People who make startups today are trying to be acquired by google (or one of the few other big tech companies). Even if something starts outside of these companies it will end inside if seems like it may work. Antitrust does nothing these days.

No

That plane can take off by itself If needed.

Again. Same problem. You are fixated on the assumption that all randomness is chaotic.

Determining the outcome based on knowing the initial state ("all inputs") is the definition of chaotic.

Random means the outcome is not deterministic even when you have "all inputs". Also known as stochastic.

Chaotic = we lack information to predict.

Stochastic (random) = all information isn't enough to predict.

And you could hold the opinion that there is nothing really stochastic in the universe, that all randomness is really just chaotic and we just lack the ability to uncover it, which is ok, but again, there is no way you or anyone can prove that. To all ends and in all scientific fields, stochastic vs. chaotic is still taken as a very much real difference. If anyone could prove stochastic doesn't exist they would likely be the next world famous genius people would worship for centuries ahead.

Google difference between random and chaotic.

Yes, the point is random is neither free-will nor deterministic, it is another thing. But at the same time randomness could be itself an argument for either determinism or free will depending on how you look at it.

Random to who? You can decide to go out on the street right now and do everything you know society doesn't want you to do and doesn't expect someone to do. You can do things you don't need to do, and you can even go out and do stuff you never even considered you would ever do in your life. Go take a shit on your own front door and throw it inside your house. Your randomness in their perspective is your exercise in free will.

Randomness in quantum mechanics in a way ***can potentially*** be used to pinpoint a "gap" in determinism. When you need to switch into probabilistic distributions instead of accurate predictions, that can be argued to be a physical manifestation of metaphysical gaps in determinism where *some other thing* takes the wheel.

Yes, there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, stochastic is only one, but there are also deterministic interpretations of it. Important to know is there is no definitive answer yet and that "probabilistic" is most commonly not taken to be a synonym for deterministic just because you can "math it". Anyone that goes around saying there is a correct way to interpret quantum as either deterministic or stochastic is just making sweeping statements based on their own opinions.

You are most welcome. I am glad someone took the bait so that I could write this for no reason.

Don't be sassy. That 1903 Wright Brothers flight did not happen the way it is told. The thing with wings was launched like a sling-shot, it didn't take off powered by its engine, it was not a plane, it was a glider. Nobody witnessed it and later on some story about descendants of five witnesses was fabricated, but nobody ever talked to these supposed witnesses before they died. First actual plane flew in Paris 1906 by Santos Dumont, for the entire city to see.

Why do you oppose determinism to dualism instead of to free-will? Dualism is usually in contrast to materialism, and materialism is not necessarily deterministic (although they do go hand in hand overwhelming majority of times).

You left out random. Physical reductionism can be deterministic OR random (possibly a combination but not necessarily, because here it opens up multi-world possibilities). Being very careful not to confuse random with chaotic.

Created by who?

One of those didn't happen

\I may or may not be joking

Guys why does this comment transpire wishful thinking

AI are algorithms to generalize from data, vanilla algorithms are specialized from strict human-made rules. A calculator is just us figuring out how to make arithmetics in base 2 instead of 10 and then designing physical circuits with ports that allow us to achieve our end. It would be analogous to AI if you showed a calculator examples of calculations and results and then asked it to generalize and be able to do maths outside of the examples it was fed. That's not how we made calculators in the past (but we can now with AI), if it doesn't generalize it is vanilla algorithm, if it generalizes it is AI, the generalization being a black box is exactly the point, if we knew how to generalize and it was easy we wouldn't need AI we would just code and design circuits that do exactly what we need.

A calculator is an analogy for vanilla algorithms it isn't an analogy for AI. Thanks for making my point for me.

Isn't the entire point of AI to surpass human intelligence at some point? We of course need to understand as much as possible but we can't bound the limits of AI to that which we can understand, that would be against the entire reason to do AI instead of vanilla hardcoded algorithms.

Universal Basic Income needs to be coupled with Universal Maximum Wealth. That's the bit everyone is missing and that's the exact detail that will make our lives under UBI even worse.

Text-to-food

The next crash won't take 10 years we have entered a stage where the next crisis begins before the last one ends