Re: Re: Yeah, you fiends TRIED to gain complete immunity for globalist mega-corporations which fund you, stretching the statute far beyond what it says.
_As long as they don't violate any other law in doing so (such as kicking you out for being gay, rather than just being an asshole),_
Although they can't kick you out for _being_ gay they are not required to propagate or endorse your opinions on the subject.
The most recent judgement in this area has made that point clear.
Hopefully the supreme court will endorse that judgement and we can put an end to the idea that the law requires a business to publish speech that it disagrees with merely because that speech comes from and/or relates to a "protected class".
Re: Re: Re: process of creation, and intent of creator.
The evidence is there simply in the methods that have worked and the methods that have failed.
In short, for those very well defined problems where a large amount of effort has been made it has been found that what has succeeded have been methods that allow brute force computation to be applied. Both Chess and, much more recently, Go have been conquered by programs that were comparatively "dumb". Techniques that attempted to encode human thought processes have been profoundly unsuccessful.
This means that the question that the issue that you raised is essentially irrelevant. AI (at least the kind that works) cannot be programmed directly either to follow human bias or to avoid it.
The kind of heuristics that are chosen, where you might think that there was an opportunity to insert bias, have to be chosen because they actually make the system work and on no other grounds (otherwise the system doesn't work).
In other words any bias that exists comes from the way the problem is posed in the first place, or even in which problems are chosen.
However in my opinion the biggest issue is that the ignorant politicians who control these things get suckered by clever salesmen who convince them that the system can do way more than it really can. To the politicians the system is "magic".
As Arthur C. Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", but then again as David Copperfield, David Blane or Dynamo might tell you "any sufficiently clever fraud is indistinguishable from magic" - and they should know - it's how they earn their livings!
Whoops - edit fail on my first attempt here - trying again
How is AI programmed/taught to think?
Can it be through any other means then bias and fallacy?
If that sounds weird- maybe exploring the topics in a cognitive science context will help in understanding what I'm trying to get at- obviously they don't all apply, but many would be fundamental to any useful AI.
The one positive conclusive result from all the AI research in the last 40 years is that this kind of approach does not work.
You can't "program" these concepts into an AI.
Successful AI approaches rely on exposing a relatively neutral basic algorithm to a very large amount of data and allowing it to identify common patterns and then encode them into its internal memory to create a generalised map of the domain.
Unfortunately this requires that the AI's field of action is comparatively limited.
The one positive conclusive result from all the AI research in the last 40 years is that this kind of approach does not work.
How is AI programmed/taught to think?
Can it be through any other means then bias and fallacy?
If that sounds weird- maybe exploring the topics in a cognitive science context will help in understanding what I'm trying to get at- obviously they don't all apply, but many would be fundamental to any useful AI.
You can't "program" these concepts into an AI.
Successful AI approaches rely on exposing a relatively neutral basic algorithm to a very large amount of data and allowing it to identify common patterns and then encode them into its internal memory to create a generalised map of the domain.
Unfortunately this requires that the AI's field of action is comparatively limited.
"I will build an intelligent machine that will mimic the human brain using the latest technology plus a lot of input data plus some (super secret) idea of my own plus a LOT of money"
Outcome - a roomful of hardware that looks impressive on a documentary program - but a few years later the project is in the dustbin of history.
Type 2
"I will build a machine that will perform a difficult task - one that requires intelligence to perform" (examples chess, Go etc)
Outcome 1 Failure
Outcome 2 Success - but the result is an algorithm that allows the application of brute force computation to the problem and true generalisation turns out to be a mirage.
This has happened so many times over the years that I can't see it ever changing.
However soft optimisation algorithms (which is what we are really talking about here) have been extraordinarily successful in specific problems lately it is just the overarching idea of an "electronic brain that is smarter than humans" that is a myth.
You are right that the old secular parties weren't that great.
Lots of bad things happened on their watch. Attaturk, after all, came out of the same environment as Mussolini and Hitler (ie defeated nations after WW1). Unlike them he did avoid WW2 but the regime he left behind was blatantly nationalistic.
