1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

There's no sense continuing the main topic though if my state of even being human is in question, because it shows you do not take me or the conversation seriously.

I'm offering to settle that over a better medium. You seem to imply though that if you were to converse with an AI over video chat, it would pass the Turing test. I'm only confirming if it's true that this is what you think

(though i've already answered it implicitly)

Please stop being dishonest. It's not making you look good here.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Still avoiding the question. Please answer it, because you haven't. Your only answer to it has been that I have failed the Turing test, which isn't what I was asking.

I'll repeat it here:

if you were to speak to an AI over video/voice, do you believe it would pass the Turing test?

0
Modeler43 0 points ago +1 / -1

"I think when a state seceded that forced the war to happen."

This doesn't mean that a state seceding always means a war will happen. It means in this case, secession forced a war to happen.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nobody asked that question until this comment. Dunno why you'd react so strongly with an answer when nobody asked.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm saying that you have already failed the turing test.

This isn't answering my question.

I asked you, if you were to speak to an AI over video/voice, do you believe it would pass the Turing test?

Please stop avoiding answering the question.

Better quit the internet! The bots are everywhere, and you will continue to be accused of being one

The only instance of this happening with me is through you, so I'm not worried!

Video won't help anything or fundamentally change any of your abilities or behaviors. It is stupid to think it would or should.

That's fine, I never thought that it would! That's not the point of using video chat

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then you abandoned that to act like a troll

Calling you out for your behavior is not being a troll, sorry bud.

And i always will

Then there's no sense continuing, because clearly then you do not respect me or the conversation

You're failing the turing test already

Do you think that if you talked to an AI over video, that it would pass the Turing test, and you wouldn't be able to tell if it were an AI? I'm hoping you'll answer this question!

Then prove it

The best way to prove that I can handle video discussion is having a discussion on video

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

You said you wanted the conversation to be productive and to stay on topic, yet you are the one doing everything in your power to prevent that.

Correct, I did! I only have so much patience for someone's constant attempts to distract though and it became clear you have no respect for me or the main topic. So, there is no mistake that I have made. Intentions can change due to new circumstances.

The record was and is straight

It is not, as you still question whether or not I'm a bot, therefore it's not straight.

bots can already generate real time interaction through generated voice and/or video.

Enough to pass the Turing test?

Moving to a medium which requires faster response and better comprehension would be even harder for you

Not to worry! It's something I can handle quite well

0
Modeler43 0 points ago +1 / -1

Lol they weren't talking about "most secession throughout history."

Also, what a terrible point to make.

"Most athletes throughout history didn't die from cardiac arrest. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that any athletes died of cardiac arrest."

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah almost every individual state declaration specifically mentioned slaves.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

i also explicitly told you what that mistake was.

And it was no mistake. My actions have been intentional and I stand by them.

If your intention was

My intention, currently, is to set the record straight on any further interactions we have by addressing the fact that you think I might be a bot. At this point, it can only be done through more efficient mediums.

We can't avoid that confusion

Of course we can. Through real-time interaction through voice and/or video.

(as opposed to a real time discussion in which, typically, you have neither).

It's quite easy to research and pull up facts in real time. It's in fact very beneficial so that we can point out specific bits we want to pay more attention to, and discuss them together.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who said it was?

You said I have to admit to my mistake. I have made no mistake in my interaction here.

They are swapped out.

On a better medium we can confirm the discussion we had on this thread (and others) to ensure we are both speaking honestly, and affirming the points we made previously. We can communicate more directly and respond to points in real time and avoid the confusion of whether or not I'm a bot in that moment.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who said it was? I said you ought recognize and admit your mistake

In this case, calling out your attempts to distract and use non-sequitur is no mistake.

that does not and cannot prove that they were not a bot in the past or will not be a bot in the future once that bot detection is circumvented.

In what way does an AI/avatar become human later? Please don't answer in a theoretical sense, but in an actual sense. How, physically, does this happen?

Suppressing/ignoring such "baseless accusation" and other distraction

You again acknowledge that what you wrote was a distraction

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then grow up, recognize/admit your mistake, and try to do better next time!

Calling out your attempts to distract and use non-sequitur is nothing I need to apologize for.

it is not disrespectful to make you aware of your bot like actions which both mire/prevent useful conversation and cause me to conclude that you are a bot and/or otherwise incapable of doing any better.

