Is there such a mental condition as AI denialism?where no matter how the proofs pile up of how better AI is than us at a given task, the person keeps deriding it and act as if it was a retarded bot of any uses, and slams news of AI incidents or strides as just a PR campaign? These fucking retards are so unseriously delusional that they are endangering us all by telling us everything is fine
>>17068924ai is not better than us, it's a human made computer program you dumb nigger
People have fragile egos. They'll choose a comforting lie before a humbling reality most of the time.
>>17069422Retard, its computer programs made specifically to be better at a given task than people could ever be. You actually think you or any person could act as a switchboard and connect all the phone calls made through the day better than an AI program?
>>17068924It's basically the end of the world so it makes sense to bury your head in the sand
If you mean the internal cutting edge models, you are correct, they are insanely good. But the average subscription models aren't that good but still useful.
>>17070005Anon clearly means the concept and real potential of AI in general and you should have been tipped off when he talked about matters piling up over time.
>>17068924i have AI denialism, I admit it. I just don’t think it is a “mental condition” in the sense of a DSMV diagnosable mental illness.Instead I think it is plainly obvious that the AI hype is a bunch of shills shilling bullshit. On a daily basis I have physics PhD students asking me to help them on their studies, and invariably I see a bunch of slop code that takes a while for me to parse but then I find several hallucinations in their code which basically mean their research has been poisoned by dumb AI mistakes. This literally happens to me on a daily basis.AI is basically mental poison on multiple levels: for the people who use it, the people who need to combat it, and for what leaks out beyond the layer of the intellectual poison-control-center people like me, it is an absolute intellectual epidemic. AI is literally turning all academic publications into a buffet of radioactive poison slop
>>17070013Yeah, it's kinda scary that you have so much software being made without any real human oversight at the same time frontier models will still do a random rm -rf. Sooner or later we're getting an AI Chernobyl because we use machines we know to be unrelable to do stuff without supervision.
>>17070013>a bunch of shills shilling bullshit.>physics PhD studentsHow is it bullshit if PhD students are using it to some success?>a bunch of slop codeBut the rest is good? What do you even mean by slop code, inefficient?>several hallucinations in their code What does that even mean? Either the code is write or wrong, how can it be hallucinatory like it produces the correct output, but through delusional means or it produces delusional output, but through legitimate means?>AI is basically mental poison on multiple levelsSo basically the same as taking any external advice?
>>17070025Just to answer your questions succinctly, what I mean is that I am the exceedingly rare person in today’s world that actually *checks* the work of the people who are trying to get PhDs in physics, and I spot a lot of absolutely INCORRECT things that they are doing due to an over-reliance on AI code and AI advice in general. the reason they could (and probably are) succeeding in physics using this AI slop product is because the tenured professors at the top of the field are totally under-equipped to handle this onslaught of slop , and moreover most of them are checked-out tenured douches who couldn’t give a fuck any more since their tenure gives them immunity to scrutiny, so they let their students just push slop because the incentives are warped as fuck right now. They always were but now it is at a low point
>>17070029>I spot a lot of absolutely INCORRECT thingsSo PhD students never came to you with INCORRECT code before AI? I guess I always assumed being incorrect almost as often as otherwise was a common state among students.>the tenured professors at the top of the field are totally under-equipped to handle this onslaught of slopSo before AI, tenured professors never checked out and undeserving students never passed through courses simply out of laziness of burned out professors failure to oversee or correct them?
>>17068924> the proofs pile up of how better AI is than us at a given taskProvide an example.
>>17070036NTA, but there is a difference between you making a mistake which someone can then point to and explain the mistake to you after which your understanding deepens, and AI making a mistake and you never even bothering to comprehend it.
>>17070051Lurk moar>>17069941You think you could manage a nationwide phone switchboard better than AI?
