Farid

You took my comment too seriously, it was just a joke.
But you also singled out Intel. Corporations aren’t heroes in general and AMD is also there. And EU is depicted as the villain, although it’s implied it’s the hero in the context of the meme.

I would argue that the meme has long lost that particular aspect of itself and the character alignment is ignored. In this instance, clearly indicated by Surtr being EU, while the context heavily implies that EU is the “hero”.

Who said anything about heroes? Villains sometimes want to stop other villains, too. In fact, probably often.

Thank you, Lieutenant.

Why is your name in red? OP is blue, what’s red?
(Using Voyager)

Yeah, seems like I’m wrong. I looked up the docs on git-scm.com and it says that the default branch name is “currently master, but this is subject to change in the future”. Maybe GitHub threw me off.

Depends on your version of git, I believe.

Chevrolet of Watsonville is probably geo-locked, too.

But for real, it’s probably GPT-3.5, which is free anyway.

The hover feature works because it’s done on the iPad’s digitizer side, so afaik, it’s not the Pencil’s feature.

You’re joking, but that’s how I unintentionally use the web with Arc Browser. It has rounded corners and an adjustable sidebar of tabs on the right left*. The resulting viewport is tightly approximately* 4:3. Iirc, Edge can also have tabs on the side.

deleted by creator

This seems to have descended into a debate on “what is consciousness”

I disagree, while I did go on a tangent there with analyzing ChatGPT capabilities, my ultimate argument was that we shouldn’t even be discussing the consciousness topic at all. When deciding whether Data has AI or natural intelligence we only need to look at the source of his intelligence; it was man-made, therefore any painting Data produces is “AI art”, because Data only has AI, despite having capabilities on par or even exceeding those of a human.

To be honest, I did take it as being a little condescending, but it doesn’t really matter. All I wish is to have a discussion, and expand our knowledge in the process.

Humans being made of water is not an essential characteristic that defines their function or purpose, whereas for a lake, being made of water is its defining attribute. On the other hand, the comparison between AI and human intelligence in terms of pattern recognition highlights the similarities in function, not the composition.

I actually do think that, to a decent extent, I understand what AI is. And while this is a technicality, it really grinds my gears when a GPT model is compared to an autocomplete/predictive text. Yes, they both technically just predict text using statistical models, but it’s like comparing a modern jet to a paper airplane, because they both can fly.

[ChatGPT] has no idea what its words mean

Doesn’t it tho? It has an internal model of the world that it constructed by reading and processing tons of text. It knows that an apple is round-ish, comes in certain colors, can be eaten or grow into a tree. That knowledge is very limited due to the model’s inability to experience such things as shape or color; like a blind person knows the description of “red”, but doesn’t actually know what it is.
Of course, it’s debatable whether what a GPT model does can be considered “understanding”, but then again, we don’t really know what understanding IS, but I would argue it’s extremely close to what a human understanding is, albeit in a limited scope.

That being said, I think the discussion of how advanced (or not) our modern AI systems are, though interesting, is extraneous to the question at hand. The main question is “what is AI?”. From your comment, I can conclude that your definition of AI relies on the subject’s possession of sentience/consciousness. I think this is a flawed approach because a bee, while undoubtedly possessing rudimentary intelligence, in all likelihood, lacks consciousness. So consciousness should not be a qualifying criteria for an AI. Furthermore, I looked up several dictionaries for definitions of “AI”, and they all boil down to “man-made machines that perform human tasks”, here’s are some:

• Cambridge Dictionary – “computer technology that allows something to be done in a way that is similar to the way a human would do it”
• Merriam-Webster – “the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior”.

In conclusion, intelligence comes in all shapes and sizes; the only thing differentiating natural intelligence from artificial intelligence is the origin, i.e., if it was man-made, it’s artificial. By that definition, perhaps outdated and lacking insight, Data most definitely possesses AI. Not to mention the lack of full-fledged “sentience” as he can’t experience feelings.

It’s just a really sophisticated pattern recognition/prediction algorithm

Isn’t that what humans are?

What is “artificial intelligence” and at which point does it become “natural intelligence”, if at all? Arguably, anything man-made that has any sort of intelligence, no matter how advanced, even if surpassing creator’s intelligence, remains “artificial”. And as you said, Data is an artificial life form, therefore its intelligence is also artificial.

True. But some cultures produce a bigger proportion of “awful” people.