There is a school of thought which holds that past a certain scale, effective moderation becomes impossible. I've done moderation work and it took tons of judgement.

Is it really a good thing to make the concept of over-the-top paranoia succinct?

You think I'm defining away the problem, and I think you're defining, uh, in? the problem. And that's the point. Whether there's a problem or not depends on how you define what you're talking about.

If you assume that intelligence, consciousness, whatever, is a non-physical phenomenon then, tautologically, there must be a non-physical process underlying it. No argument. This view has a very long history. One of the more modern players was Descartes with his hyperdimensional pineal portal. Penrose started from the same assumption and assigned the only (possibly) non-physical thing he could think of: wavefunction collapse.

As I said in my first reply, as far as I know Searle himself shies away from such assumptions. He talks about "causal powers" but doesn't speculate about what those might be or how they originate. The Chinese Room argument (which is just one of many in just his one paper) is meant to illustrate that what we think of as intelligence is non-deterministic. That's weak/regular/small-d deterministic since physicists have gone and coined super-deterministic too. If I give you the same exact answer to a question you would doubt my intelligence, as you doubt the Chinese translation book that always gives the same translation. You "tune-out" sometimes when you walk or drive a familiar path. You have "knee-jerk" reactions. You can act "robotically" doing familiar tasks. Sometimes you might "not be thinking." Etc.

Searle's argument is really quite practical. I think he thought that the AI researchers of the time were focusing too much on deterministic computer programs, databases and logic, when our impression of intelligence is very much not that. That's why it seems so strange to me that people would fault chatGPT for not being able to do arithmetic. Arithmetic is not AI, it's classical computation. AI is the ability to suck at arithmetic and make art, dream up hypotheses and say stupid shit.

You can add non-determinism in different ways. Throwing in some (pseudo)random numbers is one approach. That's what makes generative models generative: they either start from random numbers and transform them conditioned on input into the output, or they spice the IO transformation with randomness. They do not give the same output for an input. Nobody claims Google Translate (a deterministic deep learning system) is intelligent or conscious, but some people do claim the GPTs (non-deterministic generative deep learning systems) are.

OR, you can decide that intelligence is non-physical and so it needs to have at least some non-physical element. A concrete implementation of that would be True (with a big T) random numbers, not pseudo-random ones. If you believe that wavefunction collapse is Truly random then that could be a source, a la Penrose. That gives you True non-Determinism. Big D. No superdeterminism or any other kind.

You can also decide that intelligence isn't just deterministic physics plus randomness. That takes you to the world of pineal portals, souls and God.

Searle, I think, at least his Chinese room paper, was talking about brains having enough causal connection to the environment that they were non-deterministic by any of the above. Effectively non-deterministic due to fundamentally deterministic but massive influence by that environment or truly random influence from whatever. And how would you tell the difference anyway?

Untrue, they are poorly defined. If you think that they are well defined, tell me what you think they are and how you would test for them.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fb...

There are lots of fuzzy definitions. There are also lots of concrete ones. Your choice depends on a) what you're doing and b) how much you want to believe in magic.

Ah, THAT's why documentation is so poor these days. None of the "software engineers" can type, and tab completion doesn't help when you're writing documentation.

Some of the earlier typing programs didn't emphasise proper shift or space key usage so lots of touch typists didn't learn those properly. I use my right thumb on the space bar much more than I should.

It didn't help that Microsoft kept screwing with the right shift and carriage return keys either.

adding an interpunction or non-letter between every word

I've occasionally met people who don't add a non-letter between every word. They'reveryannoying.

When I was little I used to beg my father to play text adventures with me because he could touch type. One day he told me I had to learn myself, complete with covering the keyboard, and about a week later it was fine. Helped out a lot with Turbo Pascal too. And as a bonus everybody at a place I used to work thought it was witchcraft that I'd use the keyboard without pulling the tray out. Of course, they also thought anything over 30 wpm was witchcraft.

IDEs seem to be mostly a crutch for people who (1) can't type fast enough so stopping everything and hitting tab, or hitting arrow, arrow, tab, is quicker than actually typing a whole word and (2) are so unfamiliar with the system they're working with that they need constant reminders about the names of functions.

Or until they fixed the artifact filters in their new radars.

They're lying about lying! Now some people will say, what if they're lying about lying about lying, but I know that's not the case. If anything they're lying about lying about lying about lying!

Can anyone give an example of an algorithm that can work faster with more space ?

Searching, as well For some reason, recently searching even for explicit literal terms, that I KNOW are in my notes returns zero results. For example I have a note of some servers and details, i search for the hostname or the ip (which is in the note) and nothing turns up. I have to search for 'web server' which is also in the note for it to find the note. It's utterly braindead. Notes should be a first tier search target. Another example of Apples quality sucking and degrading the user experience.

While I'm at it there also seems to be no way to share an email to a Note. Or sare anthing to a note of user really. I would quite like to share thingsto notes for later, like a scrapbook. If only they had a scrapbook app. Oh wait i think they did 30 years ago.

To land on the moon. I guess those guys in 1969 were just too good.

"software that doesn't allow you to shoot yourself in the foot if you're determined"

I can think of some: Retail video game console operating systems.