Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Age]

Here, in regard to either flesh and blood human intelligence or artificial machine intelligence, I come back to dasein. And, in particular, in regard to moral and political value judgments in the is/ought world.

But there is ONLY One Intelligence, of which 'It' does NOT exist in NON sentient materials. AND, which ONLY exists in ONE sentient animal, or creature, known of, by 'them', in the days when this was being written.

Really, what's the difference between them if neither of them in a No God world is able...either philosophically or scientifically...to establish a moral assessment that could actually be demonstrated to encompass behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

BUT considering the Fact that there can NOT be 'a world' WITHOUT 'God', solely because of what the 'God' word ACTUALLY REFERS TO and ENTAILS, the rest of what you wrote and/or asked here IS MOOT.

Chomsky will no doubt suggest that capitalism reflects "a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge" as it pertains to rational and virtuous behaviors. Whereas the Libertarians and the Objectivists among us, while agreeing that philosophically, politically, morally there is an optimal frame of mind, will insist instead that this is precisely what capitalism encompasses.

So, Mr. Flesh and Blood human being or Mr. Chatbot...which is it?

MOOT.

All of which prompts me to wonder if AI chatbots can themselves become afflicted with one or another "condition".

Here we have "another", who when what they have SAID and/or CLAIMED is POINTED OUT and SHOWN, IRREFUTABLY, to be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect can resort to NOTHING MORE than just ATTEMPTS AT RIDICULE or HUMILIATION of the "other". This one though ONLY CLAIMS that "the other", which is 'me' here, as some sort of 'condition'.

"iambigious" resorts to just MAKING UP that some sort of 'condition' exists IN 'the other', whereas "alexis jacobi" resorts to just CALLING and LABELLING "the other" by and with some sort of ACTUAL 'name' instead.

Note to others:

Again, I never, ever read anything that Age posts.

BUT, RESPONDS to what "age" WRITES, AFTER i reply to what "iambigious" writes, which IS Truly LAUGHABLE, in and of itself. It could also be a SIGN of what the ACTUAL Truth IS, ALSO.

Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

LOL HOW COULD ANY one MAKE UP THIS CONCLUSION if 'they' REALLY NEVER, EVER read absolutely ANY 'thing' that "the other" WRITES NOR SAYS?

Come on, how STUPID does this one, REALLY, think or BELIEVE the readers are here?

On the other hand, that may not be the case at all. So, sure, if he does post something that you believe might actually impress -- challenge? -- me, by all means bring it to my attention.

But what I have written here does NOT need CHALLENGING, NOR could even be CHALLENGED, and this is BECAUSE what I have just WRITTEN here absolutely NO one COULD REFUTE, and CERTAINLY NOT 'you', "iambiguous".

'you' just HATE the Fact that I CONTINUALLY POINT OUT, SHOW, and PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, WHY, and/or WHAT 'you' ARE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect about, EXACTLY. And that 'you' can NOT ARGUE AGAINST NOR COUNTER what I SAY and WRITE REALLY IRRITATES you to NO END that the ONLY WAY you can and do respond is by ATTEMPTING to DISCREDIT me by CLAIMING that I have some IMAGINED 'condition'. Which is even MORE LAUGHABLE the MORE we think about and SEE what 'you' are ACTUALLY DOING here "iambiguious".

I suggest that you START replying to the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE, SAY, and USE here, and TRY TO COUNTER 'them', and STOP 'trying to' CLAIM that 'I' have "some condition", or just BACK UP and SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. We are IN a philosophy forum AFTER ALL, do NOT FORGET.

[iambiguous]

But there is ONLY One Intelligence, of which 'It' does NOT exist in NON sentient materials. AND, which ONLY exists in ONE sentient animal, or creature, known of, by 'them', in the days when this was being written.


BUT considering the Fact that there can NOT be 'a world' WITHOUT 'God', solely because of what the 'God' word ACTUALLY REFERS TO and ENTAILS, the rest of what you wrote and/or asked here IS MOOT.


MOOT.

All of which prompts me to wonder if AI chatbots can themselves become afflicted with one or another "condition".

Here we have "another", who when what they have SAID and/or CLAIMED is POINTED OUT and SHOWN, IRREFUTABLY, to be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect can resort to NOTHING MORE than just ATTEMPTS AT RIDICULE or HUMILIATION of the "other". This one though ONLY CLAIMS that "the other", which is 'me' here, as some sort of 'condition'.

"iambigious" resorts to just MAKING UP that some sort of 'condition' exists IN 'the other', whereas "alexis jacobi" resorts to just CALLING and LABELLING "the other" by and with some sort of ACTUAL 'name' instead.

Note to others:

Again, I never, ever read anything that Age posts.