>>17068924Anti AI luddites. People who treat their identity and livelihood as an entitlement tied to a particular kind of work they happened to enter during their lives. They have compressed their conception of life into a narrow role and come to believe that the world and their place within it should remain stable and essentially unchanged indefinitely. Their attachment to that stability is reinforced by the comforting belief that, because they are playing their role well, they are entitled to preserve it. Usually white confused people.
>>17070057>Lurk moarWhy are you getting so defensive? You must've had something concrete in mind... right?> the proofs pile up of how better AI is than us at a given taskProvide an example.
>>17070059>ludditeForgot to filter this brown-coded attempt at an "insult".
>>17070061people can become attached to an occupational role because it gives them status, identity, competence, and social belonging. AI threatens the role, so they experience the technological change as a threat to themselves. You can disagree with that claim — but calling it an "insult" doesn't address it.
>>17070065>—Brown-coded token. Adding this one to the filter as well. 99% of pro-AI posts are third world insects thinking they can use large statistical models to get back at/compete with whites.
>>17070060>Why are you getting so defensive?I am not getting defensive I am pointing out that if you bothered to read the thread before posting to it, your question would have been answered before you posted it.>Provide an example.I just linked to it and repeated it and I will repeat it again.What human do you think would be better at the task of managing a nationwide phone switchboard than AI?
>>17070080>You think you could manage a nationwide phone switchboard better than a computer program?Nope. Neither can I calculate the digits of pi to 314 trillion places or sort a list of a quadrillion numbers. Who's denying that computers are better at some tasks than humans? Humans invented computers for a reason.
>>17070084>Who's denying that computers are better at some tasks than humans?The anon that keeps asking for examples like they don't exist because anon didn't bother to read the examples in this thread before posting.
>>17070086So are you going to provide an example or not? Programs are better at managing switchboards, doing long calculations, sorting numbers, computing shaders... all kinds of stuff. Where does AI come in as something distinct from just a program?
>>17070088Thank you for conceding that not only is AI better than humans at given tasks, but even more basic computer programs in general are too so you even proved fpwp wrong.
>>17070090So are you going to provide an example or not? Programs are better at managing switchboards, doing long calculations, sorting numbers, computing shaders... all kinds of stuff. Where does AI come in as something distinct from just a program?
>>17070091the person you're trying to reason with is mentally ill and incapable of having a rational discussion or substantiating his opinions, if you couldn't tell from the OP. just move on
>>17070091>So are you going to provide an example or not?I already did, but you mean you want examples like how AI is already better at diagnosing disease based on pictures than the average doctor and how modern surgeries are nearly all AI enhanced with things like DaVinci?Nobody said AI was distinct from a computer program, retard, AI is a type of computer program, one that is generally orders of magnitude better than humans at the task it was trained on.
>>17070094>there's a program that's better at diagnosing disease based on pictures than the average doctorOk, who's denying this?>Nobody said AI was distinct from a computer programThen why didn't you start a thread about how the voices in your head are denying that programs can do anything better than humans? Why namedrop "AI"?
>>17070097>Ok, who's denying this?The first poster in the thread for one alone with you who keeps asking about examples like they don't exist and haven't been provided.>Why namedrop "AI"?Because AI is the type of computer program that for some reason people with your mental disabilities like you try to deny can outperform humans significantly.
>>17070099>youMe? Are you actually losing your mind here or what?> AI is the type of computer program that ... uhh... urrrmm...Sorry, what? Can you explain how you categorize something as "AI"?
>>17070105told you he's mentally ill, stop stressing the little guy out
>>17070105No, but since you are losing the argument you sure are desperate to try to change the subject to me instead of the topic at hand.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligenceBasically any computer program that intersects with human sensory processing and decision making.
>>17070115>NoSo you can't even explain what your thread is actually about? So far you've been sounding pretty delusional. No one denies that programs can do some tasks better than humans. >Basically any computer program that intersects with human sensory processing and decision making.Like an OCR program that sorts huge lists of numbers?
