|
|
|
|
|
|
by anonymars
356 days ago
|
|
|
This is a lot of words, but does any of it contradict this: > AI can very efficiently apply common patterns to vast amounts of code, but it has no inherent "idea" of what it's doing.” Are you saying that AI does have an inherent idea of what it's doing or is doing more than that? Today? We're in an informal discussion forum. I don't think the bar we're looking for is some rigorous deductive proof. The above matches my experience as well. Its a handy applied interactive version of an Internet search. If someone has a different experience that would be interesting. But this just seems like navel-gazing over semantics. |
|
|
No. I stated that OP cannot make that kind of blanket, non-temporally constrained statements about artificial intelligence.
> We're in an informal discussion forum. I don't think the bar we're looking for is some rigorous deductive proof
We're in a technology-oriented discussion forum, the minimum bar to any claim should be that it is supported by evidence, otherwise it should be presented as what it is: opinion.
> this just seems like navel-gazing over semantics.
In my opinion, conversation is much easier when we can agree that words should mean something. Imprecise language matched with an authoritative tone can mislead an audience. This topic in particular is rife with imprecise and uninformed arguments, and so we should take more care to use our words correctly, not less.
Furthermore, my argument goes beyond semantics, as it also deals with the importance of constraints when making broad, unbacked claims.