leisesprecher

No, I'm saying you're wrong in your understanding of Wikipedia.

Also, I did not miss anything out, your self defined definition is simply so broad that it's meaningless. Again, what is not AI following your definition? An if statement does not mimic intelligence, especially not human intelligence.

1. That's a weak argument without substance. "No, you!" is not exactly a good counter.

2. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).

3. That's a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent. The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.

I'm sorry, but that's the worst possible conclusion you can get from that paragraph.

Again, think your argument to the end. What would not fall under AI in your world? If A* counts, then literally everything with a simple 'if' statement would also count. That's delusional.

Do actually read the article and the articles linked. Are you really, really implying that a simple math equation, that can be solved by a handful transistors and capacitors if need be, is doing something "typically associated with human intelligence"? Really?

Are you by any chance familiar with degrees of murder, involuntary manslaughter and insanity?

If I think I'm defending myself, despite no reason to do so, I can't claim self defense. You can't argue, that your neighbor certainly didn't threaten you in any way, but he sometimes looked really weird, so it's self defense to kill him.

I'm not even sure, what exactly you're trying to argue here?

It seems like you're under the impression that thinking you're doing something good is virtuous, but I fundamentally disagree

It seems like you made impressions on yourself, because that's completely besides anything I wrote.

Doing something bad and knowing that it's bad, is bad. That should be very very obvious.

You're building yourself an entire terracotta army worth of strawmen here.

And you'd argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence.

Extend your logic a bit. Playing an instrument requires intelligence. Is a drum computer intelligent? A mechanical music box?

Yes, the definition of intelligence is vague, but that doesn't mean you can extend it indefinitely.

To a certain extent, yes.

ChatGPT was never explicitly trained to produce code or translate text, but it can do it. Not super good, but it manages some reasonable output most of the time.

You're whitewashing, because you're implying that she had good intentions. She did not. She was not misled by propaganda, she knew what she was doing and what the implications would be.

It was a Thatcher-era thing, and despite being evil and wrong about nearly everything, she at least thought what she was doing would help normal people.

That's a pretty clear sign being apologetic right here.

No, it does not.

A deterministic, narrow algorithm that solves exactly one problem is not an AI. Otherwise Pythagoras would count as AI, or any other mathematical formula for that matter.

Intelligence, even in terms of AI, means being able to solve new problems. An autopilot can't do anything else than piloting a specific aircraft - and that's a good thing.

Oh no, she did not think it would help normal people.

Just think about what kind of system you're describing: local people owning shares of their utilities. That's ownership by the populace. So, you know, public ownership. Like the system already in place.

The story you're describing is just an attempt to sell redistribution to people who are not willing to think. Even in the best case, this would be a giant rent-seeking scheme for banks and pension funds. And we're definitely not living through the best case here.

Stop trying to whitewash politicians. Especially not the ones who showed time and time again that they don't give a shit about the literal survival of anyone poorer than them.

If that's what you actually intended to type, you might have a stroke.

A finely refined model based on an actual understanding of physics and not a glorified Markov chain.

And that's just the direct costs to the police. The indirect stuff, supply chain issues, waiting times, etc. aren't even included.

It's like always with right wing/proto fascist politics: optics over function.