Nope, there’s nothing wrong with the test. It wasn’t designed to test if it was “strong AI”

That was EXACTLY what it was designed for, the argument being that if it is indistinguishably from a human, it has human like intelligence. Human like intelligence includes consciousness, and consciousness means strong AI.

Computers are “thinking” routinely. Chess programs that have existed since the 80’s are already proof of that.

The most well known philosophical challenge to the Turing test is probably the Chinese room, which is an obviously flawed thought experiment, because it introduces human intelligence to the system in an attempt to disprove that human intelligence is present.

There’s plenty of humans that would struggle with counting the number of “r” in Strawberry

I wrote a normal human", not people with way below average intelligence.
Notice I wrote count which means they can be presented with the correct spelling if needed.
Spelling it wrong would be a very human thing to do.

It is widely acknowledged that many modern AI chat bots can indeed pass the Turing test as well as an actual human, maybe even better.

So the new problem is that something is wrong with the Turing test, and we need to come up with something better.
Because nobody sensible recognize current state of AI to be anywhere near strong AI.
Or maybe we are performing the Turing test wrong? It can probably not be called a proper Turing test, unless it’s someone particularly skilled in it that performs it. Someone able to detect the answers without actual human experience behind them.

We know AI can have very basic problems, like not being able to count the number of “r” in strawberry correctly, and act very confused about it when it’s explained that there are 3, and asked to spell the word out and count them.

If the AI had consciousness and comparable intelligence to a normal human, such banal things should not confuse the AI.
So we need to understand the limitations better, to be better at testing them.

There are also more people. Are streets not real if autonomous driving becomes a thing?

So your Google search isn’t real, because the result is based on bots crawling the internet.
Well internet searches were based on crawlers looonngg before Google.
Just like this example you can make thousands of examples, where the sites we use to some degree is facilitated by crawlers.

Bullshit.

Social media <> the internet.

How is it not a bug? The info shown is decidedly wrong!
Would it also not be a bug if your weather app shows freezing 8 C° tomorrow when it’s going to be 40 C°?
Because there’s a perfectly understandable explanation, that they only count to 32 because temperatures didn’t get higher than that 30 years ago, so it counts down from zero when it’s above 40, because that’s how we’ve done it for years.

Just because you know why, and it’s a little bit cumbersome to do it correctly doesn’t mean it’s not a bug.
It’s not only a bug, it’s a lazy ass bug.

Yes this is absolutely how Linux operates, but it’s embarrassing and primitive, and it’s actually decidedly a bug.
I haven’t done much programming for many years, but you used to be able to see if you went a step deeper into the file system operations, whether the file you are copying still has parts in cache.
Just because nobody does it, doesn’t mean it’s not a bug.

There is no sense in showing a progress bar that is wrong anyway.

Focus might be a bit much,
I only have a single feature wish, and that is to have file copy operation progress show correctly.
As it is, if I copy a few gigabytes to an USB stick, it very quickly shows as finished.
But it can take up to a couple of minutes before the operation is actually finished, and the stick can be unmounted and removed.

The easiest way to check I know of, is tom open a terminal and simply use sync. And it seems immensely primitive to me that I have to do that.

This is an age old problem for copying files that began to occur on PC systems way back around 1991, when write cache became a thing for disk operations. And honestly it makes me sad that this problem still isn’t solved now 35 years later. 😥

Otherwise I think KDE is doing great with their desktop, except I think it should just be called KDE desktop, and not that other thing they call it now.

Unfortunately this absolutely happens, both by doctors and nurses.
My mother experienced something similar at the hospital when she had an examination for a disc herniation.
She was told not whine so much about it despite it was extremely painful for her to move. After they had the results, and it turned out she had a HUGE one, they all suddenly changed completely, because they could se on the images how bad it really was.
They thought she had 2, but when she was operated, it turned out to be only one that was so big it looked like 2 on the imaging.

Some doctors and nurses are assholes, that don’t respect their patients, and don’t believe when they have pains.

If it was possible for Epstein to compromise Windows and have access to spy on people.
Maybe Bill Gates would just do that to spy on Epstein. So when Epstein tried to extort Bill Gates, Bill gates would have a thousand times the compromising material on Epstein.

So the very simple answer using Occam’s razor is none.

First the price is set to maximize profits, nothing else.

The reason it’s cheap in Japan is probably because the value is low for Japanese people, so they don’t want to pay more, the price they’ve set is the balance between how many subscribers they can get to maximize the total revenue and profits.

In India I imagine the value for the individual might be better, but it’s a poor country, so the low price is necessary for people to afford it.

Second they have copyright deals that vary greatly by region, so cost and content can vary greatly too.

But you can be 100% sure that the low price in India isn’t because they want to be nicer to the Indians. It’s because that’s the price that will earn them the most money.

It’s clearly not a crime

If you are rich. Just as with most other crimes.

Almost lost an eye at age 12, almost lost my mom at age 2…

Because of wearing glasses?

I’ve been wearing glasses since I was 12, and I’ve had a car and drivers license for decades.
Why do you keep trusting your own mistaken logic over actual statistics based on real life? Why don’t you look it up for yourself?
You are the one that sounds like you are not wearing glasses, I’ve never heard anyone using glasses having similar fears you have.
Your fear is paranoid and delusional. Let’s hear it, which eyeball was taken out by the glasses on who?
My guess is it never happened, because glasses are designed in a way that makes it practically impossible to happen.
I’ve been in numerous accidents wearing glasses, on bicycle, kayaking and even a pretty serious one in a car once, where my entire body hurt for weeks, so it was a pain to lie down even on a super soft mattress. I’ve never been hurt by my glasses, I’ve only had to replace them sometimes, which is of course annoying and expensive. And I’ve also never heard about either friends or family or statistics that say there’s an actual problem wearing glasses in accidents.

That’s very very stupid, I never heard about anyone getting hurt by the glasses because of the airbag.
using just 10 seconds looking it up, reveals that glasses do not significantly increase risk of eye injury from airbags.
And remember in the context of research significantly means it is not statistically significant, meaning the number is so small it’s within statistical error.
So disabling the airbag that demonstrably saves lives, to avoid a statistically non existent danger, is about as moronic as it gets.

Expected errors are the worst, they don’t even pop up an error message, but just keep fucking things up in the background.

It’s so nice to get a more specific error message to narrow it down. Error of the type error, should make the fix easy peasy.

Go on (the) Xitter and be as bigoted a Nazi as you like.
X pronounced SH like in Chinese.

Probably the same way you got pineapple from Ananas.

No, but their fortunes need to be taxed.