| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<2d547j9ckjd4i8eaeg0t57a9fer5nh0bf9@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:32:16 +0000 From: Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Subject: Re: Civ 7 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:32:14 -0400 Message-ID: <2d547j9ckjd4i8eaeg0t57a9fer5nh0bf9@4ax.com> References: <v4kpqa$r8q$3@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <jj3s6j1j0hthljgrgl9jdauts9gmcrr422@4ax.com> <v4l55n$chq$5@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <ecbs6jp8a4g0fgcm8kgauook7rpdkggb53@4ax.com> <v4motf$2ln$7@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <g3ut6jl08q2rddtfb5fk9r3bgv2tjrjrvr@4ax.com> <v4pcgg$2mm$3@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <9ki07jl8tq1pi344dnl5kp0akpboesehq6@4ax.com> <v4rchq$i7n$2@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <uas27j1jg3impqm54lkn9efdm71uovvo6i@4ax.com> <v4sd0s$kln$1@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.0/32.1071 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 170 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-oJzUUv54EFRcaxsXFwOalLiZ9y8tluc9GMO083c02/Lyy5lAbQHN+H7Cdi8G6dftpwvvIOX6mq4oCNr!XEFeOw2Qj8RuxwFOmipz6LDRIArdwXpgnrwJloxYfR46RF6lSBToVtQaIWsud5rWbDR3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 8577 On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:35:42 -0000 (UTC), <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote: >Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote: >>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC), >>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC), >>>>>>>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next. It's a mistake if that's not done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7. And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam. It introduces a level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity? ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "real"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one >>>>>>>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next >>>>>>>>>>>>> hypecycle. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I >>>>>>>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI >>>>>>>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is it intelligence? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced >>>>>>>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well >>>>>>>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something >>>>>>>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from >>>>>>>>>> artificial. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Artificial means fake. Fake Intelligence. So you're asking for >>>>>>>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand >>>>>>>>>> correctly? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial >>>>>>>>>> variety. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a >>>>>>>>>> self-defeating situation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> no, artificial means "made by humans" >>>>>>>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where did you find a building not made by humans? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped >>>>>> wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of >>>>>> Usenet. >>>>> >>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me >>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything? >>>> >>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul >>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time >>>> wasting activity?" >>>> >>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and >>>> was not disappointed. >>> >>>ah, so I just fell for a troll? >>>true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should >>>have known. >> >> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially >> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word >> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'. >> >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial >> >> Synonyms >> -------------- >> affected >> assumed >> bogus >> contrived >> factitious >> fake >> false >> feigned >> forced >> mechanical >> mock >> phony >> phoney >> plastic >> pretended >> pseudo >> put-on >> sham >> simulated >> spurious >> strained >> unnatural > >did I say that? >maybe reread my comment. But then you are ignoring your own source here >as well, because it also can mean unnatural, simulated, or mechanical. > >But well, I know you are just pretending to argue right now. So we can >just agree that you got me good and you don't have to pretend to make >these stupid claims anymore. > >So we both agree that no actual artificial intelligence exists, and we >are only talking about advanced algorithms, yes? > >Then we basically can stop talking here. Your basic premise is that your own personal definition of AI, which is different than that of the rest of the world, is correct. And as long as you continue searching for someone that agrees with your definition instead of the mainstream one, I suppose you can turn grasping onto hope into a hobby if you like. But it won't change reality.