Willie

They requested the delay to July, since he is in court for another case in another area. I suppose it was reasonable to grant it. It’d be unfair for someone to not get their right to a trial, even if they were found guilty of a crime in another area.

It’d make more sense to keep him in custody in the meantime though. I mean, that’s what they do for normal people. Right?

Ready for nothing to happen?

They’d most likely have to do it through bans in reaction to non-vegan sounding comments, since there’s really no way to prove someone is not of the group, until they prove that they’re not in it.

It sounds rough, you’d need to have a very active group of moderators.

Yeah, that’s the internet for you. Anything you want to stay around will vanish someday, and anything you want gone will be here forever.

Come on, they even missed their chance to call it CreateHentAI!

Yeah, you get to pick your cat in Prism.

I haven’t seen any of these bad boys in probably over a decade. They used to be all over the place.

Nope,

I preheat the oven consistently but don’t consistently read terms and conditions or license agreements.

They forced everyone off Origin and onto the EA App.

They still didn’t make a remember password button that works.

I know exactly what she’s thinking from that expression.

How unprofessional.

Wow… I really should have just read the thing.

Well, now I actually have to dust off my Wii U.

Why is there a deadline?

Is the data going to delete itself somehow?

Well, I never really thought about it until now either. Haha. Though, it was mostly a choice of apathy, since when I’m dead I won’t really care what someone does with them, I only really get to pretend that I will while I’m alive today.

If they’re not charging for my organs that get donated, then that’s pretty cool. I mean, I was given mine for free, so it only makes sense to give them for free when I’m done with them.

Of course, I live in the middle of nowhere, so whether they’ll find someone who can use my stuff before it goes bad is a whole different thing entirely.

It’s good that you were able to find some lungs.

My ID says I am, but I’m not registered anywhere else. Why did I have my ID say it? Because I felt like it that day when I renewed it. That’s literally all there was to it.

Real talk though, I almost don’t think I should be donating my organs. Why should the hospital get for free what they’re going to charge a family hundreds of thousands of dollars for?

So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

and

The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

and

The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

Let’s look at it this way.

Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

You could commit:

Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.

So by putting a stamp on an absentee ballot, therefore paying the postal service to deliver it, am I committing an Alabama felony? Or are interactions with the postal service explicitly exempted from it?

If the machine can prove that it is conscious (prior to the torture, of course), I’d most likely class it on the same level as a cat or a dog. Cats and dogs are friendly critters who help me do tasks and spend time with me, and an AI would be no different at that point. They’d just be able to do more complex tasks. I guess they might be a little lower, since they lack agency, accept commands, and must follow sets of rules to decide to do tasks, unlike animals and people, who we have accepted can decide what they do and don’t wish to do.

The only other real difference is that cats, dogs, and people are individuals, with their own upbringings and personalities. Meanwhile an AI would be able to be copied, and many of them could be born from the same original experiences. If basement man copied his tortured AI a few million times, did he torture one AI, or did he torture a million? I think that’s where the real difference lies, that makes the AI less than human.

If you lopped a cat’s brain out, and were able to hook it up to the AI torture device, and it was magically compatible, it’d be a far greater torture, because there is only one cat, and there will only ever be one cat, the cat cannot be restored from a snapshot, and you cannot copy the cat. If you did the same with a human, it would be an even greater torture yet for the same reasons.

From an ethical standpoint, today I think it would be equal to animal abuse, however, we won’t perceive it that way, since it will benefit corporations for us to think that real AI are not alive and have no rights. So they’ll likely spend lots of time and money to change our perception to agree with that standpoint. We will think of them as we think of cows and pigs, where they might have feelings and such, but it doesn’t really matter, because those animals are made of tasty food.

You’re right, apart from the bridge and the immediate way back at the farthest north point, they didn’t retrace any steps. But yeah.

I don’t really think this counts, since he doubles back around at a point, I mean, if you’re allowed to do that, you can drive for 30 hours almost anywhere, and still be in the same area.