Carlson is free. He was only briefly pulled aside for questioning it seems. If it was routine procedure as Israel are claiming we should be still be against government questioning, especially as a frequent procedure forced on ordinary people.
If robots are capable of taking all the jobs that means they don't need humans to function. It also means they are easily capable of subduing the world's population through their superior force and intelligence. A single AGI would also be capable of developing WMDs like a virus capable of infecting and killing every human on the planet.
The fact of the matter is there's no possible future in which AGI or billions of robots is good for humans. One lunatic with AGI makes us extinct and without AGI every government will still use robots to subjugate its people.
Always? I really don't think so. Without explicitly bringing the powers that be or systems of government into a discussion on migration it comes across as saying those things aren't to blame, only the migrants are the enemy.
It's more effective to keep the focus on the government problems than the immigrants. Problems with immigrants need to be framed as problems with the government in order to actually fix the problem and avoid the divide and conquer strategy in which you end up fighting migrants and the left and get called a racist instead of fighting the government together.
The hyper focus on immigration is a divide and conquer tactic as well as a distraction from more important subjects.
While immigration is a big problem, the people to blame are those in power, not the people migrating who are just doing what anyone else would do when given the option to live in a poor and unstable home country or a rich and stable new country handing out free stuff where immigration laws hardly apply to them. Most of the opposition to migration is complaining and protesting about the migrants rather than the government corruption that led to this. You can "elect" a new government that closes the border for a few years to pacify you but you better not question the corrupt system that will install the next government and allow it to take bribes, bribe the voters with freebies and open the borders again with zero threat of punishment.
And while the pendulum swings this way and that over immigration and ethnic factions brawl in the streets, the progress of moral erosion, transhumanism, AI, robots, the surveillance state and government corruption will continue with little opposition. Until those problems become so bad it will be too late to do anything about them because there will be a robotic boot on every individual neck.
Like I said, why do you insist on listening to liars? Just ignore them and look at the facts like those I've been talking about.
Where, who? And working with humans?
Amazon - that's who I was talking about. You can watch videos of their Kiva robots routing around each other or bringing items to humans. Still only making less important decisions like how to get from A to B while avoid crashes, but making decisions in a dynamic environment all the same, which is different from say car assembly robots that repeat the exact same action over and over.
We already have AI that suggests new chemicals as well as AlphaFold that predicts protein folding better than humans. And AI such as Kosmos that can simply be given a research question and it will spend hours designing experiments, writing programs to perform them and generate a paper presenting the method and results. It needs better accuracy, but this is how AI could replace human scientists. With a robot body physical experiments can also be performed. "Self-driving labs" are already using AI to design and perform experiments on physical materials.
A lot of manga and anime is pedophilic. So obviously there must be a decent market for that in Japan. Only in 2023 did Japan make it illegal for middle aged people to have sex with 13-year olds (in response to nationwide protests).
Of course pedophilia is often toward boys as well as girls (since homosexuals are often pederasts and pedophiles don't have any moral issues abusing both sexes - in Japan they have names for both male and female pedophilic content) so I'm not sure it's right to label this a threat to women in particular. But suggesting some random tweet getting 300K likes (gasp) is the UN's payback on Japan is really reaching.
I think people prior to WWII would have had more foresight and understanding of the importance of tightening their belts so that things can be better for themselves and younger generations in the future. And cared more about those future generations. But you're right that generations have been getting progressively more selfish (and dumb and progressive) so today's young people would have done the same or worse if they had been born in the baby boom.
AIs are capable of outperforming humans despite the fact they are created by humans. AIs can play chess and generate images better than any human can. It helps that in areas such as these there are ways to accurately measure success and AIs can experiment trying to improve their measure of success and don't simply have to copy human data. In hard sciences there's usually a metric of success as well, meaning AIs will be able to get better than humans at science and thus will end up making low budget WMDs capable of making humans extinct.
Manufacturers were using robots that only did specific procedures in controlled environments. Now they're using robots with AI that make their own decisions and can work with each other or humans and perform more complex or delicate tasks.
I think the huge amounts of money for energy are mainly to service billions of users. The actual technology itself doesn't need that many resources for a single user. And the resources needed per unit of intelligence or output will go down with more research. And I wouldn't call say 2015-2023 a time of linear improvement in AI capabilities relative to the amount of effort put into AI development. Capabilities exploded without a huge rise in effort.
Believing the boy who cried wolf is just silly
I already said to stop listening to that boy. Why do you insist on going back to him then?
I would say everyone in business lies to get more funding. But AI would still get a lot of funding without the lies because of what it can do, especially for businesses. It's already taking out jobs in customer service, programming, writing and art. Amazon already use autonomous robots (humanoid and non-humanoid) in their warehouses. At some point it might reach diminishing returns, but there's no law of the universe that prevents AI from getting smarter than humans, so it seems almost certain that's where it's going to end up.
