Don’t worry. We’re working on AI powered humanoid robots that will replace natural human connection.

This is in beta, not available for all users and you can also disable it easily: https://support.ecosia.org/article/994-ai-overviews

As far as I know they are using Bing. They’ve started building their own search index last year in a partnership with Qwant.

It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.

Let me know as soon as you’d like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.

(I am not sorry for “necroing”, sometimes I’m just not in the mood and/or don’t have the time to reply to various comments. But that’s the beauty of discussion platforms: it’s always possible to pick it up at a later time.)

Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn’t seem to be substantiated.

Is it though? By which definition?

What is “thinking critically about thoughts”?
And what is an “independent thought”? Aren’t our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?

Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a “thought” even is.

Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not “intelligent”? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered “intelligent”? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?

Not my wording, but the one from the paper I have linked.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurubis

Coincidence?

“Google stands for free and open internet”

https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/keep-internet-free-and-open/

Aged like milk.

I’ve got a rejection notice after I was hired by the very same company. The reason was that someone forgot to mark the application as accepted, so the system automatically sent the rejection mail. That was confusing at first, but also funny.

You seldomly do get the reason. Even if you’re asking. Because companies don’t want to provide ground for lawsuits. The reasons for rejection can be highly arbitrary and therefore not be justified. Even on a legal basis. So they won’t tell.

These application process dances are usually a highly defect and outdated approach to hiring anyway.

Signs that they are in dire need of devs.

Croissantius 🥐

/j: joke
/s: sarcasm
/i: irony

Easy:
You take GPU. And then you put GPU.
Understood? /j

They are not totally wrong. But not totally right either.

What we perceive as sexual and how we react to it has strong cultural and social influences, of course there is also the baseline biology.

There was a time when women’s legs were “tobooed”, since being considered as highly sexual and delibaretly hidden.
Nowadays it’s no issue at all if women wear clothes that reveal their legs accross all occasions.

So there is some form of habit to it. If we are used to seeing naked body parts in non-sexual contexts, then we will see similar normalization in this regard as with legs or other body parts and areas.

We might benefit from normalizing this. Among other effects, this could help to counter many legal and social issues people have with revealed body parts between genders.

Aren’t they already doing that?

That’s a complicated way of saying that Microsoft recommends switching to Linux. /j

I don’t care about votes. I just hope that people start to comprehend this field a tiny bit better .

But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.

Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.

The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:

It is AI.

Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.