When I was in college, expert systems were considered AI. Expert systems can be 100% programmed by a human. As long as they’re making decisions that appear intelligent, they’re AI.

One example of an expert system “AI” is called “game AI.” If a bot in a game appears to be acting similar to a real human, that’s considered AI. Or at least it was when I went to college.

My knowledge on this is several years old, but back then, there were some types of medical imaging where AI consistently outperformed all humans at diagnosis. They used existing data to give both humans and AI the same images and asked them to make a diagnosis, already knowing the correct answer. Sometimes, even when humans reviewed the image after knowing the answer, they couldn’t figure out why the AI was right. It would be hard to imagine that AI has gotten worse in the following years.

When it comes to my health, I simply want the best outcomes possible, so whatever method gets the best outcomes, I want to use that method. If humans are better than AI, then I want humans. If AI is better, then I want AI. I think this sentiment will not be uncommon, but I’m not going to sacrifice my health so that somebody else can keep their job. There’s a lot of other things that I would sacrifice, but not my health.

It’s not surprising that Modi is doing this in the same year that Trump issued an executive order making English the official language of America.

It’s like they’re competing for the Fascist of the Year award.

Due to sacrificing the development of its ear to permit it to dig more efficiently, the Mexican mole lizard has evolved to have its skin transmit vibrations to the cochlea.

A normal ear also works by having skin transmit vibrations to the cochlea.

The Chinese government is more hands on with businesses than the US. Like, they even put members of the government onto the company’s board.

That’s the sort of behavior that makes me suspect that a lot of Chinese businesses are intentionally operating at a loss at the direction of the CCP to undercut international business.

American politicians do similar things, but it’s more about corruption rewarding companies who support politicians. China is doing it much more pointedly and deliberately. That’s why they’re seeing such good results lately.

Yes, but imagine if Elon Musk had access to it and Jeff Bezos didn’t. Those guys aren’t purely about money. They’re about winning against all of the other ultra wealthy.

Are you afraid of a little discussion about cars in the fuck cars community? Do you want an echo chamber or a forum?

Is this a serious question? You’re in a place called “fuck cars”.

Edit: You can tell from their response that this is as far as they read.

Here is the description from the sidebar:

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let’s explore the bad world of Cars!

It’s not about being “afraid of a little discussion”. It’s about being able to read the room. The basis for this forum is that cars are “bad”. If you want to defend cars, you’re in the wrong place. People here have already decided that cars are bad enough that they say “fuck cars.”

If you go into the “Science” community and want to post to defend astrology, and somebody says, “Really? You’re going to defend astrology in a science community?” it’s not an issue of being “afraid of a little discussion” or of it being “an echo chamber”. It’s that everybody there has decided that astrology is not worth defending in that place.

Strangely, “I’m gay” doesn’t strike me as a particularly gay thing to say… Maybe it’s just the way I think about these things, but asserting an identity doesn’t seem to me to be the same thing as demonstrating the identity through speech.

Like, if I say “I’m a computer programmer,” is that more “computer programmery” than saying, “Good code has low cyclomatic complexity”?

But cars are used by licensed individuals who meet some minimum skill requirement. Most accidents are caused by reckless behavior from a person who is an adult who has been trained not to drive that way and who understands that other people would say that they are doing something wrong.

There is a huge gulf between a car accident and a stair accident. Far less of a gulf between cars and guns.

Stairs are dangerous, yes, but if you push someone down the stairs, it still counts as murder. What you’re saying has nothing to do with the topic.

Are you intentionally trying to defend cars in the fuck cars community?

But by that logic, a human centipede wouldn’t be a string of hot dogs.

I think if you ignore the intention of the manufacturer for a moment and focus on the acts of the individual, they’ll seem closer.

Both cars and guns are dangerous devices. Both can be used for intentional murder.

Both guns and cars are so dangerous that they should not ever be used carelessly. In fact, it would be the height of recklessness to use either one without constant vigilance. You could easily kill somebody.

But with guns, people generally accept that there is a wrong way to use them, and that it’s your fault if you don’t have trigger discipline, or if you ever point the barrel at someone without thinking.

On the other hand, the same cannot be said about cars. Just look how people react when you mention defensive driving, a system of disciplines that make driving safer for both the driver and anyone else near the road.

People are so used to getting away with driving poorly that they are willing to accept deaths rather than even hearing about safer driving habits.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the oligarchs are doing this so that they can continue the research, but not release it to the public. Just like how it’s not enough for them to be rich; they need everyone else to be poor, they might want to live long healthy lives while everyone else is sickly and dies young.

Going by that last panel, Disability Visibility by Alice Wong must be so enthralling that nearby people who are reading Pain: A Political History by Keith Wailoo will stop reading their book to read Disability Visibility over your shoulder.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t get it until you explained it. Ironically, the people who read titles will have a harder time understanding the comic, because we’ve read it out-of-order.

I remember they used to have door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen. Thinking back on it, we had book stores back then, so people could have gotten encyclopedias from there, so how did encyclopedia salesmen make any sales??

At any rate, at some point, my parents had purchased a short set of encyclopedias. They weren’t as good as the ones at the school or library, but it was something like 4-5 large books.

And despite what people think today, I don’t think those encyclopedias were as good or as accurate as Wikipedia is today. Wikipedia is so nice. If you want to know more about a part that’s not covered well in the article, you can just go look at the source.

There are some Middle Eastern countries that would be ecstatic to host him for a short time.

This is a lot of effort simply to avoid comment downvotes, and I did in fact hedge my comment in the first four words.

This is going to sound tautological, but comment downvotes against my comments only express the opinions of the type of person who would downvote my comments. It’s like that quote about not playing chess against a pigeon. If anything, I want them to respond to my comment so that I know who they are. I’d argue that if the platform allows comment downvotes, and this goes only for comment downvotes, not for upvotes, or post votes, but if the platform allows comment downvotes, then it should also allow any user to see who downvoted the comment. If my hedge in the first four words of my comment isn’t enough to convince people to have enough curiosity to read past the first sentence, then the truth is that I don’t think they’re worth my time. If they’re the type of people who downvote my comment, then I don’t really want anything to do with them. It’s simply evidence of bad behavior.

Also, government creation contracts are called constitutions. Lots of countries have them.

I also enjoy pedantic arguments, but I try to remember to avoid them when I think the topic is important. I had to stop myself from arguing against this point, because even if I won the argument, it wouldn’t mean anything.

I understand, but if I wrote comments with those types of people in mind, I’d never be able to say anything worthwhile.

The problem is the platform. There should be no option to downvote comments. It should just be upvote, reply, and report. Allowing people to downvote comments only leads to this sort of antisocial anti-intellectual behavior.