![]() |
News from da outaworlds |
mail files register groups login |
Message-ID: |
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.
Subject | Replies | Author |
![]() By: Kyonshi on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 | 32 | Kyonshi |