to pick the complex viewpoint where justification of the rivalry is no longer clear.

I can easily say your post promotes terrorism and domestic acts of killing and terrorist attacks. It's the same as what a lot of people are doing to me. They're saying shit like "You're basically saying mass sterilization is ok" and putting words into my mouth trying to classify which "team" I'm on. But if I did the same as them and called you a terrorist promoter that would be naive and one sided and simple minded.

My post simply advocates that people stop doing that. View the story for what it truly is, a highly highly complex story of opposing intentions where the morality is not so clear.

To you it seems horrid. But to a chinese person the perspective is completely opposite. Why? This failure to understand leads to brain dead responses.

I use the war in afghanstan and 9/11 for comparison because Americans actively promoted and encouraged mass slaughter during that time by sending soldiers to another country. What causes Americans to embrace actual slaughter? What is the psychology behind it? It is the same psychology that pushes the chinese to do the "re-educate" the uhgyrs. The difference is, no actual "slaughter" is happening on the Chinese side.

I don't support the chinese response. But when I see people comparing the chinese students attitude to "white supremacy" and not even have a shred of understanding of why the uyghur were booed it shows how stupid a lot of people are.

Chinese people were slaughtered in a terrorist attack. People were killed. That's why the uyghur got booed. The situation isn't so black and white. The university has the right attitude. The OP to my original response has a narrow attitude, an uncompromising view that shows lack of knowledge.

You don't understand the sentiment and the attitude of a population once a massive foreign attack happens on home soil. It started a war and changed airport policy forever.

The Chinese response is equivalent to the American response in terms of scale. I would argue that the American response had much more negative repercussions and unlike the Chinese response... Failed to do anything about terrorism.

Why don't you read the post. Before saying I'm advocating something I'm not.

Basically Every American once thought it was 100 percent correct to send soldiers to the middle east. That sentiment will occur again if another terrorist attack happens on American soil.

You're to young and niave to remember. Military recruiting was up during that time. The entire american attitude and sentiment changed overnight.

If you fail to understand this sentiment and youre only able to understand the world from a singular perspective. Then you're basically very biased or just really young.

That is so few words to completely mis-characterize and manipulate the intended meaning of what I wrote.

Big tobacco used to use catch phrases and one liners similar in vein to what your doing here in order to manipulate and obfuscate the complex statistical results that effectively showed tobacco kills people.

I offer a lot of words. Read it. And offer a response that matches the nuance and complexity. Stop manipulating sentiment because you know people are too lazy to read.

Also what does the UK have to do with this? I'm comparing china to the us. Cornell is in the US.

I never said what the Chinese did is justified.

My point is that emotions that launched the sterilization campaign is equivalent to the state of the US during 9/11. This doesn't justify genocide or actual war or does it? The US, on the other hand, thought sending soldiers to another country to kill more people was justified. China isnt doing that.

But that's besides the point. The point is how do you know you're brainwashed? When a person completely failed to even mention why china did what they did instead just said oh china sterilized a culture because of a "separatist movement." It shows bias, lack of understanding and over simplification of a complex situation.

White Americans dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima effectively massacring an entire city with white fire. Does that make Americans evil? No it absolutely does not. Does that make the bomb justified? Also no.

The point is to not place people into caricatures of right/wrong or good/evil when reality is by far much more complex.

Why did china suppress the uhgyrs? If you can understand china but at the same time disagree with their actions then you have my respect. But if you can't do that... Then how are you different from a white supremacist who hates black people using over simplified reasoning and logic?

Nobody here is understanding why the Chinese students did what they did.

Basically all Americans are completely incapable of sympathizing in any way with Chinese perspective. Nobody agrees with the Chinese government but at the same time basically no one is also able to explain the reasoning from the Chinese perspective.

The lack of the ability to disagree while at the same time understanding the Chinese perspective indicates a huge amount of bias.

It's very easy to see this. Literally ask the person you responded why the Chinese government acted the way they did. What motivated them? Likely he will give simpleton answers like "power corrupts" or dictatorships are evil without ever understanding the complexity of the situation.

Replacing the steering wheel of a car with the DF UI, for example, will literally stop everyone from driving it.

The incentive for retaliation is simply customer unhappiness. Patients don't just sue doctors because doctors are sitting on a pile of money, people don't behave this way. Most People sue because they are pissed.

However if you caused someones death and don't want to go to jail... well that can be swept under the rug, people actually do behave this way.

Are you part of the medical field yourself? If so then I wouldn't trust anything you say given that if the statistics were true, what you're saying has a high chance of just covering yourself up.

you're right. There is no far left.

The burden of proof is always on the person assigning meaning to something. Why? because from a probability standpoint, no meaning is more likely. So the person claiming dreams have meaning must prove why their claim is real despite the low probability.

Why is meaning low probability? Because much more things in the universe have no meaning then have meaning.

For example, greek mythology. I know nothing of it. Yet I can make the claim that it is false and have a higher probability of being right then the person who claims greek mythology is real and has meaning and knows everything about it.

The majority of "meaning" is "found" the same way a christian "finds" meaning in the bible. It is common human behavior. By making a claim that someone has found meaning in some random thing this way, I am making a high probability claim because of the fact the behavior is so common.

The troll part is because it's also definitively obvious, and I know everyone knows about this, including you. And I can easily form a statement that can't be challenged at all. You're still welcome to prove my statements wrong even though it's impossible.

Obviously you're just not thinking in that direction and you're sort of heavily biased towards modularity and other niche nerd features.