So the trouble with this argument is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the brain can solve problems that a turing machine can't.
There's none. No one has been able to formulate a problem in a reasonable way that a computer algorithm can't be devised to solve it that people can solve.
It is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense like the tripartite nature of god(father, son and holy spirit...)
Searle's chinese room argument is slightly better, but is still ultimately a pile of horseshit. From an external point of view we cannot distinguish between a room full of people who do not speak chinese but can translate it following rigorous instructions and tables and a room full of qualified chinese translators. For all external purposes the black boxes are equivalent except that you can take a chinese translator out of the room and still use them to translate chinese without the rigorous instructions and reference material in the room.
There is no good philosophical argument against Strong AI. It is a bunch of quasi-religious, humans are special because we say so wishy-washy nonsense.
I would be more careful using Steve Jobs as an example, the patents he infringed on (Ericsson, Nokia and another company, i do not recall the name off the top of my head) was what made the modern simpler smartphone possible (over 30 patents if i recall right) - so a strong lead/visionary - yes, a strong original programmer as the picture of him is drawn (from my limited knowledge - not so much).
Linus - who can disagree? Even though with years the will to break new ground decreases. Elon though humanity is indepted to him and he has shown that some people discarded by big data has alot to give he still isn't leading alone as the original programmer. Neither is Zuckerberg as far as i know (but I can admit I don't know enough about him or his history).
Visionaries - yes. Original lead programmers that lead by example and create original solutions to individual programming problems - not so much to my knowledge.
This is the thing. Amazon is basically a fast food restaurant or a best buy and not a technology company like say Google. The only real difference between Amazon and say IBM, is that Amazon is younger and used to have pretty smart leadership. It is a conformist place that is really only successful because Wall Street doesn't want to fund more than one ecommerce company.
The notion of "non-technical" for the "non-technical" cofounder of a technology company is dramatically more technical than the notion of "non-technical" for the general population. A useful non-technical co-founder is at least a technology power user, and probably actually someone who could write code that will kind of work most of the time in a language designed for encouraging children to program such as python. https://www.python.org/doc/essays/everybody/
E-ChatGPT should replace snail-Google. It's called a reaping of just rewards, happens all the time. Google was once blessed by the new god and now must suffer at the hand of the old devil.
No credibility to those going off grid or those slandering them.
There will be idiots wanting things to be black or white with nothing in between - while it's the scale that creates the ability to differentiate right from wrong and what is what.
Fluoride has been linked as detrimental to IQ by Harvard - search and you'll find the study (and afaik not only by Harvard, one example should be enough).
Regarding tap water it will soon be the organisation of it through the state that stands between a massive "outbreak" of cancer in the population and keepign up the current rates of it. -Fracking has created holes inbetween water sources and oil/gas pockets - these are filled in by pumping down gravel and cement. That mixture to begin with isn't even as "qualitative" as you might think as pokects of other materials are created and as the layers of rock, dirth etc shifts the material is ground down. Within 30 years there is a really high risk of failure and over time the vast majority will fail - resulting in a poisioned watertable. Do you really think the people who have ownership of gas, oil and fracking companies will be held accountable by the legal system? Or by corrupt politicians - many who surely had a hand in the allowance to drill in the manner which has been done...
Tap water is the way to assure massive amounts of clean water to a population - that however does not mean that it does not come without a cost (if it is fluoride and a lowering of IQ to create a docile people or not) and that tradeoff should be known - both the positive and the negative of it.
Transparency drives technological evolution, if the tradeoff is known and can be argued to be problematic there is an incentive to come up with a better solution.
I checked this claim on Google Scholar. To my surprise, there actually appears to be some credible research linking fluoride in water to lower IQ in children. However, studies are typically in China where fluoride levels can be much higher than what is recommended in (e.g. in the US). We are also talking about roughly 0.5-1 IQ points as an average effect size, so not huge. Lastly, note that these are descriptive associations, and possible confounders include the presence of arsenic in drinking water (guess Chinese public health still has some way to go...).
