On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:08:18 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.
>
>Yes, we both agree that no actual AI exists

On 6/20/2024 1:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:08:18 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, we both agree that no actual AI exists
>
> Oh, disregard... I see that you're actually a delusional cunt.
> Conversation over.

On 6/20/24 09:35, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 6/20/2024 1:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:08:18 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, we both agree that no actual AI exists
>>
>> Oh, disregard...   I see that you're actually a delusional cunt.
>> Conversation over.
>
> I mean, you admitted to being a troll. So do you think you insulting me
> would hurt my feelings? It just means I riled you up enough.
>

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 20:55:26 +0200, Samuel Söderberg
<samuel@samuelsoderberg.se> wrote:

>
>Time passes by.
>
>I was surprised that they announced VII, since it felt like they just
>released VI.
>
>Civilization VI is actually my favorite game in the series. I tend to
>like that type of art style, and the districts are great.
>
>However, a new game is a new game, and hopefully it will exceed my
>expectations.
>

I know, right? But Steam says it came out in 2016; that's eight years
ago! That's close to twice the length of the average interval between
Civ games. But because they keep flooding the market with expansions
(and gold and platinum and GOTY and diamond and complete and ultimate
editions) it seems like just yesterday.

Not that's a new thing. From the start Civilization was repackaged and
resold to us. Civilization, Civilization Master Players Edition,
Civilization CD Edition, CivNet... the franchise has been milked to
death!

Which is probably why I just can't muster all that much excitement
about the newest release. Sure, I'll buy it. Sure, I'll play it. Sure,
I'll enjoy it. But after 30 years of the franchise, it's lost that
spark that made it so exciting.

They'll get my money regardless.

1991 Civilization
1996 Civilization II
(1999 Alpha Centauri)
2001 Civilization III
2005 Civilization IV
2009 Civilization V
2016 Civilization VI
2024 Civilization VII ???

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:00:17 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>They'll get my money regardless.
>
>
>1991 Civilization
> 1996 Civilization II
> (1999 Alpha Centauri)
> 2001 Civilization III
> 2005 Civilization IV
> 2009 Civilization V
> 2016 Civilization VI
> 2024 Civilization VII ???
2026 PROFI

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:38:34 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:00:17 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>They'll get my money regardless.
>>
>>
>>1991 Civilization
>> 1996 Civilization II
>> (1999 Alpha Centauri)
>> 2001 Civilization III
>> 2005 Civilization IV
>> 2009 Civilization V
>> 2016 Civilization VI
>> 2024 Civilization VII ???
> 2026 PROFI

I admit it; I LOLd.

I'm not sure you win the ENTIRE Internet today, but you at least
deserve a significant chunk of it for that comment. Well done. ;-)

On 8/9/2024 1:38 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:00:17 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> They'll get my money regardless.
>>
>>
>> 1991 Civilization
>> 1996 Civilization II
>> (1999 Alpha Centauri)
>> 2001 Civilization III
>> 2005 Civilization IV
>> 2009 Civilization V
>> 2016 Civilization VI
>> 2024 Civilization VII ???
> 2026 PROFI
>

There also was Civilization: Call to Power, which I think was quite the
swell game. It managed to get a sequel without the Civilization moniker,
unfortunately that was the end of that series.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 21:34:49 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/9/2024 1:38 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:00:17 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>> They'll get my money regardless.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1991 Civilization
>>> 1996 Civilization II
>>> (1999 Alpha Centauri)
>>> 2001 Civilization III
>>> 2005 Civilization IV
>>> 2009 Civilization V
>>> 2016 Civilization VI
>>> 2024 Civilization VII ???
>> 2026 PROFI
>>
>
>There also was Civilization: Call to Power, which I think was quite the
>swell game. It managed to get a sequel without the Civilization moniker,
>unfortunately that was the end of that series.

Civ:CTP was made by an entirely different group though, largely as a
result of Activision briefly getting license to the brand (a license
which lasted all of a year before it reverted, hence the sequel
lacking the "Civilization" name ;-)

It wasn't a bad game, but it didn't really stand out either. It was
fairly average. Its most exciting feature is that it was one of the
earliest retail games ported to Linux (and BeOS, if I recall, back
when people thought that OS still had legs!). But it doesn't really
fit into the Civilization pantheon (even if a few of its ideas were
borrowed for Civ3). It's a side-project, similar to "CivCity: Rome" or
"Civilization: Beyond Earth"; games which share some similarities in
gameplay but whose strongest connection is the branding, not the
mechanics.

There was also "Advanced Civilization", which was a sop thrown to
Avalon Hills when they got upset that Microprose created a game that
bore some vague similarities to their board game and didn't pay them
for the privilege. ;-)