- #61
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
Music How Can Quantum Entanglement Be Explained Through Metal Music?
Click For Summary
Quantum entanglement is creatively explained through metal music lyrics, emphasizing its strange and paradoxical nature. The song describes how entangled particles remain connected regardless of distance, highlighting the "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein famously critiqued. The verses and chorus reinforce the concept of intertwined fates, while the bridge reflects on the mystery of the quantum world. This artistic approach makes complex scientific ideas accessible and engaging. The fusion of science and music showcases the potential for creative expression in explaining intricate concepts.
- #62
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
- #63
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
- #64
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
…
- #65
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
I found out it can generate python scripts to create 3D data visualizations in blender, or scenes or whatever. So I asked it to make a timeline with key Covid events and use shapes that are visual metaphors for the event. It used some simple shapes and I asked why, and it is surprisingly sensible, maybe even brilliant:
Why are those good visual metaphors?
The visual metaphors used in the previous script (cube, sphere, cylinder, and torus) are good choices for representing key events on the covid-19 timeline because they are simple and easy to understand. The cube represents the first case of covid-19, and its solid, rectangular shape conveys the initial, contained nature of the virus. The sphere represents the pandemic being declared, and its round, global shape reflects the widespread impact of the virus. The cylinder represents the discovery of a vaccine, and its hollow, cylindrical shape suggests the potential for containment and control of the virus. The torus represents mutations of the virus, and its donut-like shape highlights the ongoing and evolving nature of the pandemic. By using these visual metaphors, the audience can easily understand the meaning and significance of each event on the timeline.
Why are those good visual metaphors?
The visual metaphors used in the previous script (cube, sphere, cylinder, and torus) are good choices for representing key events on the covid-19 timeline because they are simple and easy to understand. The cube represents the first case of covid-19, and its solid, rectangular shape conveys the initial, contained nature of the virus. The sphere represents the pandemic being declared, and its round, global shape reflects the widespread impact of the virus. The cylinder represents the discovery of a vaccine, and its hollow, cylindrical shape suggests the potential for containment and control of the virus. The torus represents mutations of the virus, and its donut-like shape highlights the ongoing and evolving nature of the pandemic. By using these visual metaphors, the audience can easily understand the meaning and significance of each event on the timeline.
- #66
arivero
Gold Member
- 3,481
- 187
for hep-th, show the output of some markdown code for a itemised list of the more popular entries of the arxiv. Generate up to 5 rows, including columns for title, author, url, keywords. Make the urls clickable. Do not forget to prefix it with https:
- String Theory: An Overview
- Author: Michael Green
- URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9108028
- Keywords: string theory, quantum mechanics
- The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem
- Author: Steven Weinberg
- URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/1201.2434
- Keywords: quantum mechanics, cosmology
- The AdS/CFT Correspondence and Its Implications for Quantum Gravity
- Author: Juan Maldacena
- URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200
- Keywords: AdS/CFT correspondence, quantum gravity
- Quantum Gravity and Black Holes
- Author: Gerard 't Hooft
- URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026
- Keywords: quantum gravity, black holes
- The Holographic Principle
- Author: Leonard Susskind
- URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089
- Keywords: holographic principle, quantum mechanics
- #67
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,482
- 3,408
Is it possible the authors caught on that kids were using it to do their homework and instructed it to provide the correct methodology but the wrong answers to simple math problems?Jarvis323 said:
Btw, I just signed up and had a lengthy conversation with the bot. Quite addictive.
- #68
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
OmCheeto said:
I don't know. It failed simple arithmetic, but was able to construct a valid proof by induction. It is somewhat difficult to predict what it will succeed at or not.
OmCheeto said:
The other day, my access was down due to shortages, and I felt anxiety about it, wondering when this technology will get better and normal people won't have access anymore.
- #69
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,705
- 1,589
The bot is just bad at math, stop making excuses for it. It can't do stuff that a calculator can do, what would be the point of inhibiting that? It also can't do anything more complicated.
