Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Joe Scott" channel.

Probably, that does not mean that more people would not have been killed than were in our timeline. Also, there is an outside chance that if Germany's resources had not been pinched by Allied progress as soon as it was, Germany might have gotten the bomb first, or at the same time. They were working on the project.
1
@quentinbell5617 Yes, I've wondered if Mars or the Moon (or the "upper" (inner) levels of a rotating space habitat might be an excellent environment for some of the non-ambulatory. Some would be enabled to walk there (the fear that they would be disabled on Earth is not an issue since they are already disabled on Earth). Even if they are still bedridden, they won't be as prone to bed sores. Some might even be able to hold down a job there.
1
Sofia presents self and self-identifies as female. Besides, the Turing test is invalid if you cheat.
1
"Not just some guy who walked on the Moon." Gold medal in the facetious Olympics.
1
@Rafael Azuaje We experience consciousness in a mode that makes it's denial meaningless, an entity that is not conscious is unequipped to be fooled into thinking it is. The experience is subjectivity, the presence of an "observer" as it were. Unless the observer is there, there is nobody to be fooled into thinking he is an observer "_Cogito_ ergo sum ", the bedrock of Cartesian epistemology.
1
Michael Murphy The notion that a set of instructions (information in the indicative and imperative mode) can create consciousness is a category error. Not a simple error, like 2+2=5, but a category error, like 2+2=blue. Feed nothing but numbers into the addition function and you will get only numbers as answers. There is nothing about programming that implies the creation of a subjective observer.
1
@katrinal353 "Nothing is conscious, just complex enough for silly humans to consider it as such because we compare everything to ourselves." Consciousness is not synonymous with intelligence. There is no scientific evidence, or philosophical argument that consciousness is a kind of intelligence. The ideas are separable. Alexa is rather intelligent, but nobody is talking about her civil rights. And on the other end C.S. Lewis said "I am angry when you kick my dog, not because I think he is intelligent, but because I think he is conscious." "There's no line which when crossed "consciousness" happens." True in the sense that we haven't the remotest clue how to create a consciousness. (except the obvious method). I trust you don't mean that there is no consciousness. "It's a scam. It's all about bridging perception of certain things between human brains and AI." That is pure superstition. There is no evidence of that.
1
@kayken8393 Your belief is based on several irrational assumptions. Materialism, which is incompatible with both consciousness and the big bang. The notion that an algorithm can be conscious, which is a category error. The notion that the fact that we don't reductively understand consciousness is a basis for believing we can build one. It is a seductive idea, I know. I have always loved stories about robots that appeared to be conscious, robot characters that you relate to as sentient beings, the notion of uploading a conscience into a computer, that would be so cool. But there is no rational basis for such notions. " let's not pretend that objectively, computers are not much smarter than us." They are more capable than us in a very narrow range of tasks. Rain Man, or any normal 5 year old, has a better general grasp of and adaptability to the world than any AI ever made or grown. But that's beside the question of consciousness.
1
"We're not talking about that kind of intelligence" There is no scientific evidence, or philosophical argument that consciousness is a kind of intelligence. The ideas are separable. Alexa is rather intelligent, but nobody is talking about her civil rights. And on the other end C.S. Lewis said "I am angry when you kick my dog, not because I think he is intelligent, but because I think he is conscious."
1
No, I'm not a hydro advocate but your last point is diametrically wrong. Hydrogen is not just more weight efficient in storing energy than batteries, it is more volume efficient, that is why it gives longer range. I assume you're getting "emits lots of CO2" from the inefficiency of the production of hydrogen from electricity? There is no CO2 emission at the tailpipe. Since you got so much of the rest wrong, what is your source for your cell replacement notion?
1
@gasdive "yeah, the hydrogen might be volume efficient, as long as you don't include the cylinders..." Include whatever you want. The advantage in energy density of hydrogen over any extant battery is such that cylinders that would fit inside the battery case of an automotive battery array will take you farther than a battery array that would fit inside that case. A LOT farther. Range IS an advantage of hydrogen over EVs. Some cannot contemplate using EVs because either they have no place to charge them at home, or they have to drive too far for them to be practical. Personally, I wish I had an electric vehicle in addition to my other(s), at least if it would save me money. Most of my driving is in town. I have considered building an E-bike. I haven't checked to see if an EV would be saving me money with the local electricity price, but it is a moot point. I don't borrow money to buy new cars. I pay cash for old ones. It will be a while before buying a non-gasoline vehicle becomes an option for me. Thanks for the link.
1
It releases steam, it would work by powering your heater and filling your coffee maker.
1
Numerous costly and deadly experiments prove otherwise.
1
"Americans cant consistently trail behind in advancements" Indeed, no matter how hard we try! "that should be directed by government" Only if you want to make sure that lots of money gets wasted and in the end some crony with payolla gets a lock-in deal on the wrong tech. Private investment and competition will produce the most efficient product. "metric system? come to mind" It hasn't recently, why do you ask?
1
Charles Babbage first had to design the hypothetical computer she programmed. Computer designers are every bit as much computer scientists as programmers.
1
@Bryan-Hensley No, the original poster is right, water vapor, but you can condense steam in a heat exchanger. You can reuse some of the energy lost as heat to run an automotive coffee or tea maker. :)
1
@adrianpale2342 A chronological snob who thinks that scientists before 1900 were stupid.
1
She may be the first programmer, but she wrote her program for a hypothetical computer already designed by Charles Babbage. Aren't computer designers also computer scientists?
1
Ada Lovelace programed for Charles Babbage's hypothetical computer. That would make Charles Babbage the first computer scientist.
1
Iron not lead.
1