- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
Can Artificial Intelligence Programs Make Better Decisions Than Humans?
@ZeusAres42
Ai's will always lack one thing, emotion. That can be good in some ways, very bad in other ways. For getting to the facts ai's are very helpful. In the end instinct should prevail. No matter what's the best logical or practical choice, there are times in our lives it seems intuition, a gut feeling guides us one way and we follow to our rewards. You know? Considering the lives of innocents? I don't think ai will ever be capable of that. Not a perfect science by any means but in the end I could not in good faith turn over all decisions to ai as the best decision could be logically we don't survive but some of our ideals prevail. Then it would just be a semblance of humanity that reaches out to space.
-
Gay at birth?
Something very obvious that I would like to insert in this discussion is that the question of what causes homosexuality is separate from the question of whether it is changeable at will. Even if homosexuality was purely environmental (which it very well might be), it still would not imply that it can be changed intentionally. Human psychology has incredible memory, and 90-year old people are still chiefly run by their childhood traumas. Someone who had a very traumatic confrontation with their parent when they were 5, may still experience painful flashbacks every time they enter a confrontation at the age of 95. They were not born with these flashbacks, but they are so deeply ingrained in their psychology that they might as well be an inherent part of their brain.
Changing one's behavior is difficult enough. Changing one's preferences is downright impossible without very serious and long inner work. Take someone who hates the taste of carrots and try to get them to love it - most likely will not happen. And changing disliking one vegetable to liking it is a billion times easier than changing being sexually attracted to one gender to another.
Lastly, I invite anyone who seriously believes that homosexuality can be changed into heterosexuality at will - conduct the opposite experiment. Pick a month and, assuming you are heterosexual, live it as if you were homosexual. Go on dates with guys (involving making out), share bed with them, watch gay porn... Then let us know how it went.
-
Can Artificial Intelligence Programs Make Better Decisions Than Humans?
I understand this was meant as a joke, but it made me think of the automation bias, which you may or may not be aware of. This is a cognitive bias in which we tend to place much reliance on automation tools to work for us, and that includes AI now as well. Some examples come to mind: spelling and grammar correction tools such as Grammarly, which now has AI capabilities; another is AV tools to protect one's computer from infected malware. Many malware programs now have AI capabilities, can infiltrate systems and bypass even advanced AV tools (AV tools with AI abilities). Hence, one or more humans with specialised expertise in this area are needed in cases like this.MayCaesar said:If you cannot answer this question without asking an AI, then yes, an AI is likely to make better decisions than you.
Moreover, "Do AIs make better decisions than us?" is too vague. It depends on the AI program, the subject, and the conditions. If we are talking specifically about chess, for example, then yes, that would be Stockfish!
@MayCaesar
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
Max quote You are disregarding science.
I disregard pseudo science, and I think I have the maturity to differentiate one from the other. Bit worried about you, though.
Max quote Did you not read the link?
As a matter of fact, I did. The reason being, because you are doing such a lousy job of presenting any argument at all that races do not exist, that I got bored again and I thought I would go to your source. As expected, your link was laughable. It was nothing but diseased English, which was probably written by Sir Humphry Appleby himself. You probably tried to read it too, but the reason why you could not use it as a source to write a reasoned argument supporting your position, is that not did not make any sense to you, either? Diseased English is the art of writing blithering nonsense in an authoritative way in order to fool the gullible who want to be impressed. It did not fool me one whit. I suppose that I could go through your link, paragraph by paragraph, pointing out the waffle and the meandering logic? But I have been down that track before, only to have my opponent swamp me with even more stu-pid links. So, I end up being the one who does all the work while my opponent just submits ever more links, “Dreamer” style. I challenge you to read your link and if it makes any sense to you, use it to form your own argument. But that will never happen, because it is just a series of spurious declarations written in an authoritative way, which is impossible to use to form a cohesive argument.
Max quote Or the many other high quality science links, showing why and how humans are all one race because we are to similar to be classified as sub races except by sociology concepts?
