You assume that you are at least a Beta not a Delta or a Gamma.
Any problems in the society described in "Brave New World" are constructs of the author to create conflict for the plot. The society as a whole is an example of a near Utopian society once to insert a more realistic form of genetic engineering and workplace automation. Once you add those there is no reason for the different classes.
I did use my first iPad quite a lot, but I think only because phones generally had under 4" screen sizes in the beginning. As soon as I got my Note 4, I hardly ever used my tablet. Eventually when I broke my iPad Air I didn't replace it and I haven't missed it. A phone at around 6" gives enough screen real estate for me to replicate the functionality of a tablet, and for anything else I use a tablet or desktop PC.
No, the Brexit polling was not so wrong. The latest Bloomberg polling had it at 46.2% remain and 44.3 leaves, both with a 1% margin of error and 9.6% undecided. That is statistically a tie. The current gap between Clinton and Trump is six times larger than the Brexit gap (based on on that one site; other sites differ). Certainly still not insurmountable, and even the quoted site gives Trump more than a 1 in 5 chance of winning, but certainly far more certain than any Brexit polling.
It already has worked. For example, Walgreens recently dumped the pilot they were doing with Theranos.
The free market wasn't responsible for that. Walgreens only dumped Theranos because of the government laws and regulations. It was a regulatory investigation of Theranos that discovered the issues.
My guess is the original poster meant that this government enforced punishment was unnecessary, not the regulations which found the misconduct. If that was the intent then I do agree with it. This does seem punitive and not that necessary. Now that the improper conduct was discovered I think the free market was able to prevent the behavior by simply no longer doing business with Theranos.
"That said, I don't think those forces have ever really been allowed to operate to their full extent, for a sufficient amount of time, outside of fictional accounts"
Is the word "monopoly" fictional? That is the end result of non-regulated market forces.
I'm not sure if there have ever been monopolies that existed without government forces helping out. The Dutch East India Company is probably the largest monopoly, for its day at least, and even it relied heavily on funding from multiple countries. It was the original "Too Big to Fail" corporation. Crony capitalism was also heavily involved in the formation of the large US corporations which eventually needed to be busted up over the past 150 years.
Perhaps if you allow crony capitalism to exist within your definition of a non-regulated market you are correct. But if not, I don't think we really have ever seen market forces play out in the way Adam Smith intended when he wrote his seminal work.
(FYI, even if we did see truly non-regulated markets I still think monopoly would be the result, I just don't think this has been sufficiently proven to be stated as fact)
Actually I thought he was replying to another post earlier in the thread, when the original author said his current card is a GTX 460. It was still my mistake though, and I am certain you are correct that the AC was referring to the RX 480.
Although the GTX 1060 will likely beat out the RX 480 in performance by about 40% based on videocardbenchmark.net figures, so its hard to consider that the best option right now. I mean it certainly is the better option today because the GTX 1060 is not released yet, but upon release the 1060 should win in value hands down.
A quick check of Newegg shows 4 different models of the 1070 in stock, and 2 different models of the 1080.
In all fairness those are not the versions of the 1070 you want to buy. None of the versions you want will be back in stock until July 16th, if Amazon's dates are correct. Still not that bad of a wait.
The 480 seems like a better deal than paying 25% more money for 15% more performance.
He did say he bought the 460, not the 480. And if he was comparing the 460 to the 570, which is most likely, it would have been 75% more money for 66% more performance. If the 560 had already been released, it would have been more like 10% more money for 18% more performance.
My bet was that he built the computer in early 2011 and was choosing the 460 over the 570. Based on price per performance they were about the same, but not everyone can pay close to $400 for a video card.
you could've bought a 970 at launch for maybe just $50 more two years ago and enjoyed 1060-level performance this whole time
The 970 was released at $329, over $100 more than the 1060. And based on how the 1070 performs with 75% of the 1080's cores, the 1060 should perform about 25% better than the 970. You should be comparing the 1060 to the 960, which was at the same price point, but in that case the 1060 will likely be about 80% faster. But he would have had to wait about 18 more months.
From what I can tell the 10xx line is the most impressive GPU upgrade in a long time. The new cards simply crush the last generation at the same price point. I waited about six months for this generation because of the hype and luckily reality matched the hype this time.