- #70
arivero
Gold Member
- 3,481
- 187
natural units are a deep rabbit hole too.
- #71
Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
It did a valid proof by induction when I asked it to. Others found it could sometimes prove NP hardness, although is happy to prove wrong statements as well, or confidently write an invalid non-sense proof.Office_Shredder said:
Last edited:
- #72
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,482
- 3,408
Perhaps I will ask it some new questions:Office_Shredder said:
Why can't you calculate?
Are you capable of learning?
Is everything you say just following a preprogrammed pattern?
I asked it a very simple question:
OmCheeto; "How many questions have people asked you so far?"
ChatGPT; "I am a large language model trained by OpenAI, and I do not have the ability to track the number of questions that people have asked me. As a language model, my purpose is to generate human-like text in response to the inputs that I receive. I do not have the ability to browse the internet or track the number of questions that people have asked me."
This reminds me of my response when someone claims that a particular person is smart because they are so knowledgable.
Me; "A dictionary knows every word there is, yet I've never met one that could tie its own shoelaces. Some savants are like that. Your friend, although filled with a godlike plethora of facts and figures, is unfortunately, an idiot."
hmmmm.... That would be funny if the only thing holding it back from sentience, was the simple ability to count.
- #73
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,705
- 1,589
Jarvis, it's most likely to solve something if it's a standard problem you can find exact solutions of on the internet, which path independence is a great example of.
We tried this test on a recent mhb undergrad problem and it gave a pretty wrong proof. I tried it on a grad problem and the attempt was so bad I didn't even bother posting it.
But like, here are some examples for now
Prove every polynomial is differentiable
Just... no. That was bad. It knows the shape of answers about polynomial derivatives and regurgitated it despite being totally inappropriate.
Here's a programming question that looks good, until it doesn't.
So close, but so wtf. Again it knows what answers about the minima is quadratic looks like, but it can't do anything other than basically regurgitate it back to youand hope it's what you're looking for.
We tried this test on a recent mhb undergrad problem and it gave a pretty wrong proof. I tried it on a grad problem and the attempt was so bad I didn't even bother posting it.
But like, here are some examples for now
Prove every polynomial is differentiable
A polynomial is a mathematical expression of the form
Copy code
p(x) = a_n * x^n + a_{n-1} * x^{n-1} + ... + a_1 * x + a_0
where a_n, a_{n-1}, ..., a_1, and a_0 are constants and n is a non-negative integer.
To prove that every polynomial is differentiable, we must show that the derivative of a polynomial exists at every point in its domain. The derivative of a polynomial p(x) can be computed using the following formula:
Copy code
p'(x) = n * a_n * x^{n-1} + (n-1) * a_{n-1} * x^{n-2} + ... + a_1
Since this formula involves only constants and the variable x, it is a polynomial itself. Therefore, the derivative of a polynomial exists at every point in its domain, and every polynomial is differentiable.
Copy code
p(x) = a_n * x^n + a_{n-1} * x^{n-1} + ... + a_1 * x + a_0
where a_n, a_{n-1}, ..., a_1, and a_0 are constants and n is a non-negative integer.
To prove that every polynomial is differentiable, we must show that the derivative of a polynomial exists at every point in its domain. The derivative of a polynomial p(x) can be computed using the following formula:
Copy code
p'(x) = n * a_n * x^{n-1} + (n-1) * a_{n-1} * x^{n-2} + ... + a_1
Since this formula involves only constants and the variable x, it is a polynomial itself. Therefore, the derivative of a polynomial exists at every point in its domain, and every polynomial is differentiable.
Just... no. That was bad. It knows the shape of answers about polynomial derivatives and regurgitated it despite being totally inappropriate.
Here's a programming question that looks good, until it doesn't.