BUT, RESPONDS to what "age" WRITES, AFTER i reply to what "iambigious" writes, which IS Truly LAUGHABLE, in and of itself. It could also be a SIGN of what the ACTUAL Truth IS, ALSO.

Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

LOL HOW COULD ANY one MAKE UP THIS CONCLUSION if 'they' REALLY NEVER, EVER read absolutely ANY 'thing' that "the other" WRITES NOR SAYS?

Come on, how STUPID does this one, REALLY, think or BELIEVE the readers are here?

On the other hand, that may not be the case at all. So, sure, if he does post something that you believe might actually impress -- challenge? -- me, by all means bring it to my attention.

But what I have written here does NOT need CHALLENGING, NOR could even be CHALLENGED, and this is BECAUSE what I have just WRITTEN here absolutely NO one COULD REFUTE, and CERTAINLY NOT 'you', "iambiguous".

'you' just HATE the Fact that I CONTINUALLY POINT OUT, SHOW, and PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, WHY, and/or WHAT 'you' ARE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect about, EXACTLY. And that 'you' can NOT ARGUE AGAINST NOR COUNTER what I SAY and WRITE REALLY IRRITATES you to NO END that the ONLY WAY you can and do respond is by ATTEMPTING to DISCREDIT me by CLAIMING that I have some IMAGINED 'condition'. Which is even MORE LAUGHABLE the MORE we think about and SEE what 'you' are ACTUALLY DOING here "iambiguious".

I suggest that you START replying to the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE, SAY, and USE here, and TRY TO COUNTER 'them', and STOP 'trying to' CLAIM that 'I' have "some condition", or just BACK UP and SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. We are IN a philosophy forum AFTER ALL, do NOT FORGET.

Note to others:

Again, I NEVER, EVER read anything that Age posts. Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches SHORT of a picnic.

On the other hand, that may not be the case at all. So, sure, if he does post something that you believe might actually impress -- challenge? -- me, by all means bring it to my attention.

So, anything impressive or challenging above?

How about something that is actually INTELLIGIBLE?

[Alexis Jacobi]

On the other hand, that may not be the case at all.

Pretty much … it’s the case.

And in this case, trust yourself, trust Dasein, trust your mother, but cut the cards,

[attofishpi]

Note to others:

Again, I NEVER, EVER read anything that Age posts. Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches SHORT of a picnic.

..and you are clearly a few pickles short of a sandwich.

How logically can one ascertain from not reading ANYTHING of Age's posts that he is short of anything!

U R ridiculous in your irrational comprehension of philosophy... iambiguous

[Agent Smith]

I want to go!

Where?!

To John's.

Why?!

Can't you tell?

Oh! I see! Can I tag along?

Be my guest!

A few moments later ...

John!

Kate!

Er ... hi!

[attofishpi]

Ah such a pro...xxxx

[Iwannaplato]

Note to others:

Again, I NEVER, EVER read anything that Age posts. Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches SHORT of a picnic.

..and you are clearly a few pickles short of a sandwich.

How logically can one ascertain from not reading ANYTHING of Age's posts that he is short of anything!

U R ridiculous in your irrational comprehension of philosophy... iambiguous

I think we can give Iambiguous the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as meaning no longer ever, ever reads Age after reading enough posts for him to decide to stop reading them.

[attofishpi]

Note to others:

Again, I NEVER, EVER read anything that Age posts. Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches SHORT of a picnic.

..and you are clearly a few pickles short of a sandwich.

How logically can one ascertain from not reading ANYTHING of Age's posts that he is short of anything!

U R ridiculous in your irrational comprehension of philosophy... iambiguous

I think we can give Iambiguous the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as meaning no longer ever, ever reads Age after reading enough posts for him to decide to stop reading them.

Oh.

I read READ homophonically as RED...past tense

[Dontaskme]

ALL ''Intelligence'' is ''Artificial''...aka A.I.

Why, because to know anything at all, is to conceptualise it. And to conceptualise anything at all, is always going to produce an artificial supposistion upon what is ultimately this immediate unknowing reality, this inconceivable silent nothingness.

The 'Mechanical Robots' human bodies are constructing today with non-living artificial materials, is nature's attempt to re-create the ''Human Mechanical Brain'' as evolution strives ever more toward the creation of the perfect species.

[Sculptor]

Here's what CHATGPT says about the portends of AI...

AI, or artificial intelligence, has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of our society, from healthcare and transportation to education and entertainment. Some of the key ways that AI could impact our world include:

Automation: AI could automate many tasks currently performed by humans, leading to increased efficiency and productivity.

Personalization: AI algorithms can analyze large amounts of data to create personalized experiences for individuals in areas such as healthcare, education, and shopping.

