Topic: African Development
⚫️ started this discussion 3 months ago #130,277
By 2050 Africa is expected to add 700 million people to the workforce, which is about the population of Europe.
Am I crazy if I actually feel optimistic about the economic future of Africa?
Am I crazy if I actually feel optimistic about the economic future of Africa?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 31 minutes later[^] [v] #1,398,200
AI Overview
Africa's economic future is one of potential growth, driven by its young population, increasing digitalization, and a push toward processing raw materials domestically. However, the continent faces significant challenges, including high debt levels, persistent inflation in some nations, and the need for strong governance and domestic resource mobilization to achieve sustained and inclusive growth. International support is still needed to address these issues and unlock Africa's full potential.
Africa's economic future is one of potential growth, driven by its young population, increasing digitalization, and a push toward processing raw materials domestically. However, the continent faces significant challenges, including high debt levels, persistent inflation in some nations, and the need for strong governance and domestic resource mobilization to achieve sustained and inclusive growth. International support is still needed to address these issues and unlock Africa's full potential.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 50 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,206
I hear that China is right in there, building up stuff.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,207
Meanwhile USA and China are starting mass production of humanoid robots with Ph.D level intelligence inside.
This is like the Nubians bragging about bronze production going up when everyone else was in the iron age.
This is like the Nubians bragging about bronze production going up when everyone else was in the iron age.
Anon replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,209
@previous (D)Perhaps China will develop a walking talking totally wonderful artificial rent a wife robot.
One with a Breast in center of her back, as suggested by Al from Married with Children.
⚫️ joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,212
@1,398,207 (D)
I didn’t realize you were the same person so I didn’t tell you because I was being nice, but when I googled that humanoid robot startup the first thing that came up was a Reddit thread full of people saying it’s a scam because they have no product yet keep asking investors for more money.
I didn’t realize you were the same person so I didn’t tell you because I was being nice, but when I googled that humanoid robot startup the first thing that came up was a Reddit thread full of people saying it’s a scam because they have no product yet keep asking investors for more money.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,213
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,214
Also, I hate to say it, but you’re probably a kid, because Japan kept coming out with humanoid robots in the 2010s and they failed. Also "PhD level intelligence" just makes you sound stupid like you think "PhD" is a level of intelligence. It’s a degree. You get a PhD by going to graduate school, it doesn’t mean anything about how smart you are. PhD in what from where? ChatGPT doesn’t have a PhD in anything, it’s just marketing gibberish you ate up because you’re not that bright yourself.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,215
Like I’m old enough to remember back in 2012 when on TV I’d see Japanese car companies coming out with these cool new humanoid robots that could play soccer or dribble a basketball or something stupid, and Japan’s economy has only stagnated since then. I’m already old enough to know people have wanted humanoid robots and flying cars since the 1960s, both have been technologically possible for decades, and both have never gone anywhere because they’re actually useless technology.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,216
@1,398,214 (⚫️)
Machines couldn't understand language in 2010, and the joints in the robots were less advanced.
Ph.D level is what matters when you try to replace a worker in a specific domain. If you put one in a mechanic's shop it will matter if the robot can identify all the parts and tolls, recite procedure for a task and pass a sacety knowledge test. It takes more training for a human, but not a bot, to replace a Ph.D in biology who runs tests in a lab.
When any bot can talk about any textbook in any field they will be competing with graduates that spent 10 years at uni.
Multiple companies have demonstrated humanoid robots walking around, talking, and using hands to complete tasks.
Machines couldn't understand language in 2010, and the joints in the robots were less advanced.
Ph.D level is what matters when you try to replace a worker in a specific domain. If you put one in a mechanic's shop it will matter if the robot can identify all the parts and tolls, recite procedure for a task and pass a sacety knowledge test. It takes more training for a human, but not a bot, to replace a Ph.D in biology who runs tests in a lab.
When any bot can talk about any textbook in any field they will be competing with graduates that spent 10 years at uni.