In python write code to find the minimum of a quadratic polynomial
Here is a simple Python function that computes the minimum of a quadratic polynomial with coefficients a, b, and c:
Copy code
def quadratic_min(a, b, c):
# Compute the value of x that minimizes the quadratic
x_min = -b / (2 * a)
# Plug this value into the quadratic formula to find the minimum value
y_min = a * x_min**2 + b * x_min + c
return x_min, y_min
Here's an example of how to use this function to find the minimum of the quadratic 3x^2 + 2x - 5:
Copy code
# Define the coefficients of the quadratic
a = 3
b = 2
c = -5
# Find the minimum
x_min, y_min = quadratic_min(a, b, c)
# Print the result
print("The minimum of 3x^2 + 2x - 5 is at x = %.2f and has value y = %.2f" % (x_min, y_min))
This code should print the following output:
Copy code
The minimum of 3x^2 + 2x - 5 is at x = -0.33 and has value y = -4.89
Note that this function will only work for quadratic polynomials (i.e. polynomials of the form ax^2 + bx + c). To find the minimum of a general polynomial, you would need to use a more general optimization algorithm.
Does that find the minimum of -x^2 correctly?
Yes, the function quadratic_min() will correctly find the minimum of the quadratic -x^2.
To find the minimum of -x^2, we would simply call the quadratic_min() function with the coefficients a=-1, b=0, and c=0, like this:
Copy code
# Define the coefficients of the quadratic
a = -1
b = 0
c = 0
# Find the minimum
x_min, y_min = quadratic_min(a, b, c)
# Print the result
print("The minimum of -x^2 is at x = %.2f and has value y = %.2f" % (x_min, y_min))
This code should print the following output:
Copy code
The minimum of -x^2 is at x = 0.00 and has value y = 0.00
Note that the minimum of -x^2 is at x=0 and has a value of y=0. This is because -x^2 is always non-positive, and it takes on its minimum value of 0 at x=0.
Here is a simple Python function that computes the minimum of a quadratic polynomial with coefficients a, b, and c:
Copy code
def quadratic_min(a, b, c):
# Compute the value of x that minimizes the quadratic
x_min = -b / (2 * a)
# Plug this value into the quadratic formula to find the minimum value
y_min = a * x_min**2 + b * x_min + c
return x_min, y_min
Here's an example of how to use this function to find the minimum of the quadratic 3x^2 + 2x - 5:
Copy code
# Define the coefficients of the quadratic
a = 3
b = 2
c = -5
# Find the minimum
x_min, y_min = quadratic_min(a, b, c)
# Print the result
print("The minimum of 3x^2 + 2x - 5 is at x = %.2f and has value y = %.2f" % (x_min, y_min))
This code should print the following output:
Copy code
The minimum of 3x^2 + 2x - 5 is at x = -0.33 and has value y = -4.89
Note that this function will only work for quadratic polynomials (i.e. polynomials of the form ax^2 + bx + c). To find the minimum of a general polynomial, you would need to use a more general optimization algorithm.
Does that find the minimum of -x^2 correctly?
Yes, the function quadratic_min() will correctly find the minimum of the quadratic -x^2.
To find the minimum of -x^2, we would simply call the quadratic_min() function with the coefficients a=-1, b=0, and c=0, like this:
Copy code
# Define the coefficients of the quadratic
a = -1
b = 0
c = 0
# Find the minimum
x_min, y_min = quadratic_min(a, b, c)
# Print the result
print("The minimum of -x^2 is at x = %.2f and has value y = %.2f" % (x_min, y_min))
This code should print the following output:
Copy code
The minimum of -x^2 is at x = 0.00 and has value y = 0.00
Note that the minimum of -x^2 is at x=0 and has a value of y=0. This is because -x^2 is always non-positive, and it takes on its minimum value of 0 at x=0.
So close, but so wtf. Again it knows what answers about the minima is quadratic looks like, but it can't do anything other than basically regurgitate it back to youand hope it's what you're looking for.