Subsequently Turkey did tend to get a free pass (rather like Iran) as a frontline state against communism and I think that didn't help the political atmosphere.
You can`t compare a person like Stalin who killed millions of his own people and millions of none Russians with gulen or Erdogan. Or with that propaganda Trotsky.
BUT I can compare the RELATIONSIP between Erdogan and Gulen with the RELATIONSHIP between Stalin and Trotsky.
I can also point out that Erdogan is a nastier character than Gulen, in the same way as Stalin was a nastier character than Trotsky. I can also point out that Trotsky and Gulen ended up in exile and that Stalin and Erdogan ended up in power.
I can also point out that Stalin pursued the exiled Trotsky just as Erdogan is pursuing the exiled Gulen.
The parallels are obvious.
Stalin knocked down the church of the Saviour in Moscow to make way for the (never built) palace of the Soviets.
Erdogan wants to reconvert the Hagia Sophis into a Mosque.
If he was a peaceful leader, friendly to other religions but his own he would give it back to the Orthodox Church.
He is not - he has an agenda of Islamic domination - just like Stalin had an agenda of communist domination.
Gulen also has an Islamic agenda - but it is a more peaceful one.
The Turkish government and the country's courts rarely admit they are wrong,
The Turkish government and the country's courts never admit to anything. Strangely the rest of the world seems to keep letting them get away with it.
From the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide, through the invasion of Cyprus to the current attacks on the Kurds - with many smaller stopping points on the way there is a great litany of actions that few other countries could have done with the impunity that Turkey seems to enjoy.
It isn't just Erdogan - it is the country - or at least a big chunk of it - and the part that doesn't agree is largely behind bars (or at least out of a job) today.
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
No, the only reason Israel is making a fuss is because it wants to claim the site.
De facto Israel already has the site. It could easily take it over fully and expel all the muslims. However it refrains voluntarily from doing so and the site is actually run by Jordan. IN fact jews have less freedom to use the site than muslims - but only because Israel chooses that it should be that way.
Re: Re: ... and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power"
The US has recognized, quite rightly, that West Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Therefore it is only fair that East Jerusalem should equally rightly be recognized as the capital of the Palestinian nation, should it not? Therefore the official place names should be those of the nation that rightfully owns the area, right?
As I understand it the idea was the Jerusalem should not be divided but that is would be a shared capital for both nations - so both names should be used.
Also you would expect that (if the UN was actually employing your logic) the it would have made that clear in a preamble. The fact that they didn't suggests that they were doing something more than that.
Since the Islamic claim to Jerusalem is based on nothing more than a dream journey on a magic horse vs over 1000 years or so of historical residence it is a bit thin.
Additionally Jerusalem has only ever bean the Capital of two local states.
i) Historic ancient Israel prior to the Roman occupation and
ii) The Crusader Kingdom of the middle ages.
at all other times it has been ruled remotely from various places such as Mecca/Medina, Bagdad, Cairo, Constantinople, Ctesiphon, Rome and London.
There is no historic precedent for an Arab/Muslim state centred on Jerusalem.
Sir David Eady will simply have to accept that, one night in 1773, we Yanks did dump King George's tea into Boston harbor, and we simply aren't going to pay for the tea, either.
More importantly you weren't going to pay for the British military might which had cleared all the other european colonies out of the way, allowing the US to expand westwards without any restrictions, and without which the US today would consist only on the original colonies - with the rest of N. America being a patchwork of states with different heritages like S. America today.
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
The Christian Names are the same as the Jewish ones. Christians do not claim the temple mount because their history is centred around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
How does it "fully acknowledge the history of the site" when the Unesco resolution does not contain the words "jew" or "temple" and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power". Actually, if they want to use that term, "Currently occupying power" would be better since Jerusalem has had only "occupying powers" for centuries : to wit Roman Empire, Sassanid (Persian) empire, Roman Empire (again) Caliphate (Empire) 3 or 4 different dynasties, each one overthrown by violence, Latin (crusader) empire, Seljuk (Turkish) Empire, Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, British Empire.
