Comment by threethirtytwo
10 days ago
Text that imitates agency 100 percent perfectly is technically by the word itself an imitation and thus technically not agentic.
10 days ago
Text that imitates agency 100 percent perfectly is technically by the word itself an imitation and thus technically not agentic.
No there is a logical errror in there. You are implicitly asserting that the trained thing is an imitation, whereas it is only the output that is being imitated.
A flip way of saying it is that we are evolving a process that exhibits the signs of what we call thinking. Why should we not say it is actually thinking?
How certain are you that in your brain there isn’t a process very similar?
I never asserted it is an imitation.
I am simply asking a question. If anything I am only asserting the possibility that it is an imitation. I am more saying that there is no method to tell the difference on which possibility is true. Is it an imitation or is it not? The argument is ultimately pointless because you cannot prove it either way.
The only logical error is your assumptions and misinterpretation of what I said and meant.
I said "implicitly asserting."
But to carry your argument one step further, if there is no difference between imitation and the real thing, is there anything meaningful to be debated here? "Is it an imitation or is it not?" isn't even a valid question in that context. Imitation === The Real Thing.
1 reply →