If you just want the caffeine you could just take a pill.

But you’d have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended not to uphold the oath of office when he made it.

That’s not true.

Source? This says it also mentions piracy and counterfeiting, but it’s just listing it as one of the enumerated powers.

and we gave Congress the power to create laws, which all citizens are bound.

Exactly. Congress has to make things a crime. The fact that the Constitution says that the president has to faithfully carry out their duties doesn’t make not doing that a crime.

If you’re saying that Congress did pass such a law, can you tell me which one?

Why isn’t it advertising friendly? Is there some reason getting someone to go to your website from a porn site or app is less helpful than getting them to go there from somewhere else?

I can’t even figure out how to open an app on my computer. I can do it on my phone, but the keyboard and screen on there is tiny.

If you make money through ads, you either use one of the few companies that accept porn

I don’t get this one. Why won’t people advertise on porn sites? A people who watch porn less likely to be customers? Or are they just as good, and there’s a huge market untapped outside of gambling and porn and everyone should advertise their services on porn sites? Or is it that the only companies that are good at figuring out what specific ads to show just refuse, and in an alternate reality where they didn’t you could just as easily advertise on NSFW websites?

However there’s no easy way to force a browser to open a link in the current tab if the site wants to use a new tab.

Just hit ctrl+w after clicking the link. That will close the current tab.

The Constitution lists one crime: treason. He didn’t do that. Not faithfully carrying out the duties of the office is absolutely grounds for impeachment, but it’s not a crime.

It’s not illegal to lie to the American people. And it’s practically a requirement for office.

You mean there wasn’t yet? I don’t know if that’s true, but I know there most definitely is precedent now.

Counterpoint: If you’re an IT guy, you’re probably making enough money that you can donate mosquito nets and save tons of lives, and it’s not worth risking all that to save one more.

I come here occasionally, but for the most part I use Reddit because it has the biggest user base, so you can find far more specific and active subreddits than Lemmy communities.

Or, and I admit I’m just spitballing here, maybe they consider fetuses to be people just like they say, and all the women who are pro-choice don’t just feel like they need to be oppressed?

You have to remember that pro-life people consider fetuses to be people. How many of your constituents would need to favor murdering babies for you to vote in favor if it?

I’m asking whether AIs are able and allowed to modify THEIR OWN code.

Yes. They can write code. Right now the don’t have a big enough context window to write anything very useful, but scale everything up enough and they could.

Scientists are continuously baffled by the universe - very physical thing - and things they discover there. The point is that the knowledge that a thing follows certain specific laws does not give us the understanding of it and the mastery over it.

And my point is that neural networks don’t require understanding of whatever they’re trained on. The reason I brought up that human brains are turing complete is just to show that an algorithm for human-level intelligence exists. Given that, a sufficiently powerful neural network would be able to find one.

Are AIs we have at our disposal able and allowed to self-improve on their own?

Yes. That’s what training is. There’s systems for having them write their own training data. And ultimately, an AI that’s good enough at copying a human can write any text that human can. Humans can improve AI by writing code. So can an AI. Humans can improve AI by designing new microchips. So can an AI.

These are of course tongue-in-cheek examples of what a human brain can, but - from the persepctive of neuroscience, psychology and a few adjacent fields of study - it is absolutely incorrect to say that AIs can do what a human brain can, because we’re still not sure how our brains work, and what they are capable of.

We know they follow the laws of physics, which are turing complete. And we have pretty good reason to believe that their calculations aren’t reliant on quantum physics.

Individual neurons are complicated, but there’s no reason to believe they exact way they’re complicated matters. They’re complicated because they have to be self-replicating and self-repairing.

I agree with the basic idea, but there’s not some fundamental distinction between what we have now and true AI. Maybe we’ll find breakthroughs that help, but the systems we’re using now would work given enough computing power and training. There’s nothing the human brain can do that they can’t, so with enough resources they can imitate the human brain.

Making one smarter than a human wouldn’t be completely trivial, but I doubt it would be all that difficult given that the AI is powerful enough to imitate something smarter than a human.

That would be ideal, but people always underestimate the cost and difficulty of things.

What’s the normal amount of over budget and behind schedule?

Unless the two sides significantly disagree about the chances of winning, they’re both better off avoiding the costs of trial and the risk of not being able to predict the result by settling. Also, they can have NDAs as part of the settlement and it doesn’t set a precedent, so even if it’s a large settlement other people will be less likely to sue than if they lost.