None of these (and that includes all the Muslim ones) was ever established as the the legitimate self expression of the will of the people living there, they were all military conquests. In fact the only ones who ever made any concessions except under extreme duress were the Roman empire (when it adopted Christianity) and the British Empire, which voluntarily gave the land up.
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
The issue is specifically in respect of the Temple mount and its western wall which are the residue of the Jewish Temple which was constructed from about 1000BC and destroyed/rebuilt/extended through to about 10BC. It was this Temple that is mentioned in the Gospels.
It was largely destroyed by the Romans in 70BC but the structure of the site and the western wall remain. The "prophet" Mohammed apparently had some kind of dream about visiting the site (although he never went there) and on that basis the Muslims claim the site. It is the 1st holiest site for Jews - but only the 3rd holiest for Muslims.
The problem with the UN statement is that it completely ignores the Jewish history of this specific site and refers to all parts of it by their Muslim names.
They also have the cheek to complain about the effects of various Israeli building works in the vicinity (not good admittedly) - when the Saudis have in fact trashed much of the ancient structure of their own holy site a Mecca and no other Sunni Muslim nation has seen fit to complain.
They do admit that Jerusalem is sacred to 3 religions - although of course the Christian sites are elsewhere and for theological reasons neither Jews nor Muslims are inclined to have anything to do with them. (Because they are
the sites of events which those two religions deny.)
On the post: Ninth Circuit Shuts Down 'Terrorists Used Twitter' Case But Not Because Of Section 230
Re: Re: Yeah, you fiends TRIED to gain complete immunity for globalist mega-corporations which fund you, stretching the statute far beyond what it says.
Although they can't kick you out for _being_ gay they are not required to propagate or endorse your opinions on the subject.
The most recent judgement in this area has made that point clear.
Hopefully the supreme court will endorse that judgement and we can put an end to the idea that the law requires a business to publish speech that it disagrees with merely because that speech comes from and/or relates to a "protected class".
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re: Re: Re: process of creation, and intent of creator.
The evidence is there simply in the methods that have worked and the methods that have failed.
In short, for those very well defined problems where a large amount of effort has been made it has been found that what has succeeded have been methods that allow brute force computation to be applied. Both Chess and, much more recently, Go have been conquered by programs that were comparatively "dumb". Techniques that attempted to encode human thought processes have been profoundly unsuccessful.
This means that the question that the issue that you raised is essentially irrelevant. AI (at least the kind that works) cannot be programmed directly either to follow human bias or to avoid it. The kind of heuristics that are chosen, where you might think that there was an opportunity to insert bias, have to be chosen because they actually make the system work and on no other grounds (otherwise the system doesn't work).
In other words any bias that exists comes from the way the problem is posed in the first place, or even in which problems are chosen.
However in my opinion the biggest issue is that the ignorant politicians who control these things get suckered by clever salesmen who convince them that the system can do way more than it really can. To the politicians the system is "magic". As Arthur C. Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", but then again as David Copperfield, David Blane or Dynamo might tell you "any sufficiently clever fraud is indistinguishable from magic" - and they should know - it's how they earn their livings!
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re: process of creation, and intent of creator.
Whoops - edit fail on my first attempt here - trying again
How is AI programmed/taught to think? Can it be through any other means then bias and fallacy? If that sounds weird- maybe exploring the topics in a cognitive science context will help in understanding what I'm trying to get at- obviously they don't all apply, but many would be fundamental to any useful AI.
The one positive conclusive result from all the AI research in the last 40 years is that this kind of approach does not work. You can't "program" these concepts into an AI.
Successful AI approaches rely on exposing a relatively neutral basic algorithm to a very large amount of data and allowing it to identify common patterns and then encode them into its internal memory to create a generalised map of the domain.
Unfortunately this requires that the AI's field of action is comparatively limited.
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re: process of creation, and intent of creator.
The one positive conclusive result from all the AI research in the last 40 years is that this kind of approach does not work. How is AI programmed/taught to think? Can it be through any other means then bias and fallacy? If that sounds weird- maybe exploring the topics in a cognitive science context will help in understanding what I'm trying to get at- obviously they don't all apply, but many would be fundamental to any useful AI. You can't "program" these concepts into an AI.
