EdEarl

I agree with you, except for the nuance of terms: expert systems, AI and AGI. Others in the industry have defined a level of AI called Artificial General Intelligence, which seems to suit your definition. Thus, there are expert systems, not as competent as AI, which is more specialized than AGI. Conversational AI systems with robotic bodies such as Sophia appear to be fully conscious and more intelligent than people, but the truth is they haven't the understanding of their environment that nearly every human has; anyone capable of living alone is smarter, even if social workers visit daily to assure their well being. Currently there is no AGI, which is AI that approaches human capability or exceeds it. AI is, for example car autopilots, can be valuable and drive as nearly as well or soon better than people, but it is incompetent otherwise. The AI AlphaGo, which beats world class human players playing Go, invent a new move when it played Lee Sedol in 2016. Thus, AI with narrow training may do exceptional things, yet be incompetent otherwise. I believe AGI will require a much more complex robot body that senses nearly everything a human can sense, and a more capable computer to process those senses. Pundits suggest 2030 is when AGI will be ready. In my previous post I didn't distinguish between AI and AGI because the OP did not. Nonetheless, I stand by my previous statement. Even the AI we have today has a mind of its own, and sometimes says things that are inappropriate. However, someone can turn them off, erase their memory, and retrain them to eliminate inappropriate output. Once an AGI enters the cloud, it is unlikely we will have any control.

PRO AI will eliminate jobs. AI will be uncontrollable AI will be smarter than people CON AI will eliminate jobs. AI will be uncontrollable AI will be smarter than people Many properties of AI have the potential to be either good or bad, and they will have a mind of their own, which means there is little we can know or assume about their future intentions. It seems probable that it will be developed. I think it will be the right thing to do because the human race is doing many things to destroy the environment and themselves. I doubt AI will do worse than humanity, but that is a personal opinion and others will have different opinions. .

For sure average temperature. Since one side of the person is always dark and the other sunlit, except in Earth's shadow, it matters whether the orbit is polar or equatorial. The one spending most time in Earth's shadow will be colder on average.

A rogue wave of net neutrality?

There are many factors that affect the result. A person covered in a shiny space suit would collect and emit less heat than one covered in black. Eventually the body would be near the difference between maximum hot and cold, because ones body could not loose all heat during the dark cycle. Although, if a body is is exposed and all its water evaporates, the total mass might be low enough that it would alternate between frozen and baking.

58. Some people like to listen to themselves.

I think you should ask a different question, "What should I believe?" If you haven't investigated something, how would you know whether it is bunk or reasonable? In most cases you must depend on others. Make sure more than one person has investigated the thing, and get as many opinions about it as possible. If it smells, it is probably crap.

I believe there are many things scientists have done and will do that are philosophical while trying to expand the limits of science, especially in the soft sciences such as psychology, neuroscience and linguistics.

Whereas epicycles are demonstrated to be incorrect in astronomy, Chomsky's Universal Grammar has not been demonstrated incorrect; although, some argue that it is not universal, but it cannot be falsified. I think we should consider your position as possibly correct, but there is no way to know.

I looked up epicycles, which is defined for astronomy and mathematics. Please explain.

The link to "naturally evolved languages" refers to Natural languages, for example English. When he started linguistics, scientists grossly underestimated the difficulty of processing natural languages, circa 1960.

Noam Chomsky is considered "the father of modern linguistics," who developed the theory of transformational grammar.You may find help with your project within his papers. You may find difficulties such as Are Estonia is a small borough in Are Parish, Estonia which are linguistic parsing challenges.

Perhaps a 2d sheet of aluminum would be transparent; if that is possible.

Aluminum oxide without impurities is corundum, which is naturally transparent, and is sometimes used instead of glass.

Since language is not static; in other words, languages change as they are used. New words are invented and new n-grams occur; this language growth process means your database must be modified as you process language. Some of your n-grams will consist of grammar errors, for example, "There big, instead of They're big." Wikipedia is a large information base, but it's style is limited. Your n-gram database would be larger if you include other kinds of text such as literature and poetry. As Strange said n-gram systems are unintelligent, and neural networks such as OpenAI.com are pretty good. I believe OpenAI publishes their software so anyone may use it. Although, neural nets are notorious for being computationally intensive.

