But sure look for patterns that are outside of the benchmarks are normal workings of the system.

Marketing that sounds good ai

Right

...

Have you seen the movie ‘Snowden’?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CAKyyObls

.gov commercially available are different

Have you guys seen this? It's pure insanity

Hello, I know I just got here, but, this is a subject I know something about. What's confusing people is intelligence (the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.) is not the same thing as phenominal consciousness (to be able to experience the "something it is like). What they have is artificial intelligence, NOT artificial consciousness.

Consciousness requires culture

In reference to the conversation, it cant make decisions. It's only as "intelligent" as the programer.

It's just machine learning

But sure

And if said learning has garbage input

Or s***** algos

Or both

Then the output would be garabage

Anyways, I thought this was the election2020 channel. Thats why I came here. What did I find a discussion about artificial intelligence?

@Autumn_Katrina, you just advanced to level 1!

Why did I find*

@RobertGrulerEsq Having a friendly debate with a fellow non-lawyer friend about the cases being brought up and their interpretation of the law. A lot of the state laws say 'shall' which I looked up in a legal dictionary to essentially mean 'must'. My friend is involved in a lot of contract law and feels that 'shall' can be equally interpreted as 'may'. In terms of these state laws regarding elections, how would you interpret 'shall'?

https://www.psfc.mit.edu/news/2020/using-machine-learning-to-control-plasma-stability-in-fusion-experiments

@Autumn_Katrina what is your take on the election?

Shall, in any context I've ever seen it, legal or otherwise, is always a directive ... it essentially means "must". The only diference is, must is driven by a force to happen (if I heat the ice it must melt), where as shall is directed by command (you shall pay for the good you tak form the store)...there is no "may" in either of these.

@busillis I'm aware of the research. I was an IT technician for a little over 10 years before I quite Hewlett-Packard; and I'm the same Autumn who wrote Katja the Robot (the closest thing I could get to "artificial intelligence" -- I still think I could have gotten a lot closer if a company had taken me seriously in 2007 and given me some money)

@Autumn_Katrina the election result horses been beaten badly

Well, I think we all know Trump was who the actual, living, honest, and legally eledgable people voted for mostly.

@Autumn_Katrina cool.

The question is, can it be proven

@Autumn_Katrina hmm t

@Autumn_Katrina do tell

Even if it can, can it be proven in time

Not looking good

And, ultimately, will the legislaters act accordingly

The time caveat

According to @TaLoN132 Here's how you can pass any unconstitutional law.

1) Wait until you have a favorable Supreme Court
2) Exclude any other Court from ruling on it, And ensure only the Supreme Court can rule on it
3) Set a time limit of 180 days to when you can challenge it's constitutionality, and then it goes into effect
4) When nobody challenges it because you have a favorable supreme court, if later, somebody challenges it, cite that they didn't challenge it during the 180 days.

Ultimately, the legislaters can slate electoral college votes for Steve Courtney from Crypto Crew University if they thought it was a good idea, and the congress could approve thpose if they agreed. So, in the end, it's the legislaters who need to be convince that they should,

Latches

So Rudy’s argument is where this all going all along

Fun with infernos.