so they announced Civ 7 so lets prepare for people getting all up in
arms because they changed how it worked in Civ 6 and now it sucks
fighting against people who just need one. more. turn...

I assume it will find it's fans. as long as they manage to make it load
quicker than Civ 6 I guess I would play it.
well, as soon as it's on the Humble Bundle or somewhere.

https://www.theverge.com/24173575/civilization-7-summer-game-fest-2k-firaxis-trailer

Civilization 7 is launching in 2025
/ After a long wait, Firaxis has officially unveiled the next iteration
of the Civilization franchise.

By Andrew Webster, an entertainment editor covering streaming, virtual
worlds, and every single Pokémon video game. Andrew joined The Verge in
2012, writing over 4,000 stories.
Jun 7, 2024, 11:21 PM GMT+2

It’s been a long wait, but the next Civilization has finally been
revealed. At the main Summer Game Fest keynote, publisher 2K officially
announced Civilization 7, the first new entry in the strategy series
since 2016. We didn’t get any real details or actual gameplay, but
instead a very brief teaser trailer that looked a lot like, well,
Civilization. But there’s one thing we do know: the game won’t be
launching until 2025. And it’s coming to a number of platforms, with the
launch planned for PC, PlayStation, Xbox, and Switch.

More details will be coming in August, according to 2K, with a “full
gameplay showcase.”

There were some inklings this was coming. Ahead of the show, the
publisher teased that “the next iteration in one of 2K’s biggest and
most beloved franchises” would be revealed, and earlier today,
Civilization VII actually appeared briefly on the company’s website.
Longtime Civ developer Firaxis Games revealed that it was working on the
next iteration of the franchise last year, though it didn’t explicitly
call it Civilization VII at the time.

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:57:15 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>so they announced Civ 7 so lets prepare for people getting all up in
>arms because they changed how it worked in Civ 6 and now it sucks
>fighting against people who just need one. more. turn...
>
>I assume it will find it's fans. as long as they manage to make it load
>quicker than Civ 6 I guess I would play it.
>well, as soon as it's on the Humble Bundle or somewhere.

I didn't think "Civilization VI" sucked. But I didn't play it very
much either. Not because I thought it was bad; just because I thought
earlier iterations were better.

(And because I must necessarily limit my Civilization-intake for
health reasons. Doctors orders. Apparently playing Civilization for
days straight without break was destroying my body ;-)

But that's par for the course with the Civilization series. They
release a great game. Then the sequel adds mad new ideas en masse. The
next game pares things down a bit. The one after that finds a new
balance for all the additions, and greatness is achieved once more.
Then the cycle repeats.

Civilization 1: awesome
Civilization 2: some really nice ideas, but messy
Civilization 3: tried to clean things up, didn't quite make it
Civilization 4: awesome
Civilization 5: some really nice ideas, but messy
Civilization 6: tried to clean things up, didn't quite make it
Civilization 7: ?????

Will the next version of the game be awesome? I've no idea. I've
really not followed news of the game. Honestly, I don't need to. I
already own so many Civilization games I could play those for the rest
of my life and be satisfied.

But I'm not writing off the seventh game until it comes out.

On 6/11/2024 10:04 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:57:15 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> so they announced Civ 7 so lets prepare for people getting all up in
>> arms because they changed how it worked in Civ 6 and now it sucks
>> fighting against people who just need one. more. turn...
>>
>> I assume it will find it's fans. as long as they manage to make it load
>> quicker than Civ 6 I guess I would play it.
>> well, as soon as it's on the Humble Bundle or somewhere.
>
>
> I didn't think "Civilization VI" sucked. But I didn't play it very
> much either. Not because I thought it was bad; just because I thought
> earlier iterations were better.
>
> (And because I must necessarily limit my Civilization-intake for
> health reasons. Doctors orders. Apparently playing Civilization for
> days straight without break was destroying my body ;-)
>
> But that's par for the course with the Civilization series. They
> release a great game. Then the sequel adds mad new ideas en masse. The
> next game pares things down a bit. The one after that finds a new
> balance for all the additions, and greatness is achieved once more.
> Then the cycle repeats.
>
> Civilization 1: awesome
> Civilization 2: some really nice ideas, but messy
> Civilization 3: tried to clean things up, didn't quite make it
> Civilization 4: awesome
> Civilization 5: some really nice ideas, but messy
> Civilization 6: tried to clean things up, didn't quite make it
> Civilization 7: ?????
>
> Will the next version of the game be awesome? I've no idea. I've
> really not followed news of the game. Honestly, I don't need to. I
> already own so many Civilization games I could play those for the rest
> of my life and be satisfied.
>
> But I'm not writing off the seventh game until it comes out.
>
>
>

I do actually have to say that neither 4 nor 6 gripped me as much as 5
did. So I really like the way that game plays.

Civ 1 was amazing for what it was, and 3 wasn't bad either.

Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
competitor gets there first.