Multiple companies have demonstrated humanoid robots walking around, talking, and using hands to complete tasks.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,217
@previous (D)
Machines could understand language in 2010, google translate came out in 2006, Siri came out in 2011. I remember being a kid back then.
Machines could understand language in 2010, google translate came out in 2006, Siri came out in 2011. I remember being a kid back then.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,218
In 2013 I could talk to my Xbox, what is this nonsense that machines couldn’t understand language back then? They were just not as good at it.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,219
@1,398,216 (D)
> When any bot can talk about any textbook in any field they will be competing with graduates that spent 10 years at uni.
What if I told you that in 2010, I could google all the answers to any test in the world and get a perfect score?
🤯
> When any bot can talk about any textbook in any field they will be competing with graduates that spent 10 years at uni.
What if I told you that in 2010, I could google all the answers to any test in the world and get a perfect score?
🤯
⚫️ quadruple-posted this 3 months ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,220
It’s like you think information and intelligence are the same thing, they’re not.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,221
@1,398,217 (⚫️)
Google translate could not respond to the simplest question, it could just translate a phrase from one language to another.
Siri had to be manually programmed for each possible question.
Humanoid bots couldn't work because each new situation would be unprogrammed. And the joints made them awkward walkers that couldnt do anything else.
GPT was the first time you could have dynamic conversations with a machine without preprogramming in each response.
We didn't have the technology for the simplest tasks in 2010, and now bots are just physically slower and stiffer versions of humans.
Google translate could not respond to the simplest question, it could just translate a phrase from one language to another.
Siri had to be manually programmed for each possible question.
Humanoid bots couldn't work because each new situation would be unprogrammed. And the joints made them awkward walkers that couldnt do anything else.
GPT was the first time you could have dynamic conversations with a machine without preprogramming in each response.
We didn't have the technology for the simplest tasks in 2010, and now bots are just physically slower and stiffer versions of humans.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,222
Anonymous D triple-posted this 3 months ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,223
@1,398,220 (⚫️)
I think there's a difference between a toy that walks around in 2010, that has no ability to understand human intent and today's autonomous humanoid robots.
I think there's a difference between a toy that walks around in 2010, that has no ability to understand human intent and today's autonomous humanoid robots.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,224
@1,398,221 (D)
No it wasn’t, ChatGPT wasn’t the first chatbot, I knew about AI chat bots before ChatGPT was released because I was interested in technology.
No it wasn’t, ChatGPT wasn’t the first chatbot, I knew about AI chat bots before ChatGPT was released because I was interested in technology.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,226
Before ChatGPT there were websites like ceverbot that were trained on human conversations to mimic talking to a real person. The difference with OpenAI is Sam Altman convinced Microsoft to give him a lot more funding so he scaled it up and trained the chatbot on amounts of data that were completely infeasible for individuals to. He was just the first person to pour billions of dollars into it. But fundamentally, it isn’t more intelligent, it’s just trained on more data. The reason you think it is intelligent is because you have an incorrect understanding of what intelligence is.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,227
@1,398,224 (⚫️)
Chatbots before were at best crowdsourced programming, and still got most responses wrong if it hadn't seen that exact conversation before.
There's a reason they never put cleverbot in a humanoid robot. It would be interesting to watch, but completely unable to carry out actions.
Chatbots before were at best crowdsourced programming, and still got most responses wrong if it hadn't seen that exact conversation before.
There's a reason they never put cleverbot in a humanoid robot. It would be interesting to watch, but completely unable to carry out actions.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,228
@1,398,226 (⚫️)
Cleverbot could never respond to completely novel conversations.
GPT can, and can even invent new words or responses that haven't appeared before.
Cleverbot could never respond to completely novel conversations.
GPT can, and can even invent new words or responses that haven't appeared before.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,229
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,230
@previous (⚫️)
You don't understand the difference between preprogrammed responses and what gpt does.
