Well that is what Trump was doing, appealing to his base, while completely alienating the centre-left and left. And it worked.

Yeah, I should probably go to sleep.

deleted by creator

Broad consensus may be the “last step of science” only insofar as the scientific community accepting a theoretical framework as a complete, perfect, objective truth would mean no more science and no more scientific community, only fools and fanatics.

The two rhetorical questions in your first paragraph assume the universe is discrete and finite, and I am not sure why. But also, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You think that if you show the computers and brains work the same way(they don’t), or in a similar way(maybe) I will have to accept an AI can do everything a human can, but that is not true at all.

Treating an AI like a subject capable of receiving information is inaccurate, but I will still assume it is identical to a human in that regard for the sake of argument.

It would still be nothing like a college student grappling with abstract concepts. It would be like giving you university textbooks on quantum mechanics written in chinese, and making you study them(it would be even more accurate if you didn’t know any language at all). You would be able to notice patterns in the ways the words are placed relative to each other, and also use this information(theoretically) to make a combination of characters that resembles the texts you have, but you wouldn’t be able to understand what they reference. Even if you had a dictionary you wouldn’t be, because you wouldn’t be able to understand the definitions. Words don’t magically have their meanings stored inside, they are jnterpreted in our heads, but an AI can’t do that, the word means nothing to it.

If the only thing you feed an AI is words, then how would it possibly understand what these words mean if it does not have access to the things the words are referring to?

If it does not know the meaning of words, then what can it do but find patterns in the ways they are used?

This is a shitpost.

We are special, I am in any case.

First of all, you might as well one would be helping Harris by not voting for Trump lmao. Why would not voting for either help one of them?

Also, while I would have her win if I had to choose between the two, I don’t like her at all and wouldn’t bother voting if I lived in the USA. The impact of a single vote is so small, even in a swing state, and the chances of one’s vote being the decisive one as well, that I really wouldn’t place much importance on whether I vote.

Of course upholding a system of social incentives for voting by shaming those that don’t vote for your favourite candidate might make sense, I think it also promotes a very toxic political climate.

But the question is not whether software development is political, it’s whether the software itself is.

Modern people usually do not believe in the efficient cause, the purpose with which the thing is created is commonly understood not to be a quality of the thing.

They wouldn’t be able to get it out otherwise.

And he was always fighting publishers to have her listed as co-author.

Can’t you add it manually?

The superiority of german aryan ports proven once again.

(this is a joke, nazism is evil and I hate it)

Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.

Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.

Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.

This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.

I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).

I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.