Alexandria ocasio Cortez is a breath of fresh air

[RandomGuy]

Oops! What a dummy

Chris is shocked that teenagers don't pay attention to congressional votes.

[RandomGuy]

What meltdown? That was no meltdown. Sometimes the parent has to walk into the kindergarten class and yell at the children like Chucho, Spurs Homer, Random Guy, Proxy and a few other socialists that think the magician can blow some wuffle dust on things and wham, bam, thank you mam, you've got yourself a beautiful, magical beanstalk. Are you an attention too? If so I can add you to the list of clowns.

Losing your temper is sort of the definition of meltdown.

For all your "u r dum" rantings, you haven't actually explained anything. If I am engaging in magical thinking, that should be really really easy to show.

What is funny is that people like you, who seem to be fed a constant diet of hate and outrage, seem to think that this somehow subs utes for actual thinking. What you have done here is akin to a crazy person on the street screaming at the sky.

[DMC]

Someone should create a spectrum and place everyone here on it. I'd bet you'd be near the far left along the X axis and toward the "wishcasting" portion of the Y axis.

[midnightpulp]

Regarding emergent properties, you might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA5qnZUXcqo

The thing I was alluding to is that people who study cognition itself are working with the people trying to create AI brains.



https://medium.com/womeninai/human-c...e-21a2388f6e7e

The two fields of study are really starting to talk to each other.

Sure most of it is imitative at this point, such as the stillwell brain experiment above.

Given that additive feature of our ability to learn and study this, and the number of people working on it, suggest we will get there. I get what you are saying. It won't be easy by any stretch.

I don't by into the Skynet type hype. People breathlessly predicting this stuff for clicks are doing a disservice to what is actually being done.

At some point though, and I would guess within my lifespan, we will have a conscious program/machine. I think we need to start thinking well in advance of this, what the ethical implications are. Do we let it vote? If a machine truly is aware and testibly conscious, could we turn it off? What rights would such a being have? Should such a being have?

Hmm. Article is a bit puff and pop-sci. IBM's "cognitive computing" has been revealed to be a sham (at least the way it's marketed). https://www.rogerschank.com/fraudule...-Watson-and-AI

She also referenced Markham's Human Brain project, which has been a massive failure, with Markham stepping down from the project. https://forbetterscience.com/2017/02...tific-failure/

I honestly don't see how this road toward a conscious machine in the next 30-50 years (guessing that's around your lifetime) is going to be paved? Again, biological and silicon substrates are drastically different, so I'm unsure how you're going to magically get a quality that is only known in biological organisms from silicone transistors, especially when we have absolutely no clue how the brain and the resulting mind even work (it's like trying to build an F35 without first discovering the Bernoulli principle, meaning we don't even have a working theory of consciousness that makes sense. And then it's trying to build that plane from Jello).

Furthermore, the more neuroscientists learn, the less they understand. It was long thought that intelligence/consciousness was simply a product of neurons, communicating with each other via electrical signals not unlike a collection of transistors. This idea persisted as computers emerged, and thus the computational theory of mind was born. Turns out it's a lot more complex than then just those 80 some billion neurons communicating with one another.

Each neuron has a tree of dendrites, and these can number from anywhere between a few to one hundred thousand per neuron. Scientists long believe they existed as kind of a "passive wiring" in the brain. Now they've discovered that dendrites actively process information. Beforehand, scientists would attempt to estimate the brain's "processing power" by equating neurons to transistors (i.e. a current i7 has about 8 billion transistors vs. 80 billion neurons in the brain). Now that they've learned dendrites aren't simply passive, the "processing power" of the brain is likely orders of magnitude more. Quote one neuroscientist: "It's like finding some piece of alien tech and discovering what you thought were just wires are actually tiny computers."

But wait, there's more. Glial cells were also once thought to be passive and merely acted as insulators for neurons. Turns out they play an active role in processing information (scientists don't really know how, yet) and communicate with neurons through releasing calcium waves. There's about 60-80 billion glial cells in the brain. So the brain's "processing power" increases again by orders of magnitude. But wait, a bit more. The concept of neuroplasticity. Your brain is constantly changing its structure by the second as you go about interacting with the world. Our proposed conscious machine will need to have some type of hardware that does similarly (i.e. the bridge between the cpu and ram constantly making a variety of different hardwired connections). We can say the software might be able to handle this dynamic process, but again, I think software being the key element to creating a conscious machine is nonsense because it assumes dualism.

We have no such semi-conductor technology that is plastic in this way (we also don't know how neuroplasticity really works, either). I mean, we can't even cure the most common of mental illnesses, which should give insight into how little we really understand the brain/mind problem. As I implied before, the hard problem of consciousness is also a significant, likely insurmountable, hurdle to creating a truly conscious machine. The brain/mind problem is totally at odds with our physicalist model of the universe, which some neurophilosophers have called "mysterianism." I'm not suggesting anything supernatural at play, just that this paradox seems unsolvable. What I'm talking about, of course, it how "meaning moves matter." Typically, an external force (whether that be energy or mass) is needed to "move" some other thing.