Why do you think bots today can carry out physical tasks in response to new verbal commands, but that never happened before?
You don't understand the difference between preprogrammed responses and what gpt does.
Why do you think bots today can carry out physical tasks in response to new verbal commands, but that never happened before?
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,231
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,232
@1,398,230 (D)
Dude, I’m literally a CS major at one of the best universities for CS in the United States, I don’t think you know more about how chatbots work than I do.
Dude, I’m literally a CS major at one of the best universities for CS in the United States, I don’t think you know more about how chatbots work than I do.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,235
@previous (⚫️)
I just explained the difference between cleverbot and gpt because you didn't understand the difference.
cleverbot can take your new response, give it to random people, and store their responses verbatim to give to the next person.
but thats all it does, and it can never understand novel messages and respond with its own novel message.
If you're a CS major, you clearly don't understand the material.
I just explained the difference between cleverbot and gpt because you didn't understand the difference.
cleverbot can take your new response, give it to random people, and store their responses verbatim to give to the next person.
but thats all it does, and it can never understand novel messages and respond with its own novel message.
If you're a CS major, you clearly don't understand the material.
⚫️ joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,236
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,237
@previous (⚫️)
Once again you give some vague insult, without identifying any errors.
A software program that caches user responses to a specific string is not the same thing as a transformer model that learns how words relate to each other, and can generate novel strings dynamically.
You gave too much melanin blocking electrochemical activity in your brain, switch to a grievance study.
Once again you give some vague insult, without identifying any errors.
A software program that caches user responses to a specific string is not the same thing as a transformer model that learns how words relate to each other, and can generate novel strings dynamically.
You gave too much melanin blocking electrochemical activity in your brain, switch to a grievance study.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,239
@previous (D)
Have you ever considered that maybe if you’re more willing to believe that a computer is intelligent than you are willing to believe that a human is intelligent that you might have some mental issues that need to be resolved?
Have you ever considered that maybe if you’re more willing to believe that a computer is intelligent than you are willing to believe that a human is intelligent that you might have some mental issues that need to be resolved?
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,240
Ugh
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 52 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,241
@1,398,239 (⚫️)
How much money are you spending to not know the differences between those two very different software designs?
Ask any chatbot and it can tell you the difference.
One understands, one doesn't.
How much money are you spending to not know the differences between those two very different software designs?
Ask any chatbot and it can tell you the difference.
One understands, one doesn't.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,242
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,244
I know that an LLM is a type of chatbot, and that cleverbot wasn’t an LLM.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,245
@1,398,242 (⚫️)
Since this started with you bringing up that robotics company, can you understand why one would never work to make a robot autonomous, and the other has already been used to make a robot autonomous?
Since this started with you bringing up that robotics company, can you understand why one would never work to make a robot autonomous, and the other has already been used to make a robot autonomous?
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,247
@1,398,244 (⚫️)
Transformers can make a robot respond in an ever changing environment.
Cleversbot's tech would never work.
Transformers can make a robot respond in an ever changing environment.
Cleversbot's tech would never work.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,249
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,250
@previous (⚫️)
No, it doesn't.
Having a honda robot hobble forward 10 steps on command isn't the same thing as telling a bot verbally to grab your keys, then the bot understands what keys to look for based on context, and then grab the right keys and place them where you most likely want them based on context.
The bots respond to situations they've never seen before, and can translate idioms to match specific situations, and interact dynamically with their environment.
No, it doesn't.
Having a honda robot hobble forward 10 steps on command isn't the same thing as telling a bot verbally to grab your keys, then the bot understands what keys to look for based on context, and then grab the right keys and place them where you most likely want them based on context.
