BoxedEmpathy

5 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by BoxedEmpathy 2y ago

   If I understand currently, you're pointing out 'thinking' wasn't meant literally in your comment? Or did I miss?
2. 32.▲
   by BoxedEmpathy 2y ago

   This is technically correct. A* pathfinding is technically AI. However I don't know anybody these days who would seriously call A* proper AI.
3. 33.▲
   by BoxedEmpathy 2y ago

   Not sufficiently though You're creating a definition that doesn't align with the existing definitions for the words you're using. Which is fine, it happens all the time, though it's less useful.
4. 34.▲
   by BoxedEmpathy 2y ago

   That's doesn't seem like a measurable or testable definition. How do we know if bees understand what they're doing? It's agreed that they display intelligence and intelligent behavior, but not by your definition. If it&#
5. 35.▲
   by BoxedEmpathy 2y ago

   I said is I don't see the utility in reducing the concept from a continuum to a binary "is/isn't" You seem to have doubled down on the is/isn't perspective and demonstrated what I was referring to. The mor
6. 36.▲
   by BoxedEmpathy 2y ago

   I question utility of that reduction. When you reduce complex situations to simple words like 'socialism' you lose nuance and predictive power. It's not binary. It's more or less. Canada is more socialist than USA. Norwa