- #74
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
- 4,416
- 327
give a proof of euler's formula in latex
To prove Euler's formula, we first start with the definition of the complex exponential function:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(ix)^n}{n!}$
We can then use the binomial theorem to expand the right side of the equation:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(ix)^n}{n!} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{i^n x^n}{n!}$
We can then split the sum into two parts, one for even values of $n$ and one for odd values of $n$:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{i^n x^n}{n!} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n/2} x^{2n}}{(2n)!} + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{(n-1)/2} x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$
We can then recognize that the first sum is the Taylor series for the cosine function, and the second sum is the Taylor series for the sine function. Therefore, we can write:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n/2} x^{2n}}{(2n)!} + \sum_{n=0}^{\froze up there and been taking a while to retry so far
To prove Euler's formula, we first start with the definition of the complex exponential function:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(ix)^n}{n!}$
We can then use the binomial theorem to expand the right side of the equation:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(ix)^n}{n!} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{i^n x^n}{n!}$
We can then split the sum into two parts, one for even values of $n$ and one for odd values of $n$:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{i^n x^n}{n!} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n/2} x^{2n}}{(2n)!} + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{(n-1)/2} x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$
We can then recognize that the first sum is the Taylor series for the cosine function, and the second sum is the Taylor series for the sine function. Therefore, we can write:
$e^{ix} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n/2} x^{2n}}{(2n)!} + \sum_{n=0}^{\froze up there and been taking a while to retry so far
- #75
Swamp Thing
- 1,035
- 771
Me: Write 2 paragraphs about Schroedinger's cat in the style of James Joyce.
Me: Make it less serious and more stream-of-consciousness, as in Joyce's Ulysses.
ChatGPT:
Oh, the curious cat, Schrödinger's feline friend, a paradox wrapped in a riddle, in a box till the very end. Such a strange thing, this cat, both alive and dead, ha! What a mind-bending concept that leaves us all in bed.
But wait, there's more! The cat, you see, is a metaphor for all that is quantum, for the superposition, the states so frequent. Until we open the box and observe, the cat remains in a haze, a blur of probabilities, a game of quantum craze.
Ha! What a wild ride, this quantum world, with its mysteries and enigmas, a reality unfurled. So, let us raise a glass to Schrödinger's cat, a symbol of our limitations, and the strange world where that is at!
Me: Write about Schroedinger's cat as if it is Hamlet's soliloquy.
ChatGPT:
To be, or not to be, alive or dead, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing, end them.
To die, to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished!
But hold, what light through yonder box breaks?
It is the cat, and Schrödinger makes answer
With a paradox so strange, it boggles the mind:
A cat, trapped in a box, both alive and dead,
A superposition of states, until observed.
Alas, poor cat, in thy uncertain state,
Thou art a symbol of our human fate.
For we too exist in a world of chance,
Subject to the whims of probability and circumstance.
Thus, in this soliloquy, I ponder and muse,
On the strange and wondrous world of Schrödinger's cat and its news.
Me: Make it less serious and more stream-of-consciousness, as in Joyce's Ulysses.
ChatGPT:
Oh, the curious cat, Schrödinger's feline friend, a paradox wrapped in a riddle, in a box till the very end. Such a strange thing, this cat, both alive and dead, ha! What a mind-bending concept that leaves us all in bed.
But wait, there's more! The cat, you see, is a metaphor for all that is quantum, for the superposition, the states so frequent. Until we open the box and observe, the cat remains in a haze, a blur of probabilities, a game of quantum craze.
Ha! What a wild ride, this quantum world, with its mysteries and enigmas, a reality unfurled. So, let us raise a glass to Schrödinger's cat, a symbol of our limitations, and the strange world where that is at!
Me: Write about Schroedinger's cat as if it is Hamlet's soliloquy.
ChatGPT:
To be, or not to be, alive or dead, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing, end them.
To die, to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished!
But hold, what light through yonder box breaks?
It is the cat, and Schrödinger makes answer
With a paradox so strange, it boggles the mind:
A cat, trapped in a box, both alive and dead,
A superposition of states, until observed.
Alas, poor cat, in thy uncertain state,
Thou art a symbol of our human fate.