The bots respond to situations they've never seen before, and can translate idioms to match specific situations, and interact dynamically with their environment.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,251
You’re arguing about technology the same way people argue about politics. Arguing about definitions doesn’t help you actually achieve results. If you take a computer science course, and you submit a program that implements a data structure, and it fails the grading tests, you can’t argue with the instructor that your program worked when it didn’t. You can’t make technology into something it’s not by arguing about it.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,252
I’ve used ChatGPT before, never once did I even feel the slightest bit that it was actually intelligent and you can’t convince me otherwise by saying words.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,253
@1,398,251 (⚫️)
Wrong, the meanings of words actually does matter.
Using words incorrectly doesn't make you open-minded, it makes you retarded.
Bots weren't practically possible outside some choreographed stage performance. And then they were when a new technology was invented. That's not semantics, thats facts. The definitions matter because your ideas are provably incoherant, a consequence of your nubian shortcomings.
Wrong, the meanings of words actually does matter.
Using words incorrectly doesn't make you open-minded, it makes you retarded.
Bots weren't practically possible outside some choreographed stage performance. And then they were when a new technology was invented. That's not semantics, thats facts. The definitions matter because your ideas are provably incoherant, a consequence of your nubian shortcomings.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,254
@previous (D)
You’re using the word you’re incorrectly again.
Also African Americans are West African not East African, but nice try.
You’re using the word you’re incorrectly again.
Also African Americans are West African not East African, but nice try.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,255
@previous (⚫️)
Humans are always more expensive than bots.
What job can a human do that a bot can't?
Humans are always more expensive than bots.
What job can a human do that a bot can't?
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,256
I really feel like you wouldn’t like actually taking computer science courses. You have the mentality of a debate bro, not the mentality of an engineer. You have this idea that you can manufacture reality with words, but that’s just not how it works.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,257
Just so you know I’m going to stop responding because I’m tired of talking with you, but don’t forget that I still think you’re wrong.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,258
You’re also casually racist for no reason like you think calling me a Nubian makes your argument better somehow, which isn’t a sign of intelligence. But that’s the nicest thing I can possibly say about you.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,259
@1,398,256 (⚫️)
> You have this idea that you can manufacture reality with words, but that’s just not how it works.
You were the one making up definitions, while I was saying the actual definition matters.
The person saying "don't talk about semantics" is always the one trying to portray reality as subjective.
The "my truth" people are always the "equality" people because it's a made up delusion.
> You have this idea that you can manufacture reality with words, but that’s just not how it works.
You were the one making up definitions, while I was saying the actual definition matters.
The person saying "don't talk about semantics" is always the one trying to portray reality as subjective.
The "my truth" people are always the "equality" people because it's a made up delusion.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,260
⚫️ joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,262
@previous (D)
> I'm saying you have the intelligence of a group that never made it to #1.
I’m just blown away you can’t see how childish that sentence sounds.
> I'm saying you have the intelligence of a group that never made it to #1.
I’m just blown away you can’t see how childish that sentence sounds.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 41 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,264
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,266
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,267
Like oh my God, do you know how stupid what you just said sounds? You’re basically saying you must be telling the truth because you said you’re telling the truth. That’s circular logic. Anyone can do that. I can say that I only speak the truth. That doesn’t make it true.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,268
I swear you talk like a chatbot that was trained on Ben Shapiro one liner TikTok shorts and that’s not a compliment.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 2 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,269
@1,398,266 (⚫️)
If your source of truth is whether you trust or don't trust the person you happened to hear an idea from, you have the mind of a child.
In civilized societies people can evaluate an idea without caring about where they happened to hear of it first.
If your source of truth is whether you trust or don't trust the person you happened to hear an idea from, you have the mind of a child.
In civilized societies people can evaluate an idea without caring about where they happened to hear of it first.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,270
@1,398,267 (⚫️)
> You’re basically saying you must be telling the truth because you said you’re telling the truth. That’s circular logic.
Except I didn't say that at all, or anything like that.
You don't seem capable of comprehending words, in order, in context. You just make up random strawmen, and you can't explain how you got there.
> You’re basically saying you must be telling the truth because you said you’re telling the truth. That’s circular logic.
Except I didn't say that at all, or anything like that.