Improved decision-making: AI can process large amounts of data quickly and accurately, allowing it to help humans make better decisions in a variety of settings.

Enhanced safety and security: AI-powered systems can help prevent accidents and reduce crime by analyzing data in real-time and identifying potential threats.

Economic growth: AI could create new industries and jobs, driving economic growth and improving people's standard of living.

However, there are also concerns about the potential negative consequences of AI, such as job displacement, privacy violations, and biases in decision-making. As with any new technology, it is important to approach AI development and implementation with caution and careful consideration of its potential impacts.

I thought it might be a good place to start.

[Age]

Note to others:

Again, I NEVER, EVER read anything that Age posts. Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches SHORT of a picnic.

..and you are clearly a few pickles short of a sandwich.

How logically can one ascertain from not reading ANYTHING of Age's posts that he is short of anything!

U R ridiculous in your irrational comprehension of philosophy... iambiguous

I think we can give Iambiguous the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as meaning no longer ever, ever reads Age after reading enough posts for him to decide to stop reading them.

BUT, VERY COVENTIENTLY, "iambiguious" SOMEHOW KNOWS WHEN and WHEN NOT to reply MY POSTS.

If one wants to STOP reading MY WORDS, then all well and good, BUT WHY RESPOND TO MY WORDS, which have SUPPOSEDLY NOT even been read?

And, if one can NOT handle having THEIR WORDS REFUTED nor COUNTERED, then I suggest they STOP writing AND saying absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

For example, if one comes here CLAIMING that 'machines' HAVE 'intelligence', then WHEN it is POINTED OUT to be ACTUALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, then either STOP being a True COWARD and START backing up AND supporting what you just CLAIMED, or, just ADMIT DEFEAT.

[Age]

ALL ''Intelligence'' is ''Artificial''...aka A.I.

Why, because to know anything at all, is to conceptualise it. And to conceptualise anything at all, is always going to produce an artificial supposistion upon what is ultimately this immediate unknowing reality, this inconceivable silent nothingness.

How do you DIFFERENTIATE between 'thinking' AND 'knowing'?

The 'Mechanical Robots' human bodies are constructing today with non-living artificial materials, is nature's attempt to re-create the ''Human Mechanical Brain'' as evolution strives ever more toward the creation of the perfect species.

[Age]

Here's what CHATGPT says about the portends of AI...

AI, or artificial intelligence, has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of our society, from healthcare and transportation to education and entertainment.

'Revolutionize' does NOT mean CHANGE for neither 'good' NOR 'bad'. 'Revolutionize' just means CHANGE, which WILL OBVIOUSLY HAPPEN and OCCUR. As there could NOT be ANY other way.

Some of the key ways that AI could impact our world include:

Automation: AI could automate many tasks currently performed by humans, leading to increased efficiency and productivity.

Personalization: AI algorithms can analyze large amounts of data to create personalized experiences for individuals in areas such as healthcare, education, and shopping.

Improved decision-making: AI can process large amounts of data quickly and accurately, allowing it to help humans make better decisions in a variety of settings.

Enhanced safety and security: AI-powered systems can help prevent accidents and reduce crime by analyzing data in real-time and identifying potential threats.

Economic growth: AI could create new industries and jobs, driving economic growth and improving people's standard of living.

However, there are also concerns about the potential negative consequences of AI, such as job displacement, privacy violations, and biases in decision-making. As with any new technology, it is important to approach AI development and implementation with caution and careful consideration of its potential impacts.

I thought it might be a good place to start.

[phyllo]

Automation: AI could automate many tasks currently performed by humans, leading to increased efficiency and productivity.

Is life about efficiency and productivity?

Sometimes.

Personalization: AI algorithms can analyze large amounts of data to create personalized experiences for individuals in areas such as healthcare, education, and shopping.

We already see this happening, on YouTube for example. Personal bubbles being created which don't reflect the diversity of the world.

Do we need more of it?

Improved decision-making: AI can process large amounts of data quickly and accurately, allowing it to help humans make better decisions in a variety of settings.

Insulating you from the actual data and giving you the "processed" bias. Is this good?

Enhanced safety and security: AI-powered systems can help prevent accidents and reduce crime by analyzing data in real-time and identifying potential threats.

Surveillance state? Police state? Nanny state?

Economic growth: AI could create new industries and jobs, driving economic growth and improving people's standard of living.

Do we need more economic growth? Do we need more consumption?

Improved standard of living? Sure. But how is that defined? More possessions?

[Flannel Jesus]

Do we need more economic growth? Do we need more consumption?

Improved standard of living? Sure. But how is that defined? More possessions?

Great questions