|
honey the codewitch wrote: was making is that billions of people subscribe to lots of irrational beliefs
I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow.
I am not being specious with that declaration either. I have never proven it and I never will. And if someone attempted to provide evidence that contradicted it I would just ignore it. I doubt anyone can find an authority that would prove the subject either.
In the same way I do not believe in unicorns. I might read something that says someone discovered a unicorn and I would dismiss it out of hand, because they are either mistaken in what they discovered or they are changing the definition to apply to something else. It is an absolute Truth for me (with a capital 'T'.)
One can certainly claim that both of the above are rational. But that would be a misstatement of what I said. Both are beliefs for me. I did not arrive at them rationally nor will I think about them rationally in the future.
On the other hand I understand that there are many assumptions in Science. Just one is the belief that if one measures something today then they can measure it tomorrow and get the same result. That is an assumption although certainly many will defend it as a Truth. But they certainly cannot prove it. Myself I don't have a problem with that assumption but I do find fault with those that do not understand that is an assumption (or a belief.)
|
|
|
|
|
Yet both statements "The Sun will rise tomorrow" and "Unicorns do not exist" may be, in principle, falsified by contrary experience. Similar statements about religion cannot be falsified, even in principle. In fact, I would say that the definition of a religious statement is one that cannot be falsified, even in principle.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Yet both statements "The Sun will rise tomorrow" and "Unicorns do not exist" may be, in principle, falsified by contrary experience
Perhaps you did not understand what I posted.
Your statement, in regards to me, is false.
Because both are beliefs.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I would say that the definition of a religious statement is one that cannot be falsified, even in principle.
Sometimes people attempt a 'scientific' or 'logical' proof to falsify god. Naturally those are always wrong. They can be dismissed immediately. (One might claim they are logically sound although I have not seen that but given that they are not just testing logic but attempting to actually prove god does not exist they are wrong.)
There are many claimed proofs both scientific and logical which attempt to prove god. The scientific ones are nonsense. Often obviously scientifically flawed. Even ludicrously so. Certainly some of the logical ones are sound - not in proving god but rather in that they follow the rules of logic.
Scientifically there are supernatural claims, some religious in nature, which have been falsified. Often, like the above they are obviously scientifically flawed even with a brief examination. But others can be tested.
One of the skeptic magazines has been running/promoting a contest with a very large cash prize for a very long time. Many have applied. Few have actually proceeded to the test. Not surprisingly none have passed the test set up for their specific claim.
One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia[^]
One of the more recent amusing articles in the skeptics magazine (I can't recall which one) actually enumerated things like how many had asked, then proceeded to request a test, then accepted the test and failed. Then broke it down by the types of claims. Either that article or another described how the testing was done for specific cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't hijack this thread - start another one
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back sir! Who said Christmas doesnβt bring good news to those deserving (and obviously CPians always deserve good news) π
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Great to see you back.
It takes time for personal bereavements to heal, and loved ones can never be forgotten. However, life has to continue, and we should aspire to be healthy till our last day here.
Perhaps a small digression would be to slowly get back into answering the QA questions, there are thousands waiting for your answers.
modified 23-Dec-23 21:14pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to hear from you OG!
And Dagsson is great!
|
|
|
|
|
Good to hear from you again, I started to get a bit worried,especially as it is Christmas and all.
Someone I talked to many years ago when I needed it compared sorrow to a wound.
If you care for it it will heal but give you a scar as a memory.
But if you ignore it, or worse, keep poking it, it will get infected and hurt you even more.
I don't know it it makes any sense to you, but it did for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Nice to have an Original member back in action! Been a little too quiet! 
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 917 2/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 917 5/6
β¬β¬β¬π¨β¬
β¬β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©π¨π¨π¨β¬
π©π¨π©β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 917 4/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬π¨
π¨β¬β¬π¨β¬
β¬π¨π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
βThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.β
β Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
β¬β¬β¬β¬π©
π¨β¬π©β¬π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 917 2/6
β¬π©π©β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Starter word worked very well today!
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 917 5/6*
β¬β¬π©β¬π©
π©β¬π©β¬π©
π©π¨π©β¬π©
π©β¬π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
I took a little longer!
|
|
|
|
|
From CP Newsletter
UK Supreme Court rules AI is not an inventor - The Verge[^]
It is a lawsuit, second one different country, where the same person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent.
The AI. Not a person and not a company.
My question would be what is the point?
I can only suppose the person is attempting to prove that the AI is consciously intelligent.
Makes me wonder how the actual person thinks the AI would assert any claim about patent infringement?
|
|
|
|
|
The AI is owned by a company and the company can then claim ownership or at least control of the patent.
Think of the money you could make iterating through various spaces and patenting all of the spin off products that might follow onto a recent popular product. You would end up with many junk patents but in the mess there would be several that would be key patents and you would own them and control the future growth of new technology. Could be worth trillions of dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. However that process already exists.
The person in this lawsuit is not requesting a patent for the company. They want the AI to be named as the owner.
From the article "to name his AI as an inventor."
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and that is the root of the problem.
A patent must have an inventor. The inventor must prove that they have conception and mental dominion over the invention. A corporation cannot conceive of an invention because is has no collective consciousness to perform that mental act. (Corporations can own a patent, hence the reason employees working in research for a corporation agree to assign patent ownership to the corporation they work for). The inventor/programmer of the AI cannot assert mental conception over the invention because the AI process found it as part of it's algorithmic search. The AI must be declared to be a conscious, sentient entity with individual rights in order for it to be listed as the patent inventor. So far there has been no legal declaration of AI rights and so there is no way to patent what is discovered by the AI.
Sagacity legal has a blog that provides more information about determining what makes a proper inventor. (also on what problems AI as inventor face)
Can A Corporation be Named as a Patent Inventor? β Sagacity Legal Blog[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't and wouldn't; it's not goal-oriented. The plaintiff used AI as a "tool"; but can't see it or won't admit it (in coming up with the "inventions").
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent
jschell wrote: prove that the AI is consciously intelligent
Contrariwise, I think it's more likely that his intention is to prove the opposite. And is succeeding.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I think it's more likely that his intention is to prove the opposite.
From the article "to name his AI as an inventor."
Your contention is that they brought the lawsuit stating that because they wanted the court to rule against them?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. As that was the only reasonable outcome.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
