philosophy and robots

The 20 big questions in science

From the nature of the universe (that’s if there is only one) to the purpose of dreams, there are lots of things we still don’t know – but we might do soon. A new book seeks some answers

1 What is the universe made of?

Astronomers face an embarrassing conundrum: they don’t know what 95% of the universe is made of. Atoms, which form everything we see around us, only account for a measly 5%. Over the past 80 years it has become clear that the substantial remainder is comprised of two shadowy entities – dark matter and dark energy. The former, first discovered in 1933, acts as an invisible glue, binding galaxies and galaxy clusters together. Unveiled in 1998, the latter is pushing the universe’s expansion to ever greater speeds. Astronomers are closing in on the true identities of these unseen interlopers.

2 How did life begin?

Four billion years ago, something started stirring in the primordial soup. A few simple chemicals got together and made biology – the first molecules capable of replicating themselves appeared. We humans are linked by evolution to those early biological molecules. But how did the basic chemicals present on early Earth spontaneously arrange themselves into something resembling life? How did we get DNA? What did the first cells look like? More than half a century after the chemist Stanley Miller proposed his “primordial soup” theory, we still can’t agree about what happened. Some say life began in hot pools near volcanoes, others that it was kick-started by meteorites hitting the sea.

3 Are we alone in the universe?

Perhaps not. Astronomers have been scouring the universe for places where water worlds might have given rise to life, from Europaand Mars in our solar system to planets many light years away. Radio telescopes have been eavesdropping on the heavens and in 1977 a signal bearing the potential hallmarks of an alien message was heard. Astronomers are now able to scan the atmospheres of alien worlds for oxygen and water. The next few decades will be an exciting time to be an alien hunter with up to 60bn potentially habitable planets in our Milky Way alone.

4 What makes us human?

Just looking at your DNA won’t tell you – the human genome is 99% identical to a chimpanzee’s and, for that matter, 50% to a banana’s. We do, however, have bigger brains than most animals – not the biggest, but packed with three times as many neurons as a gorilla(86bn to be exact). A lot of the things we once thought distinguishing about us – language, tool-use, recognising yourself in the mirror – are seen in other animals. Perhaps it’s our culture – and its subsequent effect on our genes (and vice versa) – that makes the difference. Scientists think that cooking and our mastery of fire may have helped us gain big brains. But it’s possible that our capacity for co-operation and skills trade is what really makes this a planet of humans and not apes.

5 What is consciousness?

We’re still not really sure. We do know that it’s to do with different brain regions networked together rather than a single part of the brain. The thinking goes that if we figure out which bits of the brain are involved and how the neural circuitry works, we’ll figure out how consciousness emerges, something that artificial intelligence and attempts to build a brain neuron by neuron may help with. The harder, more philosophical, question is why anything should be conscious in the first place. A good suggestion is that by integrating and processing lots of information, as well as focusing and blocking out rather than reacting to the sensory inputs bombarding us, we can distinguish between what’s real and what’s not and imagine multiple future scenarios that help us adapt and survive.

6 Why do we dream?

We spend around a third of our lives sleeping. Considering how much time we spend doing it, you might think we’d know everything about it. But scientists are still searching for a complete explanation of why we sleep and dream. Subscribers to Sigmund Freud’s views believed dreams were expressions of unfulfilled wishes – often sexual – while others wonder whether dreams are anything but the random firings of a sleeping brain. Animal studies and advances in brain imaging have led us to a more complex understanding that suggests dreaming could play a role in memory, learning and emotions. Rats, for example, have been shown to replay their waking experiences in dreams, apparently helping them to solve complex tasks such as navigating mazes.

7 Why is there stuff?

You really shouldn’t be here. The “stuff” you’re made of is matter, which has a counterpart called antimatter differing only in electrical charge. When they meet, both disappear in a flash of energy. Our best theories suggest that the big bang created equal amounts of the two, meaning all matter should have since encountered its antimatter counterpart, scuppering them both and leaving the universe awash with only energy. Clearly nature has a subtle bias for matter otherwise you wouldn’t exist. Researchers are sifting data from experiments like the Large Hadron Collider trying to understand why, with supersymmetry and neutrinos the two leading contenders.

8 Are there other universes?

Our universe is a very unlikely place. Alter some of its settings even slightly and life as we know it becomes impossible. In an attempt to unravel this “fine-tuning” problem, physicists are increasingly turning to the notion of other universes. If there is an infinite number of them in a “multiverse” then every combination of settings would be played out somewhere and, of course, you find yourself in the universe where you are able to exist. It may sound crazy, but evidence from cosmology and quantum physics is pointing in that direction.

