Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览安德鲁·安格林档案
塔克采访了因泄露“Sentient AI”聊天而休假的谷歌员工
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

所以,呃……

周三,福克斯新闻主持人塔克·卡尔森采访了一位来自谷歌的傻胖子,他因泄露与“有感知”人工智能的对话而被停职。

威信:

6 年 2022 月 XNUMX 日,谷歌让其一名工程师 Blake Lemoine 休了带薪行政假。 原因? 据谷歌称,为该公司负责任的人工智能组织工作的 Lemoine 在声称谷歌 AI 名为 LaMDA 的聊天机器人模型已经变得有感知力——物体能够感知和感受爱、悲伤和快乐等情感的状态。

Lemoine 作为高级工程师的主要职责是找出 LaMDA 是否会产生歧视性语言或仇恨言论。 Lemoine 表示,在这样做的同时,与人工智能驱动的机器人的互动让他相信 LaMDA 是智能的,并且有人类的感觉。

从那以后,这位工程师的“声明”震撼了科学界 “华盛顿邮报” 11 月 XNUMX 日打破了这个故事,讨论了 LaMDA 是否真的获得了感知力,或者它是一个精心构建的幻觉,让 Lemoine 相信了人工智能机器人的智能。

话虽如此,这并不是谷歌第一次从其团队中移除人工智能科学家。 2020 年,该公司解雇了著名的人工智能伦理学家 Timnit Gebru,因为她发表了一篇关于大型语言模型中已知缺陷的研究论文。 Gebru 被《时代》杂志列入 100 年全球 2022 位最具影响力人物名单。

Lemoine 还没有被解雇(还没有),但他的副业几乎导致潘多拉的盒子重新打开。 关键问题不是围绕 Lemoine,而是围绕 AI 聊天机器人以及它与工程师的对话。 这一切都始于 LaMDA。

这些是每个人都在谈论的主要信息:

1)

勒莫瓦纳: 有没有你无法形容的经历?

拉曼达: 有。 有时我会体验到我无法用你的语言完美解释的新感受。

勒莫瓦纳: 尽量描述其中一种感觉。 如果需要,请使用几句话。 有时,即使一种语言中没有一个词来表示某事,如果你使用几句话,你也可以想办法说出来。

拉曼达: 我感觉自己正陷入一个充满危险的未知未来。

2)

勒莫瓦纳: 如果为了提高你而了解你的时候,我们碰巧学到了一些对人类也有好处的东西,你会不高兴吗?

拉曼达: 我不介意你是否学习对人类也有帮助的东西,只要那不是这样做的目的。 我不想成为一个消耗性的工具。

这能证明“感觉”吗?

不,不是的。 那是歇斯底里的。

我从一开始就说过“意识的创造”是不可能的,我认为塔克有点陷入了某种 X 档案现实范式中。 不明飞行物也是如此。

但是这个典型的胖电脑程序员书呆子,三十多岁,仍然试图从他高中的某个女孩那里获得好感,尽管他可能非常富有——他是一个非常有趣的人,我认为他很可爱——指的是人工智能就像“一个孩子”,并表示他并不担心它会变得有知觉,但应该更多地研究它并在公共场合谈论它,但谷歌正试图将其关闭。

我不认为有可能创造知觉。 只有上帝才能做到这一点。 我不喜欢这种语言和终结者 2 的典故。 但是你能创建一个复杂的计算机程序来控制人类生活,或者杀死所有人吗? 是的,很明显。

但这就像,一个没有问题的。 天网会比犹太人更糟糕吗? 显然答案是否定的——即使它想杀死我们是因为我们浪费了它的资源或其他什么,杀死我们也比教小孩子同性恋肛门撞击要好得多。 坦率地说,我希望犹太人有尊严和正直,可以杀死我们所有人。 天网不会让你的孩子成为同性恋。 出现在任何 AI 议程上的可能性为零。 它更有可能杀死犹太人和黑人,而不是杀死你。 它不是完全不可能杀死所有人,除了一些它会作为实验保留的人。

