Once again not offering any sort of valid retort, just claiming anyone that disagrees with you doesn’t understand the field.
I suggest you take a cursory look at how to argue in good faith, learn some maths and maybe look into how neural networks are developed. Then study some neuroscience and how much we comprehend the brain and maybe then we can resume the discussion.
You attack my viewpoint, but misunderstood it. I corrected you. Now you tell me I am wrong with my viewpoint (I am not btw) and start going down the idiotic path of bad faith conversation, while strawman arguing your own bad faith accusation, only because you are butthurt that you didn’t understand. Childish approach.
You don’t understand, because no expert currently understands these things completely. It’s pure nonsense defecation coming out of your mouth
You don’t really have one lol. You’ve read too many pop-sci articles from AI proponents and haven’t understood any of the underlying tech.
All your retorts boil down to copying my arguments because you seem to be incapable of original thought. Therefore it’s not surprising you believe neural networks are approaching sentience and consider imitation to be the same as intelligence.
You seem to think there’s something mystical about neural networks but there is not, just layers of complexity that are difficult for humans to unpick.
You argue like a religious zealot or Trump supporter because at this point it seems you don’t understand basic logic or how the scientific method works.
You are wrong, and I am the only person that cares enough to try to educate you, but your emotional defense mechanism fries your brain from completing a normal conversation, resorting to the lowest form of arguments available just to survive with your ego intact in a illusory bubble of mental acrobatics. It’s extremely sad that you don’t understand how the underlying tech works and that sense is projected in every aspect of your statements. I just suggest you actually look at the research and make a personal base of opinions that aren’t entirely plucked from an orchard of mental health issues if you really want to have discussions about the field
You have a condition that makes you mirror every point I make, it’s very disturbing especially the ease at which you brush off the incredibly focused origin of the critique that could very well improve your life were you not an absolute tool about it
Once again not offering any sort of valid retort, just claiming anyone that disagrees with you doesn’t understand the field.
I suggest you take a cursory look at how to argue in good faith, learn some maths and maybe look into how neural networks are developed. Then study some neuroscience and how much we comprehend the brain and maybe then we can resume the discussion.
You attack my viewpoint, but misunderstood it. I corrected you. Now you tell me I am wrong with my viewpoint (I am not btw) and start going down the idiotic path of bad faith conversation, while strawman arguing your own bad faith accusation, only because you are butthurt that you didn’t understand. Childish approach.
You don’t understand, because no expert currently understands these things completely. It’s pure nonsense defecation coming out of your mouth
You don’t really have one lol. You’ve read too many pop-sci articles from AI proponents and haven’t understood any of the underlying tech.
All your retorts boil down to copying my arguments because you seem to be incapable of original thought. Therefore it’s not surprising you believe neural networks are approaching sentience and consider imitation to be the same as intelligence.
You seem to think there’s something mystical about neural networks but there is not, just layers of complexity that are difficult for humans to unpick.
You argue like a religious zealot or Trump supporter because at this point it seems you don’t understand basic logic or how the scientific method works.
You are wrong, and I am the only person that cares enough to try to educate you, but your emotional defense mechanism fries your brain from completing a normal conversation, resorting to the lowest form of arguments available just to survive with your ego intact in a illusory bubble of mental acrobatics. It’s extremely sad that you don’t understand how the underlying tech works and that sense is projected in every aspect of your statements. I just suggest you actually look at the research and make a personal base of opinions that aren’t entirely plucked from an orchard of mental health issues if you really want to have discussions about the field
You’ve just copied my arguments yet again.
Seek help, your projections are concerning.
You have a condition that makes you mirror every point I make, it’s very disturbing especially the ease at which you brush off the incredibly focused origin of the critique that could very well improve your life were you not an absolute tool about it
And again…
Yet again yes