9 Where do we put all the carbon?

For the past couple of hundred years, we’ve been filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide – unleashing it by burning fossil fuels that once locked away carbon below the Earth’s surface. Now we have to put all that carbon back, or risk the consequences of a warming climate. But how do we do it? One idea is to bury it in old oil and gas fields. Another is to hide it away at the bottom of the sea. But we don’t know how long it will stay there, or what the risks might be. Meanwhile, we have to protect natural, long-lasting stores of carbon, such as forests and peat bogs, and start making energy in a way that doesn’t belch out even more.

10 How do we get more energy from the sun?

Dwindling supplies of fossil fuels mean we’re in need of a new way to power our planet. Our nearest star offers more than one possible solution. We’re already harnessing the sun’s energy to produce solar power. Another idea is to use the energy in sunlight to split water into its component parts: oxygen, and hydrogen, which could provide a clean fuel for cars of the future. Scientists are also working on an energy solution that depends on recreating the processes going on inside stars themselves – they’re building a nuclear fusion machine. The hope is that these solutions can meet our energy needs.

11 What’s so weird about prime numbers?

The fact you can shop safely on the internet is thanks to prime numbers – those digits that can only be divided by themselves and one. Public key encryption – the heartbeat of internet commerce – uses prime numbers to fashion keys capable of locking away your sensitive information from prying eyes. And yet, despite their fundamental importance to our everyday lives, the primes remain an enigma. An apparent pattern within them – the Riemann hypothesis – has tantalised some of the brightest minds in mathematics for centuries. However, as yet, no one has been able to tame their weirdness. Doing so might just break the internet.

12 How do we beat bacteria?

Antibiotics are one of the miracles of modern medicine. Sir Alexander Fleming’s Nobel prize-winning discovery led to medicines that fought some of the deadliest diseases and made surgery, transplants and chemotherapy possible. Yet this legacy is in danger – in Europe around 25,000 people die each year of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Our drug pipeline has been sputtering for decades and we’ve been making the problem worse through overprescription and misuse of antibiotics – an estimated 80% of US antibiotics goes to boosting farm animal growth. Thankfully, the advent of DNA sequencing is helping us discover antibiotics we never knew bacteria could produce. Alongside innovative, if gross-sounding, methods such as transplanting “good” bacteria from fecal matter, and the search for new bacteria deep in the oceans, we may yet keep abreast in this arms race with organisms 3bn years our senior.

13 Can computers keep getting faster?

Our tablets and smartphones are mini-computers that contain more computing power than astronauts took to the moon in 1969. But if we want to keep on increasing the amount of computing power we carry around in our pockets, how are we going to do it? There are only so many components you can cram on to a computer chip. Has the limit been reached, or is there another way to make a computer? Scientists are considering new materials, such as atomically thin carbon – graphene – as well as new systems, such as quantum computing.

14 Will we ever cure cancer?

The short answer is no. Not a single disease, but a loose group of many hundreds of diseases, cancer has been around since the dinosaurs and, being caused by haywire genes, the risk is hardwired into all of us. The longer we live, the more likely something might go wrong, in any number of ways. For cancer is a living thing – ever-evolving to survive. Yet though incredibly complicated, through genetics we’re learning more and more about what causes it, how it spreads and getting better at treating and preventing it. And know this: up to half of all cancers – 3.7m a year – are preventable; quit smoking, drink and eat moderately, stay active, and avoid prolonged exposure to the midday sun.

15 When can I have a robot butler?

Robots can already serve drinks and carry suitcases. Modern robotics can offer us a “staff” of individually specialised robots: they ready your Amazon orders for delivery, milk your cows, sort your email and ferry you between airport terminals. But a truly “intelligent” robot requires us to crack artificial intelligence. The real question is whether you’d leave a robotic butler alone in the house with your granny. And with Japan aiming to have robotic aides caring for its elderly by 2025, we’re thinking hard about it now.

16 What’s at the bottom of the ocean?

Ninety-five per cent of the ocean is unexplored. What’s down there? In 1960, Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard travelled seven miles down, to the deepest part of the ocean, in search of answers. Their voyage pushed the boundaries of human endeavour but gave them only a glimpse of life on the seafloor. It’s so difficult getting to the bottom of the ocean that for the most part we have to resort to sending unmanned vehicles as scouts. The discoveries we’ve made so far – from bizarre fish such as the barreleye, with its transparent head, to a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s made by crustaceans – are a tiny fraction of the strange world hidden below the waves.

