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