Creo que antes de aplicar cualquier avance científico, hay que sopesar con detenimiento los pros y los contra de su aplicación, así como evaluar las posibles consecuencias (positivas y negativas).

Creo que antes de aplicar cualquier avance científico, hay que sopesar con detenimiento los pros y los contra de su aplicación, así como evaluar las posibles consecuencias (positivas y negativas).

no

You are right - that's exiting !

I feel nothing bad about it. You have to remember that the creator and programmer of such a software system is a Human Being. 

So he found a kind of systematic by using a computer for fast research of all possibilities, permanent repeatable loops with slight variations. This amount of data is not storable and remeberable by Human Being in the same time.

Only one thing is then missing: the social contact to other players! Nothing is more important as meeting Human Beings and having dialog and conversation by all senses. That is the sense of human playing. After some playing no Human Being will like to play again because the computer will allway win....

I initially thought that what put the G in AGI was consciousness. Consciousness I thought was the ability of the brain to understand the world as it encounters it and how to tell the body to act in that environment. Life flows from one situation to another by means of cause-and-effect transitions. It uses cause-and-effects to predict the consequences of each action the body can take and chooses the actions that best achieve its goals.

But on further consideration, this can also be said of self driving cars and other things we tend to call AI. So whether something is AI or not is a gradation, not a sharp distinction. 

Dear Bob

Defining “fake news” poses two big problems. Firstly, like “trolling”, the term has eroded with usage. Originally referring to specific websites that published entirely made up news stories, “fake news” evolved into a catchall phrase for pretty much any news that people don’t like, or seek to dismiss. 

Second, like “lie”, the word “fake” implies not just that someone is wrong, but that they have made a deliberate attempt to deceive. Unless you can actually prove that intent, you’re making an accusation that is factually and legally dubious. If I say that Trump’s immigration order would have prevented 9/11 then I may be lying or I may be misinformed; without further evidence you simply don’t know. This is why journalists are – correctly - reluctant to use “lie”. Some of the technologies for automated fact checking already exist in some form. ClaimBuster is an Australian project that uses natural language processing (NLP) techniques to try to identify factual claims within a text. It won’t automatically fact check them, but it can assist a journalist by pointing them to the most “checkable” statements. We also have knowledge bases that provided structured data to query statements against. Wikidata, a Wikimedia Foundation project, provides it free to anyone who wants to use it. Wolfram|Alpha stores curated facts and knowledge in a large database, and allows users to search it with natural language questions like,

Regards

Dear Saeed,

I agree with what you say, however, the [genuine / honest / non-political] journalists have been becoming less-and-less reluctant, of late, to use the word "lie" [particularly in relation to statements made by Trump ... which I have been calling "lies" for a long time]. However, you make a very important distinction in the definition of what constitutes a "lie" ... that is, whether it is "willful" telling of untruths, or simply repeating false information that a person has, whether from gullibility or ignorance, believed.

I have come to believe that the journalists/media (and myself) may have erred in referring to [all of] Trump's statements as "lies," insofar as by doing so we have been inferring he is intentionally telling mistruths. I have come-to-realize that he [must be so misinformed AND so pathologically mentally-ill with narcissistic-personality-disorder] that he must, himself, actually BELIEVE the ridiculously false things he has been saying. I think he is blind to [incapable of distinguishing falsehood from] the truth.

So, my re-directed question to you is, should Trump be exonerated for "telling lies" because he is too misinformed / ignorant / mentally-deficient / gullible to realize what he is saying is untrue, or should he be convicted as a liar (even though he is not "willfully" or "knowingly" telling untruths), because he "willfully" CHOOSES to remain uninformed / ignorant of the actual truth or denounces the truth after it has been placed-plainly-before-his-eyes?

In any case, his mental state (as may be revealed in why he is "lying") IMO is of paramount importance when considering the fact that this man has a button in-hand that can unleash nuclear destruction at any point on the globe ... at a mere personal whim  ... whether his anger was triggered by truth or a lie seems to matter little after THAT button is pushed.

Best regards,

Bob

Trump has three characteristics that make him very dangerous.

1. He is very impulsive.

2. He is very shallow in his analysis of the consequences of acting on his impulses.

3. He is a major world leader.