hera

Well you are doing a poor job of it and are bringing an unnecessary amount of heat to an otherwise civil discussion

Haha wtf are you talking about. You have no idea what generation I am, you don't know how old I am and I never said there is nothing new under the sun.

You seem to think that one day somebody invented the first language, or made the first song?

There was no "first language" and no "first song". These things would have evolved from something that was not quite a full language, or not quite a full song.

Animals influenced the first cave painters, that seems pretty obvious.

No... There are a lot of radio shows that get scientists to speak.

Haha coming in hot I see. Seems like I've touched a nerve. You don't know anything about me or whether I'm creative in any way.

All ideas have basis in something we have experienced or learned. There is no completely original idea. All music was influenced by something that came before it, all art by something the artist saw or experienced. This doesn't make it bad and it doesn't mean an AI could have done it

What do you mean what do I mean? You were the one that said about ideas in the first place...

I am more talking about listening to and reading scientists in media. The definition of consciousness is vague at best

Maybe 10k of them slobbering all of you might not be good then

What new idea exactly are you proposing?

This is always my point when it comes to this discussion. Scientists tend to get to the point of discussion where consciousness is brought up then start waving their hands and acting as if magic is real.

Thanks, I hate it

Philosophers are so desperate for humans to be special. How is outputting things based on things it has learned any different to what humans do?

We observe things, we learn things and when required we do or say things based on the things we observed and learned. That's exactly what the AI is doing.

I don't think we have achieved "AGI" but I do think this argument is stupid.