Misconstruing how language works isn't an argument for what an existing and established word means.

I'm sure that argument made you feel super clever but it's nonsense.

I sourced by definition from authoritative sources. The fact that you didn't even bother to verify that or provide an alternative authoritative definition tells me all I need to know about the value in further discussion with you.

I’m not talking about neural interfaces. I’m talking about organiod intelligence.

I am a computer scientist with lab experience in this. I’m not pulling this out of my ass. I’m drawing from direct experience in development.

No one told you to hand it over. A technology being able to do something does not require you to use it. And people misusing the technology to feign talent is a reflection of the people- not the tech.

Yeah, that’s the problem with the field, too many delusional people trying to find god in a computer because they didn’t understand what Asimov was actually writing about.

It’s not even to feign talent, it’s people trying to replace the brain instead of using applicable tools to help us advance and progress, you’re just advertising a product.

That it has to be nothing or everything with you, decision trees or God himself, is the likely foundation of your inability to have simple objective take on the existing technology and its capabilities. It’s giving bi-polar.

Now I’m not uninformed- I’m too informed!! LoL. That goalpost just shifted right across the field, and still you cannot admit to your ignorance.

For me it kinda went the other way, I'm almost convinced that human intelligence is the same pattern repeating, just more general (yet)

People have been presenting the work of others as their own for all of history. All that changed was a new tool was found to do that. But at least these are a form of derivative works, and not just putting their name directly on someone else’s carbon copy.

You haven’t made any point or even expressed an understanding of how these programs work. You’ve just been evangelizing about how AI is great, I genuinely don’t believe you understand what you’re talking about because you’ve expressed literally no proper understanding or explanation of your points outside of using a scene from I, Robot which kind of makes you look like you entirely misconstrue the concepts you’re sucking the dick of.

What kind of computer sciences do you work with as a profession? What is your applicable lab work?

Tell that to Studio Ghibli. Also, people being shitty is not a good excuse for people to be shitty, you’re advocating to make it easier to enable people to be shitty.

I’m not evangelizing. You incorrectly stated the limitations and development paths of the tech, and I corrected you.

Again with the religious verbiage from you. But I’m the one proselytizing?

It’s not nothing- it’s an impressive feat of technology that’s still in its infancy. It’s also not everything, and not anywhere close to a reasoning mind at this point. You are obsessive with extremes.

You didn’t answer my question. You’ve also still yet to give any details on your reasoning.

Studio Ghibli does not have exclusive rights to their style- whether it’s used by a person or an AI to inspire a new image. Those are derivative works. Totally legal. Arguably ethical. If it’s not a direct copy, how has the studio been harmed? What work of theirs was diminished?

I’m advocating for tools. How people use those tools is on them.

No, I’m not gonna dox myself.

Reasoning for what? What details are you needing for clarification?

I disagree.

Actually, you’re out of your depth, and I think you’ve been outed enough. We’re done, and I’m blocking.

Let’s start simple. How do these programs work? Where do they get their data and how is it applied? And a general field of work is not doxxing, you’re just dodging accountability.

The sure sign of confidence, you’ve definitely shown me how stupid I am.

that's very true, I'm just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.

also, it's not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.

They want something like the Star Trek computer or one of Tony Stark's AIs that were basically deus ex machinas for solving some hard problem behind the scenes. Then it can say "model solved" or they can show a test simulation where the ship doesn't explode (or sometimes a test where it only has an 85% chance of exploding when it used to be 100%, at which point human intuition comes in and saves the day by suddenly being better than the AI again and threads that 15% needle or maybe abducts the captain to go have lizard babies with).

AIs that are smarter than us but for some reason don't replace or even really join us (Vision being an exception to the 2nd, and Ultron trying to be an exception to the 1st).