You don't seem capable of comprehending words, in order, in context. You just make up random strawmen, and you can't explain how you got there.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,271
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,272
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,273
@1,398,268 (⚫️)
When Shapiro talks about logic, what does that mean to you? How would you explain the meaning of logic?
When Shapiro talks about logic, what does that mean to you? How would you explain the meaning of logic?
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,274
Anonymous D triple-posted this 3 months ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,275
@1,398,272 (⚫️)
I never made that argument, so what do you expect me to say?
I never made that argument, so what do you expect me to say?
(Edited 4 seconds later.)
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 57 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,276
@1,398,273 (D)
> When Shapiro talks about logic, what does that mean to you? How would you explain the meaning of logic?
So I was right about where you got that from. You got this from looking at right wing clips on the internet from debate bros and you’re trying to mimic that but you’re not good at it.
> When Shapiro talks about logic, what does that mean to you? How would you explain the meaning of logic?
So I was right about where you got that from. You got this from looking at right wing clips on the internet from debate bros and you’re trying to mimic that but you’re not good at it.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,277
@previous (⚫️)
Where do you think Shapiro got those ideas from?
Logic wasn't invented on TikTok, and obnoxious podcasters don't magically invalidate logic.
Where do you think Shapiro got those ideas from?
Logic wasn't invented on TikTok, and obnoxious podcasters don't magically invalidate logic.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,280
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,282
Let’s see how much you know about logic.
Explain how probability and logic are related using functional completeness.
Explain how probability and logic are related using functional completeness.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,285
@1,398,280 (⚫️)
When you immediately assume someone learned the idea of logic from right-wing podcasts or influencers that's how you're treating it.
Logic has existed for a very long time, it's value has nothing to do with whether you like Shapiro's personality.
When you immediately assume someone learned the idea of logic from right-wing podcasts or influencers that's how you're treating it.
Logic has existed for a very long time, it's value has nothing to do with whether you like Shapiro's personality.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,286
@1,398,282 (⚫️)
> Explain how probability and logic are related using functional completeness.
Anyone can generate a response to this, and it's really not relevant to what we're talking about.
> Explain how probability and logic are related using functional completeness.
Anyone can generate a response to this, and it's really not relevant to what we're talking about.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 0 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,287
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,288
@1,398,286 (D)
> > Explain how probability and logic are related using functional completeness.
>
> Anyone can generate a response to this, and it's really not relevant to what we're talking about.
@previous (⚫️)
> > Explain how probability and logic are related using functional completeness.
>
> Anyone can generate a response to this, and it's really not relevant to what we're talking about.
@previous (⚫️)
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,289
@1,398,286 (D)
AI can generate a response but it won’t be concise. If you understand it you can say it in just a few sentences.
AI can generate a response but it won’t be concise. If you understand it you can say it in just a few sentences.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,292
@previous (⚫️)
> AI can generate a response but it won’t be concise.
You can tell it to be precise in the prompt.
You're derailing the conversation, whether I write a response, or generate one.
> AI can generate a response but it won’t be concise.
You can tell it to be precise in the prompt.
You're derailing the conversation, whether I write a response, or generate one.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 59 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,295
@previous (D)
So then tell me, what’s the answer?
You know about logic right. You’re saying the chatbot can do it, you’re saying your race is smarter than my race, surely you can give me an answer.
So then tell me, what’s the answer?
You know about logic right. You’re saying the chatbot can do it, you’re saying your race is smarter than my race, surely you can give me an answer.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,296
You want to insult me by saying I don’t know about logic, show me you know about logic and just answer the question.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,299
(I learned this when I was a first year CS student)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,301
Asking random trivia questions anyone can cheat on isn't relevant.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,303
@previous (D)
Right, so if you can cheat just cheat. If the chatbot is intelligent it should give you the answer. So answer the question in a few sentences.
