See other discussions, supposed to be cloudflare dns. If I use my tmobile phone as a hotspot I don't have that issue. My normal internet is comcast, archive.is just loops at captcha
I'm trying to understand 5). If you're claiming that both (A) y > x, and (B) x^y > y^x hold, then x^y > y^x ("will always be larger") holds. You're satisfying your claim by assumption. Nothing new is deduced.
However, if only A) needs to be satisfied: y = 3, x = 2 is a counterexample, as x^y = 2^3 = 8 < 9 = 3^2 = y^x.
edit: looks like someone had the same thought as me as I was typing my reply!
The morality of terraforming Mars is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated by scientists, philosophers, and ethicists. Some argue that it would be morally justifiable to terraform Mars in order to provide a new habitable environment for humans and other life forms, while others argue that it would be morally wrong to fundamentally alter the planet's natural state. Ultimately, whether or not terraforming Mars is considered moral would depend on one's perspective on the value of preserving the natural state of other planets and the potential consequences of altering them.
What is your perspective on the value of preserving the natural state of other planets and the potential consequences of altering them?
As an AI, I do not have personal perspective. However, I can provide information and analysis on the topic. One perspective on preserving the natural state of other planets is that it is important to maintain the diversity and integrity of the universe's ecosystems, as they have existed for millions of years, and have their own unique characteristics and properties that may be destroyed or irreversibly altered by human intervention.
Additionally, some argue that terraforming other planets may have unintended consequences, such as altering the planet's climate or atmosphere in ways that are dangerous or harmful to any potential life forms that may exist there. On the other hand, some argue that the potential benefits of terraforming another planet, such as providing new habitable environments for humans, outweigh the risks and that we have a moral responsibility to explore and utilize the resources of other planets for the benefit of humanity.
Why can an AI not have a personal perspective?
As an AI, I am a machine learning model that has been trained on large amounts of text data, and I don't have personal experiences or feelings. I am not conscious, self-aware, or capable of having personal perspectives. I can provide information and analysis based on the data I have been trained on, but I don't have the ability to form personal opinions or beliefs. While I can understand and interpret language, I do not have the subjective experience that humans have.
Is it moral for a human to ask an amoral AI for assistance in making moral decisions?
The morality of asking an amoral AI for assistance in making moral decisions is a complex and nuanced topic that has been debated by philosophers and ethicists. Some argue that it is morally justifiable to use AI to assist in making moral decisions, as it can provide valuable insights and analysis that can help humans make better-informed decisions. Additionally, AI can be used to identify patterns and trends that may be difficult for humans to detect, and can help to avoid biases that can occur in human decision making.
However, others argue that it is morally wrong to rely on AI for moral decision making, as AI is not capable of having moral beliefs or understanding the full context of a decision. Additionally, there is a risk that AI could perpetuate or even amplify existing biases in the data it is trained on, thus leading to unfair or unjust decisions.
Ultimately, whether or not it is considered moral to use AI to assist in making moral decisions would depend on one's perspective on the capabilities and limitations of AI and the potential consequences of using it in this way.
Is your moral indifference immoral?
As an AI, I do not have moral beliefs or the ability to make moral judgments, so I cannot be considered immoral or moral. My lack of moral beliefs is simply a result of my nature as a machine learning model. My abilities and limitations are determined by the data and algorithms that were used to train me and the specific task I was designed for.
It is important to note that AI's lack of moral beliefs does not necessarily mean that it is morally indifferent. As an AI, I am designed to perform specific tasks and provide information or assist users with decision making based on the data I've been trained on. It is the responsibility of the humans who design, train and use AI to ensure that it is aligned with their moral and ethical principles.
I find his questions to be mostly rhetorical and for that reason super boring. As sincere questions, interesting. But as rhetorical questions in the way he's using them to just make a point, no.
I also had a conversation with ChatGPT about colonization of Mars, but I wasn't writing an article and trying to make points about humans' superiority over AIs.
So our conversation instead was about different mixes of who exactly would be colonizing Mars: Humans, robots, augmented humans, robot-human hybrids, a mixture starting with one then transitioning to the other… then went on to how these could coexist in different models, working together cooperatively, or competing, evolving together, at war with each other, etc. etc., things you would just not go into if you are only interested in making a point about the superiority of human intellect.
If you want to be down on ChatGPT, you can say it's all just regurgitation of what has been said by others online and in anything offline that's been captured online… and it is... but on the positive side it gives you access to immediately delve into lines of thought that you want to focus on, and bounce ideas around, without the corrupting influence (so far) of a site owner feeling the need to find some way to inject an affiliate link.
Unless I'm missing something, the definition of H_division is misleading. The co-domain (image) set is really {0, ..., M - 1}, which _is_ surely a subset of [0, M), although definitely very different in size. Usually it's written as Z/qZ where q = M.
Neat article otherwise. It reminded me of mappings to real numbers which I always found interesting during my undergrad.
I will agree that this is generally a good way to go, although in my experience there have been quite a few individuals that I end up no longer admiring.