In matters of the mind, though, meaning, which is immaterial and without physical mass or measurable force, is what moves the "stuff" around in your brain. When someone speaks to you, it's not the physical soundwaves that are connecting with your mind, but the meaning of the words. Consciousness literally does seem to be decoupled from physical law (not in a dualist sense, but in it not being subject to hard physical laws with regard to action and reaction, in the Newtonian sense). A thought experiment. Say you invented a Laplace Computer that can track the position of every atom in the universe. Because of this, it can make 100% correct predictions about the future. If the Laplace Computer revealed to you that you're going to die in a car accident that morning, you can simply consciously will yourself to not drive anywhere that day, thereby decoupling yourself from the hard casual chain physicalism/determinism implies. We'll have to figure out how this phenomenon works before any attempt at building a conscious machine is viable. I don't think we will figure it out. It's like trying to figure out what preceded the Big Bang.

I just don't see what are essentially machine learning parlor tricks evolving into something (a conscious being) that the world's best scientists don't understand in a few decades (one prominent neuroscientist thinks it'll be centuries before we understand memory). The reason "A.I." has seemed to advance at a high rate over the past decade is not because there were new conceptual breakthroughs, but because of the Internet and social media, those algorithms now finally have large enough data sets to work with (in combination with more processing power). , some companies are even going back to older "A.I." learning methods:

Deep learning isn’t the only AI technique, and companies are already exploring alternatives. Though techniques are closely guarded within the industry (just look at Waymo’s recent lawsuit against Uber), many companies have shifted to rule-based AI, an older technique that lets engineers hard-code specific behaviors or logic into an otherwise self-directed system.

That basically puts back in the 70s, conceptually speaking.

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, the neuroscientist Kenneth Miller suggested it will take ‘centuries’ just to figure out basic neuronal connectivity.

[Chucho]

Lol. What a sorry worthless piece of you are.

You hate your ancestors, that’s on you. But disbelieving truth and hateful resentment of people that supposedly look like you, makes you pathetic

Seriously, you serve no purpose, kill yourself

LOL, projecting what your dead mother told you habitually. Your schtick sucks, you're a God damned re and your narrative has a holes. You're a racist sexual, kill yourself.

[Spurtacular]

jesus you’re a ing moron. No wonder you identify with chuk and all he calf tat sucker

You identify with a cuck and a psychopath.

[Spurs Homer]

So youre just a self loathing who has spent a lifetime bitter at the chance of being born as something you despise and resent.

That explains you simple minded belief system. You’re trying to get love and approval from people that hate you.

Boom.

You should charge the alleged injun some fees for therapy! This is spot on.

He hates himself and worships the white man who is the cause of his own hate.

[Trill Clinton]

[Spurs Homer]

Idiot says he has a gun in his back pocket - then says

"i don't know if its illegal to pull it out?"

Maybe those guys should not be allowed to conceal carry?

[RandomGuy]

Someone should create a spectrum and place everyone here on it. I'd bet you'd be near the far left along the X axis and toward the "wishcasting" portion of the Y axis.

You would definitely be towards the high end of the "total " axis. Personally I think you don't like me, because I stand up to you. That tends to enrage bullies. Just a guess.

[RandomGuy]

I am waiting for you back up your assertion since you never make an assertion you're incapable of supporting. Anyone can just spew nonsense and abandon it when called out.

Anyone can indeed, especially if they are looking at evidence, and care about the evidence.

Sort of looked back through it, and I would have to say I am wrong. Most white racists are not Republicans.

The sheer number of independents would seem to make that almost impossible.

I was wrong.

What the evidence does show, is that, all things being equal, Republicans are more likely to hold racist views. We seem to have some consistent polling data showing that.

[Chris]

[Pavlov]

Moar stats without links.

[Trill Clinton]

Damn, Trump can abuse power and lie his ass off every day of the week, but god forbid a woman should be mistaken about the legal definition of who's a Cherokee.

You'll never let her live it down.

Especially when people who are 1/15th Native American claim to be native to reap the benefits or for whatever other silly reason. Nobody ever bats an eye to them.

[Chris]

Holy

[spurraider21]

oh look, funny picture

[rmt]

"The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the ACA is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday Americans make is a TAX. And while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15, we pay it every single month. Or we do pay it tax season if we don't buy these plans off the exchange. So we are paying for this system - we, Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is and we're also not talking is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare - that is part of the cost of our system."

1. It's not the monthly payments that Americans make that is a tax. The tax is the penalty one pays for FORGOING paying for insurance. Surely she cannot think that a paltry $695 penalty can cover insurance for an adult.

2. Most of the plans sold on the exchange are heavily subsidized by the federal government - what people are paying in premiums is not the true cost.