Then you had better find one which is a lot more credible than the one which you submitted in your last post. Unlike your link, my position is simple to understand and is supported by evidence which most informed people already know is true. Most informed people know that science does recognise race because they know that the reason why so called “anti racists” claim that “white men invented racism” is because in the 19th century, science itself was very interested in race. And in those days, science was almost solely the preserve of white European men. But even today, it is an easily provable premise that science recognises race, regardless of how many woke “scientists” there are who are consider their ideological beliefs to be more important than science. They know that the people who use their “scientific reports” will never look at them with a critical eye, or verify if they are true. So, they can misuse the great respect which most people have for science to push that government mandated ideological agenda.
Max quote These links clearly back up my statement.
Your link was supposed to prove that races do not exist. There was no cohesive argument on that topic at all. It basically said “I am a scientist and I say that race does not exist. So there!” That hardly impresses any person who has any capacity to think, any more than a woke biologist claiming that it is impossible for science to differentiate between a male and female skeleton. Or, the once respected medical journal Lancet claiming that the Wuhan virus did not originate in a Chinese bio weapons lab in China. Or, climate scientists claiming that the north pole will be ice free by 2013, and the London and New York subways will both be drowned.
Max quote You on the other hand, give me a botanist who lived in the 1800s
So did Charles Darwin. I suppose that his advocacy for evolution should be dismissed entirely because he was just an old white guy who lived 150 years ago? I sure hope your woke “scientists” don’t decide that evolution is not politically correct, so Darwin should be air brushed out of science too? All they would need to do to impress you, would be to write some pseudo scientific reports in diseased English claiming that evolution was fake, and you would lap it up without even bothering to turn on your critical analysis circuit to really read the nonsense they were writing?
Max quote and one you tube video of dubious quality.
Then here is another one which proves that geneticists, who are scientists, recognise race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlGhVgV3Yw&t=176s
The problem for woke ”scientists” today is that smart people are just too informed with lots of media sources that they can use to keep up with what is going on in politics and science. They can fool the gullible and the misinformed, but they can’t fool people who like to be aware of what is happening in the world around them, and who can think straight.
Max quote Give me a few high quality science links that back up your statements.
That would be like the Catholic Church during the Inquisition demanding to know the names of any scientist who supported the idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe. We live in an age where universities have been taken over by government supported, crazy cultural revolutionaries who shout down, sack from their jobs, destroy the careers, and “cancel” any academic who dares to oppose their government sanctioned worldview. So, just like in the days of Galileo, if you want to understand the world around you, you have to pick up unbiased bits of information from wherever you can, and link them together to form a picture. Naturally, you won’t do that, because that would require a sceptical mind and some effort. Easier to just toe the woke party line, confident that the people who are destroying western civilisation, suburb by suburb, city by city, and country by country, really know what they are talking about.
Could I also add that in many western countries today, it is illegal to claim that races are not equal. This topic is so super sensitive in Canada, that the Trudeau government is legislating that anybody who “offends” their new imported electors should be jailed for life. Scotland’s new “Hate Laws” mandate seven years jail for saying something racist in your own home. I live in Australia, and if I lived in the state of Victoria, I could be prosecuted for writing this reply to you. If you really do have the capacity to think, then you should be able to figure out that when the authorities demand that you not think or write about something, they definitely have got something to hide. The only reason for political censorship is to protect those at the top with their power, prestige, perks, and privileges. They have a state ideology which was invented to keep the proles on the bottom and themselves at the top, and they don’t want the proles thinking. They seem to have succeeded in that nefarious aim with you.
Max quote Yes, conceptually there are sub races; biologically in humans; no.
Your premise is illogical. If every mammalian life form excepting polar bears (and that for good reason) exists solely as sub species, then it stands to reason that your premise does not make sense. If not, then I challenge you to write a reasoned argument explaining how it is that human beings are exempt from the same evolutionary forces which have created sub species in every other mammalian species. It is no good looking up your “authoritative scientific reports” to help you, because the evil little bastards who wrote that cr-ap already know that I am right. And there will be nothing in their waffling links that will help you. So, c’mon Max, show us all how you can think. Show us all how informative and logical your links are. Since you claim to be just telling the scientific truth, then it should be easy for you to use your “scientific” links that you have such faith in, to prove that whatever evolutionary forces affect the creation of sub species in every other vertebrate creature, can not apply to human beings.
London to a brick that you will not answer. You can’t answer because your premise is illogical. Which is why your whole idea that races do not exist is logically bankrupt.