Yeah who knows what the prices of the cards were when you where choosing, although the GTX 560 did have the same $199 initial price as the GTX 460 (source). The 460 came out in July 2010 though while the 560 came out in May 2011, so you could certainly have been building that computer before the 560 came out. The 570 & 580 came out in Nov/Dec 2010, so those were probably the cards you had available to choose from at the time ($349/$499 respectively).
Although this does go to show that as soon as the newest card comes out at your price point, it is usually the best one to buy. Cards from previous generations rarely drop in price enough to justify purchasing them instead of the newest version. So you didn't really choose the previous generation because it became more economical upon release of the GTX 5xx line; the GTX 460 was just as good of a buy in August 2010 as it was in April 2011 (depending on how early they announced the GTX 560).
So if you buy the 1060 this time around, you are basically following the same logic you did last time. It's just that this time you are in the market to buy at the release date instead of six months later.
I think you misunderstood the poster, they buy the mid-tier price point 2 years after release, and its no longer release price after 2 years.
That is what I thought he meant, but I don't think the logic holds up. After 2 years the new $200 cards tend to beat the previous generation which drop in price to the same price point.
Take this example, where the 1060 will be priced at about $200. Lets say that the GTX 970 soon drops to the $200 price point (its around $280 now). Based on the 1080 & 1070, the 1060 will likely have a PCMark score of around 10850 (scores). Since the 970 has a score of 8658, there doesn't seem to be any logic in going with the last generation. Based on my possibly incorrect memory, this is usually if not always the case.
In the past for moderately priced gaming PCs i've always gone for the mid-tier option ($200ish) from the previous generation, but this sounds like a pretty good deal. Is this going to be the new gold standard for the mid-price range?
I had a very similar strategy in the past, although I'm curious why you go for previous generation cards? I have generally stuck with the $200ish option of the current generation, such as the 1060. I have never seen any appeal for going with cards from 1-2 years ago since they are generally outperformed by new cards at the same price point.
The total deaths in Teslas, per million vehicle miles is still lower than "average" my a large margin. So investigating deaths in a car unusually safe seems like a witch hunt and a waste of time.
I want driver-less cars as much as just about anybody, but to be fair there is not nearly enough data to show Tesla deaths per million vehicle miles are lower than average with any statistical significance. We would need to see billions of miles driven, perhaps tens of billions, before any statistically significant conclusions could be drawn.
Right now Verizon provides the best service of the four major carriers
That statement is completely false. I switched from Verizon to T-Mobile, (same comparable data plan but $70.00 cheaper a month) and my bandwidth and connectivity went up 10 fold.
You are either trolling or live in an area which is not representative of most of the country. There is no disputing Verizon has the best coverage, although there is more debate on which service is fastest. But no carrier is 10x faster than any other. In almost all cases the best and worst national provider will be within 20% of each other in any major city.
ROOT Metrics is a reliable third party company which compares wireless service between the four major carries. For Overall service in 125 metro areas, it gives 78 rewards to Verizon, 43 to AT&T, 29 to T-Mobile, and 5 to Sprint (it gives rewards to more than one provider in a tie).
I wonder how they're going to force a German company appear in courtin the US, hehe.
This is exactly why we have trade agreements with other countries, although I have no idea if our trade agreements with Germany or the EU specifically cover this case.
Why would the FTC stop this? Verizon has plenty of competition from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. Verizon and AT&T compete for customers who can pay for the best product, and T-Mobile / Sprint compete for more cost-conscious customers. Considering AT&T has a larger wireless market share than Verizon, I'm not sure how Verizon raising prices hurts consumers in an anti-competitive way.
Right now Verizon provides the best service of the four major carriers, and they charge a premium for that. I will stay a Verizon customer until another carrier gives faster data with better coverage, regardless of the price.
I'd say that almost every aspect of modern society rewards conscientiousness over creativity and we're moving ever faster in that direction.
I would disagree with this strongly. While a certain level of conscientiousness is obvious necessary, the people excelling in today's workforce are the skilled creatives, not conscientious worker bees. As technology improves and destroys / disrupts more professions this will become even more true.
The types of skills you mention are not ones being newly rewarded in our modern commercial society. They are the skills needed since the dawn of the industrial revolution, or perhaps even since civilization began. It is a very recent development in which many people are needed to do non-repetitive labor. It started in the last century, and continues to accelerate.
