Oh, was not aware of this… (It’s also embarrassing considering that I’m a CS student. We haven’t reached the AI credits yet, but still…). Anyway, thank you for the info! And yeah, the buzzwords part does indeed suck! Whenever I tried to learn more about the topic, I was indeed bombarded by the Elon Musk techbro spam on YouTube. But whatever, I don’t have THAT long to get to these credits. Sooo wish me luck ;)
AI IS NOT IF ELSE STATEMENTS. AI learns and adapts to its surroundings by learning. It stored this learnt data into “weights” in accordance with its stated goal. This is what “intelligence” refers to.
Edit: I was wrong lmao. As the commentators below pointed out, “AI” in the context of computer science is a term that has been defined in the industry long before. Where I went wrong was in taking the definition of “intelligence” and slapping “artificial” before it. Therefore while the literal definition might be similar to mine, it is different in CS. Also, @blotz even provided something called “Expert Systems”, which are a subset of AI that use if-then statements. Soooo yeah… My point doesn’t stand.
Fair. However, as a title, it is essentially just a string of words that collectively act as a noun, or a name for the given face of the stone. Names being names can never be right or wrong. Hence, we all are wrong for trying to judge whether this string of words is right or wrong as it is semantically impossible for it to be right or wrong. By pointing this out, I am right and you are all wrong.
It isn’t, because “nothing” isn’t put in quotation marks like I or u have. Quotation marks indicate literality which would be required in this interpretation. So no, the absence of quotation marks makes this statement contradictory and hence, wrong.
Your reading comprehension and understanding of English vocabulary is about on par with your lemmy account age.
Are you really trying to discredit someone else’s argument by using their “lemmy age”? Like… are you trying very hard to be this guy?
Now I’ll still assume that your argument is in good faith and respond accordingly. So let’s recap.
The post listed the inefficiencies of electric cars besides ICE cars. The underlying message was that electric cars only solve a very very small problem that ICE cars have, but still possess most of the issues of ICE cars. Hence, we need a much better alternative (trains, wink wink).
To this, you replied saying that this community unfairly criticized car owners. According to you, the infrastructure is the biggest one to blame rather than car owners. Which I would only partially agree (as most car owners still support car centric infrastructure). Of course, if there’s not train in your city, you can’t ride one! But you definitely can lobby for one. Your implicit biases against this community due to those one or two crazy posts skewed your perception in weird ways.
This post is most definitely directed at the tech bros (or the Tesla fanboys), according to whom the solution for GHG emissions from the transportation sector is electric cars. I hope that you agree that this is a dumb argument. This post merely makes fun of this argument. This community is not a monolith, you know… It is thus very important to take the context of every post within itself.
You could’ve argued against/for this idea. Instead, you put up something weird and irrelevant like “this community is dumb for blaming car owners”. You might be right, but it just diverts away from the topic of discussion. Why not create your own post explaining your position? It’s like going to a post saying “We need to increase the minimum wage” on a lefty community and commenting “but the lefties are commies”. This MIGHT be true, but it is not at all relevant to the discussion itself, is it?
Ur comment is irrelevant to this post, as this post is merely talking about the inefficiencies of electric cars. It has not even mentioned the humans driving these cars. Had that been the case, your comment would’ve been relevant.
This post is an attempt to dispel the myth that electric cars are somehow better than ICE cars. Do you see why your comment is dumb?