Poik
It depends on how far the doctors went when they removed a part of you without permission or consent. There are levels of skin tightness that some people are on the unfortunate end of, if the doctor took an excessive amount. And in general, there are a huge number of nerves in the foreskin which are significantly more sensitive, so cut members will need more stimulation than they would have, and that can lead to chaffing when attempting to receive the same results as they could have with foreskin.
I love discord, for what it's for. Quick synchronous talks you will never refer back to again. So not software development where indexable logs of information are necessary. I know discord has indexing, and now some form of forum. But every discord I've been to for development (especially modding communities) has a large corpus of synchronous logs where people get annoyed if you ask a question that was answered one before a long time ago with extremely common language making it nearly impossible to search for because the keywords have been used out of context of your question hundreds of times since the question was asked.
If the Dev communities used the forums mode in discord more, it wouldn't always solve it, but it'd be much better. There are better places than discord for these things, but I have been trying to meet people where they're established.
Recalling data, communication. Two things humans are notoriously bad at...
And I wouldn't call a human intelligent if TV was anything to go by. Unfortunately, humans do things they don't understand constantly and confidently. It's common place, and you could call it fake it until you make it, but a lot of times it's more of people thinking they understand something.
LLMs do things confident that they will satisfy their fitness function, but they do not have the ability to see farther than that at this time. Just sounds like politics to me.
I'm being a touch facetious, of course, but the idea that the line has to be drawn upon that term, intelligence, is a bit too narrow for me. I prefer to use the terms Artificial Narrow Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence as they are better defined. Narrow referring to it being designed for one task and one task only, such as LLMs which are designed to minimize a loss function of people accepting the output as "acceptable" language, which is a highly volatile target. AGI or Strong AI is AI that can generalize outside of its targeted fitness function and continuously. I don't mean that a computer vision neural network that is able to classify anomalies as something that the car should stop for. That's out of distribution reasoning, sure, but if it can reasonably determine the thing in bounds as part of its loss function, then anything that falls significantly outside can be easily flagged. That's not true generalization, more of domain recognition, but it is important in a lot of safety critical applications.
This is an important conversation to have though. The way we use language is highly personal based upon our experiences, and that makes coming to an understanding in natural languages hard. Constructed languages aren't the answer because any language in use undergoes change. If the term AI is to change, people will have to understand that the scientific term will not, and pop sci magazines WILL get harder to understand. That's why I propose splitting the ideas in a way that allows for more nuanced discussions, instead of redefining terms that are present in thousands of ground breaking research papers over a century, which will make research a matter of historical linguistics as well as one of mathematical understanding. Jargon is already hard enough as it is.
The term AI is older than the idea of machine learning. AI is a rectangle where machine learning is a square. And deep learning is a unit square.
Please, don't muddy the waters. That's what caused the AI winter of 1960. But do go after the liars. I'm all for that.
The term AI is older than the idea of machine learning. AI is a rectangle where machine learning is a square. And deep learning is a unit square.
Please, don't muddy the waters. That's what caused the AI winter of 1960. But do go after the liars. I'm all for that.
... Alexa literally is A.I.? You mean to say that Alexa isn't AGI. AI is the taking of inputs and outputting something rational. The first AI's were just large if-else complications called First Order Logic. Later AI utilized approximate or brute force state calculations such as probabilistic trees or minimax search. AI controls how people's lines are drawn in popular art programs such as Clip Studio when they use the helping functions. But none of these AI could tell me something new, only what they're designed to compute.
The term AI is a lot more broad than you think.
/prəˈrɒgətɪv/ Huh. I guess usually when a schwa and a rhotic is involved, my dialect drops it. I pronounce it /prˈrɒgətɪv/ which could be romanized to pur-ROH-guh-tiv. But there's no actual separation between the u and the r there.
The term originated in religion, not government. And it has no definition that limits it to government creation. It's not even limited to politics.
I tried to get into BCI for both personal reasons and for prosthetic reasons. I admit being able to control my computer faster, and draw/play things faster and more accurately was the goal for myself, but the greater good of improved prosthetics was always on my mind and so fascinating to follow progress on.
When I got called for an initial interview with Neurolink, I turned it down, an entry-ish position for what was at the time my dream job, just because I heard the name Elon and would never work for a two bit hack that thinks 80 hours a week is the minimum time you should spend if you want to make any difference (paraphrased direct quote from the man who "works" 120 hours a week according to himself, and sleeps at his desk a solid chunk of that according to his employees).
If we do ever get transhumanism, it will be too expensive to be for the greater good. Only the rich, who have proven themselves incapable of initiating positive change without financial incentive, will be able to afford it for many generations.