FaceDeer

Many of their customers want them to produce ads.

The term "artificial intelligence" has been in use in this field for a very long time now, applying to a broad range of techniques. Some of them much, much more primitive than the LLMs and such that are revolutionizing the field currently. There is nothing wrong with using AI to refer to them.

Sounds like the problem is with our economic system. There are ways to fix that. Even ways to fix "capitalism" so that it isn't necessary, without changing the fundamental concepts of freedom and personal property that people are so worried about.

And then when AI researchers come along to make it so we don't have to be logic gates in that computer, we complain about "losing our jobs."

And in many cases it's not. But not in all cases. For example, this sketch is a parody of this scene from the O. C.. It uses copyrighted music as background. Parody is fair use.

Fair use is context based. There is no simple yes or no answer.

Even the AI got bored reading it.

As summarized by Bing AI:

• The author shares his experience at the Consumer Electronics Show, where he watched a keynote speech for the Rabbit R1, an AI gadget that acts as a personal assistant.
• The Rabbit R1 can create a “digital twin” of the user, which can directly utilize all of your apps so that you, the person, don’t have to.
• The author expresses concern about the lack of information on how the Rabbit will interact with these apps and how secure the user’s data will be.
• The author also discusses the trend of AI assistants like Microsoft’s Copilot, which can perform a variety of tasks, potentially replacing human effort.
• The author emphasizes that there’s nothing inherently wrong with AI technology, but expresses concern about the potential risks and implications of its misuse.

Do you think the hardware would be free in this scenario? It adds restrictions, it doesn't remove any.

It's uncaused as far as we can tell. It's always possible that future evidence may come along to add to this understanding, but without some kind of evidence you can't just make up stuff and call it real.

Flexibility is a necessary part of rationality. To use a real example from history, Newton's laws of motion explained the motions of pretty much everything we could see around us. Objects on Earth, the orbit of the Moon, the orbits of the planets, it all seemed to fit nicely. But then it was noticed that Mercury's orbit didn't quite match the predictions that Newton's laws were making. If there was no flexibility in our understanding of the universe, what should we do? Pretend Mercury wasn't breaking Newton's laws? As it turned out, we needed Einstein's newer more elaborate version of the laws of motion to account for Mercury's motion. Science always needs to be prepared for the possibility that something new will come along that doesn't fit our existing understanding and be ready to expand our understanding to account for it.

So if for example one day we discovered that putting three apples, a digital watch, and an ingot of tin in a row caused a duck to poof into existence seemingly out of nowhere, scientists wouldn't throw up their hands and declare that science had failed and the universe was irrational. They'd start testing whether the species of apple or the time the digital watch was set to made any difference in the breed of duck that manifested.

"Rationality" is perhaps a more flexible concept than what you're assuming. As long as there's patterns to reality then there will be ways to come up with rules to describe them, and make predictions about future events.

Causality, in particular, is not strictly necessary for rationality. Our understanding of the laws of physics already accounts for situations with uncaused events, in fact. Radioactive decay is an example; an unstable atomic nucleus sitting alone in space with no outside interactions will sometimes spontaneously decay with no preceding "cause". Virtual particles are another - subatomic particles can spontaneously pop into existence and then pop back out again without a specific event causing it.

There are also proposed laws of physics for handling the concept of time travel that can allow for causal loops - things from the future affecting their past selves. We have no reason to believe that this is actually possible, but if one day we discovered that it was possible then it can still be accounted for using rational means.

So I'm not really sure it's possible to have a universe that isn't wholly rational. Even pure chaos is still describable and predictable in its very unpredictability.

Vote counting is an algorithm. I think a lot of people want a unicorn and are apalled when someone offers them a magical horse with a horn because it's not what they wanted.