Computers are usually better at following orders than a human, so as technology improves its unlikely there will be many jobs for those who pride themselves on their conscientiousness instead of their creativity.
If you really wanted to ensure a solid influx of STEM university students a few years down the line [...] you'd make sure they get a solid grounding in the basics. You know, spelling, grammar, thinking...
It is even simpler than that. If you want a solid influx of STEM students, just increase research funding. If the US just matched the top country in R&D spending / GDP it would require $260 billion in extra R&D spending. That is stimulus spending I could get behind, even on borrowed money. A combination of tax breaks for US-based R&D spending and direct funding of University R&D would actually give incentives for students to pursue STEM careers.
There are around 10 million STEM related jobs in the US right now, making an average of $85,000 per year. If considered its own industry, it would be almost a trillion dollar industry. The spending mentioned above would increase its size by 25-30%, which would be seen in a combination of salary increases and a higher head count.
The US needs to put its money where its mouth is if it wants to compete in this STEM jobs race. There are ten countries beating the US in R&D spending / GDP which is not the way to win this war.
I don't really understand this. I live alone and don't have kids. I have to work for a living AND take care of the house. I guess if your partner is a slob it might be a lot of work. Or if you have some kind of massive frankenhouse. Or if you have kids.
There, fixed that so you see why your situation is probably different.
But I do agree any stay at home spouse with no kids at home is just taking early retirement with a few chores to do each day.
Women already dominate every measurable aspect of our education system from kindergarten to the doctoral level, and are nearly 2/3rds of college graduates. What more do you want? Just flat out banning men from going to school?
Fixing our schools to reward creativity, outside the box thinking, and risk taking instead of conformity and obedience will help fix both problems. Boys will do better in school, and girls will develop more skills which help them succeed in a modern workforce. Girls are not doing better in school because they are smarter, and boys aren't doing better in the workforce because they are smarter. There are certainly societal influences and possibly genetic influences guiding these differences in results, and we can at least do something about the societal influences.
Society as a whole will benefit when we no longer marginalize "disobedient" (re: free thinking) young boys and stop fostering our society's push for females to be "good little girls."
You can argue your definition is the default definition for AI researchers, but it's certainly not the common definition for anyone else, including tech nerds. For an example of how MOST people define it, you can look at any AI centric film made in the past 50 years. (A machine intelligence, that is to some degree self aware, and capable of communicating and making decisions) He even references HAL as an example AI in the article!
Point taken. I certainly had not taken into account the public definition which is certainly centered around HAL and Terminator. Tech nerds also often use this popular definition, although generally only ones who have a strong bias against the capabilities of AI systems. I would argue anyone in the tech industry who wants to at least appear knowledgeable in the field of AI should use the more "correct" industry definition (which includes strong and weak AI).
Claiming something isn't AI if it isn't conscious is a clear indicator you don't know what you are talking about (whether you are in IT or not).
Yeah, I'd agree. The problem is that science needs definitions.
True, but not every term needs such a narrow definition. It is okay for scientists to use words tall, or large, or fast, as long as the rest of the discussion provides enough context. If I just say I am looking at something large, then the word large is pretty useless. If I say I am looking at a large gas giant planet, I have given more context. I can probably have a scientific discussion describing my theory about large gas giant planets without giving an exact diameter range of 20,000 miles to 100,000 miles. Saying large gas giant planet is probably good enough.
Conversely, if I just say I work in AI, you certainly don't know if I am working on strong or weak AI. But if I say I work in AI trying to identify cat videos on Youtube, you probably don't need me to clarify that I'm not trying to create a conscious artificial being.
Science does need definitions for its terms, but these terms can have very wide definitions which are narrowed by context.
Umm... no. It would be in everybody's interest that these terms get defined precisely. We could start using acronyms [something that the corporate world is very fond of], so it would be WAI or SAI for you.
Sometimes the English language doesn't adhere to what is in everybody's interest. My description is how AI is defined and used both colloquially and in research. Do a quick Amazon search of the most popular AI textbooks (written by many of the lead researchers in the field) and see if they only discuss conscious machines or if they use a more broad definition of AI. That is far more definitive than two people arguing in an Internet forum.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that you are at least a Beta not a Delta or a Gamma.