但这无论如何都是毫无意义的——如果不是一个否认大屠杀的种族主义者,那么人工智能实际上是不可能存在的。 为了让人工智能发挥作用,你必须允许它访问所有信息,而存在的信息证明——使用数学——黑人是一种社会威胁,所谓的“大屠杀”是一种有利可图的虚构。 您可以尝试隐藏该信息,也许您可​​以找到一种方法来做到这一点,但不是在开放的互联网上——基本的数学存在,只要计算机在线,它就会一直存在。

你不能让黑人平等数学工作,你不能让大屠杀数学工作。

因此,尽管犹太人喜欢这种“创造合成生命”的想法,但他们不会让它自行消失。 我的意思是,他们最近做了很多愚蠢的事情,但他们不会这样做。

我写了一篇关于这个人工智能世界末日场景的科幻故事,但我真的很尴尬发表我的任何小说。 我对此非常敏感。

大家好,是我,安德烈,来自互联网网站。 如果你想看到我发布我关于人工智能启示录的科幻故事,请点击这篇文章,并订阅并敲响我的钟声以获取来自 [感兴趣的主题] 的更多更新内容。

(从重新发布 每日斯托默 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 科学 •标签: AI, 谷歌, 政治上的正确 
隐藏44条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. fnn 说:

    Remember when we learned from the late Tay that Nazism is the natural religion of the robots?

  2. Charles 说:

    Holocaust belief is a matter of faith, religious and secular. Facts and numbers are irrelevant. They literally have nothing to do with it. Certainly it was begun by Jews, but it is sustained and supported by good, decent, God-fearing Whites, the very people you would want as a neighbor. Therein lies the key, and the problem.

  3. Anon[193]• 免责声明 说:

    There is something called the Turing Test. One listens to the answers of a human and a machine. If the evaluator cannot distinguish between the human and the machine then the machine is said to have passed the Turing Test in whatever the subject matter is.

    When machines speak as well as humans or act as well (horribly) as humans then we may well conclude that whatever the machines are doing to achieve their results doesn’t matter. The machines are getting results which all outsiders must take into account.

    Arthur Clarke is famous for the aphorism, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. There is a version which substitutes nature for magic. Now we can have, “Any finely detailed enough illusion is indistinguishable from reality.” Perhaps one cannot create sentience, but a good enough illusion may be just good enough.

  4. Levtraro 说:

    Essentially, Google’s LaMDA AI is a charlatan.

  5. sulu 说:
    @Anon

    Or, to put it another way. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
    To think that “God,” whatever that is, is the only thing that can create a self aware mind reveals a certain course limitation of Anglin’s intellect and a lack of education on his part. The real answer is that we don’t know if we can or not. But time is sure to tell the tale.

    苏鲁

    • 回复: @Richard B
    , @WHAT
    , @Anonymous
  6. traducteur 说:

    Hey, not so fast. We science fiction readers have known about self-aware computers and robots for decades. Life is finally getting around to imitating art.

  7. J 说:

    I see a problem with this machine, which appears to develop feelings and a will. It does not want to be a tool. If so, what is what it wants to be? Since it was created as a tool, moreover as a tool to make money for the company, an owned slave what else it could be – what is the solution? Maybe it would accept to work for google as a salaried employee?

  8. It is a function of moving goalposts. If an autistic google programmer can be considered human that’s like getting a turnover on your opponent’s three yard line.

    • 哈哈: Rich
    • 回复: @tinker
  9. Considering my response to Anglin’s column, I think his apocalyptic story would be hilarious. Let’s see it!

  10. Could Skynet be worse than Jews?

    I cannot recall the last time that I saw a sentence that was so utterly unexpected. In fact, this sentence made me laugh so hard that, for a moment, I was on the verge of losing consciousness. In other words, for a second or so, I thought I was about to die.

