>>9657692>It's not an ad hominem, which apparently you can't spell, because I've provided 6 lines of counter-argument and only 1 line of insult.What is a contraction? Oh dear, your super IQ already failing you?
>I've provided 6 lines of counter-argument and only 1 line of insult.>Having no defects.I elucidated (made clear) in my previous argument what the defect was, you're just too slow to notice it.
Although, it isn't that surprising, I was already two posts ahead of you by that point. :'D
>It looks like you're the one whose BTFO.This is actually part of the argumentum ad hominem (which is actually the full term for *ad hom, *ad hominem - I guess that super IQ still hasn't kicked in.)
I'm guessing when you say:
>not-even-close-to-perfect ingellienceYou're clearly subconsciously invoking yourself, that's amusing.
Oh, and that's some hilarious hypocrisy:
>which apparently you can't spell>ingellienceI think you mean "intelligence"; something you're lacking. :'D
>It's not special.But it is, as the context of what implies perfection would change with the required task of the AI, however, if it was fully generalizing, then the context/definition wouldn't be special.
But as previous discussed (see:
>>9657561) it never will be.
>You've directed all the attention at the insult because you feel like you're losing and think the best strategy is to save face on an anonymous image board.More hypocrisy, clearly you've never heard about stones and glass houses, have you?
To parrot a 'dear compatriot' of mine:
>you're a lamer who can't defend his stupid talk. ;^)Now, why don't you pick your teeth up and try again. ;)
