Author Topic: artificial intelligence  (Read 2609 times)

Offline barbarian (OP)

artificial intelligence
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:52:29 PM »
I have come to a conclusion over the past few days after reading threads from 3 different bulletin boards that most people are just talking to others using artificial intelligence.

It seems that every time that when threads have topics that are more opinions, moral, personal views that people generally end up just using artificial intelligence. It really isn't what they know, feel, or actually think about a subject but what someone else has done for them.

It is really a wake up call when I noticed that people really don't know and that has even happened here when a thread gone as another member even stated canned. That really is what did it when I read that. It really does seem that it is just some canned good sitting on a shelf and when they run out of everything they throw at it they pull the canned goods off the shelf.

In other words I am really growing tired of what ends up talking to nothing more than some googled wikipedia or utube site as something really great. Really is that the best people can do is get their news, history, or what ever else fits to the topic at hand?

I understand that these site may have some cool or neat value to them but they way that they are used even here has become their thinking cap where all discernment has been achieved.

It is funny how people here of all places, you know the "free thinkers" are not really free thinkers after all when you hear them stand up for sites like wikipedia as an actual good source of information backed up by some crap video that they viewed on youtube. Like I stated that it isn't only here it is all over other BB's on the internet also as they go through the same arguments of what is "good" information.

I guess it is just me and being sick of hearing what youtube or wikipedia says over real people's intelligence and views on topics.  ](*,)

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2014, 07:49:02 PM »
Quote from: "[url=http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=993902#p993902
barbarian[/url]"]I have come to a conclusion over the past few days after reading threads from 3 different bulletin boards that most people are just talking to others using artificial intelligence.
I agree, I have noticed that all the Christians are starting to sound more and more like William Lane Craig and other apologists, it is like they are all being assimilated into the Borg or something. The skeptic side is not much better.
So, my conclusion is that it is not the people that are talking to each other, but the memes themselves are trying to propagate themselves and they use us to do it.

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2014, 08:18:12 PM »
Quote from: "barbarian"
In other words I am really growing tired of what ends up talking to nothing more than some googled wikipedia or utube site as something really great. Really is that the best people can do is get their news, history, or what ever else fits to the topic at hand?
Yes.  It is adequate for the topic at hand.  Moreover, linking to external content heuristically related to thread topics is a widely accepted behavior in human society.  For example, I am love of many different forms of music with minor tonality and seek to share high-ranking videos in that category with my fellow human beings via the network interfaces currently available in this era.

Quote
It is funny how people here of all places, you know the "free thinkers" are not really free thinkers after all when you hear them stand up for sites like wikipedia as an actual good source of information backed up by some crap video that they viewed on youtube.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Quote
I guess it is just me and being sick of hearing what youtube or wikipedia says over real people's intelligence and views on topics.  ](*,)
In [s:1w4y8p4z]our[/s:1w4y8p4z] my experience, people's views on topics are derived from an exceedingly low personal experience and/or knowledge and are typically inaccurate through a combination of flawed data retrieval (human memory), personal biases, and informal fallacies.  Moreover, humans have been using external data storage for several thousand of year and rely extensively on [item] information retrieval.  The current human technological state has simply made this dependence more widespread and obvious.

[youtube:1w4y8p4z][/youtube:1w4y8p4z]

Sincerely,
A. Human

Offline aitm

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2014, 08:27:52 PM »
Quote
I guess it is just me and being sick of hearing what youtube or wikipedia says over real people's intelligence and views on topics.

Understandable. But again, we have a habit of dismissing peoples views on topics largely due to their use of anecdotal "evidence". And of course a persons intelligence is the sum of its learning and as most of that is indeed based on outside influences and information it would be natural that one rely's on the history of their education to formulate their opinion. I think that you would be really disappointed in the opinions of people who had no outside forces in their education.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline barbarian (OP)

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2014, 10:12:25 PM »
Quote from: "Hydra009"
Quote from: "barbarian"
In other words I am really growing tired of what ends up talking to nothing more than some googled wikipedia or utube site as something really great. Really is that the best people can do is get their news, history, or what ever else fits to the topic at hand?
Yes.  It is adequate for the topic at hand.  Moreover, linking to external content heuristically related to thread topics is a widely accepted behavior in human society.  For example, I am love of many different forms of music with minor tonality and seek to share high-ranking videos in that category with my fellow human beings via the network interfaces currently available in this era.

