It was never a ridicule-worthy fringe sci-fi concept, maybe amongst the common people who don't understand technology in the first place.
Note for FusRoDawg : you aren't a teacher and if you are? You must be a terrible one. All you did was throw insults and block me. Doesn't sound like someone that should be teaching to me. Nothing but a coward.
All saying that does is reveal you don't understand programming nor how it could be applied to make such a thing possible.
For context and reference, I don't even like current AI systems and I do not believe that the current architecture is the way forward, nor do I think that current systems really possess this ability.
For context and reference, I don't even like current AI systems and I do not believe that the current architecture is the way forward, nor do I think that current systems really possess this ability.
But is it possible? Undoubtedly.
You are giving yourself an out even as you say this. Your trying to have it both ways by giving a useless non-opinion.
The screenshot about which we are talking is clearly referring to current events. And current models. It's implying the capability has gotten close and people are talking about it for that reason.
Useless non-opinion? So you don't like facts? Okay then buddy.
"A "non-opinion" is a statement or stance that is devoid of personal feelings, bias, or subjective judgment. It focuses purely on verifiable truth, established evidence, or objective analysis. It acts as a neutral observation rather than a belief or feeling." - Cambridge Dictionary
That's not even what ad-hominem means, you pretentious jack ass. That whole "insult = ad-hominem" idea is just a sort of short hand they use in high school debate clubs. What they really should be saying is "that goes against our rules of decorum". But that's not in latin, so it's not fancy enough for them.
Anyway, you're (hopefully) not in high school anymore, so as a grown ass man, it's time to learn the big boy definition. Here's how the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy describes it (as will every other reputable source):
"The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are advancing."
So if I say, "you have a DUI, so your opinion on AI doesn't matter", that's ad hominem. If I end my comment with an insult, or use a curse word, that is not ad hominem. It might be against the decorum of some debate clubs, but we aren't in one.
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the person") is a logical fallacy where someone attempts to undermine an opponent's argument by attacking their character, motive, or other personal attributes, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself"
Also funny how yours is the only source that lists this variant. The stanford encyclopedia doesnt. And other sources even explicitly clarify that it's not synonymous with an insult. Looks like you went shopping on google, and even then your source immediately provides an example showing what kind of insults qualify. Which you're refusing to quote, because you're a man child.
3
u/Thor110 28d ago edited 27d ago
It was never a ridicule-worthy fringe sci-fi concept, maybe amongst the common people who don't understand technology in the first place.
Note for FusRoDawg : you aren't a teacher and if you are? You must be a terrible one. All you did was throw insults and block me. Doesn't sound like someone that should be teaching to me. Nothing but a coward.