Successful AI approaches rely on exposing a relatively neutral basic algorithm to a very large amount of data and allowing it to identify common patterns and then encode them into its internal memory to create a generalised map of the domain.
Unfortunately this requires that the AI's field of action is comparatively limited.
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re: Well, it isn't what they claim.
I've been reading a few SciFi books, with space battles, etc. and I can say that AI isn't in any of them.
How about "But who can replace a man?" by Brian Aldiss
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1494/26/1494260422851.pdf
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re: Re:
Once we have a GIAI, general intelligence AI,
We won't.
History of an AI project.
Type 1
"I will build an intelligent machine that will mimic the human brain using the latest technology plus a lot of input data plus some (super secret) idea of my own plus a LOT of money"
Outcome - a roomful of hardware that looks impressive on a documentary program - but a few years later the project is in the dustbin of history.
Type 2
"I will build a machine that will perform a difficult task - one that requires intelligence to perform" (examples chess, Go etc)
Outcome 1 Failure
Outcome 2 Success - but the result is an algorithm that allows the application of brute force computation to the problem and true generalisation turns out to be a mirage.
This has happened so many times over the years that I can't see it ever changing.
However soft optimisation algorithms (which is what we are really talking about here) have been extraordinarily successful in specific problems lately it is just the overarching idea of an "electronic brain that is smarter than humans" that is a myth.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Turks from all sides will fight each other with no problem. But we always unite against an outside attack.
I think that is actually part of the problem.
Nations have to learn self-criticism if they are to become mature.
Germany did this after the war by admitting their fault and is a better nation as a result.
Similarly with (most of) the US vs slavery.
Similarly with the colonial history of the UK.
S. Africa had its "Truth and Reconciliation" process.
Countries that don't go through this type of process (eg Zimbabwe) tend to remain barbaric.
That is why Turkey needs to own up to a few things (eg Armenian Genocide). However Turkey has to do this willingly. No one else can force them.
They have to realise that their standing in the world would be vastly improved if they did.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are right that the old secular parties weren't that great.
Lots of bad things happened on their watch. Attaturk, after all, came out of the same environment as Mussolini and Hitler (ie defeated nations after WW1). Unlike them he did avoid WW2 but the regime he left behind was blatantly nationalistic.
Subsequently Turkey did tend to get a free pass (rather like Iran) as a frontline state against communism and I think that didn't help the political atmosphere.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can`t compare a person like Stalin who killed millions of his own people and millions of none Russians with gulen or Erdogan. Or with that propaganda Trotsky.
BUT I can compare the RELATIONSIP between Erdogan and Gulen with the RELATIONSHIP between Stalin and Trotsky.
I can also point out that Erdogan is a nastier character than Gulen, in the same way as Stalin was a nastier character than Trotsky. I can also point out that Trotsky and Gulen ended up in exile and that Stalin and Erdogan ended up in power.
I can also point out that Stalin pursued the exiled Trotsky just as Erdogan is pursuing the exiled Gulen.
The parallels are obvious.
Stalin knocked down the church of the Saviour in Moscow to make way for the (never built) palace of the Soviets.
Erdogan wants to reconvert the Hagia Sophis into a Mosque. If he was a peaceful leader, friendly to other religions but his own he would give it back to the Orthodox Church.
He is not - he has an agenda of Islamic domination - just like Stalin had an agenda of communist domination.
Gulen also has an Islamic agenda - but it is a more peaceful one.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
Re: Re:
This is Stalin vs Trotsky.
From the point of view of everyone else in the world Trotsky may not be wonderful but Stalin is 1000times worse.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
The Turkish government and the country's courts rarely admit they are wrong,
From the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide, through the invasion of Cyprus to the current attacks on the Kurds - with many smaller stopping points on the way there is a great litany of actions that few other countries could have done with the impunity that Turkey seems to enjoy.
It isn't just Erdogan - it is the country - or at least a big chunk of it - and the part that doesn't agree is largely behind bars (or at least out of a job) today.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
No, the only reason Israel is making a fuss is because it wants to claim the site.
