TheBLindwatchmaker said:

Hello all, This is my first opening post and it's more of a passing though which I imagined could be of interest in the form of healthy debate.

Since joining I've read a lot regarding AI (artificial intelligence), And it made me ponder, Could it be potential a major threat to the world religions, Or could the opposite be the case?

Allow me to expand on this, A fully fledged AI could potential access all human knowledge, from ancient documents to scientific reports.
I would then imagine it could easily disprove theistic claims, myths and susperstitions (or in the interests of intellectual honesty, prove the case of theism).

Would in the scenario of it proving all religions as being fundermentally wrong, spell the end of the worlds major religions? I doubt it would ever entirely rid our planet of them, but perhaps lessen their popularity amongst the masses and remove all credability from them as well?

Or, Would the inevitable threat lead to AI having its 'plug' pulled, for lack of a better description?

We have already seen this happen when facebook's AI was shut down after it independantly developed its own language.

Again, I just thought it would be interesting discussion, there is no factual claim here.

1.) No, Facebook didn't shut down an AI program in a panic -- here's what really happened.

2.) Theists may view Ai as the anti-christ, or mark of the beast from revelations 13.

Chimp3 said:
The average christian mega-church puts Goebbels to shame in it's power to manipulate. I think they will incorporate AI with ease.

Those Churches are already using Ai today. Google search, google now, cortana, siri, some hospital equipment etc use artificial neural networks.

Aposteriori Unum said:

@programmingGodJordan
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you drunk?

Your posts all seem very disconnected. Are you just being weird on purpose?

Could you care to elaborate?

For starters, you said:
"Those Churches are already using Ai today. Google search, google now, cortana, siri, some hospital equipment etc use artificial neural networks."

What are they using it for? How are they using it? Where are your sources? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As for your other posts you don't seem to be making points. You have simply contradicted things that people said for the sake of being contradictory.

Your response to theblindwatchmaker was missing the point he was making, whether you did that on purpose or not. He called you disingenuous because the response was to something he didn't say.
Your response to myckob4 was a simple contradiction of what he was saying and the purpose of it is not clear. If you know more about AI post some links to a journal or something. Saying: "your words are wrong" and that there is a computer doing this or that gets you nowhere... By all means point out where people went wrong, but two things you should keep in mind: if it's a matter of factual information, provide the facts. And when you do, make a point relevant to what the discussion is about and to what the person said.

Helpful tips:
1)make your points clear and your position known.
2)Stay relevant to the topic.
3)Make sure that you are responding to the point they are actually making (ask for clarification if necessary.)
4)Avoid making assertions without anything to back them up.
5)Avoid arguing for the sake of argument.
6)Don't be afraid to agree with something an opponent says if you happen to agree with a particular point. (You get no extra points for disagreeing with every last word. Be an interlocutor, not an antagonist.)

Keep these things in mind and you will find yourself in a much better position in the end.

Note: this topic doesn't interest me. It is speculative and aimless (no offence blind watchmaker), but for the sake of a good conversation I made my objection.

1.) I don't detect the relevance of your remark above; for I tend to provide sources as I did to TheBlindWatchmaker, and as you may see in most of my responses elsewhere. (In fact, in most of my exchanges, I am the only being to source my expressions with evidence. Most tend to blather on absent evidence!)

2.) It is still demonstrable that what TheBlindWatchmaker said, could have been trivially misinterpreted, and thus I had simply responded with a URL with the entire context....

3.) That machine learning algorithms exceed or equal humans in particular cognitive tasks, is not hidden.

4.) I advise that you be keen to follow the very tips you expressed, as they better apply as methods to correct your irrelevant response style.

5.) You would have to be blind to miss that churches use things such as google search! (Does that need clarification?)

Aposteriori Unum said:

"I advise that you be keen to follow the very tips you expressed, as they better apply as methods to correct your irrelevant response style."

First of all, your response to what I said was basically a "tu quoque" fallacy.

The point is that at first, in response to theblindwatchmaker you commited the "ignoratio elenchi" fallacy... Missing the point.

And,
" You would have to be blind to miss that churches use things such as google search! (Does that need clarification?)"
Yes it does. That's another fallacy called: ipse dixit. Or the bare assertion fallacy.

Watchmaker was of the idea that AI was getting pretty good, something people may have to look out for. The specific details are npt important. You disagreed with him.

1.) That remark of yours is demonstrably nonsensical. (In fact, I specify a mathematical history underlining the fact that machine learning models have improved as time passed. See my model, the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network")

2.) As I had prior mentioned, I simply provided a url that expressed the whole context, pertaining to a particular remark TheBlindWatchmaker had made:

The BindWachmaker said:
We have already seen this happen when facebook's AI was shut down after it independantly developed its own language.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
No, Facebook didn't shut down an AI program in a panic -- here's what really happened.

Aposteriori Unum said:

That is what I meant by " make your position clear" and "be an interlocutor, not an antagonist"

Make your points, you may well be right. I don't care. The tips were to help you. And they were very general.

As I said before, the tips are better appropriate to correct your faulty, ignorant remarks.

Flamenca said:

ProgrammingGodJordan... I've read this thread three times, and I really can't tell what is your position on the issue for sure. You also use very unreliable sources as Business Insider for supporting your assertions. A scientific mind, as you seem to claim yours is, should be humble above all. You should thank @Aposteriori for his accurate remarks about you.

1.) It is odd that you are unsure of the content or sources cited in my response (all of which reference valid scientific sources) and yet you proclaim that Aposteriori's ignorant comments are supposedly accurate.

2.) I detect that you ought to take your own humble advice.

@ProgrammingGodJordan.

1. @Aposteriori gained my respect a long time ago. You still need to do that.

Evidence may not be concerned with your respect for anybody.