| > Are you saying that AI does have an inherent idea of what it's doing or is doing more than that? 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. |