De facto Israel already has the site. It could easily take it over fully and expel all the muslims. However it refrains voluntarily from doing so and the site is actually run by Jordan. IN fact jews have less freedom to use the site than muslims - but only because Israel chooses that it should be that way.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: ... and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power"
The US has recognized, quite rightly, that West Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Therefore it is only fair that East Jerusalem should equally rightly be recognized as the capital of the Palestinian nation, should it not? Therefore the official place names should be those of the nation that rightfully owns the area, right?
As I understand it the idea was the Jerusalem should not be divided but that is would be a shared capital for both nations - so both names should be used. Also you would expect that (if the UN was actually employing your logic) the it would have made that clear in a preamble. The fact that they didn't suggests that they were doing something more than that.
Since the Islamic claim to Jerusalem is based on nothing more than a dream journey on a magic horse vs over 1000 years or so of historical residence it is a bit thin.
Additionally Jerusalem has only ever bean the Capital of two local states.
i) Historic ancient Israel prior to the Roman occupation and
ii) The Crusader Kingdom of the middle ages.
at all other times it has been ruled remotely from various places such as Mecca/Medina, Bagdad, Cairo, Constantinople, Ctesiphon, Rome and London.
There is no historic precedent for an Arab/Muslim state centred on Jerusalem.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: ... and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power"
Therefore the official place names should be those of the nation that rightfully owns the area, right?
Not when deeply held religious beliefs and history are involved. In that case the first owners always get a say.
Otherwise its' Ayers Rock - not Uluru.
On the post: Push Resumes For An EU Google Tax, With The Bulgarian Government Leading The Way
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: The Backlash Always Happens.
Sir David Eady will simply have to accept that, one night in 1773, we Yanks did dump King George's tea into Boston harbor, and we simply aren't going to pay for the tea, either.
More importantly you weren't going to pay for the British military might which had cleared all the other european colonies out of the way, allowing the US to expand westwards without any restrictions, and without which the US today would consist only on the original colonies - with the rest of N. America being a patchwork of states with different heritages like S. America today.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
The Christian Names are the same as the Jewish ones. Christians do not claim the temple mount because their history is centred around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
How does it "fully acknowledge the history of the site" when the Unesco resolution does not contain the words "jew" or "temple" and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power". Actually, if they want to use that term, "Currently occupying power" would be better since Jerusalem has had only "occupying powers" for centuries : to wit Roman Empire, Sassanid (Persian) empire, Roman Empire (again) Caliphate (Empire) 3 or 4 different dynasties, each one overthrown by violence, Latin (crusader) empire, Seljuk (Turkish) Empire, Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, British Empire.
None of these (and that includes all the Muslim ones) was ever established as the the legitimate self expression of the will of the people living there, they were all military conquests. In fact the only ones who ever made any concessions except under extreme duress were the Roman empire (when it adopted Christianity) and the British Empire, which voluntarily gave the land up.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
The issue is specifically in respect of the Temple mount and its western wall which are the residue of the Jewish Temple which was constructed from about 1000BC and destroyed/rebuilt/extended through to about 10BC. It was this Temple that is mentioned in the Gospels.
It was largely destroyed by the Romans in 70BC but the structure of the site and the western wall remain. The "prophet" Mohammed apparently had some kind of dream about visiting the site (although he never went there) and on that basis the Muslims claim the site. It is the 1st holiest site for Jews - but only the 3rd holiest for Muslims.
The problem with the UN statement is that it completely ignores the Jewish history of this specific site and refers to all parts of it by their Muslim names.
They also have the cheek to complain about the effects of various Israeli building works in the vicinity (not good admittedly) - when the Saudis have in fact trashed much of the ancient structure of their own holy site a Mecca and no other Sunni Muslim nation has seen fit to complain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia
They do admit that Jerusalem is sacred to 3 religions - although of course the Christian sites are elsewhere and for theological reasons neither Jews nor Muslims are inclined to have anything to do with them. (Because they are the sites of events which those two religions deny.)
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
Usually when people say that they are drawing attention to Hitler's positive remarks about Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
and arguing in favour of Israel - not sure what this guy is trying to do.
Next >>