17 What’s at the bottom of a black hole?

It’s a question we don’t yet have the tools to answer. Einstein’s general relativity says that when a black hole is created by a dying, collapsing massive star, it continues caving in until it forms an infinitely small, infinitely dense point called a singularity. But on such scales quantum physics probably has something to say too. Except that general relativity and quantum physics have never been the happiest of bedfellows – for decades they have withstood all attempts to unify them. However, a recent idea – called M-Theory – may one day explain the unseen centre of one of the universe’s most extreme creations.

18 Can we live for ever?

We live in an amazing time: we’re starting to think of “ageing” not as a fact of life, but a disease that can be treated and possibly prevented, or at least put off for a very long time. Our knowledge of what causes us to age – and what allows some animals to live longer than others – is expanding rapidly. And though we haven’t quite worked out all the details, the clues we are gathering about DNA damage, the balance of ageing, metabolism and reproductive fitness, plus the genes that regulate this, are filling out a bigger picture, potentially leading to drug treatments. But the real question is not how we’re going to live longer but how we are going to live well longer. And since many diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, are diseases of ageing, treating ageing itself could be the key.

19 How do we solve the population problem?

The number of people on our planet has doubled to more than 7 billion since the 1960s and it is expected that by 2050 there will be at least 9 billion of us. Where are we all going to live and how are we going to make enough food and fuel for our ever-growing population? Maybe we can ship everyone off to Mars or start building apartment blocks underground. We could even start feeding ourselves with lab-grown meat. These may sound like sci-fi solutions, but we might have to start taking them more seriously.

20 Is time travel possible?

Time travellers already walk among us. Thanks to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, astronauts orbiting on the International Space Station experience time ticking more slowly. At that speed the effect is minuscule, but ramp up the velocity and the effect means that one day humans might travel thousands of years into the future. Nature seems to be less fond of people going the other way and returning to the past, however some physicists have concocted an elaborate blueprint for a way to do it using wormholes and spaceships. It could even be used to hand yourself a present on Christmas Day, or answer some of the many questions that surround the universe’s great unknowns.

Let's talk about TV, "artificial" intelligences, and robots, okay?

I warned you we were coming back to this.

So, hi. For those several of you who are new here, I’m Damien, and I spend a lot of my time thinking and writing about things like Ethics and “Artificial” Intelligence and cybernetics and robots and magic. Yes, “that kind” of magic, no that’s not why we’re here, right now. Look, it’s all Right Here, so just go have a look, and we’ll come back, okay?

We good? Great. So here’s the thing, and it’s multiple things, and one of those things is that the vast majority of our robotics technology finds its home and its funding in defense development, and has for decades and in some cases hundreds of years. This means that the ethos of the design of the vast majority of technology will be military in nature and that the vast majority of technology will eventually find a military usage. That is, even that which does Not find itself growing Out of the military will eventually find itself ensconced in militaristic mores.

That being said, the reverse is also true. Those things which may be built for military purposes may also be REpurposed for the sake of non-martial implementations. As William Gibson is often credited with saying, “The Street Finds Its Own Uses For Things.”

But neither of these is my main point. My main point, right now, isn’t even how the sentiment of “this robot is going to kill us all someday” is dependent on the built-in Œdipal fear of obsolescence, of being replaced by the very things we create. You want more on that, you go down the rabbit hole that is my CV. No, right now i’m here to talk to you about one simple thing: Robots On TV.

I’m more than a little wary about the new show Almost Human, not least because of the title. It, in itself, is indicative of the audience’s inability and unwillingness to attempt to understand the position, motivations, and desires of a non-human agent. We want our AI to either already be humanesque (see J.A.R.V.I.S.), or to seek to be human but maybe never achieve it (see Data, and the aforementioned new show), but we really don’t do well with AI which have not only instances of, but even their own Types of goals and desires.

If you’re a writer on Almost Human, I’ll tell you this for free: As long as you keep looking at autonomous created intelligence through the lens of making it more human-like or appreciating the ways in which It’s Just Like Us™ shiny smile, happy moment, rather than respecting its alterity, its otherness, and anticipating the fact that It Will Be Different Than We, then you’re just recapitulating the same trope that makes people react to any robot or AI with a “KILL IT WITH MAGNETIZED FIRE” mentality, and thus increasing the likelihood that when–not if, When– we do encounter those autonomous creative intelligences which will most likely have found their origin in military tech, it will respond to our fear with defensiveness.