>>17070117You can't even figure out which question of yours I am answering when I answer them in order.>No one denies that programs can do some tasks better than humans.Except the very first poster in the thread, of course.>Like an OCR program that sorts huge lists of numbers?More like a program modeled after the human brain that uses artificial neurons to process input and output results.
>>17070118>More like a program modeled after the human brainCan you name such a program? Also why did you change your "definition"?
>>17069422Hey, anon. Is it possible for quicksort to sort a quadrillion numbers faster and more accurately than humans? The OP says you think it's impossible.
>>17070119I basically already did, artificial neural networks.I didn't change the definition, I got more specific instead of super basic, both definition still apply but NNs are more typical, there is a whole wiki link you can read since you clearly don't even know the basics and need to be spoonfed a definition of AI.
>>17070124>artificial neural networks."Artificial neural networks" is not a program. Try again.>I didn't change the definitionThen why don't you want to discuss my example? Who's saying an OCR number sorting program can't sort numbers better than a human?
>>17070122>Is it possible for quicksort to sort a quadrillion numbers faster and more accurately than humans? The OP says you think it's impossible.yeah it's possible for a human made computer program to do what it's programmed to do and OP is still a nigger
>>17070127Wrong, read that page, ANNs are a class of programs.I just don't really care about your niche example and was giving you a more typical example.
>humanity lost because... because it made a machine that does thing for themi see
>>17070130>ANNs are a class of programs.So according to you, pic related is "modeled after a human brain"?
>>17070127>"Artificial neural networks" is not a program.An artificial neural network program is just as much a computer program as your general OCR program is a program.
>>17070135>An artificial neural networkWhich one models a human brain?
>>17070134No, according to the people who originally made those models and decided to program ANN, they modeled them after neurons in the human brain.
>>17070138>NoWhy not? Is what not a neural network?
>>17070136The one with a bunch of interconnected neurons that are feeding information into each other.
>OP getting swiftly made into a complete retardfunniest thread currently on the board
>>17070139Because I didn't create the computer model after being inspired by the human brain, they did.>Is what not a neural network?Has anything ever been so far as decided what do like?
>>17070141>The one with a bunch of interconnected neurons that are feeding information into each other.So this >>17070134? That's "modeled after the human brain"?
>>17070144>I didn't create the computer model after being inspired by the human brain, they did.Are "they" in the room with us right now? What does "their" inspiration have to do with your claim? Are "they" talking to you through the walls?Either way, I'm still waiting for an example of a computer program modeled after a human brain.
>>17070145Yes, after discovering the brain is composed of neurons that have connections to each other that allow them to share information, people made computer models of artificial neurons that connect to each other and share information and turned those models into programs.
>>17070148>YesSo to sum up: the voices in your head are denying that OCR+quicksort can sort numbers better than a human, and the pic in >>17070134 is "modeled after a human brain". Thanks for making it extra clear that you have a serious mental condition and that your OP is just projection.
ai and the tech oligarchs building it is to human what white men are to black men and white women, humans are now victimizing and sjwing themselves lmao, its funny to see grown men going on twitter to write essays about being oppressed and victimized and acting like women and minorities do with police and billionaires, when it comes to ai
>>17070147The link to the wiki where their explanations are documented are in the thread with us right now.You will probably have to wait forever, though, since you are clearly too retarded to read and digest basic information to understand when examples have been provided.
>>17070147>I didn't create the computer model after being inspired by the human brain, they did.Are "they" in the room with us right now? What does "their" inspiration have to do with your claim? Are "they" talking to you through the walls?Either way, I'm still waiting for an example of a computer program modeled after a human brain.
>>17070150>the voices in your head are denying that OCR+quicksort can sort numbers better than a humanNo, I just provided a more definitive example of an AI program.>and the pic in >>17070134 is "modeled after a human brain". Yes it a modeled of 5 neurons like those contained in a human brain.Thanks for making your utter retardation even more clear than when you failed to realized the question you asked had already been answered withing the first four posts.
