Re: Artificial Intelligence: What it portends
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:13 am
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'.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:20 amAll of which prompts me to wonder if AI chatbots can themselves become afflicted with one or another "condition".Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:00 amBut 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.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:11 pm
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 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.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:11 pm 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.MOOT.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:11 pm 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?
"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.
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.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:20 am Note to others:
Again, I never, ever read anything that Age posts.
LOL HOW COULD ANY one MAKE UP THIS CONCLUSION if 'they' REALLY NEVER, EVER read absolutely ANY 'thing' that "the other" WRITES NOR SAYS?iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:20 am Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Come on, how STUPID does this one, REALLY, think or BELIEVE the readers are here?
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".iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:20 am 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.
'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.