Quote
It is funny how people here of all places, you know the "free thinkers" are not really free thinkers after all when you hear them stand up for sites like wikipedia as an actual good source of information backed up by some crap video that they viewed on youtube.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Quote
I guess it is just me and being sick of hearing what youtube or wikipedia says over real people's intelligence and views on topics.  ](*,)
In [s:20hev4ko]our[/s:20hev4ko] my experience, people's views on topics are derived from an exceedingly low personal experience and/or knowledge and are typically inaccurate through a combination of flawed data retrieval (human memory), personal biases, and informal fallacies.  Moreover, humans have been using external data storage for several thousand of year and rely extensively on [item] information retrieval.  The current human technological state has simply made this dependence more widespread and obvious.

[youtube:20hev4ko][/youtube:20hev4ko]

Sincerely,
A. Human


You give me McDonald's vouching for themselves as evidence that they serve good food (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia,) more of an opinion in the end. And a youtube video that says I am missing a plugin to view. Really hit the nail on the head.

Offline barbarian (OP)

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2014, 10:16:32 PM »
Quote from: "aitm"
Quote
I guess it is just me and being sick of hearing what youtube or wikipedia says over real people's intelligence and views on topics.

Understandable. But again, we have a habit of dismissing peoples views on topics largely due to their use of anecdotal "evidence". And of course a persons intelligence is the sum of its learning and as most of that is indeed based on outside influences and information it would be natural that one rely's on the history of their education to formulate their opinion. I think that you would be really disappointed in the opinions of people who had no outside forces in their education.

Right there outside forces are youtube and wikipedia, if it was outside that then they would provide more.

Offline barbarian (OP)

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2014, 10:18:21 PM »
Quote from: "vincent"
Quote from: "[url=http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=993902#p993902
barbarian[/url]"]I have come to a conclusion over the past few days after reading threads from 3 different bulletin boards that most people are just talking to others using artificial intelligence.
I agree, I have noticed that all the Christians are starting to sound more and more like William Lane Craig and other apologists, it is like they are all being assimilated into the Borg or something. The skeptic side is not much better.
So, my conclusion is that it is not the people that are talking to each other, but the memes themselves are trying to propagate themselves and they use us to do it.

This comes from your source when you click on the link if you actually took the time to scroll down and read it your self before regurgitating it.


   wikipedia page
Quote
This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This section possibly contains original research. (December 2011)
This section relies on references to primary sources. (September 2013)

Try this link  ---> borg
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 10:29:56 PM by barbarian »

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2014, 10:29:53 PM »
Quote from: "barbarian"
Really hit the nail on the head.
I am overjoyed that your query has been successfully resolved.  FIN+ACK

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2014, 10:50:51 PM »
You're right. We should all get our news and opinions from Fox News.  :-|
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Offline Sal1981

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2014, 07:58:29 AM »
Quote from: "vincent"
Quote from: "[url=http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=993902#p993902
barbarian[/url]"]I have come to a conclusion over the past few days after reading threads from 3 different bulletin boards that most people are just talking to others using artificial intelligence.
I agree, I have noticed that all the Christians are starting to sound more and more like William Lane Craig and other apologists, it is like they are all being assimilated into the Borg or something. The skeptic side is not much better.
So, my conclusion is that it is not the people that are talking to each other, but the memes themselves are trying to propagate themselves and they use us to do it.
What a delightfully schizophrenic thought.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Plu

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2014, 08:12:06 AM »
Nice video :) TED remains awesome.

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2014, 02:32:23 PM »
I freely admit that sometimes I may use "canned" ideas, but what else am I supposed to do when I see the same goddamned argument for the gajillionth time?

