AI is Software is AI

Able to solve problems in a wide variety of environments.

Software tends to only be able to solve a small set of problems that it was designed for, and even then it needs to be told the problem in a very specific way.

Y / N / Cancel?

I'm studying CS at uni, for all that's relevant. Care to go into more detail about how it has helped you?

Ok. Can you try tabooing the term AI and restating your thesis? Your definition differs drastically from what I would use, so I wonder if I'm reading unintended connotations.

Surely brains have processes that compute people?

ETA: To rephrase: a person is a process in a brain

Do explain, mwengler:

Since you ask, OK.

When I got to this thread, top level was downvoted -30 and many of Andy's comments were downvoted -5 or more. I looked at Andy's comments other than in this thread and many of THEM were downvoted even though they appeared innocuous, and Andy was at -117 (IIRC) for recent downvotes.

Are you arguing that we should upvote Andy's claim that bugs are supposedly intentional jokes played on us by a playfully childlike software?

As an historical matter, I was not arguing that "we" should do anything. I was intending to signal to Andy that he was not unique in experiencing this result when interpreting the name "discussion" as an invitation to, well, discussion. There is no mechanism here to PM such a thing that I am aware of. Although I didn't mind signalling this publicly as long as it would not be too expensive, which is a typical result when going against the crowd here.

If I were to argue something that "we" should do, it would be that there be a cost to downvoting, like there is on the stackexchange family of sites. Downvoting can still be done, but it costs the downvoter a karma point. A rationalist community, founded on a lack of faith in authority, would benefit in my opinion from a higher level of unpopular irreverence than the current system produces. Sure, an echo chamber is valuable, but we will still have plenty of popular mainstream echo posts even if a few irreverent posts are allowed to be discussed.

If I'd gotten to this thread and it was at -4 and the comments inside were mostly at 0 with some give and take between Andy and his detractors, that would seem about right to me. This is discussion. Andy has an informed viewpoint that will resonate with some other people. It makes sense to have a function here where whether or not there is anything to what Andy says can be discussed. Maybe Andy learns something from that. Maybe his detractors learn something. Maybe I learn something from it.

Alternative to allowing discussion posts, maybe this section should be renamed. Bullpen. Sandbox. Auxiliary. StagingArea. Something that would make it clear it is NOT a discussion area.

ArisKatsaris, I did not say "intentional", and if I did, I would not mean it in quite the way you do. But I would mean it in an analogous way to our intentionality. Why did you insert this word?

One day you will see, that it is because the post is relatively complete. It's not minimal for characters used. It wouldn't fit in a tweet. But it's concise, and true. My destroyed karma says nothing about the truth of what I said. It speaks loudly about this community. What does it say?

Seconded. Any time I hear someone has a pet TOE, I dramatically revise my opinion downward - it happened with Wolfram, and now it happens to you. Even the highest end physicists that I'm aware of make no such claims, other than vague statements like "I suspect X is more likely to be correct than Y."

LW clearly doesn't appreciate the urgency of this issue. Even Specks versus torture has been taken over by baggage from 1950.

Don't believe the last two movies exist, but otherwise the same.

Honestly. What an arrogant son of a whore you were then.

You know not what I think. Did that sound mystical too? I only omitted one word, and swapped 2.