Re: Civ 7

On 6/19/2024 1:32 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

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.
 

Luckily I found you already, so there's that. We already established that you do agree with me about the general definition of AI.