alright have fun

>But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists.

Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.

>we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.

And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is pointless to approach the problem from this angle.

we don't know yet is a much clear thing to say than all the statements above tho.

>It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God.

And i can equally say that the same thing about absolutely anything. Even about anti-god, a thing of opposite charge of god that if it exists would annihilate with god and create two gamma rays. I can say that that our universe is one where god doesn't exist, and those would be equally hard to disprove. So by this logic, anything is true at the same time, 0 = 1 etc. Makes little sense to me.

>I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.

If you think god cannot exist, turning to black holes won't change your mind i'm afraid. In any case, this debate has no place here.

>i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.

Well, I'm not sure what mystery you're talking about regarding AI. There's tons of complexity, in the human brain, and, presumably, in a general AI too. I'm not really sure that black holes are even a good comparison here. There are other things that are also unkowable, by default, like the position and momentum of a particle, and that's just how nature works in that case. However, nothing i know of so far suggests there is something inherently unknowable about AI.

I don't understand what you mean. If you take away the need to prove statements, then the truth value of a statement is meaningless. Contradictory statements have equal value in this kind of world.

>Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output,"

The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function.

>AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds.

But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either.

>This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole)

See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable.

> AI is sentient (god).

what?

Well, if a function takes any input and gives you only one output, what are you going to do with it? How useful is a logic like the one above? What is the connection with the AI part anyway, since we're not here to debate if god exists in black holes?

The better argument would go:
- does god exist?
- idk, but i see no proof of him existing, so i don't think so.
- what if he is in a black hole?
- prove it.

Yes, but you can replace god with anything, so the statement loses its value, don't you think?

check out the red queen hypothesis, don't know if it's still considered valid.

It affects stuff around it, but those properties can be thought to be "of the hole itself", like mass, charge etc. but we can't look inside.

What you are alluding to is god of the gaps, not a black box theory. The mistaken belief that putting god in ever difficult places to find will, as more and more things are discovered and explained, somehow maintain his presence in this world.

As an (astro)physicist i think the only connection between the black box of AI and the black hole is the world black. Nobody is stopping you from opening the black box of AI and looking inside at the numbers. Whether that helps you or not is an entirely different matter. You can never do that with a black hole. No matter what technology you use, or what tool, you can't peer inside the black hole. And nothing of what happens inside influences what's outside, unlike the "black box" of AI.

The only point that makes sense is that little part at the end. Yes, an AI could've published this text, but even an AI that could cobble together this long text wouldn't make the mistake of comparing a black hole with a black box. Or would it? Who knows. Better question: does it matter?

then why no other adaptations, like webbed fingers?

what were the rules for being nominated for a Nobel Prize? Who could do it during Tesla's time?

outside the us tesla was and is well known and in europe, especially in eastern europe, he is tied to numerouw conspiracy theories since ages. This, plus most of the balkan nationalists trying to claim Tesla's origins are in their country.

That's why you publish the results. Average joe can access them too if he pays whatever 15 bucks to the journal or via scihub for free, but he can't understand what's inthe paper and has no equipment so he can't do anything. Most journals are free access now yet no average joe reads them anyway.

yeah, no, giving the average joe access to medical research journals won't mean faster cures. How would that work?

ok first i read it as Indonesians and Australians living in the Italian library

back when they were alive my grandparents burried a 6 foot metal rebar pole with L metal profiles horizontally welded to it as a marker, only 1ft above ground was left.

"All of that is possible with a sophisticated enough AI model. It can even write computer viruses." only directed by a human, so far.

"In the copyright debates the AI engineers have contorted themselves into a carnival act telling the world that the outputs of the AI art are novel and not a copy. They've even granted the copyright to the prompt writers in some instances." - idk, they might be

it is a code, but actually it's much more than that. It's a self replicating piece of code packaged in a capsule that allows it to survive and propagate. Like a computer virus. But you know, computer viruses are written and disseminated by people. They don't evolve on their own.

i don't think a simple piece of code can be dangerous, and probably not a lot of systems will be integrated with AI anytime soon. The problem is the piece of code in the hands of humans can become dangerous.

It is hard to say if a device is sentient when we can't really define sentience without pointing at another human and going "like that". And if that is our standard, then any device that we can't distinguish between it and a sentient being, can be considered sentient. I know people were fast to dismiss the turing test when chatbots became more capable, but maybe there's still something to it?

ugh i had to see tucker carlson's face in the morning thanks op

The gaze was always linked to powerful things in myths and legends, so why not?