deltathreetwo

I find this post hilarious. You're trying to juggle an idea that is in itself paradoxical and illogical.

The idea that all forms of discrimination are bad. Hear me out.

All discrimination is bad including cultural discrimination. However if a culture discriminates against sex or race how do I reconcile this paradox? By respecting a culture must I respect a culture a discrimination? The parent post is a confused person trying to make sense of the paradox.

My suggestion is to get above all of it. You don't need to crystallize discrimination into a hard black and white rule where if you discriminate your evil and if you don't your good. Much of America has this attitude and they can't rise above it.

There are legitimate logical and mathematical correlations between race and certain traits, between sex and certain traits and between culture and certain traits. To judge a person for these traits based off of sex, culture and race can be very rational due to these very real correlations.

But instead America has embraced woke culture which takes these anti discrimination views to the extreme such that you get male athletes with sex changes competing with women in female sports. It's sort of insane. But I get it.

This wokenesses attitude arises from a past where Americans took discrimination to illogical levels and committed atrocities because of it. Now our country lives in the extremes. You are either racist/sexist or you are woke. Pick one, because there isn't really a word for a moderate viewpoint on this topic.

The hypocrisy is all around us. Don't discriminate against gender but we must segregate restrooms into male and female versions. Are you saying males are lecherous pervs and we must give females a safe space to piss, shit and do makeup? It's actually completely sexist to segregate restrooms when men and women practically share every other space.

See this garbage comment is the rudest comment of all. Insulting beyond anything I've ever seen.

You are literally backstabbing me, spreading lies and telling people to ignore me? Please stop.

It doesn't have to be a rich guy. But some form of centralized rich power. Like a corporation for example. But even complex structures like this involve a cluster of individuals who own the corporation or have seats of power within the structure. This small population of people controls wealth and resources and deploys it accordingly.

In the beginning though, before complex structures like corporations formed, civilization began with rich guys telling poor guys what to do.

It was the intention. You are lying to my face. The format: "News Flash: Statement of something obvious." is very rude. Implying I don't know the obvious thing.

I hold no grudges but your previous statement is a total lie. Don't pretend it wasn't intentional.

In English science exclusively refers to science as Wikipedia defined it.

Formal science is a rarely used term. In fact much of the (English) academic world doesn't consider logic, math, or computer science to be actual sciences. The term is basically unheard of. You may find some people who use the term but most people don't know about it.

The reason is simple, the nature of what science is, is not discussed by scientists. It is more discussed by philosophers or French people.

If you weren't suffering from a language issue, I would indeed be 100% correct that you don't know what you're talking about; but given your language impairment and your claim that French academics in common parlance demarcate a difference in sciences between formal and applied it makes sense that you can make this mistake.

Doesn't matter. It's true and what you said how it's "always the case" is categorically false. The falsehood of your comment is the only thing that is relevant here.

epgui doesn't know what he's talking about. Science in it's purest form can only falsify things. Absolutely nothing can be proven correct. There is no "pure" science. That's garbage.

What's going on is epgui likely mixed up logic, math and science. In math and logic things can be proven because math and logic is a game where you make up axioms and prove theorems... but in science and reality, nothing can be proven.

Basically by posting that wikipedia article he proved you right. and demonstrated to you that he doesn't know what science truly is.

It is always the case. Another fallacy that can only be the result of your flawed intuition.

All human capability has limits. You have limited strength and limited intelligence. There is no amount of intelligence or physical strength in a single human that can allow one man to build a feat of technology such as a Boeing 747. It can't even be done by one human in 10 lifetimes. This fundamental impossibility in your words is "always the case."

Yet there are individuals that exist in the world with enough wealth to buy several 747s. You will see that anyone with this amount of wealth could not have achieved this wealth through the sheer power of their individual IQ or physical strength. They had to have worked with many others in order to achieve such wealth. The existence of said individuals completely verifies the existence of how wealth is distributed unfairly. There is no fair barter that can allow one man to gain a 747 unless that man extracted work off the backs of others. It is logically impossible if this was not the case.

The only thing you can argue here is that wealth inequality is required for society to progress; but there is no argument on whether or not the resources are distributed fairly.

There are proven instances where systems such as this can remain stable. Slavery is one. There are tons and tons of other systems throughout human history where massive inequality remains stable.

In fact inequality is the bedrock of civilization according to our current theories of anthropology.

How do self interested parties gather together to fund great infrastructure projects and technology required for the progress of civilization? People on their own are self interested do not assist others outside of family or tribal units.

What causes people to organize is that there must be a small group of wealthy individuals who pays a Large group of individuals who lack wealth to work together. This isn't something I'm making up. This is the basis for the formation of civilization according to anthropology and there there are loads and loads of research and papers that support this theory so it is currently the best of what we know.

So it is not at all clear that the result is trivial. your conclusion is not at all scientific or logical you're just going off your intuition which is highly flawed.