Any problems in the society described in "Brave New World" are constructs of the author to create conflict for the plot. The society as a whole is an example of a near Utopian society once to insert a more realistic form of genetic engineering and workplace automation. Once you add those there is no reason for the different classes.
Which companies don't allow tablets onto their data plans? Do you just mean grandfathered unlimited plans?
I did use my first iPad quite a lot, but I think only because phones generally had under 4" screen sizes in the beginning. As soon as I got my Note 4, I hardly ever used my tablet. Eventually when I broke my iPad Air I didn't replace it and I haven't missed it. A phone at around 6" gives enough screen real estate for me to replicate the functionality of a tablet, and for anything else I use a tablet or desktop PC.
You realize why Brexit polling was so wrong?
No, the Brexit polling was not so wrong. The latest Bloomberg polling had it at 46.2% remain and 44.3 leaves, both with a 1% margin of error and 9.6% undecided. That is statistically a tie. The current gap between Clinton and Trump is six times larger than the Brexit gap (based on on that one site; other sites differ). Certainly still not insurmountable, and even the quoted site gives Trump more than a 1 in 5 chance of winning, but certainly far more certain than any Brexit polling.
The free market wasn't responsible for that. Walgreens only dumped Theranos because of the government laws and regulations. It was a regulatory investigation of Theranos that discovered the issues.
My guess is the original poster meant that this government enforced punishment was unnecessary, not the regulations which found the misconduct. If that was the intent then I do agree with it. This does seem punitive and not that necessary. Now that the improper conduct was discovered I think the free market was able to prevent the behavior by simply no longer doing business with Theranos.
"That said, I don't think those forces have ever really been allowed to operate to their full extent, for a sufficient amount of time, outside of fictional accounts"
Is the word "monopoly" fictional? That is the end result of non-regulated market forces.
I'm not sure if there have ever been monopolies that existed without government forces helping out. The Dutch East India Company is probably the largest monopoly, for its day at least, and even it relied heavily on funding from multiple countries. It was the original "Too Big to Fail" corporation. Crony capitalism was also heavily involved in the formation of the large US corporations which eventually needed to be busted up over the past 150 years.
Perhaps if you allow crony capitalism to exist within your definition of a non-regulated market you are correct. But if not, I don't think we really have ever seen market forces play out in the way Adam Smith intended when he wrote his seminal work.
(FYI, even if we did see truly non-regulated markets I still think monopoly would be the result, I just don't think this has been sufficiently proven to be stated as fact)
Actually I thought he was replying to another post earlier in the thread, when the original author said his current card is a GTX 460. It was still my mistake though, and I am certain you are correct that the AC was referring to the RX 480.
Although the GTX 1060 will likely beat out the RX 480 in performance by about 40% based on videocardbenchmark.net figures, so its hard to consider that the best option right now. I mean it certainly is the better option today because the GTX 1060 is not released yet, but upon release the 1060 should win in value hands down.
A quick check of Newegg shows 4 different models of the 1070 in stock, and 2 different models of the 1080.
In all fairness those are not the versions of the 1070 you want to buy. None of the versions you want will be back in stock until July 16th, if Amazon's dates are correct. Still not that bad of a wait.
The 480 seems like a better deal than paying 25% more money for 15% more performance.
He did say he bought the 460, not the 480. And if he was comparing the 460 to the 570, which is most likely, it would have been 75% more money for 66% more performance. If the 560 had already been released, it would have been more like 10% more money for 18% more performance.
My bet was that he built the computer in early 2011 and was choosing the 460 over the 570. Based on price per performance they were about the same, but not everyone can pay close to $400 for a video card.
you could've bought a 970 at launch for maybe just $50 more two years ago and enjoyed 1060-level performance this whole time
The 970 was released at $329, over $100 more than the 1060. And based on how the 1070 performs with 75% of the 1080's cores, the 1060 should perform about 25% better than the 970. You should be comparing the 1060 to the 960, which was at the same price point, but in that case the 1060 will likely be about 80% faster. But he would have had to wait about 18 more months.
From what I can tell the 10xx line is the most impressive GPU upgrade in a long time. The new cards simply crush the last generation at the same price point. I waited about six months for this generation because of the hype and luckily reality matched the hype this time.
