Quote:
Originally Posted by FlicksTracey
Right now, I think the same of you. I disagree 100% on FZs religious statements but here he is 100% correct.
Perhaps you can explain why the concept is 'ridiculous' then? Zit never will, because he can't, so perhaps you can take up the cause? Heck, if you do enough Googling, you would probably be able to run some complete BS past me and I'd never know it, but you could at least make the effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlicksTracey
Utter bollocks, worthless technobabble.
If that's another way to describe the dictionary definition of the word 'think', then yes, it's utter bollocks, worthless technobabble. Stupid dictionaries....
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlicksTracey
What's your experience with computers and AI, if I may ask?
As I already said in the part of my post that you quoted, it's virtually zero, certainly not enough to have a knowledgeable conversation about AI. Is that relevant? I'm not taking a contrary position here, simply asking Zit to explain his viewpoint.
"As someone who recognises their complete lack of qualifications/experience/knowledge on this subject"
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlicksTracey
Better Idea, please finish the following sentences:
"I, MB, say that 50 years from now on, there will be an AI which will be able to participate in a conversation with 10 humans and not one of these 10 humans will be able to tell which one is the AI.
I, MB, am sure of this because:
<insert technical DETAILS here>"
I predict that you won't though, you'll dodge and duck and dive and evade and probably insult me a bit, or maybe even play some 'righteous indignation' card, but you'll never answer that question, because we both know that you can't.
lol, that's a nicely constructed strawman, and I'm not sure why you're defending Zit so staunchly but there's no point, I can't answer that and I freely admit it, but then I'm not the one making the positive claims, the burden of proof isn't on me. I want Zit to demonstrate how it's 'ridiculous', and you should too if you were being objective. I await your reply with bated breath, but I have to admit, George Bernard Shaw keeps popping into my mind, and I may not pursue this much longer.
Fact is, neither you, me or Zit are qualified or knowledgeable enough to have this conversation usefully, but I'm the only one who seems to recognise that. Well named quoted an essay by Dennet, someone who Zit thinks is a 'nutcase', I'm not sure why you think he supports your viewpoint in this. He's having a conversation at a few levels above where we are.