Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9031776" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Yup, things sure will be different when they are different - fortunately for us the law is constantly evolving and operates on rules, interpretations and facts - not sitcom logic.No, it's very clear legally.  A human makes choices and is responsible for those choices, but a human can also point to any events in their lifetime as part of a cause for their choices. A machine is built and operates on set rules given to it by a human, directly or indirectly.  An animal makes choices, but does not operate in human frameworks so does not have human rights and responsibilities.Personally I think <a href="https://www.boredpanda.com/rats-art-toogoods-tiny-paws/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic" target="_blank">art made by rats</a> is way more fulfilling than most of the crap that Andy Warhol farted out to make a quick buck, but I'm not going to pretend the rat can meet the standards required to attract copyright in any region.Speculating on if an alien life form would is pointless until we meet the life form and see how it reacts to us, or even how we try to communicate with it.[ATTACH=full]286204[/ATTACH]Sure it can, you can decide to have a conversation with it - react to its imaginary judgments and come to the conclusion your wife is cheating on you.  History is literally full of people making decisions because they believed inanimate objects could give them secret insights or guide them - omen readings, dowsing rods, rune readings, palm readings, pyromancy, tyromancy, and all manner of weird seances. People also regularly take fundamentally irrelevant data and try to claim it's massively significant to their situation - see Nostradamus.Doing it through a computer isn't even new, you could get questionable advice on any personal topic of it <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Sbaitso" target="_blank">thirty years ago if you owned a Soundblaster card</a>.It's never going to because the research isn't going in that direction and nobody has a good model for even trying to make it go into that model - all it does is pattern match data and try to produce a response based on that pattern - just like a kid trying to trick fireflies by flashing a light at them, or a bird watcher doing birdcalls, or the LCD display on your phone when the camera is operating.An algorithm designed to match and respond to patterns can never do more than match and respond to patterns, not matter how much your imagination tells you that it's learning to be smart or becoming alive.It's important to understand this because it's helps prevent against charlatanism such a supporting pivoting to AI creative (a scam to undermine what actual creative people get paid - thus contributing to the WGA strike), new AI regulation laws (which are to lock out competition by making them prove they're not creating the type of AI we can't make exist before they can start work), supporting Robot Lawyers and other substitutes for high stakes professionals, etc.This isn't unique to AI or even special, lots of people believed in the potential of the technology that Theranos was claiming to be developing to - not because it was workable, or they could show how it was going to work, etc, but because the idea of us making this technological leap to where we can do an auto-diagnosis with nothing more than pinprick was a seductive idea that people (including Elizabeth Holmes) wanted to believe in.And this context, it's important to understand it because its worth understanding the absurdities of a lot of nuTSR's fiascos.Justin claims, and he and his (tiny) fanbase seems to genuinely believe that he's "making games" because he's published a book that copy-pastes a lot of stuff from various old editions of D&D, includes terms like ThAC10, tables of numbers, spells and names of monsters etc.  He feels that because it ticks off these boxes - it must be a game and good.  He's wrong not because games don't have these kinds of content, but because he doesn't understand why they do and doesn't appreciate how those elements serve the greater purpose.They're an example of the kind of content you get when you mistake pattern matching for creativity.I'm more of a Dune guy, but I don't see any evidence that the Butlerian Jihad is upon us - as much as I like to threaten my housemate's Rhoomba with it.</blockquote>

Verification