RE: Reacting to THE WAR: Debunking 'AI' - Part 3.1
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
"Is that a proof that AI exists? How strange… You cannot be serious."
You are the one asserting that AI does not exist. AI is a well-established field in science and engineering, and you are claiming its non-existence. Therefore, I only need to demonstrate that your claim is incorrect. That's the essence of logical and scientific argumentation. I have already discussed what is considered to be AI in my previous posts. If you are suggesting that I haven't made a case, then you should review those posts and address the claims made there.
"You’ve again conveniently missed the point: They can’t do it at the same or better price. That was what Marx has proven without doubt. And that is proven in the latest scandal."
Your primary assertion is that AI does not exist. You are the one who diverts the topic by linking supposedly unethical corporate behavior and market processes with the mere existence of AI, whether as a field of science and engineering, as a process, or as a product. This is a common reason why conspiracy theories often fail; they are built on multiple premises that conflate unrelated events, making the theory increasingly improbable. Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists tend to disregard the principles of logic.
Even if I conceded that certain companies have engaged in abusive behavior, slavery, and the like, and that this is well explained by a particular economic theory, and that it renders capitalism malevolent, it does not imply that the entire endeavor of AI is a hoax. If your argument were different, for instance, that some companies exploit AI hype to make unscrupulous offers, then I might agree that your Amazon story could serve as evidence for that argument. However, you cannot judge such an ambitious theory as the non-existence of AI based on isolated incidents. In other words, you cannot dismiss the hundreds of stories that provide evidence for the existence of AI and focus solely on the ones that support your incredulous viewpoint.
"I have almost 400 texts where I fully documented the hoax: The virus was never isolated. No laboratory has ever shown any live SARS-CoV-2 virus. They are talking about a ‘computer model’ only."
This is incorrect. SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated by scientists globally since early 2020. You can easily check the abundant specialized research and literature on the topic.
"You are repeating media nonsense, and think you are right."
No, I am not. I am referring to scientific papers on the topic. Please review the query I provided in the previous paragraph for more information.
"You have professors of microbiology, like former Paul Ehrlich Institute head Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, and late professor and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier."
It's important to be specific about the statements attributed to Luc Montagnier, as conspiracy theorists have attributed various unfounded claims to him. While being a Nobel laureate is great, it does not prevent one from making incorrect or controversial statements. The claims he made about the coronavirus and vaccines have been debunked by the scientific community. He did not publish a peer-reviewed paper on the subject, nor has he provided any verifiable evidence. An appeal to authority is not sufficient; you need credible evidence that can be verified by competent authorities.
Wrong, @eniolw. ‘AI’ is well established LABEL without any contents, which I have explained. LABEL is not a proof. If you want to demonstrate you are right you have to:
Whenever you distort my words that means you have lost the argument.
You have papers only, @eniolw. You are the first who should read the garbage you posted. For example, in the first one you have a conclusion that ‘the virus’ – is not infectuos!
Even your linked media fakes are confirming the hoax…
I have in my texts example of a fake company (Surgisphere) making fake study – made by a pornstar – for the purpose of corporate media propaganda! That is what you have in that ‘science’. It was widely done in the fear campaign, so sending a bunch of ‘scientific’ links that you didn’t read yourself, does only mean you are easy to manipulate, or that you try to be a manipulator.
So, from one side we have:
And from the other side – you know better than those ‘conspiracy theorists’ with a highest academic titles, because you can produce a bunch of links from a proven corporate media liars.
Thank God, more people all over the World are awakening and refusing experimental ‘vaccine’, while waiting justice against, for example, a corrupt European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen over her ‘confidential contacts’ with Pfizer and the supply of the COVID-19 vaccine.
And frankly, after the February 24th, 2022, I don’t have any compliments for the intelligence of those who still believe in “Deadly virus pandemic” oxymoron.
Now, since you are not able to respond to my words in a sensible manner and rather sound like a recurring ‘AI’ ChatBot algorithm @eniolw, you will not waste my time anymore.
Wrong. AI is not a "label"; it's a well-established field of science and engineering. It's also what we call the processes and products that emerge from that field. As for your methodology, it's quite presumptuous. You're the one making the positive claim that AI doesn't exist. Yet, your premises are flawed, so your conclusion doesn't follow. This was evident when you set the criteria in your previous posts for what you consider true AI, and I dismantled them one by one in my previous posts. You resist addressing this. Therefore, your argument remains unsound.
Even if I concede that I must follow your methodology, I've already done so in my past articles as I said. But you resist remembering or acknowledging that it's there. I showed you with criteria and examples why we consider Stockfish an example of AI, contrary to your baseless claims about how this program supposedly operates.
If you don't understand how the burden of proof works in argumentation, you've lost the debate.
Look at how you yourself insert an arbitrary criterion about "Indian workers" into your proposed methodology. Your contention is that AI doesn't exist and you want to appeal to Amazon's behavior with its workers to support that point. However, that anecdote doesn't invalidate what AI represents and also fails to consider all the general evidence in favor of AI, which is plentiful and well-established. What you choose to do is say that I've distorted your words, instead of defending your argument.
I can see that you've probably never read a scientific paper in your life, only conspiracy posts. Let me show you:
1. You're engaging in shameful quote mining. You resemble creationists who cite biological literature to "prove" that evolutionary biologists themselves don't believe in evolution. By quote mining, you're deliberately ignoring all the other texts and references that DON'T support your viewpoint, like what the study says in the abstract: "Since its emergence in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected ≈6 million persons worldwide. As SARS-CoV-2 spreads across the planet, we explored the range of human cells that can be infected by this virus." Seems like the virus and the pandemic are indeed a thing.
2. Worse yet, your interpretation of the conclusion is dishonest and manipulative. The study discusses certain immunological cells, not other types of cells, such as respiratory ones, which the virus easily uses to replicate. The text is telling you this: "In conclusion, we report that although a human lung cell line supported replication of SARS-CoV-2, the virus did not propagate in any of the tested immune cell lines or primary human immune cells." This study doesn't support your conspiracy theory in the slightest.
No, your comments resort to quote mining, cherry-picking, false equivalence fallacies, non sequiturs, among others. Based on this, your comments are the farce, not the specialized literature.
This isn't the main contention, which is that AI supposedly doesn't exist. I see you've spent a lot of time studying and spreading conspiracy theories that have been thoroughly debunked. It's not my interest to address all of them, but to make clear to the reader the nature of your argumentation.
So, you couldn't find the peer-reviewed paper from these conspiracy theorists where they finally provide indisputable evidence of their claims? Let me guess, all you have are random internet blog posts and tweets.
You have committed logical and methodological errors throughout your series of posts:
-You apply cherry-picking by ignoring evidence that contradicts your theory and only keeping the "evidence" that supports you (common throughout your exposition).
-You make generalizations based on a very small and insignificant sample (you tried to prove that chess engines don't possess artificial intelligence because they are incapable of solving certain specific puzzles).
-You engage in quote mining (you quoted a paragraph from a paper that contradicts you because it supposedly proves there's no infection, when it actually talks about infection in a specific type of cells, while you ignored how the paper refutes everything you believe).
-You commit non sequiturs (Somehow you want to prove AI doesn't exist because Amazon was supposedly dishonest. The conclusion doesn't follow from that premise).
-You commit appeals to false authority (e.g. by quoting questionable, unreliable articles and even twitter gossip).
-Etc, etc, etc. The examples are numerous.
As for me, I don't feel I'm wasting my time with you, as long as I can expose the fallaciousness and wrongness of an argument and help the reader not to get sucked into conspiracy theories.
Facts @lighteye