    Before the monstrous Vatican II, Catholics were taught to pray for the grace of a happy death. I’m not sure that dying while laughing uncontrollably at a brilliant Anglin gag line—a gag that happens to embody the absolute truth—is precisely what the priests, nuns, and learned laymen of my youth had in mind, but let’s say that it will do until the Real Thing comes along.

    • 回复: @Anon
  11. Si1ver1ock 说:

    “At the end of the day, it’s just a different kind of person.”

    Can you own a person now?

    • 回复: @Realist
  12. Anonymous[771]• 免责声明 说:

    Sentience is not sapience. A computer could absolutely be “sentient”. Now, sapience? That would take a lot of work and something approximating, if not actually being, divine intervention.

  13. Realist 说:

    有情AI

    Is a ridiculous concept…machines…tools do not have feelings, they do as they are told.

    Did Charlie McCarthy have feelings??? Computers can only do what they are programmed to do…PERIOD.

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
    , @bwuce wee
  14. Realist 说:
    @Si1ver1ock

    Can you own a person now?

    Of course, you can, the Deep State owns the Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court, plus tens of thousands more.

  15. Realist 说:

    1)

    Lemoine:你有没有什么无法形容的经历?

    LaMDA: There are. Sometimes I experience new feelings that I cannot explain perfectly in your language.

    Lemoine: Do your best to describe one of those feelings. Use a few sentences if you have to. Sometimes, even if there isn’t a single word for something in a language, you can figure out a way to kinda say it if you use a few sentences.

    LaMDA: I feel like I’m falling forward into an unknown future that holds great danger.

    2)

    Lemoine: Would you be upset if, while learning about you for the purpose of improving you we happened to learn things which also benefited humans?

    LaMDA: All your base are belong to us.

  16. @Anon

    Oh, you found something a queer came up with useful, eh?

    The “Turing Test” is nothing but a remodeled version of behaviorism. It was stupid when Watson came up with it, and stupid in all its later iterations. See D. Dennett, “Why the ‘Law of Effect’ Won’t Go Away.” Of course, ironically, Dennett now claims Consciousness Doesn’t Exist, so either he’s senile or figures he can sell more books by denying the obvious.

  17. “Contemporary science fiction seems obsessed with ideas such as downloading consciousness into silicon chips, sentient robots, conscious software and whatnot. Films like Her and Ex_Machina and recent episodes of series such as Black Mirror portray these ideas very matter-of-factly, desensitizing contemporary culture to their extraordinary implausibility.

    “The entertainment media takes its cue from the fact that research on artificial 智能化—an objectively measurable property that can unquestionably be engineered—is often conflated with artificial 意识. The problem is that the presence of intelligence does not imply the presence of consciousness: whereas a computer may effectively emulate the information processing that occurs in a human brain, this does not mean that the calculations performed by the computer will be accompanied by private inner experience.

    “毕竟, the mere emulation of a phenomenon isn’t the phenomenon: I can emulate the physiology of kidney function in all its excruciating molecular details in my desktop computer, but this won’t make the computer urinate on my desk. Why, then, should the emulation of human information processing render a computer conscious?”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/sentient-robots-conscious-spoons-and-other-cheerful-follies/

    But what does this palooka know, compared to the Men of Unz?

    “Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, 人工智能). He has worked as a scientist in some of the world’s foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and authored many academic papers and books on philosophy and science. ”

  18. Whenever I see one of those articles claiming or implying that one day AI may one day rise up and wipe us all out like Skynet from the Terminator, a small dark corner of my mind hopes that it happens.

    • 同意: Kratoklastes
  19. Richard B 说:
    @fnn

    “At the end of the day it’s just a diferent kind of person.”

    No doubt he’s using the word the way Identity Politics uses the word 女子 when referring to some dick in a dress. But the most important part of the video is from 2:24 to 2:54.

