Utility Theory dose not demand that every individual experience the exact SAME utility from a commodity, not even over time.  Again this is MARGINAL UTILITY THEORY.  You people are revealing that you know absolutely NOTHING about the basics of utility theory when you make these posts.

We didn't go over "MARGINAL UNITY THEORY" in my classes. What is it an acronym for?

Спасибо за отзыв и за комментарии. 1 и 2 - учтем и постараемся реализовать. 3 - это исключение. Наша главная задача - избегать таких исключений.
А что до ставок комиссии… мы можем и 0% поставить, если народ будет сообща оплачивать наши расходы

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property.  So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Looks like most people on this forum consider acceptable writing moar instead of more, center instead of centre...

I'm curious: what happens if you do this in your school works?

Lawyers: obsolete     Machine learning algorithms going through all the law books on the planet analyzing all case histories, looking for all viable avenues.
Doctors: obsolete      Watson supercomputer deployed across the planet.
Scientists: obsolete    Automated research centers, slicing dicing staining, robotic probes roaming the planet.
Police: obsolete         robots incapable of corruption patrolling the streets, running on machine algorithms to predict crime before it happens.
Teachers:obsolete     Online pre programmed courses teaching people whatever they wish to learn.
Military:obsolete       Robots control the battlefield stronger faster smarter, incapable of PTSD, emotionless cold machines assessing and dolling out the     appropriate             response to a threat.
Cooks:obsolete         Automated machinery designed to cook any meal you like is already available.
Government:obsolete The internet can already bring about world wide direct democracy.
Programmers:obsolete Machine learning algorithms and A.I. systems with neural chips on neural networks constructing any program required.

People:obsolete

When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny.  Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways.  The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

The problem is this: if you decide to use economic growth as a metric, then you are setting up economic growth as being valued more highly than other factors.  Say some people would want equality over economic growth.  Either way, this is a moral decision.

The basic principle is this: the ends (your metrics) don't justify the means.  So some system might result in more economic growth, but that doesn't mean it's right to force it on people - maybe they value something else more highly than that economic growth.  Or some system might result in better equality, but it would be wrong to force it on you or others who believe economic growth should be paramount (just an example).  Or maybe reducing traffic deaths is the number one goal, or childhood obesity.

You shouldn't have the power to compel people to go along with your ideas.  So, for example, you think everybody should abstain from alcohol.  Great - persuade people instead of outlawing it, because nobody should have the power to outlaw it.  It shouldn't be a matter of voting on who gets that power over everybody, because nobody should have it.

If you would be using neurons identical to our own then you wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be leaving most of the work to nature and creating human beings rather than robots (or biological robots at the very least)

Скажу вам вот что. Я создал тему, меня завалили г.вном из вентилятора. Каждый олицетворяет то, что он пишет. Мое мнение в любом случае останется при мне. Для чего вы мне тут только что вылили все это, вместо того чтобы ответить на простой вопрос?

No, in elections (as we know them), you are picking the government that other people will be subject to.  What we want is for each person to be allowed to pick their own government.  Example: when George W. Bush won in 2000, it was immoral to force everybody to be subject to his government; people should've been allowed to be under a competing system run by Gore instead, if that's what they really wanted.  (Personally I'd pick neither.)

All they have to do is just respect each other's rights to life, liberty, and property.  Imagine if the Republican and Democratic parties were each governments.  Each citizen picks whichever one they want.  If you commit a crime against another citizen of your party, your party handles it in the way they deem appropriate.  If they commit a crime against a citizen of the other party, it'd be handled by collaboration between governments: extradition, etc.  So, if you are Republican and murder a Democrat and the whole world witnessed it on television, the Republicans probably hand you over to the Democrats to face justice.  But if you are Democrat and have an abortion, the Democrats don't hand you over to the Republicans, because while the Republicans have outlawed abortion, the Democrats have not.

Now generalize it: instead of two parties/governments, allow any arbitrary number of them.  Allow people to create new ones as they see fit.

Вы изъясняетесь как уголовник.

Попрошу вас в моей ветке быть корректным и изъясняться по существу если, конечно, есть что сказать. Вот скажите мне, что быстрее for или foreach?
И да, мне 35.

Бред надо сначала почувствовать, потом осознать, а потом избавится от него.

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not sure why the goal of AI is to create human like intelligence.
The point of computing, so far, has been to use computers to do things that we cannot already do.

Why create a computer that is so human that it knows how to talk about last nights tv in a human like way? ('it was ok', said the computer, 'but it was no Breaking Bad')

If you ever needed proof that the Discovery Channel employs no one who can do math and doesn't bother fact-checking, there it is.  This thing has been around for years and gotten no closer to construction.

That's not a building, that's a render.  The "Freedom Ship" initiative collected several USD$million and failed to build anything. Most people agree it was a scam.

Naval architects, looking at the proposed size of the darn thing, were pretty unanimous in their "Why are people giving these idiots money to build something that can't exist?"  response -- mostly because the ocean has swells miles long that greatly exceed the proposed height of the vessel, meaning it would be an unsupported spar between wave crests - and at the proposed size/mass, we can't build anything capable of supporting itself on that big a span.  So, it would break up.