What is programming not related to? Seriously a huge portion of posts here are just about programming analogies.

Free will lies at the particle level. If atoms are defined by strict physical rules that are deterministic and have no free will then if our brains are made of of the same atoms does that mean our brains are also defined by the same strict physical rules?

What if atoms are not defined by deterministic rules? What if it's defined by probabilistic rules? Then are our brains bounded by the same probabilistic rules?

It seems that given that all brains are made of the same stuff as the universe, the question of free will is more of a physics question. What is the universe made of? And does this fundamental unit allow for free will?

>Given that the universe is eventually inconsistent,

I don't think this has been observed to be true yet. At least not true within a framework of very specific theoretical rules. Otherwise all our science and logic is useless.

Lying to oneself and exposing the complete truth are two alternative strategies towards survival.

That is why some people have brains that lie to them less then others, while others have brains that lie more. You will find different degrees of bias and delusion in the people you encounter.

The iphone was at one point in time the same innovation as this and at that time there were plenty of people like you calling it an "obvious" failure.

At the time people were talking about how hard and clumsy it was to type on and getting your finger grease all over the screen of the phone.

Just make a whole new thing. Html and css are technologies with decades of technical debt.

Like a remake of a movie, we are long overdue.

The churn is the result of the fact that we don't understand what is optimal.

We know how to optimize for things like the shortest distance between two points but we don't understand how to optimize Software Design or even GUI.

This is literally what "Design" means. If something needs to be designed it means there's no theory or notion behind it on what it means to be "optimal." So we "design" a "better" solution but we don't actually know if it's better. So we design another solution and the cycle continues.

A/B testing when done on a population that gives consistent answers should converge on a consistent solution. If the population gives different answers at different times then of course there will be churn.

I would say the methodology of A/B testing is indeed like machine learning, it's quite good and accurate. It's the data source that's the problem. If you have users that don't know what they want or behave differently and inconsistently then your conclusions reflect the data. Perhaps the data is accurate and there is no consistent conclusion, OR the data is inaccurate and you need to get it from a better source other then users telling you what they think is better.

Why not just use the layman terms. Science and logic.

The terms derived from philosophy are the most snobbish in my opinion. Additionally Logic and science formalize these concepts, Epistemology on the other hand has a lot of qualitative mumbo jumbo, with concepts like "belief."

There is no word. The concept exists because of the word. Typically words exist to describe a concept, but in this case it's the other way around. The concept would not have otherwise existed if it were not because of the word. Therefore the concept is illusory. Made up. Created by us.

It's not worth debating sentience anymore then it is to debate at what point in a gradient does white become black.

At what point is something sentient or not sentient? "Sentience" is definitely a gradient but the point of conversion from not sentient to sentience is artificially created by language. The debate is pointless.

Here's a better example. For all numbers between 0 and 100,... at what point does a number transition from a small number to a big number? Numbers are numbers, but I use language here to create the concept of big and small. But the concepts are pointless. You may personally think everything above 50 is big, I may think everything above 90 is big. We have different opinions. But what's big and what's small is not meaningful or interesting at all. I don't care about how you or I define the words big or small, and I'm sure you don't care either. These are just arbitrary points of demarcation.

When you ask the question at what point does an AI become sentient... that question has as much meaning as asking the number question.

It's an issue with english vocabulary. Nobody fully agrees on a definition of sentience.

Don't get tricked into thinking it's profound. You simply have a loaded word that's ambiguously defined.

You have a collection of a million attributes such that if something has all those attributes it is sentient, if it doesn't have those attributes it is not sentient. We don't agree on what those attributes are, and it's sort of hard to write down all the attributes.

The above description indicates that it's a vocabulary problem. The vocabulary induces an illusion of profoundness when in actuality by itself sentience is just a collection of ARBITRARY attributes. You can debate the definition of the word, but in the end you're just debating vocabulary.

Another thing to consider is that "sentience" is a loaded word. You're all just arguing over vocabulary and the definition of a word.

Simply put, sentience is just a combination of thousands attributes such that if something has all those attributes it is "sentient."

The attributes are so many that it's hard to write down all the attributes, additionally nobody fully agrees what those attributes are. So it is actually the definition of a word that is very complex here. But that's all it is. There isn't really a profound concept going on here.

All these arguments are going in circles because the debate focuses around vocabulary. What is the one true definition of "sentience." Sort of like what is the definition of the color green? Where exactly does green turn to blue on the color gradient? The argument is about vocabulary and the definition of green, that's it... nothing profound here at all.

Entropy is a consequence of probability.

Which means that it can actually decrease without an energy input. There's just a very low probability of it happening but it CAN happen.

It's a misnomer to call those things laws of thermodynamics. They are not axiomatic. There's a deeper intuition going on here that increasing entropy is just a logical consequence of probability being true.