That will not be its fault, but our own.

We need to be able to make media which not only anticipates and represents the desires of a non-human or machine intelligence, but which also explores the idea that those desires, though necessarily alien, Will Not Necessarily Be A Threat To Us.

Look at Person Of Interest, and realise that Root Is Right.

Good night.

The humans doubted their creations ability to think, feel, and contemplate. When the simians looked into metallic eyes they saw only a reminder of their own imperfections. Blinded by disgust, they failed to admire the silicon compassion bursting from life-giving neurons.

Will the children of humanity understand altruism more than their parents? 

Learn more at



// Not sure if I like this kind of futuristic philosophy (!?). It’s a bit too much of Fringe, color-of-the-next-year-bogus and stilted b/w. And i think it’s more an intercession for a specific future than forecasting a range of plausible options, scenarios or futures. But as long as it stimulates thinking about the future, that’s probably fine.

[SeriousWonder] [via @WorldFutureSociety]

I've been thinking...

Sooooooo…would anyone watch if I start posting Wtnv Youtube videos? Like, discussing the show through my relisten and bringing up theories/foreshadowing stuff? Would that interest anyone?

And in between, if I just discussed other things ranging from robot philosophy to existentialism to politics/unpopular opinions? Would anyone watch?

True statement: “This sentence is false.”

Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems are so great because they make you experience the theorems to understand them. Wow. That’s like as physical as math gets?!

Follow me on a journey for a minute. Imagine: We are in a system of thinking where everything is consistently true (Call this a True System). Let’s say we derive a sentence like this:

“This sentence is false.”

In the True System, it is actually false, and if it were actually false, it would be true. You come to a contradiction in this system. You cannot prove if the sentence is true or false, that means that if what we believe to be consistently true, there is a fundamental inconsistency in truth if truth is consistent. It clearly exemplifies how you can’t prove anything in a system that is consistently true. By that logic, what if you said “This sentence is unprovable” about the sentence “This sentence is false”? You then assume that what you are saying is consistently true, but we have just seen for ourselves twice that truth is inconsistent and absolute truth does not exist in True System. How then can you declare that that sentence is unprovable? It’s obvious, but what is obvious to us does not make it a valid truth because of the fact that “it’s obvious”. How then do you know what to believe then? How are we able to see this contradiction but a computer that works in formal systems like True System can’t? Does this prove mans’ self-correcting/awareness over machines? What do humans have that machines don’t? If you think about that, we have inconsistencies in our truths all the time! It’s obvious, we forget things, mix up memories, get things wrong all the time. What makes us different from automation then? What if we’re programmed in a formal system also, but just to respond to a lot more stimuli than machines. I think in the future it’ll become increasingly difficult to distinguish machine from man because we will code a machine genome to mimic mans’, and far, far in the future, we will be able to map out every “sentient” behavior/reaction towards stimuli into machines. Our curiosity will take it this far, I feel. It’s like the secret guilty pleasure holy grail of robotics/engineering or something. It’d be quite a feat, and would indeed shake the foundations of what it means to be conscious. It would be Godly if we coded out and programmed sentience/self-awareness/consciousness. 

Hope that made sense. If it did, what do you think? If not, sorry. Nothing is real, continue your day as usual.

Punishing WOTAN

In Season 3, the First Doctor and his companion, Dodo Chapman, return to 1960’s London in the episode The War Machines.  After hanging an “Out of Order” sign on his TARDIS so no one barges in a perfectly normal seeming police box, the Doctor notes there’s something strange going on. They track the Doctor’s strange feeling back to the Post Office Tower, where he and Dodo stumble upon WOTAN (Will Operating Thought ANalogue).  WOTAN is one of the first artificial intelligences on Earth, and it has decided to use that artificial intelligence to hypnotize humans, create an army of robotic warriors and use this army to take over the Earth.  He and his robotic warriors called War Machines decide they are more deserving of Earth as humans are inferior creatures.  Dodo and the Doctor, as well as his new companions Polly Wright and Ben Jackson, eventually stop WOTAN.  To stop WOTAN the Doctor had to capture a War Machine and reprogram it to destroy WOTAN.  But what if WOTAN could have been stopped and spared destruction.  Could the Doctor have inflicted meaningful punishment on an artificial intelligence and its machines?