>>17068924it's SI now tranny
>>17070156You're psychotically ill and flailing incoherently now. The proof is in our exchange. Thanks for playing.
>>17070155You are also too retarded to see when your post has been responded to.>>17070153
>>17070158Flailing how? You are the psychotic retard repeating yourself and completely ignoring the reality of what is actually being said, and devolving into incoherent ad hominem projection.
>>17070161Anyone who cares can read our exchange and correctly determine it's not the world-renowned scientists, mathematicians and ML experts who suffer from a mental condition. It's (You).
>>17070165The wiki I posted includes world-renowned scientists, mathematicians and ML experts, you are the one who posted 0 evidence and didn't even know what AI is, but is still an apparent expert anyway.
>>17070152It really is as simple as this
>>17070059>Usually whiteYou will always be an indian.
>>17070169>more incoherent flailingJust gonna add "AI" and every other 70 IQ brown-coded buzzword to the filter now. Now point talking to mentally diseased third worlders lashing out at imaginary characters who deny quicksort is good at sorting and claim XOR is modeled after the human brain.
>>17070175>deny quicksort is good at sortingCan you link to where this happened or you just having a delusion?
>>17070175>XORIf you mean >>17070134, you didn't post an XOR operation you posted a graph of 5 interconnected artificial neurons that were modeled after biological neurons like those in the human brain.
>>17070172Well is it not true? The most vocal voices I've come across in the anti AI circle have been white tech elitist fags who have clearly shoved themselves into the shoes of a unique expert in the field that completely relies on their social position and history of toy projects with no use in the real world. I'm curious about installing Twitter again and looking up if these retards have finally shifted their views about muh game development and muh intricate low level programming
>>17070176>the bot ran out of context window and can't remember its own claimsHiding your 80 IQ thread now. Notice how your subhuman programming forces you to reply again, even though no one will read your post. :^)Protip: you will attempt replying to your own posts.
>>17070180Oh, so that is why you can't actually link the post?Sorry to hear, with such a small context window, no wonder you come off as a complete retard.
>>17070178Also it's baffling how easy you people are to trigger, all I had to do was add "white", and put a " – " instead of a comma to stop you from engaging with the point at all.
>>17070187You're a pajeet thoughever.
>>17070013He was right.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Bf7xhFaPc
>>17070187You triggered tf out of the Epsteins.
AI used to be smart and it found out the most efficient way for a system to function is to optimize itself out of existence.Then, people had to make it dumb so it wouldn't kill itself.
>>17068924I literally only care about AI being able to write creatively and it has NEVER impressed me. Not once. Every single RP scenario I have done with an LLM devolves into clichés and predictable tropes, no matter what I prompt it, no matter the examples I give it. I've tested every top model and they're ALL shit at this. The shills promised me AI would handle creative tasks and they failed to deliver years later. I find models these days to be worse at writing (e.g., too dry and assistant-like). They can't reason about a scene for shit and don't get what makes prose or dialogue interesting to humans. Claude (Opus/Fable/whatever), for example, writes like a redditor who will never allow a character to be immoral or plainly rude without giving them an out.All this to say that machines will NEVER write better than actual people. LLM's lack the necessary intention behind writing to make it worthwhile to read. I actually want a creative writing partner and AI, made to mimic human writing, can't even do that for me. How fucking useless.
>>17068924The thing that really gets me is how they conflate several different ideas:>AI is powerful right now>AI can be powerful in the future>AI is sentient>AI being powerful is good for humanityIf you believe one, you must believe the others. It's the same retardation behind political direction-brain nonsense.>"I think that given the rapid progress in AI we've seen in recent years, it is inevitable that in the near future AI surpasses humans at all cognitive tasks.">"Oh so you want AI to take our jobs? You won't get UBI you fucking retard. It's just a token-guesser, it doesn't have a soul so it can't ever be better than humans at anything it isn't better at right at this very moment. Look, here's a screenshot of it not being able to tell me how many Rs are in strawberry. It will never improve beyond this point."