Right, so if you can cheat just cheat. If the chatbot is intelligent it should give you the answer. So answer the question in a few sentences.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,304
Clearly you don’t know otherwise you would have just answered it by now. Just ask the chatbot.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 11 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,305
@1,398,303 (⚫️)
I just explained I'm not going on your tangent if you can't explain how this is relevant.
I just explained I'm not going on your tangent if you can't explain how this is relevant.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,306
@previous (D)
I already explained exactly how it’s relevant. You’re arguing that you’re smarter than I am because you’re white and I’m black, and you’re arguing that chatbots are intelligent. You’re also trying to insult me by saying I don’t understand logic. I’m asking you with your white intelligence and your chatbot to explain to me a simple question about logic in a a few sentences. You’re refusing to do it.
I already explained exactly how it’s relevant. You’re arguing that you’re smarter than I am because you’re white and I’m black, and you’re arguing that chatbots are intelligent. You’re also trying to insult me by saying I don’t understand logic. I’m asking you with your white intelligence and your chatbot to explain to me a simple question about logic in a a few sentences. You’re refusing to do it.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,307
Just explain how probability relates to logic using functional completeness in a few sentences. It’s not hard, first year computer science students learn about this.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,310
Current UNIX time 1761599793043 (previous post was 3 minutes ago)
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
⚫️ quadruple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,311
Now whenever you come up with a response, I’ll post the current UNIX time then, and people can subtract the two times to see how long it took in milliseconds regardless of what the labels on the website say.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 11 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,312
@1,398,307 (⚫️)
Bringing up some random topic in logic doesn't relate to what we were talking about.
Reciting random factoids you can't apply to the topic at hand isn't proving anything.
Try to use logic that is relevant.
Bringing up some random topic in logic doesn't relate to what we were talking about.
Reciting random factoids you can't apply to the topic at hand isn't proving anything.
Try to use logic that is relevant.
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 14 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,313
…but without revealing my timezone.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 29 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,314
@1,398,312 (D)
It’s not helping you’re case that you’re more intelligent than me because you’re white and that chatbots are intelligent when you’re so afraid to answer this question.
It’s not helping you’re case that you’re more intelligent than me because you’re white and that chatbots are intelligent when you’re so afraid to answer this question.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,316
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 37 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,317
@previous (D)
It would help you prove that chatbots are actually intelligent if you would answer the question, but the fact that you’re so hesitant makes me think you have doubt.
It would help you prove that chatbots are actually intelligent if you would answer the question, but the fact that you’re so hesitant makes me think you have doubt.
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,318
I have an answer, but I’ll only tell you what the answer is if you either admit that you don’t know or you provide your own.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,329
UNIX time update: he still hasn’t answered the question
1761601074320
1761601074320
⚫️ quadruple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,330
This technically isn’t necessary because I can still see the minute labels on the website since not enough time has elapsed to lose precision yet, but just for fun:
(1761601074320-1761599793043)/(60 * 1000) = 21.354616666666665
It’s been 20 minutes so far…
(1761601074320-1761599793043)/(60 * 1000) = 21.354616666666665
It’s been 20 minutes so far…
⚫️ quintuple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,331
I’ll give him ten more minutes then I’ll give an answer…
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,332
⚫️ replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,333
@previous (D)
Most horses have probably eaten a fly before.
…has your chatbot given you an answer yet?
Most horses have probably eaten a fly before.
…has your chatbot given you an answer yet?
⚫️ double-posted this 3 months ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,334
You’ve still got 6 minutes before I give my own answer.
⚫️ triple-posted this 3 months ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,335
The question: explain how probability relates to logic using functional completeness in a few sentences.
My answer:
A logical operation is considered to be functionally complete when it can be used to make statements which can represent any truth table. NAND and NOR both individually have functional completeness and be can be described via set theory. In probability, P(not A)=1-A and P(A and B)=A*B. Fuzzy logic, which depends upon logical NAND f(A, B)=1-A*B is when values can range from 0 to 1, 1 representing true, and 0 representing false.
