> You are stating that in order to get Art, Thinking and Judgement we need Proper processes
Well yeah, but no -- I was mostly parodying your style; what I actually meant could be put as: in order to get art, thinking and judgement we need proper processes.
(And Plato has not only been dead for what, two and a half millennia?, but before that, he was an asshole. So screw him and all his torch-lit caves.)
> «Faking thinking» is not "implementing thinking".
Exactly. And all the LLM token-regurgitatinmg BS we've seen so far, and which everyone is talking about here, is just faking it.
> May I remind you of Einstein's "As simple as possible, but not oversimplified".
Yup, heard it before. (Almost exactly like that; I think it's usually rendered as "...but not more" at the end.) And what you get out of artificial "intelligence" is either oversimplified or, if it's supposed to be "art", usually just plain kitsch.
> > see your failure to recognise
> Actually, that was a strawman on your side out of misunderstanding...
Nope, the imaginary "strawman" you see is a figment of your still over-complicating imagination.
You have stated: «Faking thinking isn't “Thinking”. Art is supposed to have some thought behind it; therefore, “art” created by faking thinking isn't “Art”. Should be utterly fucking obvious».
And nobody said differently, so you have attacked a strawman.
> And all the LLM token-regurgitatinmg BS we've seen so far, and which everyone is talking about here ... And what you get out of artificial "intelligence" is either oversimplified or, if it's supposed to be "art", usually just plain kitsch
But the post you replied to did not speak about LLMs. Nor it spoke about current generative engines.
You replied to a «if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality» - which has nothing to do with LLMs.
You are not understanding the posts. Make an effort. You are strongly proving the social need to obtain at some point intelligence from somewhere.
The posts you replied to in this branch never stated that current technologies are intelligent. Those posts stated that if one day we will implement synthetic intelligence, it will not to be «to fold laundry and wash dishes», and let people have more time «to paint and write poetry» (original post): it will be because we need more intelligence spread in society. You are proving it...
Well yeah, but no -- I was mostly parodying your style; what I actually meant could be put as: in order to get art, thinking and judgement we need proper processes.
(And Plato has not only been dead for what, two and a half millennia?, but before that, he was an asshole. So screw him and all his torch-lit caves.)
> «Faking thinking» is not "implementing thinking".
Exactly. And all the LLM token-regurgitatinmg BS we've seen so far, and which everyone is talking about here, is just faking it.
> May I remind you of Einstein's "As simple as possible, but not oversimplified".
Yup, heard it before. (Almost exactly like that; I think it's usually rendered as "...but not more" at the end.) And what you get out of artificial "intelligence" is either oversimplified or, if it's supposed to be "art", usually just plain kitsch.
> > see your failure to recognise
> Actually, that was a strawman on your side out of misunderstanding...
Nope, the imaginary "strawman" you see is a figment of your still over-complicating imagination.