Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog

Artificial intelligence is a system that makes decisions on its own and learns from some kind of input. The goal of AI is to make our lives easier by enabling a computer to be able to perform not just menial tasks faster and better but to go a step further and to have the computer be able to perform more advanced tasks faster and better.

Some uses have been to take an image and to have the program produce a 3D model of that image, determine the most efficient layout of pipes supplying fuel and many other tasks that would take people several years of experience and testing to figure out. While this is all useful, I find it difficult to define this as even artificial intelligence. For an artificial intelligence, it would require an intelligence. So far all we have been able to accomplish is making things learn a defined system quickly, not to learn and adjust to new systems.

I’m being highly critical of a very useful field of study, so what gives me the right and what ideas to I have to improve the system? The current AI programs are good tools for what would be an actually intelligent program. The learning algorithms would be useful if the program could use them by choice in order to come up with judgments. What would make a program intelligent is to give it a method for judging not just the intended result, but all the results that could come from the actions and learning new systems on its own.  If humans only concerned themselves with whether their action was good or bad based on the intended result, then we would miss out on so much innovation that we would still be carving wheels out of stone (but very nice wheels). One would never consider making wheels out of wood because it would have required the imagination of taking the accidental effect of being able to bend wood and then thinking that one could bend that wood into the shape of a wheel. This is the same for AI, right now we are telling the program to quickly make a really nice stone wheel, when we could be trying to get it to consider what would make a better wheel.

Now this is a very complicated task, which is probably why it has never been accomplished. Another problem with this is that we may not even know if we have accomplished it if we were trying for it. The AI may decide that it doesn’t want to respond or that it only wants to do what it’s told. Another reason could be that we would understand the mechanics for its decisions and therefore always classify the choices as pre-programmed responses. Of course as the understanding of our own consciousness may help in finding a better method for an artificial intelligence to appear more intelligent.

I think that it is very possible to create an actual intelligence, it’s just that the applications and usefulness of one are too far away from what is wanted to put too much effort into it.

In the beginning, there was nothing… And sometime in the future there was a Texas oil man elected president with the penguin as his sidekick. Bush was possibly the worst president in recent history, if you exclude his dad and Reagan.  Though all three of those have something in common a vendetta against the middle east. And it seems to be not a thing is changing except that the primary war we’re going to be fighting is not going to be Iraq but in it’s stead we’re going to be killing Afghans. Why Obama has a grudge against blankets I’ll never know. Basically the reason that all of our recent presidents have been crap including Obama so far and Clinton is that they’re all guided by one thing, personal interest. But the way to live one’s life is not for the personal interest but the interest of the whole and this is called being moral, and no a moral is not a tooth in the back of your mouth G.W.

Morals are the guiding principles in peoples lives that help them make good decisions when faced with a tough choice. like would it be advantageous to start a war in the middle east and kill more people than died in all the terror attacks ever made on the U.S. combined? The moral answer would have looked at the cost to benefit ratio, if it costs more lives than it saves it’s not moral see? simple. Some things are not so simple, like do I tell my neighbor that she’s a bitch or do I remain a liar and a faker every time I see her? this time, though it’s not moral to lie it’s not necessarily the best idea to estrange yourself from your neighbors you have to live by ‘em you know. In my basic understanding of  morals it comes down to one thing, does it help more than it hurts? if so it is moral.

The morals of a person would never really apply if they never asked themselves basic questions about the beliefs they hold. Like – why do I think that the earth is only 6,000 years old? why is homosexuality wrong? and why do I want to put my old shriveled cock in the ass of a ten year old boy? that’s because you’re a christian priest and you ignorant bastard are the reason so many people in history are just that, history. Not to mention little Jimmy still has nightmares about the day you gave him sacramental wine… naughty clergyman. It is very simple to put logic into your life, ask a question about anything and if that doesn’t have an answer perhaps you’re phrasing it wrong or perhaps you need evidence to back up your answer. In order to be a logical person evidence and reason must be paramount in your thinking. Take evolution for example if you believed that creation was brought about 6,000 years ago by an old man sitting on a cloud (silly visual, reminds me of the lakitu on the mario games) you would have to look at billions of years of evidence and say “No thank you, I don’t believe in evidence I only believe in what the bible says.” In that case you would have to believe in polygamy, incest, rape, murder, prostitution, genocide, and all kinds of wonderful things! But you don’t believe in incest do you Bubba? You thought she was your second cousin? Do you believe in whoring your wife out? Abraham did, it’s in the bible. Did you ever read the damn thing? it’s all over the place! I feel kinda bad calling Abraham’s wife a whore, but she also said here have sex with my servant girl if you want a kid so bad, my cooter is drier than an English comedian’s humor in the sahara. Now ask yourself, if you really still believe in the bible, how could an omnipotent (all powerful) omniscient (all knowing) and benevolent (good) God create a man or woman knowing that they will do evil before he makes them (he’s all knowing remember). Make them anyway and punish them to hell for what he knew they would do in the first place? Logic my friend is all we have to protect us from believing in stupid things… like God.

So don’t get your moral guidance from the bible, get it from the basic formula does it do more good than bad? and use logic to attain conclusions that will make sense to anyone who uses their brain. And lastly, father Flaniggan please leave little Jimmy alone!

There is apparently a big debate over what atheism is, there are many and varied descriptions: atheism is the lack of belief in a god, atheism is the lack of belief in any god, atheism is the belief that there are no gods, atheism is a set of philosophies that one must have in order to be an atheist, atheism is a religion… etc. I will cover the semantic definition and why many sources have it incorrectly defined, why every atheist mustn’t subscribe to the philosophies of other atheists and why it’s intellectually dishonest to think that an atheist must have a certain set of philosophies.

First the etymology of atheism comes from France… at least as far as we have records. It’s derived from the Latin prefix ‘a’ which, “denotes the absence of” (or Ancient Greek as without or not), and theos which means god. So basically the etymology of atheism means, “without god” but also with the ism it means “without the belief in god.” Even with a different definition of theism, the “a” prefix still denotes “not that.” You could spend fifty pages defining theism and all atheism means is “without or absence of that.”

So what does it take to be an atheist? Well that is more simple than you may think. Just like all it takes to be a theist is that you have to believe in a god of some kind, all it takes to be an atheist is to not believe a god of any kind. While the term was originally used in a specific context in that if I was a Christian I would call non-Christian atheists because according to my beliefs, they are without god. But the modern self labeled definition of atheist means that one does not believe in any god. So just don’t believe in a god and you’re an atheist, believe in a god and you’re a theist.

As simple as it is, many people feel like making it more complicated than that, by saying that an atheism is a belief. The only way atheism can be a belief is if it meant that an atheist believes that there’s no god. However given the meaning of the word, this is inaccurate. While one who believes there is no god is an atheist, the only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in a god.

The most dishonest tactic employed by some theists is that atheism is a specific world view and set of philosophies that every atheist must follow. The problem with this concept is that if equal standards are applied to theism, then every theist must have a certain world view and set of philosophies. This goes beyond the scope of the words and should just be ignored as an attempt to sneak in a Trojan horse definition. Also, if every atheist must agree with every other atheistic view, then equally every theist must agree with every theist view. Clearly that is impossible, so this idiotic concept needs to be dropped.

So if you’re a theist, remember that you don’t share the same world view and philosophies as every other theist, so don’t expect or attempt to force every atheist to have the same world view and philosophies of every other atheist.