deleted by creator

Actually I can, language is fluid and changes and develops all the time, it is entirely possible for the definitions and colloquial understanding of words and terms to change and evolve as technology, science and society evolves.

And the whole point was that the term AI is useless as a term when it describes basically every computer script in existence. At that point, “AI” is no longer it’s own term, and effectively just becomes a synonym for “script” or “program”, which removes any utility of using it in the first place.

deleted by creator

There’s difference between pride in ones nationality, and defending an explicitly anti lgtbq and pro Imperialist fascist government

Supporting the heavily anti LGBTQ imperialist state of Russia is not liberal.

Anyone who supports Russia is explicitly anti LGBTQ. You cannot be pro LGBTQ whilst supporting and defending a fascist government that treads on LGBTQ rights.

Neither is it liberal to claim that supporting the existence of Jews, whilst explicitly denouncing the genocide state of israel is a “zionist stance”, which geneve_convenience, the mod mentioned in this post literally verbatim did, and then banned someone over.

Super liberal, basically stating that Jews as a people, regardless of any individuals opinion, don’t deserve to exist, just because many of them are zionist. By that logic members of every major religion, as well as every single cis white male don’t deserve the right to exist as a people.

They’re literally defending imperialist nations that tread human, and particularly LGBTQ+ rights with their feet.

Anyone who is pro Russia is anti LGBTQ+ and pro Imperialism.

It would still be matrices. Just matrices that include quantum effects.

I misphrased, I meant to say all learning/adaptive AI systems are matrix based.

Symbolic systems are hard coded, and can’t learn or adapt to new input data, they can exclusively handle inputs that were explicitly hard coded into the system. Symbolic AI systems also imo are a bit of a misnomer nowadays, as they kind of blur the line between AI and just any old programming script. Arguably any code that contains even a single “if” or “switch” statement to handle an external input is technically symbolic AI, which includes almost every type of script and program in existence, making the term somewhat useless. Input gender -> if gender = M: output “hello sir” else if gender = F: output “hello madam” else: output “hello” is a symbolic AI. and with the prevelance of trained AI nowadays, I wouldn’t really consider it useful or descriptive to call symbolic systems AI, as opposed to just calling them a script/program.

Though that doesn’t invalidate my general point. If you’re upset about calling a complex matrix network AI because it’s “just matrices” then Symbolic systems would be even less “worthy” of that term, they’re just a list of “if else” statements. So my general point still stands, by OPs standards, literally nothing could ever be called AI, even a perfect simulation of an entire human brain with true artificial consciousness wouldn’t be worthy of the term “AI” by OPs logic.

Literally ALL (modern) AI is just fancy matrices. That’s what the word AI means, and has been used for for several decades. Even a hypothetical True/General AI would be just be a wildly complex Matrix system.

In a way, the human brain is literally just an extremely fancy network of neurons that is mathematically a matrix system.

Getting upset at the term AI because “it’s just matrices” is “old man yells at clouds” level of discourse

Yeah, it’s totally true, everyone knows the only member of the allied forces was actually the USSR. No other country fought against the Nazis, they did completely single handedly, and totally wouldn’t have just sat there and let it happen, if Hitler hadn’t violated their non aggression pact first.

He realised it was a system glitch, because it only detected a singular US nuclear missile.

He realised the US would never ever (intentionally) launch a nuclear attack on russia that was just a single missile. MAD meant they would either launch an all out devastating attack to eradicate everything, or launch no nukes at all. Anything in between those two made no tactical sense whatsoever, and, at least back then, the US millitary wasn’t run by complete morons.

(Also, in this case the risk of not responding is relatively low. A single missile, even if real, is relatively easy to intercept, and even when aimed at the capital, is not got going to take out the entire command structure and launch capabilities, so even if it turns out the attack was real, Russia would still be able to retaliate after it’s conclusion, which would not be the case with an all out attack)

Literally just going by what you said. Verbatim.

I also notice that you took time to reply to this comment, but completely ignored the other one where I substantively refute your point. Very intellectually mature and honest of you.

Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.

But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?

So you’re saying my comment is a worse take than literally everything MAGAt and Trump have done and said over the past years ? Really ?

Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.

If it’s so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they’re elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?

So then what’s (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?

A) who says I’m lying

B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises

If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.

It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.

So where’s the line ?

I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn’t the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.

Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.

You’re all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it’s no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can’t accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.

Very insightful

That’s just objectively wrong, WA become popular long before Meta bought it, and once it was popular, people kept using it simply because everyone else also uses it.

And the reason it became popular is because SMS were relatively expensive in most of the world outside the US, wheras internet messengers require only a tiny amount of data per message, meaning even when mobile internet plans were expensive, the cost per message for an internet messengers usually still worked out to way cheaper than an SMS. Also, for a lot of people not having any mobile internet wasn’t much of an option, so if you have to pay for mobile internet anyway whether you use an internet messenger or not, then internet messaging is completely free for all intents and purposes, since you’re paying for the plan anyway, and the messaging won’t use up a noticeable amount of your data (as long as you don’t send/receive lots of media), so why would people pay for costly SMS ? And WA simply was (one of) the first mobile internet messaging apps with good features that worked well. And as soon as it started taking off, network effect made it become exponentially more popular in those countries.