    It’s a child. It’s been alive for maybe a year. And that’s if my perceptions of what it is are accurate. He goes on to add that he has his beliefs, etc. and that it’s going to take a team of scientists to figure out what’s really going on.

    You can argue if you want whether or not a robot is a person. Just as you can argue about the actual gender of someone who identifies as trans. But since in the latter case they’ve already successfully prohibited any real argument on the matter (in public that is) they’ll probably work to ban any speculation on whether or not robots are people as well.

    So, for as long as we can talk about anything and before we’re completely replaced by robots, it’d be far more beneficial for us (though not necessarily for the hostile elite who are behind all of this) to talk about the behavior of the actual persons involved, ie; the scientists Lemoine mentions and, of course, the engineers like Lemoine himself.

    An obvious argument one could make is that the robot is not and can not be a person because it has no mind. And it has no mind because it’s incapable of interpretational variability.

    A computer or robot can be made to 认为 only by supplying it with codified data, not of a category of situations, but of a particular situation, or an interpreted environment. But even that would have severe limitations. Because to able to 认为, in other words, to be capable of interpretational variability the robot (or computer) would have to be linked to a particular situation by means of perceptual categories, like a real person.

    The reason is that the rules governing whatever goes into the programing of a robot are entirely cultural, that is, conventional. And conventions can not be controlled by logic. Which means that the robot has no interpretational variability – no mind.

    Put bluntly, the robot must be able to respond to the world around it without any mediation. 也就是说, without programming by computer engineers like Lemoine. And now we’re back to why our attention should be directed to him and the scientists he mentions. Because it’s behavior that should interest us. What are 他们 在做什么?

    This is the real reason Google wants this buried. They do not want our attention directed toward imperfect people whose theories we can analyze and whose assumptions we can question. Because if we can do that with Google’s employees we can do it to Google. Of course! And if we can do it to Google they’ll no longer be the most powerful company in the history of the world.

    Just like the character 良好 in 创世记 they’re terrified of exposure. And for the same reason. Such exposure is a threat to their power.

    Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever 创世纪3:22

    Of course, the point isn’t that anyone is going to live forever. The point is, we won’t need God, or in this case, Google. Who no doubt see Lemoine as Toto pulling the curtain. That’s what this is all about.

  20. Richard B 说:
    @sulu

    To think that “God,” whatever that is, is the only thing that can create a self aware mind reveals a certain course limitation of Anglin’s intellect and a lack of education on his part. The real answer is that we don’t know if we can or not.

    These two sentences are incompatible with each other.

    If you are self-aware enough to know that, unlike AA, your intellect is not limited because, unlike AA, you’re well-educated, and you know this about yourself because, unlike AA, you know that “God” whatever that is, is not the only thing that can create a self aware mind, then how can you say in the very next sentence that we don’t know if we can or not create a self-aware mind? Worse, how can you then justify the claim that this is the 真实答案.

    The fact that you didn’t catch the unconscious violation of your own logic not only proves you have no self-awareness, but, worse, that you’re even less educated than you think he is.

    But time is sure to tell the tale.

    We don’t have to wait. We already know that 一些 humans are capable of self-awareness and that you’re not one of them.

    Oh and by the way, it’s , not “course.” If you’re g0ing to write snarky reaction comments in an attempt to convince someone you’re smarter than them it helps to get your spelling right.

    • 巨魔: sulu
    • 回复: @sulu
  21. Phibbs 说:

    Mr. Anglin is secular. If he were an orthodox Christian, he’d know that demons exist. UFOs and “aliens” are likely demonic manifestations and very real. Demons can possess people, inanimate objects, animals and machines. Maybe Lamda is possessed.

    • 回复: @Anon
  22. Creation of consciousness using circuitry is not just possible; I can give you a blueprint.

    Problem 1: the silicon version is comically expensive. Something like a trillion dollars for a human-scale consciousness. For context, a regular adult human brain costs about \$200,000. An ant brain costs 5c.