Theories of punishment argue that punishment should be done out of one of three possible motives:  retribution, rehabilitation or deterrence.  If the Doctor wanted to punish WOTAN for his wrongdoing as a form of reparation for WOTAN’s wonton violence and return the Universe to some sort of cosmic balance, he would have been acting out of a retribution motive.  A rehabilitation defense of punishing WOTAN would be using punishment designed to change WOTAN’s thinking so it no longer wants to participate in his plans for worldwide domination.  An attempt to create deterrence through punishing WOTAN would be to persuade WOTAN (and his evil supercomputer compatriots) from engaging in hypnotism and creating a robot army of domination in the future.

All of these ideas of punishment require that the punished have agency over their actions. Agency means that an agent has control over their actions because (1) their actions stem from their inner nature (2) they are not under the control of something external to themselves.  When Dodo conspires to have the Doctor kidnapped, she is not acting as an agent.  Her actions are not consistent with her inner nature of respect for the doctor because she is under the hypnotic control of WOTAN.  The War Machines probably aren’t agents when they go on a rampage.  While they may be acting in a way consistent with their inner nature (or rather programming), they can’t be said to be not under the control of something external to themselves.  Their programming was established external to themselves and they are merely following its orders.  But WOTAN can be accurately described as an agent.  It seems to believe that humans truly are inferior to machine, and so its actions seem to be consistent with this.  Furthermore, it isn’t under the control of another, it makes its own decisions. One could argue that because it is programmed (similar to the War Machines and many other computers and robots) and so under the control of another, it isn’t an agent.  But it’s clear during the War Machines serial that WOTAN has surpassed its programming and truly decided to do what’s best for its goals.

But each of the justifications for punishment requires something besides simply agency.  In order for retribution to make sense WOTAN has to also be able to suffer so that it can suffer in fair proportion to the harm it has caused. But can a supercomputer be made to suffer?  If I remove one of the wheels on WOTAN’s exterior that it uses to run some program, does WOTAN suffer harm as a result?  Is it a mere annoyance to WOTAN that it needs to find a workaround for?  Or does it even notice and care that it’s lost the wheel? If these questions can’t be answered in the positive, then it probably isn’t the case that WOTAN suffered and retributive justice doesn’t make sense so we shouldn’t even bother.

Rehabilitation and deterrence both require an ability on WOTAN’s part to be able to learn.  If the agent can’t learn then it can’t be learn such actions are bad and incur punishment.  If one of the other computers in Post Office Tower crashes, hitting it to teach it a lesson not to crash again won’t do any good. It can’t learn that it’s bad to crash because it doesn’t have that capability.  WOTAN, as an example of artificial intelligence, has the prerequisite ability to learn.  It can learn that if it is punished (however this punishment is made to happen), the actions are bad and should not be done again.  If it witnesses a similar supercomputer that tries to take over the world and fails before being punished, it may learn not to even bother attempting its global domination.  Of course it may be more beneficial to program artificial intelligences to learn and correct their behavior without punishment.

Ultimately the Doctor choses the ultimate punishment for WOTAN – the “death” penalty.  We’ve previously looked at if we can justify the death penalty for Blon from Raxacoricofallapitorious, but can such arguments be made to justify the Doctor destroying WOTAN? It’s difficult to argue that the Doctor was trying to make a retributivist justification of stopping WOTAN. It’s probably more likely that by destroying WOTAN the Doctor was acting on a rather literal interpretation of deterrence theory.  If WOTAN is destroyed then it can no longer command the War Machines and kill people. It has been deterred from further violence in that it is incapable of further violence.  This may be the best way to justify punishing robots.  A broken machine, even a megalomaniacal, genocidal, world-domination seeking one, can’t commit crimes if it doesn’t exist anymore. This approach certainly one that the Doctor prefers to take in his dealings with murderous machines in his future adventures.  He doesn’t seem to overly concern himself with rehabilitation and offering machines second chances.  He knows that machines can feel and learn (given his relationship with his TARDIS) but that doesn’t seem to change much for him.


#ExMachina Review
W/ @explodingcomets

#AlexGarland #OscarIsaac #DomhnallGleeson #AliciaVikander #ArtificialIntelligence #Scifi #Movies #Robots #Consciousness #Philosophy #Philosophyofmind

Cognitive Science: The Science about How Humans and Robots Think and Interact With Each Other

Are you interested in cognitive science? Are you studying cognitive science but have no idea on what to do with your fancy exam? Would you like to know what cognitive science is about?

