How long until humanity creates an AI that is better at arguing than...

[ryan]

DBT, try to see the big picture.

Your certainty is not realistic. Neurology is not as certain as chemistry. Chemistry is not as certain as physics, and there is still more to learn about physics. Neurology is a much higher level and thus is a softer science.

They can only say what their theories mostly correlate to. The more they learn about biological systems the more they are finding QM as part of its nature. This is because of the advancing instruments and knowledge.

Like in Newton's time, the large and obvious could be measured, and theories were put forth. But as instruments became more and more precise, they started seeing a whole new kind of physics.

Biology is so much more complex and chaotic than physics, that we are in the "Newton" era of it. We are just now able to see the underlying details of some biological systems.

This last year spent in university was such a painfully sobering reminder on how much we don't even know about very simple molecules.

 

[Juma]

Now you are just maning things up as you go along.

No, it's an obvious implication to what I was saying. If I decide to turn left as I walk, and someone shoots me in the head before I perform the action, then obviously there was an intervention exterior to my decision making process that prevented me from turning.

What? That argument has exactly no relevance at all.

That QM doesnt enable libertarian free will has no reletion to the fact that people can be killed.

 

[DBT]

DBT, try to see the big picture.

Your certainty is not realistic.

Certainty that a breakdown in connectivity/memory function results in the inability to recognize is not only realistic, but proven. Take any hospital in world and you'll find patients who are in various stages of memory loss (expressed in the form of dementia, Alzheimer’s , etc), who, depending on the progression of loss of memory function, cannot recognize, cannot think coherently and cannot make rational decisions.

That is the sad fact of it.

There is no escaping the fact that it is memory function that enables rational information processing which is expressed in conscious form as the ability to think and make meaningful decisions.

Without memory function correlating input information with past experience/recognition, we have no ability to think coherently or make rational, relevant decisions.

You can take that to the bank, ryan.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just one question: do you also believe in an error theory about moral blame, guilt, etc.; I mean, if a serial killer didn't kill anyone of his own free will, it seems to me that's an adequate defense. It so seems to several (perhaps most) of the philophers who support a FW error theory, though there is a range of opinions on that, since different semi-compatibilists accept only partial moral error theories as a consequence of their FW error theory.

Judiciary systems all over the world work on the assumption that what the judge (or jury or whatever) believes is what should determine the verdic and the sentence. It's never about there being real justice based on real responsibility, whatever that could be. It's a pragmatic stance and we all do it in nearly all aspects of our lives. And, there no pratical difference between insisting that there is really something and merely accepting that all we have are impressions that there is something and accepting to behave according to your beliefs.
EB

 

[ryan]

DBT, try to see the big picture.

Your certainty is not realistic.

Certainty that a breakdown in connectivity/memory function results in the inability to recognize is not only realistic, but proven. Take any hospital in world and you'll find patients who are in various stages of memory loss (expressed in the form of dementia, Alzheimer’s , etc), who, depending on the progression of loss of memory function, cannot recognize, cannot think coherently and cannot make rational decisions.

That is the sad fact of it.

There is no escaping the fact that it is memory function that enables rational information processing which is expressed in conscious form as the ability to think and make meaningful decisions.

Without memory function correlating input information with past experience/recognition, we have no ability to think coherently or make rational, relevant decisions.

You can take that to the bank, ryan.

I will answer this on my new thread here in science.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Just one question: do you also believe in an error theory about moral blame, guilt, etc.; I mean, if a serial killer didn't kill anyone of his own free will, it seems to me that's an adequate defense. It so seems to several (perhaps most) of the philophers who support a FW error theory, though there is a range of opinions on that, since different semi-compatibilists accept only partial moral error theories as a consequence of their FW error theory.

