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.