I get the impression that you don’t understand how science actually works. Science is about examining the evidence, then making hypothesis, and testing them to see if they’re viable. Proof is never guaranteed in the scientific process, and it’s rarely definitive. Seems to me like you just wanted to bray about AI here without actually having anything to say.
And the assumption you must take through the entire process is scepticism. You assume you’re wrong and try to prove that. You look for holes in your theory and try to find any issues in those holes. I’m not seeing any attempts at that.
You literally just made up a baseless argument that the researchers aren’t doing due diligence. I’m skeptical of your thesis and I’m not seeing any attempt on your part to provide any supporting evidence for it.
And I’m reminding you over and over that it’s completely beside the point. I’m sure when they publish the research they will provide the reasoning for their hypothesis, and how they tested it. Then other researchers will examine their findings, and point out problems with the research if they exist. That’s how scientific process actually works.
I get the impression that you don’t understand how science actually works. Science is about examining the evidence, then making hypothesis, and testing them to see if they’re viable. Proof is never guaranteed in the scientific process, and it’s rarely definitive. Seems to me like you just wanted to bray about AI here without actually having anything to say.
And the assumption you must take through the entire process is scepticism. You assume you’re wrong and try to prove that. You look for holes in your theory and try to find any issues in those holes. I’m not seeing any attempts at that.
You literally just made up a baseless argument that the researchers aren’t doing due diligence. I’m skeptical of your thesis and I’m not seeing any attempt on your part to provide any supporting evidence for it.
From our conversation so far I’m not surprised.
Edit: I’m not claiming the proof doesn’t exist. I’m reminding you over and over that you and the researchers failed to provide it.
And I’m reminding you over and over that it’s completely beside the point. I’m sure when they publish the research they will provide the reasoning for their hypothesis, and how they tested it. Then other researchers will examine their findings, and point out problems with the research if they exist. That’s how scientific process actually works.
When they publish that feel free to tag me. Otherwise we don’t have anything to talk about.
This whole thread was just you trying to make a straw man.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
I’m sorry you felt the need to argue a point nobody was bringing up, and which added absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.