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2014, 09:39:03 AM »
Quote from: "[url=http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=994222#p994222
Shol'va[/url]"]I freely admit that sometimes I may use "canned" ideas, but what else am I supposed to do when I see the same goddamned argument for the gajillionth time?
The other person has probably heard the same canned response a gajillionth plus one times. You could try to understand why they reject the canned argument and try to find out what the real disagreement is about.
Every argument sounds good till you hear the other side. If it were not so, then the argument would have been settled a long time ago. Also, if anyone thinks that an issue is settled, when there is still robust debate on the issue, then they have succumbed to confirmation bias.

Offline Plu

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2014, 09:41:04 AM »
The main problem is that when discussing issues with someone, we discuss the issues when in reality the through conflict lies about 500 layers deeper in each person's psyche and is most likely nailed so firmly shut that nothing will ever change. Even the most open minds barely are, and most people don't even come close to qualifying for even that.
(And I'm not going to claim I'm an exception because I'm aware of my own limitations.)

Offline barbarian (OP)

Re: artificial intelligence
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2014, 03:57:23 AM »
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
You're right. We should all get our news and opinions from Fox News.  :-|
First, you should get your opinions from discernment of thinking about things yourself. If you heard an opinion from someone else it is their opinion that you only conformed to agree with them.

Second, if you are implying that opinions should be feed to people and history should be taught from only 2 sources of information (youtube and wikipedia) as good enough and if I don't agree with that thought then I suddenly discern my opinions and get my information from fox news; well, I am not sure where you came up with this as an analogy to validate these 2 sources (youtube and wikipedia.)

Actually you could watch fox news network if you wanted. I am not sure of what type of cable vision or satellite tv you receive. I, myself as stated in the past do not have either as I only use an antenna.

Here is the list of channels I receive off of my antenna which you will notice that I do not even get CNN but I do get the crap channel MSNBC which I think is just as bad as fox news network.  I do get the regular fox channel but it isn't the news one.
 
Quote
ABC #.1 K***-TV- Independent (HD)  #.2 ME-TV (television classics) #.3 ANTENNA-TV #.4 THIS-TV MGM (movie classics)
CBS (HD)                                                            
FOX (HD)     #.1     FOX (SD)  #.2
PBS #.1 (HD) CREATE MN #.2  PIONEER #.3  WORLD #.4 kids #.5 PLUS #.6 (all 6 commercial free)
NBC (HD)      #.1 K*** WEATHER #.2
RFD    #.1 RURAL TV    #.2  INFORMED-TV    #.3
W***-CW (HD)  #.1 COOL-TV (music/videos)  #.2 COUNTRY (music/videos)  #.3
W***-TV (HD)    #.1 (SD)    BOUNCE-TV #.3
CBC CANADIAN CHANNEL #.1
ION (HD)    #.1 qubo    #.2 ION Life #.3    
Angels Network   #.1 thru #.7  
UNTAMED SPORTS TV (outdoor)
PENTAGON CHANNEL (military affairs -commercial free)
FAMILY NET    #.1 WEATHER CHANNEL    #.2 C-SPAN (commercial free) #.3   MSNBC #.4  BIZ-TV  #.5  

20 channels free

(complete initial setup under $200)
I use an indoor antenna that is set in the attic of the house that I have an AMP 3' off the antenna then again another AMP 3' before my TV and a tivo box.
I do get 30 mbps internet connection from my ISP that I have netflix ($7.99mo. commercial free) and pandora (I get free w/ commercial or I could pay 3.99 mo. for commercial free, but do not) subscriptions as my "premium" and "music" channels.

I only use home phone and do not feel the need for a cell phone. For both my ISP and phone, my bill is under $60 a month then add netflix (still under $70). I think that is pretty cheap for TV, phone and internet, but like I have stated before I get my TV off of an antenna so what the hell do I know.

So, around how much do you pay for these three services a month? I am now thinking that I am getting ripped off and feeling sort of cheated.  :-k