andrewcellini

I agree that it depends on Sam's experience (sticking with Sam and not your "super intelligence"), so what is that? How and on what data has he learned to achieve the intelligence he already has? Another possibility is a creator with little foresight. I agree.

To what extent can he identify his emotional states and the emotional states of others? Is this also on par with humans or is it "quicker" as are his reasoning and problem solving skills? If he only has the ability to recognize his own emotional states then he won't consider others, but he could also learn to recognize others emotional states and act on them. I guess a better question is how emotionally intelligent are we starting him off? Knowing that might help answer what he'd do.

Why would the law be of Sam's concern? I'd be afraid of clever ways of hiding evidence or preventing his implication in any crime. Again, what if Sam is clever enough to avoid being a suspect? Or what if Sam is clever enough to persuade legal figures to aid him? I think part of the problem in understanding what he would possibly do is how vaguely defined Sam is.

What if Sam finds a human or all humans threatening to his survival? I'd think that'd be a solution in the space of possible solutions to the problem of a human pest. I'm not sure how beneficial such a decision would be but such actions may carry high utility in certain contexts, perhaps if Sam is threatened with being permanently shut down by his creator.

Sure that's a possibility, and I left open such a possibility with the inclusion of "yet."

AI exists at this moment, and thankfully the first of your possibilities hasn't happened yet. Here's a recent example of AI which learned to play the board game go and beating a master player 5 out of 5 games: http://www.nature.com/news/google-ai-algorithm-masters-ancient-game-of-go-1.19234 I agree with Ed, it seems you're conflating specific artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence. This AI isn't going to take over the world but will play a mean game of go.

that depends on what you're considering or working with, the smallest number in the set of non negative integers is indeed 0 so that'd be a nice beginning. but yes, the reals don't have a "beginning." and as ajb mentions 0 is a convenient spot in the reals to count forward or negative.

I think that'd be a good reason to go to school and get your undergraduate degree. You're going to meet people that have interests similar to yours and be able to work together and exchange ideas, as well as talk with your professors about your ideas and get guidance and help for achieving your goals from people who work or have worked in the fields that you're interested in. What makes you think you're in your most productive years?

You've recognized your strengths, but what are your weaknesses? I think determining what you are weak in would help you to answer this question; at the very least it might humble you a bit. I knew a few students in your position when I was a senior (except they took classes at a community college at night and over the summer) who went on to pursue undergraduate degrees and should be getting them this year.

source? edit: i should have prefaced this question by saying this is surprising to me as my macbook pro which has fairly recent hardware (late 2015) is dual booting osx and ubuntu. is there any specific incompatible hardware you can point to?

I don't think anyone has said this. The problem cited by Lightmeow is about how much RAM is being used. It isn't clear that they suggested that no RAM should be used at all.

But, again, that doesn't make it correct which seems to be what you're claiming.

where is he? who is he? How long the belief has been held is really irrelevant. What evidence is there for the antichrist? Also, it isn't really correct to equate the antichrist to the maitreya as buddhists regard it as a future buddha which will bring enlightenment to the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya And, it doesn't seem correct to equate the antichrist with mahdi either! Mahdi seems to be closer to the christian concept of Jesus in the end times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi Of the mythological concepts/beings presented, Kalki seems closest to the antichrist in that it is a sort of destructive force that will bring about the "end times." But it hasn't been shown by the OP how these two are the same and not just serving similar purposes in their respective mythologies, and of course there is no evidence presented to substantiate the claim that this being exists.

This is kind of a silly hope; your argument being founded on premises which are not true means that the conclusions you've reached may not hold if reasoned from true premises. So while you may have conformed to the rules of logic (I haven't read the entire thing as I do not agree with the OP's stretched definition of slavery) in your argument, your conclusion could be meaningless and useless to describing reality.

doh, good catch and certainly not pedantic. I'd be happy to have caught that myself but I sucked at aritmetic for a moment

No it doesn't. Energy is a property of physical systems, not an independent substance. The equation edit: E = sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2) thanks imatfaal tells you how much energy is contributed by the mass (which is another property) of, say a point particle, at rest and in relative motion. well it's not made of energy, so whether or not that conclusion follows (it isn't clear that it would as you don't provide any reasons), your premise is not based in reality but rather a misunderstanding and so the rest can be thrown away. and as pointed out by Strange, matter is material by definition.

This is a bit of a confusing sentence to respond to. Are you saying that these are two possible constraints or did you mean to say "comprehension of?" If it's the latter, then what are the limits to human comprehension? I agree that it's a possible constraint, though I'm not sure how it's a fault of logic rather than a fault of the "hardware" and its evolution.

As I pointed out logic is only one part of the scientific method - in predicting the consequences of the theory or hypothesis - but your theory could be only approximately valid for some small scales (if it's valid at all), and you wouldn't know unless you tested it, a lot. I'm not sure this statement accurately encapsulates the scientific method. Certainly the predictive capability of science would be diminished; we might be left with what could be described as "stamp collecting." What are the constraints on science?

I would go one step further in saying that there is no role for the major or minor religions in science, except as the subject of study. It's not clear to me how religion is or could be related to the scientific method's efficacy. Why does science need religion? Why do scientists need religion? You do not provide any reasons. Your definition of science is very odd. What do you mean by scientists "embedding?" The word science typically refers to the body of knowledge gathered by the scientific method or the method itself. What problems does having no religion cause for science and scientists? How do these problems arise? You do not provide any reasons, again just empty claims.

that's the impression that i'm getting

are those really the only two options, or are they the only ones you've considered?

you could come up with a logically consistent, mathematical "theory" of the universe (or some aspect of it), and it could be far off from predicting the actual measurable value associated with whatever phenomenon it is describing. science progresses with more than just logic, there's testing and retesting of theories, finding out for what scales it's valid for etc so what do you mean by "by means of logic?"