For we too exist in a world of chance,
Subject to the whims of probability and circumstance.
Thus, in this soliloquy, I ponder and muse,
On the strange and wondrous world of Schrödinger's cat and its news.
Last edited:
- #76
Swamp Thing
- 1,035
- 771
Bertie Wooster and Jeeves talk about QM, a la ChatGPT....
---------
Prompt: Write a conversation between Bertie Wooster and Jeeves about quantum mechanics.
---------
ChatGPT's output:
Bertie Wooster: Jeeves, I was at a dinner party last night and the topic of conversation turned to this newfangled thing called "quantum mechanics." Have you heard of it?
Jeeves: Yes, Mr. Wooster, I am familiar with the subject.
Bertie Wooster: Really? Well, I must admit, I was completely befuddled by the whole affair. The chap at the end of the table was speaking of particles being in two places at once, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
Jeeves: Indeed, sir. Quantum mechanics is a complex and abstract field that can be challenging to understand. It is the study of the behavior of matter and energy on the smallest scale.
Bertie Wooster: And this business about particles being in two places at once? What's all that about?
Jeeves: That is known as superposition, sir. It is a principle in quantum mechanics that states that a particle can exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously.
Bertie Wooster: I say, Jeeves, that's all a bit much for my brain to handle.
Jeeves: Yes, sir, the concepts of quantum mechanics can be difficult to grasp. However, they have been extremely influential in our understanding of the universe and have led to many technological advancements.
Bertie Wooster: Well, I suppose I shall have to leave the heavy lifting to you and the other bright chaps. I think I'll stick to the more straightforward things in life, like arranging a jolly good dinner party.
Jeeves: As you wish, sir. Shall I arrange for your dinner tonight?
Bertie Wooster: Oh, yes please, Jeeves. I think a good steak and a bottle of claret is just what the doctor ordered.
---------
Prompt: Write a conversation between Bertie Wooster and Jeeves about quantum mechanics.
---------
ChatGPT's output:
Bertie Wooster: Jeeves, I was at a dinner party last night and the topic of conversation turned to this newfangled thing called "quantum mechanics." Have you heard of it?
Jeeves: Yes, Mr. Wooster, I am familiar with the subject.
Bertie Wooster: Really? Well, I must admit, I was completely befuddled by the whole affair. The chap at the end of the table was speaking of particles being in two places at once, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
Jeeves: Indeed, sir. Quantum mechanics is a complex and abstract field that can be challenging to understand. It is the study of the behavior of matter and energy on the smallest scale.
Bertie Wooster: And this business about particles being in two places at once? What's all that about?
Jeeves: That is known as superposition, sir. It is a principle in quantum mechanics that states that a particle can exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously.
Bertie Wooster: I say, Jeeves, that's all a bit much for my brain to handle.
Jeeves: Yes, sir, the concepts of quantum mechanics can be difficult to grasp. However, they have been extremely influential in our understanding of the universe and have led to many technological advancements.
Bertie Wooster: Well, I suppose I shall have to leave the heavy lifting to you and the other bright chaps. I think I'll stick to the more straightforward things in life, like arranging a jolly good dinner party.
Jeeves: As you wish, sir. Shall I arrange for your dinner tonight?
Bertie Wooster: Oh, yes please, Jeeves. I think a good steak and a bottle of claret is just what the doctor ordered.
Last edited:
- #77
jack action
Science Advisor
- 3,528
- 9,857
- #78
nsaspook
Science Advisor
- 1,500
- 5,005
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/02/keep-your-ai-claims-check
Keep your AI claims in check
- #79
- 19,811
- 10,782
I asked ChatGPT who I am and this is what it returned. Some false things there 
- #80
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,291
- 5,002
I've been using Chat GPT this morning to prepare for an interview. I asked it to give descriptions of the program's needs as described in the announcement. I then gave it some my background and asked it to describe the top pros and cons for hiring me. During the conversation, I've given it information on other types of things that I've worked on and asked how those experiences could be integrated into the interview with respect to their needs.
