1 of 2.
>But you said it's all programmed, so which one is it now?
It is.
>And if they "self-programmed", why can't I "self-program" too?
I never said they "self-programmed". I said they were taught by someone who themselves were taught by someone else.
>And why does your shitty AI not "self-program" itself?
Because "self-programming" isn't a thing.
>It's stupid algos. Doesn't matter if you fully understand them or not.
What do you mean by "stupid" algos. An algo is an algo. It can't be either stupid or smart.
Yes, my point is - in a sense all you and I (our consciousnesses) are is algos as well.
>Nope.
>Random shit is not creativity.
Define random? Random is not something a computer can actually do.
>which makes it pointless.
Why is art, art? What makes it art? What purpose does it serve?
Anyone can argue that any art is pointless.
>But you just said AI would be creative.
Fair enough. Even though I qualified it, by saying "it might not be as you or I understand creativity", but I should have said "Cruacial part of human creativity".
>You call algos AI.
No, I call AI algos.
All animals with stripes aren't necessarily tigers.
>If AI was real, there would be no "advance" or whatever.
Why? Everything evolves, including AI.
>And the first jobs replaced would be the expensive ones.
You are conflating automation with AI again.
AI is a specific use case. You would train an AI to be a barista, you would make an automated system.
>Not my problem that you aren't into business programming.
It's literally my job.
>You see there are languages that do not even allow all sorts of shit that is possible
There are also languages that looks like they were written by weaboos, again. This is just a weird flex and not a valid argument.
>If your goal is "that'll do", you shouldn't have that job to begin with.
Luckily that's no-ones goal then…
>Algos are not AI. Full stop.
Again. No, but AI is algos. This is really hard for you to grasp isn't it?
>AI is a bullshit marketing term.
Because you don't understand what they mean when they say AI because in the marketing it is presented as Automation.
>So your goal of "AI", which doesn't exist, is being a broken "that'll do" piece of crap?
No, the goal of AI is for it to do things we humans haven't thought about in a more efficient way (by using 100.000.000s of cumputations) that our humans brains simply can't comprehend.
>You just said it wouldn't work perfectly.
If it is automation you want, it should work perfectly and in that case you error correct when presented with an error.
If it's actually AI you want, you want it to make decisions based on data. Because those decisions are made from many complex algorithms that take millions of data points into consideration you can't ever be sure of the result being the same. In fact, with an AI you rarely want the same result twice even given the same parameters. Which also makes debugging said algos a pain.
>>one
Yes, in my city. And there are many trains and tracks in that circuit.
The one in my city is far from being the only one.
>Reality defeats it already.
So because trucks can be more versatile that trains for transporting goods, automated trains are invalid?
>>one
>defeats it
Kek. Read my previous reply to that.
And again, it doesn't even matter. Because automated trains are not AI. They are automatons.
>You call algos "AI". You make less and less sense.
Nope…
AI = Algos.
Algos != AI.
>They didn't.
You were one of those kids who just figured everything out for yourself I take it? You spoke your first words in the womb?
You are a product of your environment. If your parents weren't your environment other people were.
>I have no caretaker either, dumb fuck.
Read the above, dumb fuck.
>Technocrats don't, they think they know, but they don't.
Ok…