441
disliking tech bros ≠ disliking tech
(ani.social)
Not sure if this is the best community to post in; please let me know if there's a more appropriate one. AFAIK Aii@programming.dev is meant for news and articles only.
There is no "AI".
That deception is the main ingredient in the snake oil.
I don't understand the desire to argue against the terms being used here when it fits both the common and academic usages of "AI"
There is no autonomy. It’s just algorithmic data blending, and we don’t actually know how it works. It would be far better described as virtual intelligence than artificial intelligence.
That kind of depends how you define autonomy. Whichever way, I'm not sure I get how "virtual" is a better descriptor for implying a lack of it than "artificial" is.
Also by "we don’t actually know how it works" do you mean that we can't explain why a particular "decision" was made by an AI, or do you mean that we don't have a sufficient understanding how AI works in general?
Does it run on something that's modelled on a neural net? Then it's AI by definition.
I think you're confusing AI with "AGI".
Whose definition?
People who know what they are talking about. But that doesn't matter to you, does it?
Whom? Name these people.
You are an idiot I am not playing your game I'll just call you out on being an idiot. If you came across as genuine I would give you a history lesson but you are just an asshole looking to pick a fight. If you could articulate how exactly knowing of John McCarthy and countless others and their contributions would change anything about what you are doing I would be happy to google that for you.
Where did anyone from the Dartmouth folks identify “AI” as “anything that runs on a “neural network””?
Edit: Also, I asked two very simple questions. Your response already tells me everything I need to know.
Edit II: What fucking “game” was I playing by simply asking you to verify your claims?
Lol dude like I said, knowing who wouldn't change what you are doing.
So, you don’t know and have no sources. You’re just making shit up. That tracks.
Again, if you could articulate how knowing the names of the people who developed this stuff is going to change anything about what you are doing here I would be happy to google a history lesson for you.
E: See it from my perspective. You are not angry because of anything that I can change, you are just angry. So how could proving anything to you change why you are angry? That's the game you are playing. And I am here to play with you.
I’m not angry, dummy, I literally just asked you to provide proof of your claims. Nice try, though.
I thought you were angry because you were dumb, but you are dumb because you are angry. (reply to the other comment dont tree this shit lol)
So, you don’t understand any part of this conversation, do you?
I was asking specifically where they gave the outline of “anything that runs on a neural network,” which was your claim that you then pinned upon the Dartmouth group. Where did you find them referring to such as a definition of AI?
You have not clarified or outlined anything regarding that claim. You have called me stupid for asking and implied I know nothing of Turing, McCarthy, Claude Shannon, Rochester, etc.., or their works, because you’re an arrogant ass who thinks you’re the only person capable of reading or taking an interest in the history and growth of technology and computers for some reason. Then you called me an idiot because you can’t provide proof of your claims, and you’re also an asshole.
Sources, or fuck off, you god damned child.
So wait this whole time you are just mad about semantics?
JFC dude you want scientific explanations for why we used words where shut the actual fuck up lol
Yes, this is a computing science subject, you were making a large claim on a subject of computer science, you were making a computer science claim, where in the field of computer science was it stated that AI is “anything that runs on a neural network”?
Give me a quote. I don’t need a scientific article. Just give me verifiable proof of that claim. I’m not mad, buddy, just very curious and thirsty for answers.
Again, not mad, and not semantics. Where was it claimed by McCarthy or the folks that worked with him that AI is “anything running on a neural network”? That was your claim, why do you claim that? Where was that ever said by any of those folks? That was your claim, back it up or suck it up.
You are trying to get me to give you sources of the semantics of the term AI. That is literally what you are doing.
I think I realized your problem, what you need is the definition of the individual parts so you can grasp the concept "AI" semantically.
AI by definition can be really mundane and limited it doesn't have to satisfy your idea of it you got in your head from movies and tv.
That is not me you insufferable idiot.
No no I took up the mantle, but you took the trouble to copy and paste and didn't realize we are different people. And you are an insufferable idiot.
No need for the ableism
The guy who is not mad with his manic posting and ism slurs. Okay calm fella
You are so basic and angry. Have some substance I can reply to. Indicate being informed can actually change your attitude like I have requested so I have a reason to prove to you the foundation of all this is based on early observations of the neuron. It takes two minutes on google, two minutes you won't bother to do yourself instead you take the time to find gifs to express your feelings. You aren't owed genuine interaction when from the start you have been disingenuous. You sad, angry little man (shark?)
Read a book.
Eat a book.
Eat a book lol
No, I’m asking you to give me the source on Your given definition of AI. Catch on.
Oh well in that case, me. ahahahhaha wtf dumbass want to word that better
Explain.
Me, or anyone that has studied or worked just a little bit in the AI field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
AI isn’t neural networks, but Neural Networks, aka Deep Learning in our case, is a part of Machine Learning which is a part of AI.