> is just patently wrong. Not really, here's one I found in seconds, that I hadn't even seen yet - where they specifically remark on the similarities to AI net

> is just patently wrong. Not really, here's one I found in seconds, that I hadn't even seen yet - where they specifically remark on the similarities to AI networks: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330 > How can we confidently state that the sun isn't alive when we don't ourselves know what life is? I mean, it's got different layers like a cell. It has a source of energy, a lifecycle and it eventually dies. Well, I've learned from your previous comment you're not agreeing with me, but here's another instance I'd have thought you might be. These are exactly the kinds of questions we should pose and explore. Are such a massive, complex, long-lasting sequences of nuclear processes "alive" or potentially intelligent? Might they have a detectable consciousness? What are we but a vast sequence of chemical and electrical processes? In that sense, not much different. (Science has indeed so far rather arbitrarily defined "alive", and this shows in some of the more controversial categories of "life", such as viruses.) > I'll just say this - if you really want to believe you're a brain floating in space, why don't you live life like it's GTA? I've never stated that, I've posed a relevant, important philosophical question I think lies at the centre of the issue of whether or not an AI can be considered to "hallucinate". As was the topic. Your response seems to be "no", and that's fine.