I dunno.. We got DNA on one hand
No, you DON'T have DNA on one hand. It has been explained to your ridiculously stupid face DOZENS of times that DNA DOES NOT HAVE A RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE. DNA CANNOT BE MUSLIM, JEWISH, CHRISTIAN OR ATHEIST.
YOUR DNA DOES NOT DETERMINE YOUR RELIGION. DOES THAT COMPUTE YOU FUCKING PATHETIC RETARD?
Ashkenazi Jews where named Jews by humans, not by science. The reason we named them Jews is because their culture is one that practices the religion Judaism. Your DNA doesn't know that humans decided to arbitrarily call your ethnic group Jews. You are a science denier and a fact hate
Well said. Of course, this does not need to be explained to people who are not fucking delusional.
Hello hater and science denier
NOBODY is going to take anything you say seriously when you begin your indefensible posts with baseless fucking slander.
The ONLY person who is denying science in this debate is YOU. It DEMONSTRABLY is you:-
The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women.
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-
Your DNA is not Semitic and you do not believe in God. Hence, you are not Jewish. PLEASE get it through your incredibly dense skull.
Thoughts?
My thoughts are that you are an intellectually redundant imbecile who is trying to sell a false premise through the use of a laughably weak example.
Perhaps you would care to explain how sending completed artwork off to be judged puts the creative process under pressure.
Investigative journalism isn’t supposed to be creative
Citation required. Perhaps you can pick one for us from your complete lack of practical experience as a journalist. You know literally nothing about journalism so perhaps you should simply stfu and stop packaging your own ignorant opinion as fact.
it’s supposed to be informative.
Creative and informative are not mutually exclusive terms you moron. Creativity is a skill required for all writing work, given that you have to CREATE IT.
Idiot.
The primary argument of the article is that machines lack a sense of meaning and/or intentionality.
Are you under the impression that nobody else can read?
But it’s conceivable that we could give this ability to machines.
Not according to the article.
Only a mind has intentionality, and intentionality is the hallmark of the mind.
But to believe that machines can think or that human thought is a kind of computation is a profound error. Belief in this fundamental error about AI will lead us away from, not toward, the truth about AI.
If an AI machine requires a material input to continue to function, and we program it to seek said input and avoid running out of it, then it will find meaning when observing sources of its input.
The article explains CLEARLY that you are wrong:-
The hallmark of human thought is meaning, and the hallmark of computation is indifference to meaning.
It is always the same game with you. Indecipherable gibberish backed up by a complete absence of any material evidence to support what you are saying. And that's when you're NOT directly contradicting what you claim to have read.
Hello again, science denier
Stop calling me a science denier when I am posting the science which proves you are wrong:-
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-
I didn’t tell the DNA guy that I was a fake Jew
If the "DNA guy" told you that your DNA is Jewish then he obviously isn't a real DNA guy, is he? DNA cannot be Jewish. Are you fucking retarded?
Just fuck off you imbecile.
Hello science deniers
You're a delusional fucking prick who ignores the science and then comes back by accusing the people who posted the science of being science deniers. This is something Amarel or bronto would do.
The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women.
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-
