No, the question, given what you quoted from me, you little idiot, is whether I was correct about the public general AIs that you use and how you use them and the specific charge of stupidity I made in relation to that.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 3:56 am The question is 'Are AIs [LLMs] stupid as charged'.
You took a quote from me that was clear in context to be about one kind of AI and how you used it, and 'countered' this by arguing that a very different kind of extremely advanced AI with a very limited focus was smart.
That's disingenous in the extreme. Now, my guess is that you actually didn't even think much about it and now find yourself in the position, given the fragility of your ego of defending this act.
A person with integrity could simply have said, Yes, you guys are right, I changed both context and the AI in questions. It was not a justified argument and perhaps, should a double miracle strike, apologized for the insult in this case aimed at me.
But that sort of integrity despite your droning on for decades about objectivity morality is something beyond your own morality.
Notice how VA continues to not actually engage with my argument. Notice how he thinks that names prove the qualities of what is named.In the first place to charge Artificial Intelligence AI-based machines, [LLMs, etc.] as stupid [not intelligent] is an oxymoron.
Yes, well when I talk about AlphaFold and make an argument about that AI, you can whip out this poor argument.What google's AI Alpha Fold that won the Nobel Prize shares with its LLMs is the fundamental 'deep learning' technology that drives continual progress in intelligence. This is contrast to the unintelligent Garbage In Garbage Out [GIGO] machines which are 'stupid'.
Again, not dealing with what I wrote.While Google LLMs and all the latest AI chatbots that relied on 'deep learning' are not as intelligent as Nobel Prize winner Alpha-Fold due to the difference in architecture, they all are supposedly 'intelligent' albeit of artificial intelligence; they are not 'stupid' as charged.
What VA has done is restated his position.
He thinks this justifies his dismissal of what I wrote AND justifies his misleading strawman of an OP.
Antirealism is a very interesting and respectable stand. I think there can be very interesting and strong arguments for objective morals.
But none of that excuses the way you interact with people and your inablity to concede anything, even obvious strawmen like the OP.
Grow the fuck up.
Here's the VA approach to philosophical discussion.
VA: X is true. Argument.
Someone else: There are some problems with your justification. You say X entails Y but actually it doesn't because of Z. Also.... [points and arguments are made, with specific points and in reaction to specific points in VA's post.]
VA: X is true. Rewords the same argument. Does not interact with the argument and points made by the other person.
Later: VA refers to that thread as having demonstrated X is true.
He will post I already showed or demonstrate X is true + a link.
https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/00/75/86/3 ... cPtlYt.jpg
