Kogasa

No, they’re not sure. You’re correct.

Definitely not.

All people. 320kbps mp3 is completely audibly transparent under all normal listening conditions. It’s a low-tier audiophile meme to claim otherwise but they will never pass a double-blind test.

That’s what the /etc/foo.conf.d/ is for :DDDDD

If you take immortality, you also probably need to take healing. Being mortally wounded and unable to die sounds, uh, bad.

Web of trust

It’s not all of Microsoft, you just can’t download ISOs from their website.

Microsoft blocks people from downloading stuff all the time for unknowable reasons. You have to either reset your IP or go through customer support to fix it. I did the latter and they did not tell me why I was blocked in the first place.

If a line-following robot bumps into a 3 year old, it might knock them over. It’s a different situation with high speed 2 ton death machines

Once every 50 years or so

If my cooking senses are right, it would be like cooking bacon in a stainless steel pan, which is sticky and burny but not impossible

This has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. Crowdstrike has in fact broken Linux installs in a fairly similar way before.

Sure, throw people in jail who haven’t committed a crime, that’ll fix all kinds of systemic issues

Catch and then what? Return to what?

It sounds like you don’t understand the complexity of the game. Despite being finite, the number of possible games is extremely large.

Pretty sure that movie was terrible with an awesome soundtrack

U good?

Your first two paragraphs seem to rail against a philosophical conclusion made by the authors by virtue of carrying out the Turing test. Something like “this is evidence of machine consciousness” for example. I don’t really get the impression that any such claim was made, or that more education in epistemology would have changed anything.

In a world where GPT4 exists, the question of whether one person can be fooled by one chatbot in one conversation is long since uninteresting. The question of whether specific models can achieve statistically significant success is maybe a bit more compelling, not because it’s some kind of breakthrough but because it makes a generalized claim.

Re: your edit, Turing explicitly puts forth the imitation game scenario as a practicable proxy for the question of machine intelligence, “can machines think?”. He directly argues that this scenario is indeed a reasonable proxy for that question. His argument, as he admits, is not a strongly held conviction or rigorous argument, but “recitations tending to produce belief,” insofar as they are hard to rebut, or their rebuttals tend to be flawed. The whole paper was to poke at the apparent differences between (a futuristic) machine intelligence and human intelligence. In this way, the Turing test is indeed a measure of intelligence. It’s not to say that a machine passing the test is somehow in possession of a human-like mind or has reached a significant milestone of intelligence.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

I don’t think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn’t mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn’t reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.

Yup, you’ll notice the only thing distinguishing C from R^(2) is that multiplication. That one definition has extremely broad implications.

For fun, another definition is in terms of 2x2 matrices with real entries. The identity matrix

1 0
0 1

is identified with the real number 1, and the matrix

0 1
-1 0

is identified with i. Given this setup, the normal definitions of matrix addition and multiplication define the complex numbers.