Yet difficult to argue openness of intelligence when refusing to understand appears be the inhibitor to be.
🤔
Discussion
And for what wisdom goes, where is the wisdom is random killing sprees that the governments so called intelligence agencies have been doing?
Words do not always indicate the same thing in different contexts or in different mental frameworks. You see, "intelligence agencies" are not very intelligent. This confusion you have made illustrates my point quite well, as, if you employ the tools I described, you will be able to readily understand these distinctions between words and concepts.
An assertion is not in itself a statement of belief in its authoritative truth. Appearances can be deceiving. You seem to be using an empirical method of discerning truth, while testing my capacity to form both a comprehension of an abstract syntax and of the meaning of your utterances. Are you a large language model? LLMs tend to predict based almost exclusively on empirical data.
I am?
Relevant to the equation how?
Size doesn’t change the fact that artificial can never become intelligent no matter how much it learns to mimic something by definition as intelligence implies understanding the unknown, not everything we already know to ask, and this besides the fact of how killing on random and probable somehow there are words for, like terror.
You still don't understand the distinctions between words, concepts, and reality. Artificial can become natural.
This also may be irrelevant to my original assertion, because I never brought up the concept of artificial intelligence in it.
My theory of intelligence remains unrefuted, and your replies to me illustrate exactly the pitfalls that my theory predicts when one is not utilizing these tools.