RE: Reacting to THE WAR: Debunking 'AI' - Part 3.1

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:
-Establish AI criteria (even those in your opinion)
-Show the examples of machinery that fulfills your criteria
-Show that machinery is more efficient than a bunch of Indian workers

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.

Whenever you distort my words, that means you have lost the argument.

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.

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!

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.

Even your linked media fakes are confirming the hoax…

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.

I have in my texts an example of a fake company (Surgisphere) making a fake study – made by a pornstar – for the purpose of corporate media propaganda! That's what you have in that 'science' [...]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.