In 1832, there was a cholera epidemic. Thousands of new cases each week and hundreds of deaths. When it hit Paris alone, tens of thousands of people died. To quote a former mayor of New York at the time:
> Our visitation is severe but thus far it falls much short of other places. St. Louis on the Mississippi is likely to be depopulated, and Cincinnati on the Ohio is awfully scourged.
Over a hundred thousand people fled urban areas to live in the countryside to escape cholera. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans died of the disease. Our former president, James Polk, succumbed to the disease. Almost a quarter million Mexicans died. Millions of people contracted cholera around the world and hundreds of thousands of them died.
We don't really have cholera anymore. Fewer than forty cases have been reported in the US each year for the last fifty years or so. This is largely due to our ability to treat water.
You know who doesn't have treated water? The Democratic Republic of Congo. Ever hear about the water crisis in Africa? Tens of thousands of people contract cholera there (among other other diseases) each year, and a good chunk of them die.
> Transparency drives technological evolution, if the tradeoff is known and can be argued to be problematic there is an incentive to come up with a better solution.
Drinking untreated groundwater is not the answer, and not innovative in any way. It's regressionist. Encouraging other people to do it with promises of potential health benefits is ignoring our relatively recent past, where literally millions of people died because we didn't have clean tap water. Perhaps we've lulled ourselves into a false sense of security, not having to worry about dying from terrible waterborne diseases.
Also, fluoridated water doesn't decrease your IQ [0], and claiming it does is irresponsible.
Note that it focuses on child development and several of the included studies have populations which rely on water sources contaminated way beyond typical fluorodation (up to 10mg/l vs 1mg/l).
Also we're talking about a small difference in IQ (-0.5 point, still very costly in personal and societal terms); nothing about making populations docile.
That is not a productive debate to be had. Conspiracies aside, there are clearly questions to be asked: many studies show negative effects of fluoridation such as an increased rate of fluorosis in children, over-exposure, including evidence of neurotoxicity. Even more worrying, the sources of fluoride used have been shown to be frequently contaminated by much, much worse substances due to their origin as a manufacturing by-product.
Most importantly, countries that do not fluoridate water (~95% of the world) have experienced the same reduction in tooth decay as the ones who do.
They don’t call them UK teeth for nothing. It obviously does have an effect on tooth decay, I’ve seen a lot more problems in my friends who come from non-flouride societies with similar dental hygiene to myself.
"The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing."
Up to people to spread the word on these, if every person knew 1 or 2 progressive politicians (no matter which side, aka in relation to those regressive in the democracts and those progressive in the undemocratic aka the republican, party) and shared that with others there would sooner rather then later be a change - be the impact you want to see.
Aren't banks allready shifting over in larger scale to quntum computing? Would also explain the openess from a bank. Though national banks and nation state backed banks are imo often quite a few steps better than the rest - then again at times even though publically supported fks up like Nordea.
I have not seen any evidence that banks are shifting over to quantum computing. As far as I can see, quantum computing itsself is far from useable in any production setting -- it is mostly in early R&D stage.
I was suprised to see that none had commented on draining the possible genepool for Mammoth yet?
These "miners" are bound to reduce the available DNA for researchers that do work within this field, humans likely killed off the mammoth - if we brought it back it could serve to upkeep large quantities of open grounds (believe it or not but herds are important to grasslands and soilvalue).
Either there should be a larger rewards than the bones can offer and a get out of jail freecard for the offense if fresh DNA or what to is believed to be such is found (so that scientifical extraction is possible on site).
Or the regulation should be strengthened, both the governement and the criminal networks should realise what a potential goldmine living and breeding mammothherds could be for russia...
AFAIK the problems with creating a living mammoth are not in extracting DNA but in the other "implementation details", since we already know the complete genome.
Sequencing the genome of a species means you have a typical (or maybe modal) sequence of an individual. The GP is specifically talking about the gene pool, which is the set of variations with respect to the modal genome.
There is no good philosophical argument against Strong AI. It is a bunch of quasi-religious, humans are special because we say so wishy-washy nonsense.