¡At least two of those languages have the same problem!

Or, as millions of people have done, you could learn to read from right to left.

¿And don’t you hate how US punctuation is at the end? ¿If you read an entire sentence, but you don’t even know it is a question until you’re at the end, then how do you know which intonation to use? ¡English is subpar and something should be done about that!

It must be tiring at work waiting for the clock to finally strike 00:5pm.

Sure, but the point is they have transponders. And pilots generally use them (because it’s safer) unless they have a good reason not to.

Stealth aircraft spend a lot more time flying training missions over friendly territory than combat missions over enemy territory. They use transponders on training missions, such as this one, because they want to be easily visible to other military and civilian pilots.

Yes it has a transponder, but the transponder is not working.

deleted by creator

F35s have transponders, just like every other aircraft that flies in the US. They are necessary to avoid mid-air collisions. When flying a stealth mission in enemy airspace, they can turn the transponders off.

Unfortunately, the transponder on this particular F35 is not working.

First of all, Chrome still has 3rd party cookies even after implementing their new tracking system.

Second of all, 3rd party cookies could be turned off and not replaced with any tracking system at all. Safari and Firefox have already done so.

Over 30 years ago, someone tried to claim copyright on a phone book. Their phone book had required manually collecting and verifying data from various sources, and the author of the phone book believed all that effort should be rewarded with a copyright on their product.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument. They established that copyright is not a general reward for the “sweat of the brow”. It is only meant to protect human creative expression. A phone book is not creative expression, and neither is any other handpicked database.

there’s no 3rd party like there is with Lemmy and

3rd parties are not new. All these issues came up when Google, YouTube, etc started storing third party content. They still exist today because they followed the rules.

So there’s no American users on lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml, hexbear.net, or even lemmy.world itself?

What? No, my point is that if you are American and host an instance, you’ll probably be ok. Just like Google and YouTube.

If you are not American and host an instance, then all bets are off. If you are Swiss, then you are probably ok. If you are North Korean, then maybe the police are coming for you right now.

What is “hosting”? Your lemmy “home”, lemmy.today for me, has a cached copy of all the content it’s users view.

In the US, if you have copyrighted content on your server and the copyright holder says “Get rid of it”, then you have to get rid of it. As long as you comply, you’ll be ok. That’s literally YouTube’s business model.

If you refuse, then the cops might come for you. In the US, cops don’t go after users who download copyrighted content, only those who make it available to others.

Just replace “Lemmy instance” with “blog”, and the answer is obvious.

“consider a Mexican user visiting a blog located in Germany to view Nazi content.”

The user is subject to Mexican laws. The blog owner would be subject to German laws. The instance owner is likewise subject to German laws.

Adding additional parties doesn’t change anything. For example, if a Mexican user on a Swiss VPN views content originating from a blog in Germany, then the user, the VPN, and the blog are all subject to laws of their own jurisdiction.

Those laws can regulate what content you can access, what content you can host, or both.

If you are American then your Lemmy instance is most likely be protected by section 230, and you probably don’t have to worry too much about non-pirated content. If you live in another country or host pirated content in the US, then YMMV.

Because it’s perverse for someone to create content if successful content will surely be stolen and used against its creator.

They weren’t stealing content until now.

Because until now they weren’t competing against individual content creators.

It doesn’t matter if the answer is right. If the AI does not have an abstract understanding of “red” then it is using a different process to get to the answer than humans. And according to Searle, a Turing machine cannot have an abstract understanding of “red”, no matter how complex the question or how complex an internal model is used to determine its answers.

Going back to the Chinese Room, it is possible that the instructions carried out by the human are based on a complex model. In fact, it is possible that the human is literally calculating the output of a trained neural net by summing the weights of nodes, etc. You could even carry out these calculations yourself, if you could memorize the parameters.

Your use of “black box” gets to the heart of it. Memorizing all of the parameters of a trained NN allows you to calculate an answer, but they don’t give you any understanding what the answer means. And if they don’t tell you anything about the meaning, then they don’t tell the CPU doing that calculation anything about meaning either.

All he has shown that the human+room-system is something different than just the human by itself.

It’s more than that. He says that all Turing machines are fundamentally the same as the Chinese room, and therefore no Turing machine will ever be capable of “human understanding”.

Alternately, if anyone ever builds a machine that can achieve “human understanding”, it will not be a Turing machine.

The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.

This is exactly Searle’s point. Whatever the room is doing, it is not the same as what humans do.

If you accept that, then the rest is semantics. You can call what the room does “intelligent” or “understanding” if you want, but it is fundamentally different from “human intelligence” or “human understanding”.

“The room understands” is a common counterargument, and it was addressed by Searle by proposing that a person memorize the contents of the book.

And the room passes the Turing test, that does not mean that “it passes all the tests we can throw at it”. Here is one test that it would fail: it contains various components that respond to the word “red”, but it does not contain any components that exclusively respond to any use of the word “red”. This level of abstraction is part of what we mean by understanding. Internal representation matters.