Hahahaha absolutely. :D The difference is, that they come from a 3D printer and that’s cool.

To be fair, you don’t need a very huge 3D printer for that, if you divide it into a lot of smaller parts which can be assembled later.

Idk, if we can already print steel though and whether we can make it structually sufficiently stable.

It’s not just text generating AI, like those transformer models, but also image classificators and generators, time series predictors, and a bunch of other stuff you get.

But yes, even though you seem not to like it, it is AI.

Copilot is no more “intelligent” than Clippy from Microsoft Bob in 1995.

I can’t share that experience.

It just appears to be to people who also have low intelligence.

That’s a bit condescending, don’t you think?

A lot of stuff can be made a lot cheaper than it’s sold.

No.

1. It’s opt-in in my country.
2. I fear that medical personnel will give up on me way too easily and early if they know that I am a donor. Or that it’s even rooted in malicious intent.

You get AI tools shoved down your throat everywhere nowadays. Whether you want it and it’s useful or not.

If it works, it works.

I am already happy if there is any documentation at all. And I am euphoric if it doesn’t suck, i.e. sufficiently detailed and up to date.

So I guess Discord is better than nothing. But sure it’s a turn off.

Because there is no “experience” after death. You just start to rot.

How come that you refuse this so confidently?

Here just a few works from that wide field:

• Enhanced Interplay of Neuronal Coherence and Coupling in the Dying Human Brain
• AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation—A prospective study
• Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: A large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports
• Surge of neurophysiological coupling and connectivity of gamma oscillations in the dying human brain
• Surges of Electroencephalogram Activity at the Time of Death: A Case Series
• Time to loss of brain function and activity during circulatory arrest

The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on the concept of God.

Yes. I just made few examples on popular concepts. And I can make similar examples for a lot of other concepts. However, to discuss this further, we need some clear definitions.

Do the ridiculous things now ascribed to electricity […] prove that electricity doesn’t exist?

This is a form or erroneous attribution. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether of which physicists thought for a long time that it exists until it was disproven. This is a testable hypothesis. Your pixies might even be testable to a certain degree. But beyond a certain point they aren’t. Therefore being in the realm of pseudoscience again.

If we observe electricity, of course elctricity exists. But if we don’t know its cause, it’s important to investigate it. We have to investigate cause and effect instead of just assuming that a higher power plays a role. That’s our only way to gain knowledge and separate fantasy from reality.

And currently, religions with their concepts of deities reside in the realm of fantasy.

Debugging fucked up C/C++ code for example.

Of course we can. We have means to observe the dying process. There is already a lot of scientific knowledge on that topic.

That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.

We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can’t speak, people can’t turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.

But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God’s existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist.

Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can’t disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?

As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.

No. A scientific theory can be proven or disproven, while the idea of a God, as interpreted in most religions, can not. Thereby constituting a pseudoscience. And thus, it’s not a scientific theory.

On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God.

I suppose in the context of the parent comment the abrahamic God is meant, as interpreted by Christians, Jews and Muslims.

In practise, we probably don’t. But maybe we could speed up a lot of progress if we could remove some obstacles and think about it really carefully.

A perfect system would be able to deal with this. Of course, that’s a purely ideological goal which probably wouldn’t be reached in practise. But I think we could gain a lot on the road there.

Imperfect political and economic systems like our current version of capitalism and democracy. (Both could be better, or even replaced by something different which is better.)

Violence.

Judging without critical and unbiased thinking.

But the interaction of a quantum particle (in the system of the falling tree) with other particles and, on a larger scale, molecules, already represents an observation and information exchange. Therefore, while not 100% certain, it is extremely probable that the falling tree will make a sound. Isn’t it?

Community. We call it a community.

If you want to save: :wq

Or :x