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
People who have religious mindsets like Factfinder, who want to believe in social fantasies because they most fervently wish that they were true, usually resort to the three monkeys rule. : First deny, deny, deny, then pass the buck, and if that doesn't work, shoot the messenger -
Gay at birth?
-
Heterosexual At Birth?
Could it be that people choose to be heterosexual? the evidence shows that we are born homosexual at birth. And that is logical since it is natural. Other animals are born homosexuals and don’t have a choice when some change gender and even some animal males give birth.
Take a look at kids when there growing up. They are heterophobic and shun the other sex and relate to their own sex.
it is only later in life that some people choose to turn heterosexual because of perhaps there parents happened to be heteros or it just happened to be trendy at the time and look cool to be different.So therefore it is just a social condition that make some people turn hetero and there is no evidence to show they were born that way. Some people don’t sit comfortably about people being attracted to the other sex because we know what they do and they spread a lot of STDs. So should it really matter if heterosexuals choose there life style? -
Gay at birth?
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
So my point is valid - that sexual orientation is not immutable,...
So you believe it's a choice. -
Gay at birth?
@ZeusAres42Where @just_sayin is concerned, there is the misuse of the term 'Fluidity' (probably thinking this means that orientation is a conscious choice when nothing could be further from the scientific truth), the implication that biology plays no role in orientation (that baffles me, let alone not even being stated in any of the literature he references), the negation of the interconnectedness of environmental factors (which he ignores to say anything about which is also in the literature he references), the blanket statements about LGBTQ+ people when we're explicitly talking about homosexuality, among other things such as studies with outdated methodologies as well as posting news blogs.
His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes.
And then again, there is the poisoning of the well where he is accusing me of posting AI content when I have done no such thing as some childish attempt to discredit me.
First an apology. After looking at https://typeset.io/, I think it can be a valuable research tool. I even added to my folders. I question the value of mentioning research from the 60-70's for sexual orientation fluidity, but more sources are better than less.
I did not misuse the term 'fluidity' to describe sexual orientation. That is the word the researchers use. I haven't said that sexual orientation is only a conscious choice - just that it is not immutable, nor biologically 'determinate' ( I haven't made any argument about biologically influenced). That is either a misunderstanding on your part or an intentional misrepresentation of what I have said. I have not disconnected the environmental factors from the biological ones. I am sure that sexual orientation fluidity involves those as well as a myriad of other things.
Since we are talking about homosexuality - exclusively, per your demand, let make these observations from the literature on https://typeset.io/. ;Approximately 19% of self-defined homosexual/bisexual men reported engaging in vaginal intercourse in the past year, with 42% reporting it in their lifetime [1]. - see https://typeset.io/papers/same-sex-sexual-behaviour-us-frequency-estimates-from-survey-4xdlm0oi9a
So, the majority of sexual fluidity occurs among non-heterosexual groups. According to
Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood (you can view the more recent study at https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/ - same basic results ) which did a national longitudinal study of American teens over several years said:All attraction categories other than opposite-sex [heterosexual] were associated with a lower likelihood of stability over time. That is, individuals reporting any same-sex attractions were more likely to report subsequent shifts in their attractions than were individuals without any same-sex attractions [heterosexuals].
Those who engaged in same/both-sex [homosexual or bisexual] behavior during the first two waves were more likely to report Wave 3 exclusive opposite-sex [heterosexual] behavior than those who engaged in opposite-sex [heterosexual] behavior were to later report same/both-sex [homosexual or bisexual] behavior.
So my point is valid - that sexual orientation is not immutable, especially among those who identify as homosexual and are more likely to later identify as heterosexual than vice-versa.
His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes.
Hey, I have never made any personal scientific claim for myself. I have not claimed to be an expert or researcher on the topic.. I have tried to cite sources for any claim, which apparently makes me different than most. If that makes me 'grandiose', so be it.
And then again, there is the poisoning of the well where he is accusing me of posting AI content when I have done no such thing as some childish attempt to discredit me.
I don't mind if you use AI if it ads to the discussion at all. As I observed earlier. I'm not personally attacking you or your AI - I don't even understand the point of that. I may not see the benefit of some AI content in the discussion, but it is nothing personal. I am making an argument that I believe science agrees with. If you disagree with the argument and think sexual orientation is immutable, then show the evidence. Your comments have been so personally directed at me, I don't even have an idea about what your position is.