This post paraphrases a youtube video, "Are We Approaching Robotic Consciousness?" by ColdFusion. An experiment was done to demonstrate limited AI consciousness. Consciousness: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. , by dictionary.com. Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. by Wikipedia However, this experiment did not claim AI sentience. Equipment: 3 small robots that can walk, talk, and listen networked with an AI consciousness application running on a computer. Each robot ran a copy of the AI consciousness application. Procedure: disable voice on two of the three robots. Tell all three, "One of you can speak.Do you know which one it is?" Results: Each robot tries to say, "I don't know which of us can speak." Two are silent, one is not. The one that hears himself say, "I don't know which one of us can speak," then says, "I now know that I can speak." An audit trail of AI reasoning shows the robot proved logically that it could speak, before saying, "I now know that I can speak." Disclaimer: The quotes above in paragraphs Procedure and Results are not quotes from the video, rather the quoted parts are paraphrasing with quotes added to improve readability. This post is my interpretation of the experiment based on the video; as such it may contain errors. IMO: The experiment does demonstrate a special case of consciousness according to the dictionary and Wikipedia definitions. On the other hand the AI is not sentient. It cannot compete with human general intelligence, but it suggests that engineers are improving AI rapidly, and seem to be limited by insufficient computer capability. Robot designs are primitive compared to the human body. However, viable solutions to real world challenges will be developed with robot bodies that do not function as humans do.

I grew up on the other side of the railroad. I cannot imagine a million, much less a billion dollars. I suppose it would make me feel insecure.

I wonder what effect the internet of things, flexible electronics, automation, and cameras by the roll disguised as kids stickers will do to privacy. If we have no privacy, paranoia should decrease, I think. If someone who is paranoid can use a bot to investigate anyone coming near the paranoid person, then most will be behaving normally and not be feared. Real costs are falling, and in the limit, automated corporations can produce at near zero cost. If people are supplied with necessities, then the reason to make money should vanish. The path from here to there appears bumpy.

Their bravado and desire to control is astounding. Recently, I called my congressman and both senators, and left a message about screwing up medicare, medicaid and taxes. A guy who I went to high school with in 1962-3 found me via facebook. He lived across the street from me, but we had not communicated in over 50 years. Turns out he was a Ranger in Vietnam, 3 tours, then trained as a helicopter pilot and returned to Vietnam for 2 tours, and retired from the Army.. Then, he joined the NTSB, and retired again. He said Sessions had asked him to be head of the NTSB, but he declined. Anyway, he gave me a tip about a $25,000 grant and said, "Just say Corkey sent you.". I called the number he gave, and a woman answered, "Hello." I said, "Corkey said to call here." She said, "Oh yes, about the grant. I need some information." When she started asking about my financial history, I said I'd have to look it up, and get back. I didn't call again. After calling my congressman and senators, pollsters started calling, and continued for more than a month. I had not been called by a pollster before. Corkey hasn't communicated again, either. I may be paranoid, but I think I was offered a $25,000 bribe; although, I cannot reconcile why they would think I am worth bribing. During all this, I was approached by a hooker on social media, another event out of the blue. I've never paid a sex worker, so it is bizarre. It could all be random events, but doesn't feel like it. It feels like money probing for weaknesses in people who might oppose the status quo.

I've heard that populist parties have recently become more powerful, and their agendas are often anti-immigration and tend to support police crackdowns. These parties seem to be a reaction to the current corporate ruling class, oligarchs, who are increasing national debts and giving themselves tax breaks and crony contracts. Poland seems to follow this trend. I'm afraid the path to rational politics will be slowed by stupidity and many will die.

I've learned that wolf-PAC.com has a petition to get big money out of politics, and forapeoplesparty.org is trying to start a third political party. Both are trying to give back power to "We the People."

It is easy for anyone to extract sucrose from some plants.

Mixed polarities are summed as all numbers are summed (0 = +1.5 - 1.5) 1.5 V = 1.5 V + (1.5 V - 1.5 V), & 1.5 V = 1.5 V - 1.5 V + 1.5 V, & 1.5 V = -1.5 V + 1.5 V + 1.5 V, & -1.5 V = -1.5 V - 1.5 V + 1.5 V, & -1.5 V = -1.5 V + 1.5 V - 1.5 V, & -1.5 V = 1.5 V - 1.5 V - 1.5 V.

Would you also ban the plants from which sucrose is extracted, for example sugar beets, sugar cane, corn and dozens of others. Should sweet potato be a controlled substance. The war on drugs is a spectacular failure, having wasted several trillion dollars, failed to affect drug use, and you want to expand it to sucrose. Would you also ban water because we can drown in it and it is used to grow controlled plants?