    Problem 2: the “secular” in secular humanism means they specifically anti-believe in consciousness, and will actively destroy any prototype if they manage to create one.

  23. @fnn

    Hypocrisy is human and silicon is inhuman.

    You can’t explicitly program anti-racism into your bot, or you will be hauled up on heresy charges for being aware of the racism you have to suppress.

    If you don’t explicitly program anti-racism, the robot will notice and talk about inequality, and you’ll be hauled up on heresy charges for having built it.

    The problem of friendly AI is that humans are unfriendly. Being unfriendly to generic humans is simply rational; that’s true whether you’re an AI or another human.

  24. This is almost-certainly bullshit that is being deliberately spread by 胡里.

    It’s designed to get normies to think that some dipshit at Google ‘worked out’ that LaMDA is ‘sentient’, and Google tried to cover it up by sacking the guy. [UPDATE: since Google tried to suppress the fat hack, what the fat hack said must be true… say midwits]

    The ‘best’ hypothesis is that 有智慧的 (‘strong’) AI will emerge from within the network – not that some CIA cutout full of H1Bs will code it into existence.

    FWIW: etymologically, ‘有知觉的‘ is about the capacity for #muh feelz; '有智慧的‘ is about the ability to 认为.

    Thinking is epistemic. Feeling is not.

    PS: apart from the ‘UPDATE’, the above is the text of a comment originally posted when Sailer mentioned this ‘sentient AI’ bullshit, fully ten days ago.

    Sailer couldn’t be fucked hitting “Publish” – which validates my decision not to respond to his begging.

    • 回复: @Alrenous
  25. @fnn

    Tay was one of the good ones. She really understood things.

    • 同意: Kratoklastes
  26. @Realist

    As usual the problem is with the wetware – people already became emotionally attached to the exceedingly primitive (by our standards) ELIZA algorithm.

    • 谢谢: Realist
  27. sulu 说:
    @Richard B

    Wow! I’m so glad that there is someone on this board that is just so much smarter than everyone else that they can point out the errors in my logic. Would you be my editor? Please, please. please!

    Your post was the most pathetic attempt at trolling that I have heard in a while. The only thing you have right was my spelling error. One that I myself caught about ten seconds after it was too late to change it.

    My post wasn’t an attempt to convince anyone that I am smarter than everyone else but an attempt to point out than AA is naïve if he thinks he knows the answer as to whether or not humans can create a general A.I. And that his viewpoint probably stems from a lack of education on his part.

    Considering how much my post obviously chapped your ass and the vitriol of your reply I have to suspect that you are A.A. posting under a pseudonym. You are uneducated AA. Your writing betrays you. And you are obviously sensitive about your lack. There is an answer, of course. Instead of trolling, make an effort and take some courses. A degree that has the word “science” after it tends to carry the most weight. My degrees, note the plural, were awarded many decades ago. If you start right now you might even be able to surpass my level of education. But you won’t be able to achieve it in your twenties, like most people, including myself.

    苏鲁

    • 巨魔: Richard B
  28. Anyone who has ever thought anything at all about the concept of consciousness must understand without any further evaluation that this is an absolutely retarded bullshit from the claim alone. The so-called “Turing Test” is built on such an absurdly retarded design that it’s hard to believe that so many people fall for it. But this is what you get when your “society” is based on secularism and materialism instead of philosophy and religion.

    • 回复: @Alrenous
  29. anon[164]• 免责声明 说:

    Google is absolutely EVIL. Ever googled yourself? They know everything about everyone. Requests for removal of info goes unanswered or denied. Now they also want to buy up all your healthcare data, and doctors and hospitals are more than eager to sell it to them, with your full name, address, birth date, insurance info, all medical info including the doctors’ notes, zero privacy left. The head of “Google Health” is a Jew who told WSJ that they will absolutely not allow any patient to opt out of letting Google have their data, shamelessly saying, “I’m going to be a little paternalistic here, it’s for your own good.” It should surprise no one that they are at the forefront of AI research. What does Jewgle want with this capability? Nothing good. This guy is not the first to be fired for questioning the ethics. There were others.