On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
> competitor gets there first.

so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>
>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>> competitor gets there first.
>
>so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.

Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).

Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
will become irrelevant overnight.

On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>
>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>> competitor gets there first.
>>
>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>
> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>
> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
> will become irrelevant overnight.

There still is no real AI

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>
>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>
>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>
>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>
>There still is no real AI

Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.

But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)

So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
of "real"?

Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>
>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>
>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>
>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>
>>There still is no real AI
>
> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>
> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>
> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
> of "real"?

when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
hypecycle.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
<smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>
>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>
>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>
>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>
>>>There still is no real AI
>>
>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>
>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>
>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>> of "real"?
>
>when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>hypecycle.

To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
do not qualify as "real"?

Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>
>>Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>
>>>>There still is no real AI
>>>
>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>
>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>
>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>> of "real"?
>>
>>when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>hypecycle.
>
> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
> do not qualify as "real"?

is it intelligence?

is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
algorithm into something it isn't?

the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
<smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>
>>>>>There still is no real AI
>>>>
>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>
>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>
>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>> of "real"?
>>>
>>>when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>hypecycle.
>>
>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>> do not qualify as "real"?
>
>is it intelligence?
>
>is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>algorithm into something it isn't?
>
>the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.

I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
artificial.

Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
correctly?

Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.

Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
variety.

"Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
self-defeating situation.

On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>
>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>
>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>> hypecycle.
>>>
>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>
>> is it intelligence?
>>
>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>
>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>
> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
> artificial.
>
> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
> correctly?
>
> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>
> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
> variety.
>
> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
> self-defeating situation.

no, artificial means "made by humans"
is a building not a structure because it's artificial?

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>
>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>
>>> is it intelligence?
>>>
>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>
>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>
>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>> artificial.
>>
>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>> correctly?
>>
>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>
>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>> variety.
>>
>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>> self-defeating situation.
>
>no, artificial means "made by humans"
>is a building not a structure because it's artificial?

Where did you find a building not made by humans?

On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>
>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>
>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>
>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>> artificial.
>>>
>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>> correctly?
>>>
>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>
>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>> variety.
>>>
>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>> self-defeating situation.
>>
>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>
> Where did you find a building not made by humans?

caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>
>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>
>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>> artificial.
>>>>
>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>> correctly?
>>>>
>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>
>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>> variety.
>>>>
>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>
>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>
>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>
>caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.

Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
Usenet.

On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>
>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>> variety.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>
>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>
>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>
>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>
> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
> Usenet.

I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
to accept that drivel without saying anything?

On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>
>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>
>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>
>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>> Usenet.
>
>I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>to accept that drivel without saying anything?

as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
wasting activity?"

So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
was not disappointed.

On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>
>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>
>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>> Usenet.
>>
>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>
> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
> wasting activity?"
>
> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
> was not disappointed.

ah, so I just fell for a troll?
true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
have known.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>>
>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>>
>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>>> Usenet.
>>>
>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>
>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>> wasting activity?"
>>
>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>> was not disappointed.
>
>ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>have known.

You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

Synonyms
--------------
affected
assumed
bogus
contrived
factitious
fake
false
feigned
forced
mechanical
mock
phony
phoney
plastic
pretended
pseudo
put-on
sham
simulated
spurious
strained
unnatural

Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>>
>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>>> wasting activity?"
>>>
>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>>> was not disappointed.
>>
>>ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>>true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>>have known.
>
> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
>
> Synonyms
> --------------
> affected
> assumed
> bogus
> contrived
> factitious
> fake
> false
> feigned
> forced
> mechanical
> mock
> phony
> phoney
> plastic
> pretended
> pseudo
> put-on
> sham
> simulated
> spurious
> strained
> unnatural

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:35:42 -0000 (UTC),
<smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>>>
>>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>>>> wasting activity?"
>>>>
>>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>>>> was not disappointed.
>>>
>>>ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>>>true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>>>have known.
>>
>> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
>> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
>> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.
>>
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
>>
>> Synonyms
>> --------------
>> affected
>> assumed
>> bogus
>> contrived
>> factitious
>> fake
>> false
>> feigned
>> forced
>> mechanical
>> mock
>> phony
>> phoney
>> plastic
>> pretended
>> pseudo
>> put-on
>> sham
>> simulated
>> spurious
>> strained
>> unnatural
>
>did I say that?
>maybe reread my comment. But then you are ignoring your own source here
>as well, because it also can mean unnatural, simulated, or mechanical.
>
>But well, I know you are just pretending to argue right now. So we can
>just agree that you got me good and you don't have to pretend to make
>these stupid claims anymore.
>
>So we both agree that no actual artificial intelligence exists, and we
>are only talking about advanced algorithms, yes?
>
>Then we basically can stop talking here.

