Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You continue to repeat things that are actually factually wrong. > > *It is not close to sentient.* > > I made a pretty good argument why it can be close to sentient. What is > your argument besides repeating this? > It is not my argument. You need to read the technical literature describing this form of AI. You will see that it has no intelligence. Other methods do. Details are beyond the scope of the discussion.