Yeah who knows what the prices of the cards were when you where choosing, although the GTX 560 did have the same $199 initial price as the GTX 460 (source). The 460 came out in July 2010 though while the 560 came out in May 2011, so you could certainly have been building that computer before the 560 came out. The 570 & 580 came out in Nov/Dec 2010, so those were probably the cards you had available to choose from at the time ($349/$499 respectively).
Although this does go to show that as soon as the newest card comes out at your price point, it is usually the best one to buy. Cards from previous generations rarely drop in price enough to justify purchasing them instead of the newest version. So you didn't really choose the previous generation because it became more economical upon release of the GTX 5xx line; the GTX 460 was just as good of a buy in August 2010 as it was in April 2011 (depending on how early they announced the GTX 560).
So if you buy the 1060 this time around, you are basically following the same logic you did last time. It's just that this time you are in the market to buy at the release date instead of six months later.
I think you misunderstood the poster, they buy the mid-tier price point 2 years after release, and its no longer release price after 2 years.
That is what I thought he meant, but I don't think the logic holds up. After 2 years the new $200 cards tend to beat the previous generation which drop in price to the same price point.
Take this example, where the 1060 will be priced at about $200. Lets say that the GTX 970 soon drops to the $200 price point (its around $280 now). Based on the 1080 & 1070, the 1060 will likely have a PCMark score of around 10850 (scores). Since the 970 has a score of 8658, there doesn't seem to be any logic in going with the last generation. Based on my possibly incorrect memory, this is usually if not always the case.
In the past for moderately priced gaming PCs i've always gone for the mid-tier option ($200ish) from the previous generation, but this sounds like a pretty good deal. Is this going to be the new gold standard for the mid-price range?
I had a very similar strategy in the past, although I'm curious why you go for previous generation cards? I have generally stuck with the $200ish option of the current generation, such as the 1060. I have never seen any appeal for going with cards from 1-2 years ago since they are generally outperformed by new cards at the same price point.
I'm pretty sure that the "chump market" is way bigger than the 15% market share that Apple currently has.
True, they only have the chump with money market.
The total deaths in Teslas, per million vehicle miles is still lower than "average" my a large margin. So investigating deaths in a car unusually safe seems like a witch hunt and a waste of time.
I want driver-less cars as much as just about anybody, but to be fair there is not nearly enough data to show Tesla deaths per million vehicle miles are lower than average with any statistical significance. We would need to see billions of miles driven, perhaps tens of billions, before any statistically significant conclusions could be drawn.
Right now Verizon provides the best service of the four major carriers
That statement is completely false. I switched from Verizon to T-Mobile, (same comparable data plan but $70.00 cheaper a month) and my bandwidth and connectivity went up 10 fold.
You are either trolling or live in an area which is not representative of most of the country. There is no disputing Verizon has the best coverage, although there is more debate on which service is fastest. But no carrier is 10x faster than any other. In almost all cases the best and worst national provider will be within 20% of each other in any major city.
ROOT Metrics is a reliable third party company which compares wireless service between the four major carries. For Overall service in 125 metro areas, it gives 78 rewards to Verizon, 43 to AT&T, 29 to T-Mobile, and 5 to Sprint (it gives rewards to more than one provider in a tie).
I wonder how they're going to force a German company appear in courtin the US, hehe.
This is exactly why we have trade agreements with other countries, although I have no idea if our trade agreements with Germany or the EU specifically cover this case.
Why doesn't the FTC stop this?
Why would the FTC stop this? Verizon has plenty of competition from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. Verizon and AT&T compete for customers who can pay for the best product, and T-Mobile / Sprint compete for more cost-conscious customers. Considering AT&T has a larger wireless market share than Verizon, I'm not sure how Verizon raising prices hurts consumers in an anti-competitive way.
Right now Verizon provides the best service of the four major carriers, and they charge a premium for that. I will stay a Verizon customer until another carrier gives faster data with better coverage, regardless of the price.
I'd say that almost every aspect of modern society rewards conscientiousness over creativity and we're moving ever faster in that direction.
I would disagree with this strongly. While a certain level of conscientiousness is obvious necessary, the people excelling in today's workforce are the skilled creatives, not conscientious worker bees. As technology improves and destroys / disrupts more professions this will become even more true.
The types of skills you mention are not ones being newly rewarded in our modern commercial society. They are the skills needed since the dawn of the industrial revolution, or perhaps even since civilization began. It is a very recent development in which many people are needed to do non-repetitive labor. It started in the last century, and continues to accelerate.
