There's no one source which any Scotsman claims defines a Scotsman, though, whereas pretty much the core part of the definition of Christianity is following the teachings of Christ (it's in the name!), which the vast majority of bigots-who-call-themselves-Christians certainly don't.
That's still a tough one though. Do we stop at just the words of Jesus, or do we include the teachings of the apostles? And if we include the apostles, what about the Catholic 'continuation' of that? Or what about reinterpretations by self-proclaimed prophets that are part of the many fascinating, sometimes scary, and sometimes sizable 'sects'?
We may discover that the act of passionate conquering makes men feel that much more closer to "God". The "Immigrant Song" exemplifies the hellish glory of war, to me personally.
"And now you better stop, and rebuild all of your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, despite all of your losing" [Know now, our conquered subjects, that we are your virtuous overlords, so let peace be with you hereafter. We will install our heaven here, for you and with you. Now, come with us.]
I may have some dumb questions, here. But I'll stab at one or two anyhow of them, at the risk of looking even more dumb in this thread.
Is there a possibility, or likelihood, that hard AI could diverge into at least two major dichotomies depending on how those systems form and interact? In how they attain, analyze and process information? In how it is shared? In deciding what should be shared? In how information is used and grown? In how to manage ethical questions that are often very two-sided, and difficult to model with tools like mathematics and logic?
Things like that. And what kind of outcomes could that bring about? AI debates? AI "wars?" AI manipulating other AI?
I guess I'm simply confused and ignorant as to how the playing field is shaped, generally and specifically.
I'm probably not even qualified to put these questions out there, because I have so little intelligence of AI, but the patterns in human thought that strike at me over and over in life is that a "yin/yang" of opposing perception (and resulting in oppositional thinking) almost always occurs in naturally intelligent beings. Further, those inevitable disagreements often turn out in generating new knowledge, which, in-turn, often splits into two (or more) "camps" yet again... ad infinitum.
First, is this a valid question and perception of intelligence? And secondly, is it fair to assume this might apply to other forms of intelligent systems? Or maybe I am missing a big part of the discussion in AI, which may already be addressing this (or is disregarding as simply academic or even dead-wrong.)
To me, at least, it seems counter-intuitive that AI would push in one general direction (we can debate what we mean by "direction", too). My sensibilities hazily point to a more dichotomic outcome, perhaps.
Or maybe I'm the one with the intelligence issue! But I'm very interested in these concepts, and even more interested in what we may be blind in seeing as this technology continues to evolve and take on new meanings in both our biological minds, and non-biological minds alike.
Maybe someone can help me out? I think I'm missing something, here. Machines may identify with a certain idea of "certitude", but I have trouble with that, myself.
And if AI scientists have trouble with that, themselves, because I would hope they recognize and practice humility in their thinking and interpretation of meaning, what does that mean for the scientists working to build such a powerful and mysterious type of existence?
Sometimes finding the questions to ask, and learning how to ask them is the harder than teasing out the "solutions", so to speak.
Since I'm not an insider, I won't argue the merits and difficulties of extracting a settlement in a situation such as this. But if I were a shareholder looking at this not-very-surprising and easy-to-stomach number, I would simply see this as having been an acceptable cost of doing business.
Another breathtaking "circuit board" is Los Angeles -- at night. I immediately likened what I saw to a glowing circuit board without thinking twice. What a resemblance! Very computational.
Flying in from the east, descending over Riverside and heading towards LAX, presents an absolutely astonishing view below. Lit up in orderly sequence are a vast range of square blocks, freeway arteries, commercial corridors, and industrial complexes housing warehouse "chips" that are eerily reminiscent of a giant, organically-built, human-habitable computer. Tron-style. Hardly an end in sight if the weather works it out.
All breathtakingly illuminated in varying, relative intensity and motion (streetlamps, autos, traffic signals, spotlights, etc.), "powering" the whole damn machine of a human ant colony with electric life.
Please excuse my poor attempt at a poetic description, I have not been able to find a proper photo to share here, yet.
Cool photos! Yeah, after flying over NYC, Chicago, San Fran, Detroit, etc. at night, NOTHING has come close to LA circuitry. Perhaps Las Vegas and Phoenix, on a smaller scale, but I haven't had a chance to view those cities personally. Southwest suburbs are much denser than elsewhere (which I assume is due to water, among other constraints).
I've done the same w/ my head outside of a Cessna. Nothing like knowing exactly how the atmosphere really "feels" to the wings (in other words, the feel of the pressure of air required to lift the Cessna!)
Seems to me that college is a lot of things to a lot of people, and it's probably important that these expectations and measures of results are explained as understandably and universally as possible between all these groups and interests. I'm not sure we're there yet. (Not disagreeing with your post, btw)