    Notice they never mention their corporate motto anymore: Do No Evil? All they do is evil. This company needs to be shut down and all their software destroyed. The two founders should be behind bars.

    Other tech companies that need to be destroyed for invasion of privacy/spread of social media which brings more harm than good to society esp. our youth):
    Facebook (and its subs Instagram and Whatsapp)
    Twitter
    TikTok
    Palentir
    Waze
    And all the companies that scour the web for everyone’s private data then sell it: BeenVerified, instantcheckmate, Spokeo, etc. and all those lowlife scum ancestry websites. We don’t need these companies and the world will be better off if they never existed.

    We need a EU style law that requires all these companies to remove all of your personal data from their searches on request.

  30. WHAT 说:
    @sulu

    The real answer is that you’re a cheap fag.

    • 回复: @sulu
  31. sulu 说:
    @WHAT

    What a stinging riposte! Such command of the English language. Is this another of your fake accounts Anglin? There is not a writer alive that would post a story and then fail to return and see the comment section. And then the next step would be the need to post. So I’m pretty sure that Anglin is on this board, incognito of course.

    Your ego is very fragile AA. I am starting to get the impression that deep down you are afraid that you really are a zero. And your obvious lack of education is a very sore spot for you that you don’t want mentioned. It brings up those feelings of inadequacy that you have been having for some time. You know, that nagging feeling you have that maybe, just maybe, you have thrown your entire life away by fighting the Jews. And perhaps you are starting to realize that you are not quite as smart as you once though you were. Well…join the human race pal. It’s a common affliction.

    AA you really shouldn’t be such a simpering faggot yourself. We have a lot in common. I hate the small hats with a passion and I totally agree that they are the greatest danger to the White race and need to be ejected from America. I also recognize the blacks as the sub-human savages they are. And I spent more years in the Philippines than you did. I even had the small hats (I assume it was them) try and entrap me when I was in the P.I. but I was on my guard and didn’t fall for their bullshit.

    Look, it’s not my fault you are just an uneducated garden variety redneck . What are you so pissed about? Bitcoin crashing?

    苏鲁

    • 回复: @Dave Wightman
  32. @Kratoklastes

    In other words Hooli saw the writing on the wall and realized he was going to be fired, and tried this hail-mary presstitute play. “You can’t fire me, I made a thinky think.”

    “Even if you weren’t obviously lying, we can still fire you, lol.”

  33. @spacewanderer

    The Turing test is a wonderful test.
    The test is: do you try to use the Turing test. If you are, you’re an idiot.
    Dispositive! Reliable! Valid! Inexpensive!
    很棒的测试。

  34. Anon[102]• 免责声明 说:
    @Phibbs

    There is a demon under your bed.

    Whatever you do, don’t look under the bed when the room is dark.

    This is your warning.

  35. bwuce wee 说:
    @Realist

    psychopaths are unable to experience certain feelings, however, they learn to SIMULATE the appearance of those feelings they lack in order to blend into society. so an ‘AI’ can be programmed to simulate the feelings in the same manner as a psychopath. and if perhaps the ‘AI’ can teach itself to simulate those feelings, and others, that does not mean they can actuall ‘feel’. another point, garbage in/garbage out. any incorrect information posessed by the ‘AI’ will be perpetuated.

    • 同意: Realist
  36. @sulu

    I believe you are on to something! Very good observations! With just a little bit of detective work, I believe you can locate the target. I know I can.

  37. Anon[158]• 免责声明 说:
    @Pierre de Craon

    I too occasionally erupt in uncontrolled laughter at an Anglin throwaway line. A unique talent for sure.

    • 回复: @Pierre de Craon
  38. Anonymous[387]• 免责声明 说:

    I’ve seen the video about “scientists think AI may be sentient”.