What is disrespectful is constant use of this as a non-sequitur which distracts from the main topic. You can voice your concern about my understandings without making baseless assumptions.

and even if you were not a bot during that brief interaction would not establish that you weren't a bot in previous or future interactions

I think now we should establish what you mean by "bot." Here I was under the assumption that you were using it in the common usage, thinking my comments were AI generated. What do you mean, specifially, by "bot"?

Now you are getting it...It is within your power not "to fall", not to give in to reactionary emotion and end up serving those who wish to derail the conversation

You're acknowledging that you were wishing to derail the conversation, and it was my fault for falling for it?

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

"They started it" is not a valid defense, period.

I agree! But you are continuing to derail, so it's best we directly address it so you no longer have to make these baseless assumptions. It seems you are more concerned with assumptions rather than getting concrete information, which again demonstrates a lack of respect.

I intend to have a productive conversation, if that is possible.

You have not done well through your continuous showing of disrespect.

I cannot and will not take any responsibility for your actions.

I am requesting you take responsibility for your own actions. Your actions have been to continuously bring up questions on whether or not I'm a bot, in an attempt to derail the main topic with non-sequitur. If you insist that this is to be questioned, then it's best we move to a medium where it wouldn't be. You don't seem to want that though.'

Even if i did intend to derail the conversation with a few minor comments - YOU still did the derailing

"I pushed you, but it was YOUR fault you fell"

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Part of growing up is recognizing and taking responsibility for your actions

Correct. You are not doing it. It is important for you to not include non-sequitur. I ignored them at first, and a few times I even offered to help settle it so you wouldn't have to bring it up again, but your insistence to continue shows that it's what you primarily want to focus on.

It's your responsibility as well to keep the conversation on topic, but you intend to distract instead.

Don't ever let the bad habits and actions of others

I'm helping you break your bad habits and actions. It starts with you.

Your actions demonstrate you don't respect me or the conversation topic, by insisting on using non-sequitur and distraction.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic

This is your doing, by continuing to bring up the fact that you "doubt" that I am a real human being.

If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off

I'm more interested in ensuring I'm not speaking with someone who continues to make baseless accusations. You are failing here.

(which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring)

When you decide to use tangent, distraction, and red herrings It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?

The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot.

But you are not a bot. That isn't under question. However, you are deciding to question whether I am. I don't wish to converse with someone who will hold baseless assumptions, so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Meant to get the conversation back on topic and making forward progress in communicatio

It is not. If it is, then it is an indirect form of communication that is, still, disrespectful. If you want to continue to insist that my status as a bot be questioned, then all you deserve now is a proper proof that I'm a real human being.

it is YOUR responsibility to discard such non-sequitur

Incorrect. It is YOUR responsibility to not use them in the first place. Don't be the example of disrespectful conversation that we both want to avoid.

(though assuming you are not a bot

A literal, parenthetical, non-sequitur in action.

Telling you you are acting like a bot

You are not telling me I am acting like one. You are directly questioning whether I am, and in one case lament that you have to assume that I am.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are non sequiturs, meant to throw the conversation off topic. If you wish to continue conversation with me, then let’s fully address the bot situation now, so you no longer have to be confused in the future.

Otherwise, you’re fully demonstrating that you do not respect me, nor the conversation at hand.

You may say you work very hard not to lie or divert the topic, but you are not practicing what you preach

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

You stray from the topic each and every time you decide to question whether or not I’m a bot. Please don’t lie

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

I ask lots of questions!

You don’t ask questions to determine for certain whether I’m a bot, yet you very frequently bring it up in your comments as a non-sequitur, showing you’re not really interested in having discussions in good faith.

You have failed very often, as you have here again, in practicing what you preach. It makes it seem like you do not respect the conversation or me. If you do not want to make it seem that way, then let’s be direct instead of trying to steer the topic off the trajectory.

If you want to insist that my status as a bot is still up in the air, then my preference is to clear that up first

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions). Seems valid enough.

You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions

Seems that you do not practice what you preach.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong.

Correct! When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!

When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time

Correct! You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.

I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!

They are!

Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this...conclusion.

Right here:

It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wrong again!

It's what you said.

Then i confirmed that it wasn't.

Exactly! Through learning the proper causes!

Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one

Correct, they are not the same! They are two separate steps of the process. You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one.

I understand that. But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity to fully discount the previous assertion. You said yourself:

To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›