4 ms·

Nice try, but no. Everything that runs on a server is not ipso facto an algorithm. It's a word that has a specific meaning, which you would (I'd hope, at leas

by cxr 2y ago

Nice try, but no. Everything that runs on a server is not ipso facto an algorithm. It's a word that has a specific meaning, which you would (I'd hope, at least) be able to grasp if you weren't ignoring half the words in the definition you already quoted (and the specific meanings attached to those words, too). > AI is artificial intelligence, "AI" is artificial but it's not intelligence. And artificial tears aren't tears. Likewise with artificial vanilla, artificial plants, etc. Which is beside the point—because you have yet again attempted to provide a (crummy) response to the question I didn't ask and avoided answering the one I actually did ask. Please come back when you can demonstrate that you can carry on a conversation without this type of rhetorically dishonest, empty, pigeon-shitting-on-the-chessboard condescending bluster. (And maybe take a course on the theory of computation and the fundamentals of computer science in the meantime.)

Dalewyn 2y ago
You proposed we stop using the word "algorithm", I argued to the contrary by pointing out it accurately describes what is usually portrayed by it.
- cxr 2y ago
  > You proposed we stop using the word "algorithm", I argued to the contrary K, thanks for the review. It was neither necessary, informative, nor otherwise a response to anything that I asked. You can make as many bare assertions about being right about the accuracy question as you want. No amount of them is going to transmute these sorts of replies into one that can't be plainly identified as avoiding the question I did ask, but you can keep trying if you want.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    You asked: >Let's stop with the abuse of the word "algorithm". I pointed out that it's not an abuse. If that is not the question you asked, then sincerely: What the fuck did you ask?
    - cxr 2y ago
      > You asked:¶ >Let's stop with the abuse of the word "algorithm". That's not a question. For someone with such strong feedback in a discussion about words and their meanings, you sure have a lot of difficulty actually working with them, huh? * * * In one double-barreled remark, you managed to pack in four claims—three explicit, and one implicit. The three explicit ones being that, in comparison to "artificial intelligence", "algorithm" is: - "more accurate" - "more descriptive" - a "better"(?) word choice. Ignoring the dumb false dichotomy that you pulled out of thin air and the ahistoricity of the other claim about "AI" succeeding "algorithm" when it comes to social media, I have repeatedly asked you to defend the second claim. You insist on doing anything but that—mainly by focusing on the first (and then reverting to posting low-effort, overconfident insults like, "Please come back when you at least have a basic understanding of how computers work"). > Without even touching how every other thing you said is wrong (esp. about it being accurate), how is "algorithm" more descriptive than "artificial intelligence"? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40235433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40235433> > you're answering a question I (explicitly) didn't ask, and not the question I did ask. How is "algorithm" a more descriptive term (your words) than "artificial intelligence"? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242056>

by cxr 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

You proposed we stop using the word "algorithm", I argued to the contrary by pointing out it accurately describes what is usually portrayed by it.

cxr 2y ago
> You proposed we stop using the word "algorithm", I argued to the contrary K, thanks for the review. It was neither necessary, informative, nor otherwise a response to anything that I asked. You can make as many bare assertions about being right about the accuracy question as you want. No amount of them is going to transmute these sorts of replies into one that can't be plainly identified as avoiding the question I did ask, but you can keep trying if you want.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  You asked: >Let's stop with the abuse of the word "algorithm". I pointed out that it's not an abuse. If that is not the question you asked, then sincerely: What the fuck did you ask?
  - cxr 2y ago
    > You asked:¶ >Let's stop with the abuse of the word "algorithm". That's not a question. For someone with such strong feedback in a discussion about words and their meanings, you sure have a lot of difficulty actually working with them, huh? * * * In one double-barreled remark, you managed to pack in four claims—three explicit, and one implicit. The three explicit ones being that, in comparison to "artificial intelligence", "algorithm" is: - "more accurate" - "more descriptive" - a "better"(?) word choice. Ignoring the dumb false dichotomy that you pulled out of thin air and the ahistoricity of the other claim about "AI" succeeding "algorithm" when it comes to social media, I have repeatedly asked you to defend the second claim. You insist on doing anything but that—mainly by focusing on the first (and then reverting to posting low-effort, overconfident insults like, "Please come back when you at least have a basic understanding of how computers work"). > Without even touching how every other thing you said is wrong (esp. about it being accurate), how is "algorithm" more descriptive than "artificial intelligence"? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40235433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40235433> > you're answering a question I (explicitly) didn't ask, and not the question I did ask. How is "algorithm" a more descriptive term (your words) than "artificial intelligence"? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242056>