On 6/19/2024 1:32 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:35:42 -0000 (UTC),
> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>
>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>>>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>>>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>>>>> wasting activity?"
>>>>>
>>>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>>>>> was not disappointed.
>>>>
>>>> ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>>>> true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>>>> have known.
>>>
>>> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
>>> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
>>> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.
>>>
>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
>>>
>>> Synonyms
>>> --------------
>>> affected
>>> assumed
>>> bogus
>>> contrived
>>> factitious
>>> fake
>>> false
>>> feigned
>>> forced
>>> mechanical
>>> mock
>>> phony
>>> phoney
>>> plastic
>>> pretended
>>> pseudo
>>> put-on
>>> sham
>>> simulated
>>> spurious
>>> strained
>>> unnatural
>>
>> did I say that?
>> maybe reread my comment. But then you are ignoring your own source here
>> as well, because it also can mean unnatural, simulated, or mechanical.
>>
>> But well, I know you are just pretending to argue right now. So we can
>> just agree that you got me good and you don't have to pretend to make
>> these stupid claims anymore.
>>
>> So we both agree that no actual artificial intelligence exists, and we
>> are only talking about advanced algorithms, yes?
>>
>> Then we basically can stop talking here.
>
> Your basic premise is that your own personal definition of AI, which
> is different than that of the rest of the world, is correct. And as
> long as you continue searching for someone that agrees with your
> definition instead of the mainstream one, I suppose you can turn
> grasping onto hope into a hobby if you like.
>
> But it won't change reality.
>

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:07:29 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/19/2024 1:32 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:35:42 -0000 (UTC),
>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>>>>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>>>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>>>>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>>>>>> wasting activity?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>>>>>> was not disappointed.
>>>>>
>>>>> ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>>>>> true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>>>>> have known.
>>>>
>>>> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
>>>> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
>>>> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
>>>>
>>>> Synonyms
>>>> --------------
>>>> affected
>>>> assumed
>>>> bogus
>>>> contrived
>>>> factitious
>>>> fake
>>>> false
>>>> feigned
>>>> forced
>>>> mechanical
>>>> mock
>>>> phony
>>>> phoney
>>>> plastic
>>>> pretended
>>>> pseudo
>>>> put-on
>>>> sham
>>>> simulated
>>>> spurious
>>>> strained
>>>> unnatural
>>>
>>> did I say that?
>>> maybe reread my comment. But then you are ignoring your own source here
>>> as well, because it also can mean unnatural, simulated, or mechanical.
>>>
>>> But well, I know you are just pretending to argue right now. So we can
>>> just agree that you got me good and you don't have to pretend to make
>>> these stupid claims anymore.
>>>
>>> So we both agree that no actual artificial intelligence exists, and we
>>> are only talking about advanced algorithms, yes?
>>>
>>> Then we basically can stop talking here.
>>
>> Your basic premise is that your own personal definition of AI, which
>> is different than that of the rest of the world, is correct. And as
>> long as you continue searching for someone that agrees with your
>> definition instead of the mainstream one, I suppose you can turn
>> grasping onto hope into a hobby if you like.
>>
>> But it won't change reality.
>>
>
>Luckily I found you already, so there's that. We already established
>that you do agree with me about the general definition of AI.

On 6/19/2024 1:37 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:07:29 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/19/2024 1:32 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:35:42 -0000 (UTC),
>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artificial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
>>>>>>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
>>>>>>>>> Usenet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>>>>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>>>>>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>>>>>>> wasting activity?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>>>>>>> was not disappointed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>>>>>> true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>>>>>> have known.
>>>>>
>>>>> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
>>>>> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
>>>>> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
>>>>>
>>>>> Synonyms
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> affected
>>>>> assumed
>>>>> bogus
>>>>> contrived
>>>>> factitious
>>>>> fake
>>>>> false
>>>>> feigned
>>>>> forced
>>>>> mechanical
>>>>> mock
>>>>> phony
>>>>> phoney
>>>>> plastic
>>>>> pretended
>>>>> pseudo
>>>>> put-on
>>>>> sham
>>>>> simulated
>>>>> spurious
>>>>> strained
>>>>> unnatural
>>>>
>>>> did I say that?
>>>> maybe reread my comment. But then you are ignoring your own source here
>>>> as well, because it also can mean unnatural, simulated, or mechanical.
>>>>
>>>> But well, I know you are just pretending to argue right now. So we can
>>>> just agree that you got me good and you don't have to pretend to make
>>>> these stupid claims anymore.
>>>>
>>>> So we both agree that no actual artificial intelligence exists, and we
>>>> are only talking about advanced algorithms, yes?
>>>>
>>>> Then we basically can stop talking here.
>>>
>>> Your basic premise is that your own personal definition of AI, which
>>> is different than that of the rest of the world, is correct. And as
>>> long as you continue searching for someone that agrees with your
>>> definition instead of the mainstream one, I suppose you can turn
>>> grasping onto hope into a hobby if you like.
>>>
>>> But it won't change reality.
>>>
>>
>> Luckily I found you already, so there's that. We already established
>> that you do agree with me about the general definition of AI.
>
> If that's true, then congratulations on adjusting your perceptions and
> glad I could help.