Computers are usually better at following orders than a human, so as technology improves its unlikely there will be many jobs for those who pride themselves on their conscientiousness instead of their creativity.
If you really wanted to ensure a solid influx of STEM university students a few years down the line [...] you'd make sure they get a solid grounding in the basics. You know, spelling, grammar, thinking ...
It is even simpler than that. If you want a solid influx of STEM students, just increase research funding. If the US just matched the top country in R&D spending / GDP it would require $260 billion in extra R&D spending. That is stimulus spending I could get behind, even on borrowed money. A combination of tax breaks for US-based R&D spending and direct funding of University R&D would actually give incentives for students to pursue STEM careers.
There are around 10 million STEM related jobs in the US right now, making an average of $85,000 per year. If considered its own industry, it would be almost a trillion dollar industry. The spending mentioned above would increase its size by 25-30%, which would be seen in a combination of salary increases and a higher head count.
The US needs to put its money where its mouth is if it wants to compete in this STEM jobs race. There are ten countries beating the US in R&D spending / GDP which is not the way to win this war.
I don't really understand this. I live alone and don't have kids. I have to work for a living AND take care of the house. I guess if your partner is a slob it might be a lot of work. Or if you have some kind of massive frankenhouse. Or if you have kids.
There, fixed that so you see why your situation is probably different.
But I do agree any stay at home spouse with no kids at home is just taking early retirement with a few chores to do each day.
Women already dominate every measurable aspect of our education system from kindergarten to the doctoral level, and are nearly 2/3rds of college graduates. What more do you want? Just flat out banning men from going to school?
Fixing our schools to reward creativity, outside the box thinking, and risk taking instead of conformity and obedience will help fix both problems. Boys will do better in school, and girls will develop more skills which help them succeed in a modern workforce. Girls are not doing better in school because they are smarter, and boys aren't doing better in the workforce because they are smarter. There are certainly societal influences and possibly genetic influences guiding these differences in results, and we can at least do something about the societal influences.
Society as a whole will benefit when we no longer marginalize "disobedient" (re: free thinking) young boys and stop fostering our society's push for females to be "good little girls."
You can argue your definition is the default definition for AI researchers, but it's certainly not the common definition for anyone else, including tech nerds. For an example of how MOST people define it, you can look at any AI centric film made in the past 50 years. (A machine intelligence, that is to some degree self aware, and capable of communicating and making decisions) He even references HAL as an example AI in the article!
Point taken. I certainly had not taken into account the public definition which is certainly centered around HAL and Terminator. Tech nerds also often use this popular definition, although generally only ones who have a strong bias against the capabilities of AI systems. I would argue anyone in the tech industry who wants to at least appear knowledgeable in the field of AI should use the more "correct" industry definition (which includes strong and weak AI).
Claiming something isn't AI if it isn't conscious is a clear indicator you don't know what you are talking about (whether you are in IT or not).
Yeah, I'd agree. The problem is that science needs definitions.
True, but not every term needs such a narrow definition. It is okay for scientists to use words tall, or large, or fast, as long as the rest of the discussion provides enough context. If I just say I am looking at something large, then the word large is pretty useless. If I say I am looking at a large gas giant planet, I have given more context. I can probably have a scientific discussion describing my theory about large gas giant planets without giving an exact diameter range of 20,000 miles to 100,000 miles. Saying large gas giant planet is probably good enough.
Conversely, if I just say I work in AI, you certainly don't know if I am working on strong or weak AI. But if I say I work in AI trying to identify cat videos on Youtube, you probably don't need me to clarify that I'm not trying to create a conscious artificial being.
Science does need definitions for its terms, but these terms can have very wide definitions which are narrowed by context.
Umm... no. It would be in everybody's interest that these terms get defined precisely. We could start using acronyms [something that the corporate world is very fond of], so it would be WAI or SAI for you.
Sometimes the English language doesn't adhere to what is in everybody's interest. My description is how AI is defined and used both colloquially and in research. Do a quick Amazon search of the most popular AI textbooks (written by many of the lead researchers in the field) and see if they only discuss conscious machines or if they use a more broad definition of AI. That is far more definitive than two people arguing in an Internet forum.