Finally, I asked it for the pros and cons of hiring me and then asked it to go into detail of how I can emphasize my pros while minimizing the cons. It's been very informative and has given me great input for the interview.
Finally, I asked it for the pros and cons of hiring me and then asked it to go into detail of how I can emphasize my pros while minimizing the cons. It's been very informative and has given me great input for the interview.
- #81
Hyperfine
- 156
- 156
- #82
- 19,811
- 10,782
Anyone claiming an LLM like ChatGPT is equivalent to the human mind is crazy, but we are on the road. I talked with a Google search dev a few weeks ago and he claimed we're within 5 years of achieving AGI.Hyperfine said:
- #83
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,291
- 5,002
The article complains about how Chat GPT is not moral enough, decisive enough, or able to make logical conclusions. it sounds like he wants to classify it as a politician. 
- #84
Hyperfine
- 156
- 156
If the choice is between Google and Chomsky, I will go with Chomsky. After all, what would you expect Google to say?
- #85
arivero
Gold Member
- 3,481
- 187
THe point seems be the article https://aclanthology.org/2020.coling-main.451/
- #86
- 19,811
- 10,782
Chomsky knows as much about machine learning as I know about underwater drilling.Hyperfine said:
- #87
Hyperfine
- 156
- 156
Piffle.Greg Bernhardt said:
- #88
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,482
- 3,408
South Park's latest episode, 'Deep Learning', according to the closing credits, was co-written by ChatGPT.
Last edited:
- #89
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,291
- 5,002
Chat GPT is a first generation "conversational AI" as it tends to refer to itself. Chomsky is focused on comparing it to human behavior where it's convenient. Yes, it makes mistakes but if you're going to anthropomorphize Chat GPT, it is essentially a child compared to where these new tools are headed.
Chomsky also doesn't appear to know much about the fields of research that are going on in artificial intelligence or understand where the real threats in AI are. A few examples:
Chomsky also doesn't appear to know much about the fields of research that are going on in artificial intelligence or understand where the real threats in AI are. A few examples:
- The interaction with Chat GPT is initiated directly by the user who understands that they are talking to a computer. The real threat lies when people do not know that's the case.
- Machine Learning algorithms are often a black box where we do not know how or why the algorithm has reached a particular decision. There is an entire field of research going on called Explainable AI (XAI) where researchers are actively working on changing this so that we can better trust the information that we are getting from them.
- AI algorithms (like humans) have biases. This is a direct result of the information that is fed to it as Chomsky notes with his reference to the infamous Microsoft Tam project. Tam is the low hanging fruit of bias issues where the input data from internet trolls has clearly created a monster. What about when the bias influence is less clear or favors a decision that you don't agree with? Assuming that we understood everything about how an algorithm is reaching a decision, who decides which biases are acceptable?
Last edited:
- #90
jack action
Science Advisor
- 3,528
- 9,857
I totally disagree with this statement. When people exchange on forums with what they think is another person, they will allow themselves to disagree with that person. If they think they are talking to a computer, they're more likely to think it must be right since it possesses all the knowledge of mankind.Borg said:
The real threat lies when people take the judgment of someone else over their own, whether being a supposed know-all person or a supposed know-all computer.
How someone - or something - reached a decision shouldn't matter. You should still be able to analyze this new information and decide what to do with it. We should not let one person - even worst, a computer - make the final decision for us, especially as a group, a society.Borg said:
The people who receive and analyze the decision.Borg said:
It is like you expect people in the future to blindly accept any decision given to them. A "super-computer" will not be better than a "super-human" at ruling the world. AI shouldn't be equivalent to ending democracy. It's just a tool, not a god. Whether a person or computer tells you that you should become an architect or a plumber, it shouldn't seal your faith.
It also suggests that there is only one way to do things and that it will always be the best way. This is a claim against diversity which is clearly a winning strategy in nature.