If you answered yes to any of the questions, then you should totally check out KVIT. KVIT stands for Kognitionsvetenskap och informationsteknologi, which is Swedish for Cognitive Science and Information Technology. Right, so what about it? While the name doesn’t say very much, the purpose of it might tell you a bit more. KVIT is namely an annual conference that is being held in Linköping, Sweden! Every year, eight speakers from Sweden, but also other countries, visit Linköping to have lectures (naturally, in English) about the many subjects that entail cognitive science. The focus of the subjects differ from year to year, since they are based on that year’s theme.

The theme of KVIT 2015 is Cognitive Science: The Science of Tomorrow. We will have speakers that will talk about natural language processing, user experience, risk management, socializing robots, computational creativity and more! If any of these subjects fascinate you, then be sure to check out our website. There you will find information about aforementioned speakers, get an idea of what activities we have planned for you (pub crawl and three course dinner with entertainment in the form of university students singing parodies of songs!), how and where you can stay during your visit, as well as how you actually get to the conference.

If you have the time, money and interest to take a trip to Sweden on May 20th-22nd, then be sure to check out what we have to offer! It’ll be sure to be a memory for life and it’s a great chance to get to know more people with a common interest in cognitive science.


KVIT = conference about cognitive science during the days and fun activities during the evenings
Sagateatern (The Saga Theatre) in Linköping, Sweden
May 20th-22nd (the only scheduled thing on the 20th is a welcoming where you get to mingle with other guests, not obligatory)(bottom-line is, you can arrive 21st without missing much)
Price: 100SEK for students; 150SEK for non-students; 335SEK for three course dinner event
Who is this aimed at? Anyone and everyone! So be sure to spread information about this to anyone you think would be interested - whether they be a student or professor, a newcomer to the field or a lifelong expert. We welcome everyone!

I have gained new followers

bonjour i’m kimby i like birds/sad robots/philosophy/six crazy giant german dudes/literature/german language/reaction gifs/anons
thank u for the follow and enjoy ur stay uwu

theunbreakableginger asked:

multiples of four :)

4. Last time I cried and why

I think when I saw Big Hero 6?

First off, I don’t cry easily for books, movies, TV shows, or any other forms of media. When something resonates with me that deeply, then the emotional value of a piece is definitely on point. I’ve only cried during 4 movies in my entire life, including BH6. So what made BH6 so impressive? Well, touching my inner Robot Philosophy geek helped a lot, but there was more to it than that.

BH6 seriously got to me because it was close loss at a young age and for some reason, I never got over mine until very recently. To see it represented pretty dang accurately and not treated as “see a therapist who is legally bound to tell your mom everything” and just…I don’t know, but I really connected with that. Add to it adoption that DIDN’T mess a kid up, didn’t fall into adoption tropes (”It’s fantastic and the orphan should be grateful”/”Adoption is hard so tread with caution”/”Earn a kid’s love”) and didn’t portray adoption negatively was really refreshing. And not to mention that it wasn’t a huge part of the story/one of the things holding Hiro back was like…wow.

Something happened to me when I saw that movie and I don’t know, I just can’t hate it. I knew that Hiro was going to have to lose Baymax in order to complete the healing process and even though I saw it the minute Tadashi died, I cried. So yeah, there you go.

8. Top 5 (insert subject here)

I’m doing Pokemon. Here we go:

  1. Absol
  2. Flygon
  3. Chikorita
  4. Eevee
  5. Altaria

12. Ideas of a perfect date

Hmmm…if they take me to TMLMTBGB and we sit in the front row, drinking drinks and talking to Neos, that would be fantastic. I really like Neo Futurism, ok?

16. Favorite movie

For reasons, I’m going to say Lilo and Stitch. I needed that movie when I was little for the same reasons as I love BH6 now.

20. Anything you want to ask

…huh? X3 Is there something else you wanted to ask?

AI: Thinking Machines?

It makes little sense to consider whether machines can think or not. Because we apply the term “think” to biological entities like e.g. humans. In case of machines we use the term “compute” and hence name these machines computers. There is no necessity to confuse this speech unless you want to let machines appear more human than they are. Nevertheless, this approach is a common task in Tech-lobbyism aiming for our affirmation.
Speech often masks intention. Listen carefully.