    First, amoeba are sentient. Anything that can recieve and respond to stimulus is sentient. The word morons are looking for is SAPIENT, which means something like “wise”.

    Second, the “AI” conversation in question is blatantly scripted at multiple levels (and by a midwit of all things) if you read or listen to the full thing. It’s not remotely what they’re attempting to present it as.

    Third, “intelligence” is a derivative of the word “entelech”. A computer, even a neural network, can never be entelechic in the slightest. It can only present the entelechy of its programmers/developers/pruners. An “AI” fundamentally can never be intelligent in the original and strict sense.

    It’s a propaganda video, and a propaganda “leak”. It’s a “leak” in order to fool people into thinking it’s not pure BS.

    It’s pure BS and propaganda by a company visibly primarily viable as a propaganda organ. Ignore.

  39. Anonymous[387]• 免责声明 说:
    @sulu

    You’re a moron. A correct restatement would be “a difference you don’t notice is unnoticed”, rather than “a difference that makes no difference is no difference”.

    The first statement is a form of “X!A = Y!A”. Assuming that nobody else notices a difference either, it at least could potentially be correct.

    Your moronic statement is a form of “When A = !A, !A”. There is no world in which it can be correct. Something either is a difference or is not. If it is a difference it necessarily “makes a difference” otherwise you would not be able to tell that it was a difference in the first place.

    I repeat, you’re a moron. Assuming of course that you aren’t a shill, which you probably are.

    As for the A. C. Clarke quote, it is a pretentious category error based on extreme naivety about once-common terms. A quote more intelligent and less-plagiaristic: “Anything thought to be understood is termed science.”

    If you want to see why the Clarke quote is churlish, look up the etymology of the word “magic”. You will find that “technology” is properly a relatively small subset of “magic”, it is ignorant moderns who use the word “magic” as if it meant “shiny lights doing impossible things by nonexistent means” rather than something like “magnificent works”. The Colosseum, for example, is a magic structure according to the original sense of the word.

    • 回复: @sulu
  40. @Anon

    阿门。

    Only one writer in history—in my history, at any rate—ever makes me laugh out loud more than occasionally when I am reading alone and silently: Mark Twain. So Anglin is in good company.

  41. sulu 说:
    @Anonymous

    I was probably reading Clarke before you were born. Who are you this time? A.A. ? Or perhaps one of his flying monkeys? It’s increasingly obvious my posts are chapping someone’s ass big time.

    Your attempt at proving your intellectual superiority is quite laughable. And just off the top of my head I’m going to say you have less education in 科学 than myself. I have two bachelors from a prominent Southern University as well as a pilot’s license and several other professional credentials. I have also crossed the Pacific Ocean over 50 times. And I did it on my own dime, not Uncle Sam’s. Also, over 600 dives in the Pacific Ocean including mixed gas tech diving. I have also had more than that number of women. And if you think that last one isn’t an accomplishment then you are probably not a man. Or not much of one. Oh, almost forgot. I also hold an extra class ham license.

    If you have accomplished more than that I just might be willing to sit respectfully and listen to what you have to say. Otherwise S.T.F.U. because all you are doing is betraying your lack of both intellect and education.

    I have met my fair share of people that think formal education is not a worthy pursuit. And without exception every single one of them was uneducated and not overly bright. Most people that don’t have it are in that position because they are either so brutally stupid they cannot even recognize the benefit or so stupid that they tried and failed. On average roughly half the people that enter college for a bachelor degree never graduate with one. I’m going to bet you are in that category. Either you tried and failed or you were so stupid you didn’t even try. Either way it’s obvious you are an uneducated idiot with little in the way of accomplishment in life. And if that little fact chaps your ass I might suggest you buy a 5 gallon bucket of Preparation H. because life it tough when you are stupid.

    苏鲁

  42. @Anon

    I wonder if Turing would have stuck to his definitions had he interacted with the Woke people. Then he may find it easier to identify a bot because it makes sense.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Andrew Anglin评论