Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and right‐wing factions as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

Don’t worry. We’re working on AI powered humanoid robots that will replace natural human connection.

This is in beta, not available for all users and you can also disable it easily: https://support.ecosia.org/article/994-ai-overviews

As far as I know they are using Bing. They’ve started building their own search index last year in a partnership with Qwant.

It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.

Let me know as soon as you’d like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.

(I am not sorry for “necroing”, sometimes I’m just not in the mood and/or don’t have the time to reply to various comments. But that’s the beauty of discussion platforms: it’s always possible to pick it up at a later time.)

Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn’t seem to be substantiated.

Is it though? By which definition?

What is “thinking critically about thoughts”?
And what is an “independent thought”? Aren’t our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?

Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a “thought” even is.

Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not “intelligent”? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered “intelligent”? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?

Not my wording, but the one from the paper I have linked.

Yes, a computer can currently be made to appear spiteful and horny. But in theory (more than in practise currently) a computer can also be actually made spiteful and horny instead of just appearing like it.

Drawing an analogy: what are our brains if not a biochemical computer? Being horny or spiteful are then either emergent due to the computer’s structure, or even directly encoded via its architecture.

A ‘computer’ is first and foremost a theoretical concept that can be realized in different ways. We already have built computers from various elements, not restricted to analog or digital ones. We have also made purely mechanical computers, we’ve incorporated biological elements into digital computers and biological computers are already a thing. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing

A computer can be made spiteful and horny.

Typewise.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.icoaching.typewise

Once you get used to it, it is very good. Nice large buttons, fast typing, strong privacy (e.g. EU based, on-device-only learning for next word suggestions), customizable, and you can also get the pro version forever with a single purchase instead of using the subscription model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurubis

Coincidence?

“Google stands for free and open internet”

https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/keep-internet-free-and-open/

Aged like milk.

I’ve got a rejection notice after I was hired by the very same company. The reason was that someone forgot to mark the application as accepted, so the system automatically sent the rejection mail. That was confusing at first, but also funny.

You seldomly do get the reason. Even if you’re asking. Because companies don’t want to provide ground for lawsuits. The reasons for rejection can be highly arbitrary and therefore not be justified. Even on a legal basis. So they won’t tell.

These application process dances are usually a highly defect and outdated approach to hiring anyway.

Signs that they are in dire need of devs.

Croissantius 🥐

“But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more
Just to be the protein who walks a thousand miles
To deliver cargo to your core” ♫

They are not totally wrong. But not totally right either.

What we perceive as sexual and how we react to it has strong cultural and social influences, of course there is also the baseline biology.

There was a time when women’s legs were “tobooed”, since being considered as highly sexual and delibaretly hidden.
Nowadays it’s no issue at all if women wear clothes that reveal their legs accross all occasions.

So there is some form of habit to it. If we are used to seeing naked body parts in non-sexual contexts, then we will see similar normalization in this regard as with legs or other body parts and areas.

We might benefit from normalizing this. Among other effects, this could help to counter many legal and social issues people have with revealed body parts between genders.

Aren’t they already doing that?