Actually I can, language is fluid and changes and develops all the time, it is entirely possible for the definitions and colloquial understanding of words and terms to change and evolve as technology, science and society evolves.

And the whole point was that the term AI is useless as a term when it describes basically every computer script in existence. At that point, “AI” is no longer it’s own term, and effectively just becomes a synonym for “script” or “program”, which removes any utility of using it in the first place.

I misphrased, I meant to say all learning/adaptive AI systems are matrix based.

Symbolic systems are hard coded, and can’t learn or adapt to new input data, they can exclusively handle inputs that were explicitly hard coded into the system. Symbolic AI systems also imo are a bit of a misnomer nowadays, as they kind of blur the line between AI and just any old programming script. Arguably any code that contains even a single “if” or “switch” statement to handle an external input is technically symbolic AI, which includes almost every type of script and program in existence, making the term somewhat useless. Input gender -> if gender = M: output “hello sir” else if gender = F: output “hello madam” else: output “hello” is a symbolic AI. and with the prevelance of trained AI nowadays, I wouldn’t really consider it useful or descriptive to call symbolic systems AI, as opposed to just calling them a script/program.

Though that doesn’t invalidate my general point. If you’re upset about calling a complex matrix network AI because it’s “just matrices” then Symbolic systems would be even less “worthy” of that term, they’re just a list of “if else” statements. So my general point still stands, by OPs standards, literally nothing could ever be called AI, even a perfect simulation of an entire human brain with true artificial consciousness wouldn’t be worthy of the term “AI” by OPs logic.

Literally ALL (modern) AI is just fancy matrices. That’s what the word AI means, and has been used for for several decades. Even a hypothetical True/General AI would be just be a wildly complex Matrix system.

In a way, the human brain is literally just an extremely fancy network of neurons that is mathematically a matrix system.

Getting upset at the term AI because “it’s just matrices” is “old man yells at clouds” level of discourse

Jo, weil die Strategie gegen die Linken zu arbeiten anstatt gegen die AfD hat der CDU ja grandiose Wahlergebnisse geleistet. Am besten noch weiter so.

Auch super Demokratisches Verhalten, zu versuchen eines der Wahlversprechen einer demokratischen Partei illegal zu machen, damit falls die Bürger Demokratisch entscheiden dass sie das wollen, die Regierung es bloß nicht machen kann.

Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.

But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?

If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.

It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.

So where’s the line ?

I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn’t the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.

Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.

You’re all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it’s no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can’t accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.

If nothing else you can be damn fucking sure they won’t even attempt to fulfil wishes that constitute straight up crimes (such as exposing yourself to a minor).

As for everything else, they probably don’t have any super specific rules beyond that, what tthey likely have some kind of genericly vague, vibes based, catch all term that “wishes have to be in good faith and good taste”