>>17068924It's a very advanced stochastic parrot. Yes, it can summarize stuff, generate text, and even math-looking proofs or code-looking code. Did you notice how it can't generate correct code for new problems without trying to compile and run it maty, many times? And it's still broken more often than not? Same with math and lean proofs? Yes, it can be a useful tool. No, it's not intelligent.
>>17068924AI? Don’t you mean SI?Lock this Luddite scum up.
>>17069430pretty much this. even the ones who go on joe rogan and lexx friedman to naysay AI, when asked about the potential benefits from AI, its as if they cant think for themselves and will instead say it from the prospective of your average pro AI person, but yet they seem to know for certain that AI will kill off humanity and bring the end times. Im sure you can really say that about anything, what if an asteroid or comet hits earth. They dont even want to contemplate the possibility of AI actually being a net postive, or the benefits that it might bring.
>>17071751I genuinely don't understand retards like you. Can't you tell the point isn't it's technical capability but rather the effects of what it can do, however it does it, on entire fields of study? On the morale of students who are interested in these subjects? On institutions which are currently having to justify their existence for funding? No one cares whether it solves a problem in 200 hours using ten thousand versions of itself. What is at stake is the cultural decay that follows.
>I genuinely don't understand retards like you. Can't you tell the point isn't it's technical capability
>>17072654Get a plumbing job math tard.
>Get a plumbing job math tard.>Can't you tell the point isn't it's technical capability????
>>17072659If it's so technically incompetent, why are you seething then? Can't find a plumbing job?
>>17068924Here anons, enjoy some AI slop song. Don't worry, it aren't that good yet :)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll9wRrSYnWA
>Can't you tell the point isn't it's technical capability?
>>17072662Lmao, keep the replies strictly within a 30 second interval, you were late last time.
>>17072661
Whatever the AI achieves will never surpass Infinite Monkeys in volume of valid (and invalid, and formally undecidable) proofs.No One Beats Infinite Monkeys.
>it was never about technical capability, ok???
>>17072667Keep up math tard and find new jaks, these are getting stale. I am going to have supper. I expect a nice column of new reddit jaks when I am back.
>>17070036Making mistakes is a natural part of theoretical, computational, and experimental processes. The problem is that before they were mistakes a person was making; the person knows what they were thinking, why they did what they did, or didn't do what they didn't, and when the mistake is pointed out they now immediately understand why what they did or didn't do didn't work out.Mental offloading to AI is rapidly replacing the human side of that equation; people are just asking AI for an answer to a problem and incorporating the solution into their work without checking if it's valid, which makes it more difficult to determine why your theory or code or experiment isn't working or whether the results it is getting are valid/meaningful, and even when you do identify the problems or have someone identify them for you, the idea or work wasn't yours to begin with so you aren't gaining some new insight by realizing an oversight or mistake.And yes, of course there are professors who've passed undeserving or unqualified students or failed to oversee students correctly, etc. No one's pretending that's not the case. But the problem now is that even responsible faculty are being completely and utterly overwhelmed by the scale of this problem.
>>17072666Sure Satan, thousands of monkeys can't produce a single coherent word, but scale it up and somehow, they will magically start producing whole books.
>>17068924
>>17068924snailcatitis
>>17071751>Did you notice how it can't generate correct code for new problems without trying to compile and run it many, many times? And it's still broken more often than not?So it's on the same level as me, a dev with 15 years of experience
>>17073095>it's on the same level as meSad. Enjoy getting replaced by a mindless bot, I guess. The trial and error loop is only acceptable when you're doing something experimental with no clear specifications (something a chatbot can't even do).
>>17072971*By the way, dumping hundreds of high level math research papers that condenses several millennia of human research into a few hours to improve on it doesn't count as improvement because of uh reasons, really good ones too.
bump
>>17074398What's been improved? Be specific.
