I feel like switching to a 100% non-animal diet just out of protest.
A chemistry degree is required to understand the additives in the ingredient list, but 'PLANT-BASED sausages/burgers/whatever' are confusing. Whoever can't figure that out shouldn't be allowed to shop without supervision, in my opinion.
Has someone considered that they might have been bored? /j
From what I have gathered, when I read through some criminology papers, it's less about the severity of punishment and more about being caught and prosecuted which is more effective as a deterrence.
The death penalty for example has been proven in numerous studies to be ineffective.
Consequently, increasing the severity of punishments can become useless and possibly more based in a (public) desire for revenge.
We, as a more or less civilised society, should also be mindful about why we prosecute someone and how we want to treat people in the long run. For example, just imprisioning someone for life – apart from being ethically debatable – will not solve problems but only move them somewhere else.
Recently it feels like the news on this are flipping each week.
EU wants chat control.
EU does not want chat control.
EU want chat control (again).
EU backs awax from chat control (for now).
I have lost track.
The logic behind the voice controls sounds pretty questionable, but it’s supposedly backed by data showing that users spend billions of minutes talking in Microsoft Team meetings, according to Mehdi — so they’re already used to talking on the computer, right?
Do they really reason like this? Oh my. That's stupid. And here I was thinking Microsoft employs clever people.
This is in beta, not available for all users and you can also disable it easily: https://support.ecosia.org/article/994-ai-overviews
As far as I know they are using Bing. They've started building their own search index last year in a partnership with Qwant.
It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.
Let me know as soon as you'd like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.
(I am not sorry for "necroing", sometimes I'm just not in the mood and/or don't have the time to reply to various comments. But that's the beauty of discussion platforms: it's always possible to pick it up at a later time.)
Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn't seem to be substantiated.
Is it though? By which definition?
What is "thinking critically about thoughts"?
And what is an "independent thought"? Aren't our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?
Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a "thought" even is.
Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not "intelligent"? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered "intelligent"? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?
Not my wording, but the one from the paper I have linked.
I wasn't talking about (just) the ingredient list in plant based meat alternatives, but rather about food ingredients in general. Seems like I said it in a slightly confusing manner.
My point is: several food items that can be purchased list ingredients that are not easy to understand nor evaluate for a layperson. This is confusing. In contrast, "plant based" labled food is not difficult to understand, imo.