hardbass

What does that have to do with anything? The person above was demanding special rights for some groups. Thats absolute nonsense. All the rights we have apply to everyone in the country. What does that have to do with other laws and rights in other countries? Nobody within a country should have special rights that are not applicable to other citizens of the same country.

I think we will differ in that I think essentially a "brain in a box" is in fact possible if we feed the same chemical and electrical signals as the brain in a body experiences and it will be as real to it as for a brain in the body. Likewise I think llms are almost certainly in some way a brain in a box in this sense.

In any case, at least I am okay with the acknowledgment of humans and human brains being physical systems. Unfortunately getting even a straight acknowledgement of this fact seems hard for many.

As far as I am aware, it only requires a probabilistic Turing machine, which is the same as a normal Turing machine (or a quantum computer) in terms of what it can compute.

Ultra precise simulation like that isn't in any case necessary, after all humans can create humans without needing 40 digit decimal places. Or create cars or computers etc without simulating everything down to each electron.

How exactly do you propose to share the benefits? Do you think only "billionaires" should distribute their money? If you are middle class American you already are in the 1% or 0.1% worldwide. How much of your money are you distributing to African countries? People clamor for "distribution" until it comes to themselves.

I am saying this so called "honest" adjective is made up to falsely glorify certain jobs and insult other jobs.

Is your view that for any task not seen before we must first ask permission or legal clarification before doing it?

If not cars, whatever suitable existing legislation or classification or if needed a new regulation to make this sensible. Millions of people benefit from fast delivery, so something has to be decided, either rules of interaction with pedestrians or new tracks for these robots or anything else.

I just don't understand how some people think. THey seem to think in terms of positive rights, ie any new type of action is something that you ask permission for. I never heard this anywhere, at least most legal systems are based on the negative view being the default. These same people would then whine their drone hobby got banned or they are not allowed to fix their car in their backyard.

Many useful things could kill jobs, yes. That's not a meaningful argument in itself.

The set of machines allowed on sidewalks is a very small set. It has nothing to do with participating in soceity or not.

But you are also not understanding my point. What automation or tech will end up useful and a "noble" use later on is never immediately obvious, it depends on a web of past developments which by themselves seem to have no connection.

Ok, at least she is not a hypocrite.

Of course, then these persons should avoid using electric drills, bldc motors, digital verniers etc as these tools required computers and motors that were created out of mathematical and engineering curiosity such as developing the electromagnetic theory not out of value for society to work. Since somehow the act of using this machine is more "honest" than creating this amazing machine in the first place.

Ok, why isn't she protesting other machines like bicycles allowed on sidewalks?

Its never immediately obvious. Computers put thousands of human calculators out of jobs. Now computers superpowered any and all physical modeling, molecule searches, etc. But, should we have decided eg astronomers or microscopists are required to have jobs, then we wouldn't have developed automated high quality optics, which themselves were required to commoditize computers. Almost all technologies somehow play a role directly or indirectly that existed before a new one for any new advance.