Ok, I agree, but if “training” AI is how we build these machines, would it ever be anything different?

Its like expanding consciousness for a select few and the implications of that have been disastrous.

Unfortunately, I dont encounter many people making logical arguments against AI. Maybe their reaction is based in logic but they often get hostile based on surface level stuff.

Robots and AI are advancing. Its a slow grind. Say we do make some more breakthroughs, if we are relying on how people are tending to react, its obvious to me people will only be more upset when they do advance further.

I think it won’t an Oscar. The truth is the themes and cinematography are too dark. Its also very artsy. It doesnt have the punch of a typical Pixar but, to me, thats why its so great. I love Disney but there can be other things. Just dont expect them to become household staples.

Maybe the mod/admin that had to repeatedly ban this child from harassing the cyber sexers.

Ok, got it. Message received. Be gone.

Wtf are you talking about. Get lost

All of these work

Can you just say you didnt like my phrasing and move on already?

Thats an entirely different question.

Bud, we’re saying there is lack of positive knowledge. Chill.

Why chatgpt will replace you

“If the positive cannot be proven, then the negative must be true” is a classic logical mistake called an argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance).

Why it’s wrong

Just because something hasn’t been proven true doesn’t mean it’s false. It may simply mean:

There isn’t enough evidence yet.

The tools to test it don’t exist yet.

The claim is unfalsifiable.

Likewise, not being able to prove something false doesn’t make it true.

Simple Example

Claim: “There is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.”

We cannot currently prove this is true.

But that doesn’t mean the negative is automatically true (“There is no intelligent life anywhere else”).

We simply don’t know yet.

Another Example

Claim:

“There are 100 trillion stars in the observable universe.”

If someone can’t prove that exact number, it doesn’t mean the opposite number is true. It just means the claim isn’t established.

What’s logically correct?

In formal reasoning, the correct position when something cannot be proven is:

The claim remains unproven.

It does not automatically flip to the opposite. When can the negative be assumed?

There’s one important exception:

In law and science, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

For example:

In court: if guilt cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt → the verdict is “not guilty.”

(Not the same as “innocent,” but the negative position is adopted procedurally.)

But that’s a rule of decision-making, not a rule of logic.

Its so weird. I just like, look up the word opinion and youre like entirely wrong.

What are we doing here?

On both counts, entirely wrong.

Is everyone here a fucking clone and I’m just oblivious?

Because how could you ever know?

No

Are you a clone?

Aw, now im jealous. They’re sinners!

Yet

A pox. A pox on all social media.

Sorry, youre right.

I know they can kill us all but they cant keep us all in chains. Not if we all are together.