Farid

Which is why I said “technically”.

Technically, MacOS doesn’t cost money to use and has no ads.

The light bird had it coming. I voted for dark bird because it won’t eat MY babies.

I’m doing their music course and it includes a song called Spanish or Vanish. With some lyrics, too.

I’ll have you know, that I have it on good authority (from the ever rational and totally not an echo chamber Hexbear) that the invasion is actually very successful and Russia is winning. By a lot!

Maybe?! There’s a scenario where people put their feet on the couch wearing outdoor shoes?! 😱

I can’t parse the first sentence. Might be a morning thing. Can somebody help?

Kings.

I was going to say this, too. It definitely applies to some games, but not the original Crash trilogy. I replay those games every 5-10 years.

How is this photo supposed to convince anyone of anything? Floods, tornadoes and other environmental disasters occured before humans even existed. The problem is their frequency and severity.

This is like trying to sell somebody a 120hz+ display using a photo.

PipeWire is a server and user space API to deal with multimedia pipelines. This includes:

• Making available sources of video (such as from a capture devices or application provided streams) and multiplexing this with clients.
• Accessing sources of video for consumption.
• Generating graphs for audio and video processing.

Nodes in the graph can be implemented as separate processes, communicating with sockets and exchanging multimedia content using fd passing.

The oil lobby wouldn’t be specifically against cars from another region, they are against electric vehicles in general, whether they are produced domestically or otherwise. The primary benefactors from the tariffs are the US electric car manufacturers, who would lose profit over not being able to compete with subsidized cars. They are probably the ones who lobbied for them.

Whether you agree or not with their justification (or think that it’s not the real reason), they clearly have no justifications (or reasons) to impose tariffs on unsubsidized (or at least not as heavily subsidized) EU cars.

I don’t think the US would either. Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies. Doubt EU is gonna subsidize cars, at least as heavily as China.

What do you mean? Why would Europe impose tariffs on their own cars?

Right, the Vault-Tec approach.

Why would Noah cause the flood…?

I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations. It doesn’t need to be complex or human-like to qualify as intelligence.

A single if statement arguably isn’t intelligence, sure, but how many if statements is? Because at some point you can write a complex enough sequence of if statements that will exhibit intelligence. As I was saying in my other comments, where do we draw this line in the sand? If we use the definition from the link, which is:

The highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

My whole point is less about redefining intelligence and more about recognizing its spectrum, both in nature and in machines. But I don’t expect for everybody to agree, even the expert in the fields don’t.

Opponent players in games have been labeled AI for decades, so yeah, software engineers have been producing AI for a while. If a computer can play a game of chess against you, it has intelligence, a very narrowly scoped intelligence, which is artificial, but intelligence nonetheless.

I would put it differently. Sometimes words have two meanings, for example a layman’s understanding of it and a specialist’s understanding of the same word, which might mean something adjacent, but still different. For instance, the word “theory” in everyday language often means a guess or speculation, while in science, a “theory” is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence.

Similarly, when a cognitive scientist talks about “intelligence”, they might be referring to something quite different from what a layperson understands by the term.