Ignore whatever other people are saying, just think about it logically. I don't care what anyone else has said that did or didn't happen, I just observe that AI has been demonstrably getting better. Before you couldn't even have a chat bot that wrote code in the language you asked, now you can have a chat bot not only write code in the language you ask but it actually does something useful and they can fix problems in existing code. Far from perfectly, but still at the point where people who don't know any programming languages can build useful applications with AI.
Physics sure made accelerating progress before stagnating in the 20th century. Same thing with chemistry. And biology is still accelerating in my opinion. AI is still young and likely has a lot more acceleration left in it. Besides, it's already close to the singularity in that we now have AIs that can do general tasks with some level of competency. All that's left is to get the competency consistently above average human levels. I don't think that's far away at all. Even if it is, we still have to deal with it happening whenever it does.
The way I see it, this documentary is making the claim that chemtrails are secretly everywhere and that's how they accomplish their goal of making us all sick or geoengineering the planet's climate, by being ubiquitous. It's definitely not claiming that chemtrails are these things that are done in fairly infrequent experiments or publicly declared local weather initiatives. Therefore the documentary appears to be misinformation or indeed deliberate disinformation to discredit the fact that these things exist and could potentially become ubiquitous in the future.
I'm not trying to make a straw man, I'm just saying that's the claim I'm always hearing. People pointing to your average white line in the sky and saying that's a chemtrail. That's what they do in this documentary, and they say it's obvious because they don't immediately disappear. Maybe they don't say it's most planes in the sky, but they imply it's a good proportion of them and it definitely includes commercial flights.
I'm sure they could be fitted to commercial planes but then we should see them, right? Or if they're hidden the people who work on the planes should be able to tell us about them. And there should be blueprints, instructions on changing them and other documents that would prove they exist. But so far I haven't found one credible document or whistleblower.
This is talking about planes specifically being flown to seed clouds. But the chemtrail conspiracy claim is that your average plane in the sky (i.e., commerical travel flight) is secretly emitting chemicals intended to cause harm or change the weather/climate.
How can someone be accountable if he never had any choice in the matter?
In other words you're asking "Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?". If you're a follower of Paul's teachings you should get your answer from his response to that question. But if you're not content to believe Paul I suggest that minds should be punished for making choices that could cause harm. We should also stop machines that cause more harm than good, even destroying them if there is a risk of them being used again. We even refer to machines, plans and processes as bad or evil despite them not having any mind or free will.
Why is that bad under determinism and how is he guilty of being himself?
It's bad because child abuse and murder are bad things that we want to minimize. And he's guilty because he did bad things and is a depraved person. It doesn't matter why he is (pre-determined or not), the fact is that he is and that justifies punishment.
None of the Church fathers understood that passage to mean that some people were created for damnation.
Maybe because they weren't comfortable with what it actually says. It was and still is common for uncomfortable teachings to be ignored or reinterpreted.
God supplies grace for salvation, but damnation comes from the sinner’s own choices.
That sounds comforting, but unfortunately that's the very opposite of what the passage says. It's explained very plainly in black and white across all different translations and I don't have to be taught by a Calvinist to understand what it clearly says.
Saying truth is how things are is circular.
It's only circular if how things are is defined based on what is true. But I don't think we should define it like that.
How do you know how things are and how do you know your perception of "things" aligns with what's true?
This is a question I don't think anyone has been able to answer and I don't see how free will would help.
at no point do you make an evaluation and choose the true one over the false one.
You mean a non-deterministic evaluation. We still make deterministic evaluations and choices under determinism. But even if we didn't make any evaluations or choices and we just had beliefs planted into our minds I don't see how that makes them not beliefs or not justified (justification meaning there are other things known which prove that the belief is true).
You have no way of evaluating which one is true because your output is determined also - you're basically a calculator yourself.
Yet a computer can tell which one is true, so your reasoning here is wrong.
a determined output [would] stand on equal grounds as any other output.
Two computer programs for adding numbers can both be deterministic but that doesn't make them equally correct.
A mind without free will is a determined input-output mechanism though. At no point does it act on its own.
And your point is that therefore the mind isn't important? That's like saying the difference between a rock and a super-intelligent computer isn't important. Only worse because minds are immaterial and have subjective experiences while computers do not.
I'd much rather have my clothes lightly patted than be taken aside for questioning. I don't support any of it though. Normally a warrant is needed before a search and we have innocence until proven guilty. There can be a choice between flights with invasive security checks and those without, but governments like force not choice. That would also expose the fact that security checks do practically nothing.