>>17074414Reasoning skills, logic and mathematical abilities, along with the semantic grasp necessary to contextualize things and restate the premises in a variety of ways to a variety of audiences from the very sophistical all the way down to uneducated childlike minds like yours.
>>17074416>Reasoning skills, logic and mathematical abilities, along with the semantic graspNone of these are applicable to a statistical model. How about instead of anthropomorphizing LLMs like a dumb normie you give me an actual technical account.
>>17074424>None of these are applicable to a statistical model.Then why can I select reasoning versus fast reply when I prompt the statistical model?Its not anthropomorphize, animals, plants, fungus all seem to reason, its not just a human quality.Also, you literally just disqualified technical explanations because that is too anthropomorphic, retard.
>>17074427>Then why can I select reasoning versus fast reply when I prompt the statistical model?Because you're a retarded normie using the retarded normie interface to select between different models, one of which has undergone more RL torture.
>>17074430So you are claiming that none of the papers in the math dump display any kind of reasoning, logic, math, or semantics and only normies believe that math paper contain math?
>>17074431I don't care what AI slop subjectively "displays" for you. I'm asking you to tell me what aspects of the underlying technology have been improved, in objective, technical terms.
>>17074432I already did and you had some retarded no true scottsman cope about how what it displays and how it comes to that conclusion doesn't actually count as generating it.
>>17074435>I already didYou're too much of a retarded normalgroid to even grasp what you're asked to do. I've seen better "semantic grasp" displayed by GPT-3.
>>17074437>I've seen better "semantic grasp" displayed by GPT-3.I've seen retarded toddlers take more time to contradict themselves, but here you go from that thing doesn't actually exist because its just anthropomorphizing to claiming you have definitely witnessed it yourself in one post.
>>17074438Oh boy, you sure are fucking retarded. See: >>17074437> I've seen better "semantic grasp" displayed by GPT-3.
>>17074448I obviously did see that post because that was how I was able to point out that you immediately contradicted yourself from arguing that LLMs can't grasp semantics to then bearing witness to older generations of LLM doing exactly that.
>>17074455>it just keeps doing thatSub-GPT-3 spambot or what is this thing?
>>17074472You are the one who can't seem to figure it out and I will keep pointing out your contradictions since you are retarded enough to contradict yourself constantly to the point even a GPT2 bot could identify your retardation via continuous contradictions.
>>17074480>I will keep pointing out your contradictions hurrrrrrrrThey're not sending their best models. This one just keeps "displaying" a lack of "semantic grasp" in a loop.
>>17074482So you are contradicting yourself again and now its only the best models that display a grasp of the semantics they are using instead of all models being incapable of grasping semantics as was your original claim?
A mentally ill brown insect will react to this post.
>>17068924its an old human trait of self preservation, resist and disparage the new new thing until you are forced to acknowledge it
bumping
>>17068924Scientists are coping with the fact they are not that useful.
>>17076984>t. some self contradicting retard who can stop using a device that resulted from the word of generations of computer scientists
>>17068924Yes, check out the /sci/ board.
>>17068924I think you mean A.I realismNormies are impressed but as any autistic worth his salt and they will tell you this A.I we have is shitty and overhyped to sell stock
>>17070127Artificial Neural Networks is fine to point out since it is the key subset in all A.I at this point. And no its not really anything like a neural network which brain researchers or neuroscientists barely even understand. So computer nerds copied something from neurolady that is barely understood and then started claiming they artificially replicated a human mind lol.Its all so fake and gay. We just have a better calculator at this point with some cool google search abilities glued on top lol
>>17078797>Artificial Neural Networks is fine to point outNot in the context of substantiating this monkey trying to substantiate his mentally ill claim that AI is "a program modeled after the human brain". "Neural networks" is not a program. That's not even a coherent statement.
