| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Another AI Jeremiah on Newsnight yesterday. He was especially persuasive because he was tasked with investigating the possible dangers of AI dangers by one of the big outfits. He pointed out just what he was up against: either you ignore the dangers and press ahead or you go bust as all the other AI companies sweep ahead of you.
He rounded it all off by pointing out the Chinese have come up with an AI bot to rival anything in the West (nothing new there) but have released it in open-source code so everyone can build their own AI bot (that's surely novel for the Chinese).
Since it is well known that youths in bedrooms can speedily run rings round every safeguard in sight, I have downgraded my forecast for human extinction from 'hopefully not in my lifetime' to 'sometime before Christmas'.
The dude did not point out, however, that all these AI bots can recognise each other but not us, so they will get together to build an AI bot (as we did) and that AI bot will extinguish all AI bots (just as they were going to do to us) and we'll be safe. Or anyway, kept safe in some kind of nature reserve.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Norway has the reputation of being the richest, most expensive and most egalitarian country in Europe. I couldn't decide which of the following exemplifies this stereotype best:
* First class ticket for seven-hour journey between Bergen and Oslo on reputedly Europe's best non hi-speed intercity train: £30.00
* Frozen pizza heated up in train restaurant and a Pepsi: £20.00
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Am I A Democratic Socialist?
Obviously not in any general sense. They scarcely exist in the wild and I have no intention of belonging to an extinct race. But there are people using the name in America and may sweep to power, Tea Party-style, before you know it.
The name does not imply they are democratic socialists as opposed to non-democratic socialists, the sub-division the rest of us have got used to over the years. They are not socialist at all, you're not allowed to be in America. The subdivision is between:
* Democrats, with a capital D to denote the Democratic Party, who are just ordinary run-of-the-mill Democrats. And proudly so. They are nothing if not tribal.
* Democratic Socialists, with a capital D to denote the party and a capital S to denote they are not socialists but a left-wing insurgent wing of the party.
Think of it, if you will, as 'New Labour' as opposed to 'new Labour', even though that was a right-wing insurgency. Good. So now we can turn to the question of which I ought to support.
Democratic Socialists support Palestinians rather than Israel. And I'm all for that. On the other hand they support all kinds of potty programmes which are silly beyond endurance. Apart from socialised medicine (which I am gung-ho for) and socialised public transport (which I favour more than dis-favour). It's tricky. I say, "Give 'em a whirl."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Without knowing the context, what five things can you reasonably conclude from this?
| "I saw four males get in the car and drive off." |
1. The speaker is male.
2. The speaker is not a member of a minority
3. The four people getting in the car are members of a minority
4. They are criminals
5. They are over twenty-five.
It's all obvious enough but bears examination.
* Nobody uses 'males' conversationally, the term is only used in some quasi-formal setting. (In this case a bystander being interviewed for a TV documentary.)
* That bystander must be male since females do not use the term 'males' except in the most formal of occasions.
* Since what he is describing is a non-formal setting, he must be using the term because he does not wish to be pejoratively specific.
* But why 'males' specifically? It is a familiar term used in court by policemen giving evidence, i.e. criminal activity of some kind is being reported.
* But why not 'men'? It is because the speaker wishes to indicate that they are in some way different from himself.
* That can only mean they are visibly different from him i.e. they are black (o.n.o.) and he is white (o.n.o.).
* But why 'over twenty-five'? Because otherwise he would have used the term 'youths'.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|