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.

--
kyonshi - @kyonshi@dice.camp - gmkeros.wordpress.com - @kyonshi@pixelfed.de