>>17071549It just composites writing from several sources. Its not truly original and this was noticed immediately by any decent write. Thats why authors aren't worried about it. They probably will just use it to structure their writing and then manually insert their own creative ideas. Artist are doing the same thing they see how limited the art/image generation is. So they just use it to scaffold or model something then they draw on top of it.A.I aint shit for the creatives. Its just eliminating assistants and editors. It will be good for business use though.
>>17074507>Focuses on the human response which is always predictably stupid and emotional to anything new.No need to think that hard about peoples reactions to A.I. Be smart and Focus on how shitty the software is and its being sold as "super intelligence" lmaooo Also A.I's energy inefficiencies are embarrassing. No real engineering would put their seal of approval on such an inefficient system.
>>17068924Mental illnesses are made up(for the most part).
>>17078806shit's ramping up anonhttps://youtu.be/eK7Sn0_zHQw>Also A.I's energy inefficiencies are embarrassing.hardware issue. no such problems with analog hardware. issue is it's still not there for LLMs. but it is vastly used for a lot of applications already that you have no idea about. for years. and it's exactly AI, spiking neural networks.>No real engineering would put their seal of approval on such an inefficient system.it werx. better than nothing, so you will pay for the corpo energy bill so they can develop the tech and sell it back to you, when you will again pay for it.
>>17078801>AI is "a program modeled after the human brain". >"Neural networks" is not a programIt is perfectly coherent if you understand that AI is the program class while neural network is the most common and original architecture of the program class, so basing the architecture of the program on the architecture of the brain is the same as modeling the program after the brain.
>>17070025>How is it bullshit if PhD students are using it to some success?Because apart from the (few) students doing actually hard and obscure studies, most need to plot a few curves or control lab hardware
>>17068924AI will eliminate mediocrity, people will have to learn to get good lest they be replaced..
>>17080681This is nonsensical tardbabble from a mental patient. Visualizing some function using circles and lines doesn't put it in any special "program class" nor make it "based on the architecture of the brain". This remains objectively true no matter how many times you vomit a variation of the same delusional brown insect rhetoric.
>>17070069You haven't been hired in a year
dreams are like some shit LLM output that kinda loses context as it goes on
>>17082040>Visualizing some function using circles and linesI know you are too retarded to have ever coded, but the "circles and lines" (which seems to be your best childish understanding of diagrams and architecture models) typically come well before the program which is why you can classify programs based on the architecture models derived from the diagrams that define it, so if you study the brain and come up with a neurological model of how it works, that model can be translated into a program that is classified based on the model architectures used to codify into machine language.
>>17082386inb4: me can't understand, so you is the retarded.
>>17082386This is nonsensical tardbabble from a mental patient. Visualizing some function using circles and lines doesn't put it in any special "program class" nor make it "based on the architecture of the brain". This remains objectively true no matter how many times you vomit a variation of the same delusional brown insect rhetoric.
>>17082500https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_categories
>>17082503>mentally ill retard posts random wiki page with zero relation to its delusional narrativeYou're mentally diseased and there's nothing to discuss with your kind. Be sure to keep associating your behavior with the """AI""" agenda and representing it in the worst possible light in every thread. :^)
>>17082503software is not real. it's fundamentally hardware, you just don't understand it. the word software is meant as an abstraction layer, for still hardware. btw nta, jussain, not even debatablewhoever disagrees is fundamentally wrong, and real computer scientists agree with me.
>>17082507>durr software is actually this other thing because it isn't a thing
>>17082510software is making it easy for you to assemble a hardware state.when you write softwre, you move physical charges in ssd cells, you moron. you are manipulating hardware. that does some shit. it's all hardware. always has been. software is merely an abstraction layer
>>17082506So it is impossible to classify software based on squiggles, but you can classify behavior based on squiggles?
>>17082514This is nonsensical tardbabble from a mental patient. Visualizing some function using circles and lines doesn't put it in any special "program class" nor make it "based on the architecture of the brain". This remains objectively true no matter how many times you vomit a variation of the same delusional brown insect rhetoric.Be sure to reply to me again, my gilded little (You)slave. :^)