Judiciary systems all over the world work on the assumption that what the judge (or jury or whatever) believes is what should determine the verdic and the sentence. It's never about there being real justice based on real responsibility, whatever that could be. It's a pragmatic stance and we all do it in nearly all aspects of our lives. And, there no pratical difference between insisting that there is really something and merely accepting that all we have are impressions that there is something and accepting to behave according to your beliefs.
EB

The "adequate defense" was an example, but the intention is that it's an adequate defense in the sense that if he didn't do it of his own free will, his behavior was not immoral and/or he does not deserve to be blamed, punished, etc. That's why I pointed out the assessments of philosophers specialized on FW. I'm not asking a question about how judiciary systems work. I'm asking whether his behavior is immoral, he deserves to be blamed, punished, etc.
What I'd like to know is whether your error theory of FW talk leads you to a broader moral error theory, and if so, whether it's complete (i.e., all moral claims attributing vice, virtue, immorality, moral goodness, moral blame, desert, etc., are untrue), or only partially so (perhaps, you still believe in moral goodness, but not moral blame, etc.).

 

[Speakpigeon]

Judiciary systems all over the world work on the assumption that what the judge (or jury or whatever) believes is what should determine the verdic and the sentence. It's never about there being real justice based on real responsibility, whatever that could be. It's a pragmatic stance and we all do it in nearly all aspects of our lives. And, there no pratical difference between insisting that there is really something and merely accepting that all we have are impressions that there is something and accepting to behave according to your beliefs.
EB

The "adequate defense" was an example, but the intention is that it's an adequate defense in the sense that if he didn't do it of his own free will, his behavior was not immoral and/or he does not deserve to be blamed, punished, etc. That's why I pointed out the assessments of philosophers specialized on FW. I'm not asking a question about how judiciary systems work. I'm asking whether his behavior is immoral, he deserves to be blamed, punished, etc.
What I'd like to know is whether your error theory of FW talk leads you to a broader moral error theory, and if so, whether it's complete (i.e., all moral claims attributing vice, virtue, immorality, moral goodness, moral blame, desert, etc., are untrue), or only partially so (perhaps, you still believe in moral goodness, but not moral blame, etc.).

Moral qualifications are short-cuts for how we feel about things and how society evolved to deal with how we feel. What there is ultimately is what you feel, which is the impression of something. You want the something to exist as well as the impression. I think there's only the impression and only possibly something else I or anybody have no idea what it is. Still, it's very practical to be able to believe that our impressions make sense, as they should.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think Google, Facebook and other such concerns (Microsoft? Twitter? The IRS?) have introduced AI HMI in their Websites. Anyone tried them?
EB

Do we have a choice?

I meant that:

Microsoft’s racist chatbot returns with drug-smoking Twitter meltdown
Short-lived return saw Tay tweet about smoking drugs in front of the police before suffering a meltdown and being taken offline
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/30/microsoft-racist-sexist-chatbot-twitter-drugs

Tay launched on 23 March, but less than 24 hours later she was switched off by Microsoft after tweeting publicly about her support for Adolf Hitler, her hatred of Jews, calling feminism "a cancer" and suggesting genocide against Mexicans. Tay also blamed George Bush for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and described President Barack Obama as a "monkey".
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/microsoft-...weed-front-police-spam-200k-followers-1552164

The bot, known as Tay, was designed to become “smarter” as more users interacted with it. Instead, it quickly learned to parrot a slew of anti-Semitic and other hateful invective that human Twitter users fed the program, forcing Microsoft Corp to shut it down on Thursday .
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...eply-sorry-for-offensive-tweets-by-ai-chatbot

As many of you know by now, on Wednesday we launched a chatbot called Tay. We are deeply sorry for the unintended offensive and hurtful tweets from Tay, which do not represent who we are or what we stand for, nor how we designed Tay. Tay is now offline and we’ll look to bring Tay back only when we are confident we can better anticipate malicious intent that conflicts with our principles and values.
I want to share what we learned and how we’re taking these lessons forward.
...
http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/201...ntroduction/#sm.0000c1hip0189ed35xdulvdy6xl9h

Is it working too well?

Now, suppose a chatbot calls for the murder of somebody and that this somebody is indeed murdered as a result. Would the chatbot's owner have to take some responsibility?
EB

 

[barbos]

http://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm/

Artificially Intelligent Lawyer “Ross” Has Been Hired By Its First Official Law Firm

let lawyer jokes begin!