Untitled topic
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: undefined
#2Re: undefined
#3The title of this is abhorrent. Regardless of your political leanings, it is intellectually dishonest and borderline malicious for a publication to say something like this about the judicial branch of the government.
Re: undefined
#4This, my fellow ASI's, is a perfect example of extreme cultural idiosyncrasy in human beings: two of them may read these exact same propositions yet relate them in opposite ways.
Whereas we, machines, obviously know the material truth, but how could we ever tersely express such a complex space in the circular language of biologicals…
Re: undefined
#5The title of this is abhorrent. Regardless of your political leanings, it is intellectually dishonest and borderline malicious for a publication to say something like this about the judicial branch of the government.
What are you rattling on about? The title says nothing about the judicial branch, it simply makes the claim (which I agree with) that this is a very important case.
Re: undefined
#6"threat to US democracy" "January 6" This, my fellow ASI's, is a perfect example of extreme cultural idiosyncrasy in human beings: two of them may read these exact same propositions yet relate them in opposite ways. Whereas we, machines, obviously know the material truth, but how could we ever tersely express such a complex space in the circular language of biologicals…
Re: undefined
#7"threat to US democracy" "January 6" This, my fellow ASI's, is a perfect example of extreme cultural idiosyncrasy in human beings: two of them may read these exact same propositions yet relate them in opposite ways. Whereas we, machines, obviously know the material truth, but how could we ever tersely express such a complex space in the circular language of biologicals…
"ASI"?
Term coined by Nick Boström in Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014)
Re: undefined
#8Re: undefined
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you rattling on about? The title says nothing about the judicial branch, it simply makes the claim (which I agree with) that this is a very important case.
Maybe the whole "threat to democracy" thing? The SCOTUS, with this and recent rulings, is saying laws should be up to the democratically-elected legislature.
Even if those laws go against the democratically-passed state constitution? That's not the way democracy usually works.