3. It's not like having healthcare gets rid of funeral costs since we all die. Not wishing early death or being morbid but funeral costs (traditional burial) are cheaper now than it is later on because of the scarcity of land as time goes on.

4. What's worse than Obamacare - this girl using twisted ACA info to sell her Medicare for All which would be xxx times worse than ACA and this guy and I'm sure others - swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Please note that I stopped watching the video after he proclaimed that this was the best explanation he'd every heard - better even than Bernie - so I cannot comment on the rest of his video.

It's amazing she's moaning about education when I'm sure she's a strong supporter of teachers' unions which imo are what's stopping low income kids from getting the CHOICE in education they might need to get that good education instead of being stuck in the local school. Renewable energy that is going to save this planet - are you listening China? India? the rest of the planet sans Europe? Please stop your development and keep your pollution on your side of the world/over your countries.

[midnightpulp]

"The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the ACA is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday Americans make is a TAX. And while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15, we pay it every single month. Or we do pay it tax season if we don't buy these plans off the exchange. So we are paying for this system - we, Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is and we're also not talking is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare - that is part of the cost of our system."

1. It's not the monthly payments that Americans make that is a tax. The tax is the penalty one pays for FORGOING paying for insurance. Surely she cannot think that a paltry $695 penalty can cover insurance for an adult.

2. Most of the plans sold on the exchange are heavily subsidized by the federal government - what people are paying in premiums is not the true cost.

3. It's not like having healthcare gets rid of funeral costs since we all die. Not wishing early death or being morbid but funeral costs (traditional burial) are cheaper now than it is later on because of the scarcity of land as time goes on.

4. What's worse than Obamacare - this girl using twisted ACA info to sell her Medicare for All which would be xxx times worse than ACA and this guy and I'm sure others - swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Please note that I stopped watching the video after he proclaimed that this was the best explanation he'd every heard - better even than Bernie - so I cannot comment on the rest of his video.

It's amazing she's moaning about education when I'm sure she's a strong supporter of teachers' unions which imo are what's stopping low income kids from getting the CHOICE in education they might need to get that good education instead of being stuck in the local school. Renewable energy that is going to save this planet - are you listening China? India? the rest of the planet sans Europe? Please stop your development and keep your pollution on your side of the world/over your countries.

Every other developed country in the world has a universal healthcare system. This alarmist nonsense isn't based in fact. Our ty for profit system is working splendidly!



Explain in detail why Medicare for All would be XXXXX times worse?

[midnightpulp]

And Cortez is right again. We write blank checks for wars with goat herders and outdated conventional weapons programs, but republicans don't bat one eye at egregious and wasteful defense spending, because, "Dat dem thar ISIS gon' get us!"

[rmt]

IT WILL BANKRUPT US - the mother of all programs - please show me a government run program that costs anywhere near its estimates (and the Dems won't even put a number on this lest it scare people off like Vermont and Colorado). People contribute their entire working lives to Medicare, get covered after 65 and the program is running into trouble. Yet, some of you think that we can cover everyone for their entire lives for less than what's being spent now - does that make sense? It doesn't to me.

[baseline bum]

Surely she cannot think that a paltry $695 penalty can cover insurance for an adult.

Yo Wild Cobra, your re president thinks it costs $180 a year.

[DMC]

You would definitely be towards the high end of the "total " axis. Personally I think you don't like me, because I stand up to you. That tends to enrage bullies. Just a guess.

I don't dislike you. How can I, since I don't even know you. I feel like your energy to change things ends at your keyboard though. People like you are a dime a dozen.

[rmt]

Yo Wild Cobra, your re president thinks it costs $180 a year.

You think that attempt at iden y doubt bothers me? Anyone who's been paying attention knows it ain't so.

[baseline bum]

You think that attempt at iden y doubt bothers me? Anyone who's been paying attention knows it ain't so.

Yeah it does since you never criticize Trump's idiotic ideas got

[pgardn]

IT WILL BANKRUPT US - the mother of all programs - please show me a government run program that costs anywhere near its estimates (and the Dems won't even put a number on this lest it scare people off like Vermont and Colorado). People contribute their entire working lives to Medicare, get covered after 65 and the program is running into trouble. Yet, some of you think that we can cover everyone for their entire lives for less than what's being spent now - does that make sense? It doesn't to me.

Where are we headed right now?


Do you like the red team replacement system?

We are at a point where we have too many people who will feel any healthcare cost in the hundreds of dollars as catastrophic.
So now they want everything paid for. But you saved properly and they did not, so tough luck. It looks like a significant portion of people dont even have a means of saving. They cant absorb what you consider setbacks. This is what happens when wage earning in a society gets so skewed.

You and I WILL pay one way or another. We cant have masses of kids in early years getting ill. We might be producing a chronically unhealthy underclass.
And they will become dependent adults. Dependent on those who have the means.