Comment on We need to start calling it Simulater Intelligence (SI): here's why:
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 week agoImmitation and simulation are not the same thing as they’re being used in this discussion. You’re literally arguing semantics to try and win, which means you have no logical point on which to stand.
JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
I’m not trying to “win” anything, don’t try to dismiss me because you perceive you’re “losing” and you don’t understand word definitions.
Do you even know what semantics is? Do you want me to give you the definition of that, too? If you’re going to use it as a pejorative, you better learn the meaning of the word.
I’m telling you what the definition of simulation is so you understand why some of us are saying why Simulated Intelligence is the correct term, literally, since you seem focused on the literal. You’re the one who started arguing semantics (in your first comment), but got it wrong, by implying a simulation had to be the actual thing (“literally”) . Then I showed you that the definition of simulation is that it is an imitation, not the actual thing and you say I’m arguing “semantics”. Well yeah, that’s what we’re doing here, we’re both arguing the semantics of what it means to be Simulated Intelligence. If that’s not what you’re doing, then why did you comment at all?
The whole point of creating a simulation is that it doesn’t take the same amount of work as the actual thing, but it can - and it doesn’t have to be perfect - make you think it is the real thing. If it was perfect, then you’re done, you don’t have to make the real thing, and it’s no longer a simulation.
A flight simulator doesn’t actually fly. If it did, it would be an airplane.
Simulated Intelligence doesn’t actually have to be intelligent. If it was, it would be (Artificial) Intelligence.
You can say what we have is a bad simulation, but it’s still a simulation, and it’s a much better simulation than it is real intelligence. So Simulated Intelligence is the correct term.