The current UNIX time: 1761602070286
My answer:
A logical operation is considered to be functionally complete when it can be used to make statements which can represent any truth table. NAND and NOR both individually have functional completeness and be can be described via set theory. In probability, P(not A)=1-A and P(A and B)=A*B. Fuzzy logic, which depends upon logical NAND f(A, B)=1-A*B is when values can range from 0 to 1, 1 representing true, and 0 representing false.
The current UNIX time: 1761602070286
⚫️ quadruple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,337
Basically, I asked you to explain what probabilistic logic is.
⚫️ quintuple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,338
If you’re really bored, you can get out a sheet of paper and start multiplying and subtracting 1s and 0s and see for yourself why that works.
⚫️ joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,343
For anybody who finds this thread in the future:
Does a guy whose brilliant idea is that Africa doesn’t matter because ChatGPT exists sound like a smart guy to you? In 2050 they’re going to have 2.5 billion people, but this guy can spend 40 minutes on ChatGPT to not come up with an answer to a basic question therefore that negates the existence of an entire race of people. Does that sound intelligent to you? Does that seem smart? I don’t think so.
Does a guy whose brilliant idea is that Africa doesn’t matter because ChatGPT exists sound like a smart guy to you? In 2050 they’re going to have 2.5 billion people, but this guy can spend 40 minutes on ChatGPT to not come up with an answer to a basic question therefore that negates the existence of an entire race of people. Does that sound intelligent to you? Does that seem smart? I don’t think so.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 months ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,677
@previous (⚫️)
> Does a guy whose brilliant idea is that Africa doesn’t matter because ChatGPT exists
What I actually said is a large population doesn't matter because humans are more expensive, work less, and know less than the robots that exist now.
> this guy can spend 40 minutes on ChatGPT to not come up with an answer to a basic question
Try learning how to avoid strawman arguments and non sequitors instead of quizzing me on random computational logic trivia.
> Does a guy whose brilliant idea is that Africa doesn’t matter because ChatGPT exists
What I actually said is a large population doesn't matter because humans are more expensive, work less, and know less than the robots that exist now.
> this guy can spend 40 minutes on ChatGPT to not come up with an answer to a basic question
Try learning how to avoid strawman arguments and non sequitors instead of quizzing me on random computational logic trivia.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,782
Africa is a big continent
pew joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 14 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,878
@previous (I)
theyve killed most of the animals. climate change will destroy any hope of growth if we dont stop it but were too stupid to.
theyve killed most of the animals. climate change will destroy any hope of growth if we dont stop it but were too stupid to.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,882
@previous (pew)
Ngl Africa has the best wildlife. So many charismatic megafauna.
A giraffe is the closest thing to a sauropod we’re ever gonna get to see.
Ngl Africa has the best wildlife. So many charismatic megafauna.
A giraffe is the closest thing to a sauropod we’re ever gonna get to see.
Anonymous K double-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,884
@1,398,677 (D)
> What I actually said is a large population doesn't matter because humans are more expensive, work less, and know less than the robots that exist now.
Knowledge and intelligence aren’t the same thing stupid.
> What I actually said is a large population doesn't matter because humans are more expensive, work less, and know less than the robots that exist now.
Knowledge and intelligence aren’t the same thing stupid.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,885
If you think Africa is never going to develop because of the AI bubble, and you think that the AI bubble is going to save the west from the economic effects of demographic collapse, you’re going to be in for one hell of a rough time when India and China become the largest economies.
All this racist biological determinism nonsense is just cope for low IQ low income white people.
All this racist biological determinism nonsense is just cope for low IQ low income white people.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,911
lol@ niggers ever being anything more than bipedal beasts
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,912
@previous (L)
Oh no, I’m a bipedal black man instead of a superior quadrupedal white man who walks on all fours like a dog.
Oh no, I’m a bipedal black man instead of a superior quadrupedal white man who walks on all fours like a dog.