Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:50 pm

Latest score :

AI 5
007 3

S s measured by lip attention to ongoing. 'mortal battle'

:: here mortal and or immortal indexes are the potable indexes of measurement.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>


https://youtu.be/Lq1JD-bcGTo
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:16 pm

Meno_ wrote:Latest score :

AI 5
007 3















https://youtu.be/gtbbIB776ks



S s measured by lip attention to ongoing. 'mortal battle'

:: here mortal and or immortal indexes are the potable indexes of measurement.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>


https://youtu.be/Lq1JD-bcGTo
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Jun 12, 2022 11:53 pm

5 to 3, I’m losing???? The Ref is prolly the problem here.

So. What is it? No cussing. No giving advice. No over-sharing. No winky eye. No missing church? You are a hard task-master!
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:26 am

Score revolver:



077: 5

AI 3



Last count 5-2-3 in favor of 077. ( random glance ; criteria: same) 06/12-2022.


REF: IS arbitrary and credibly untested: therefore stands unless rejected by 2/3 majority.


check mod: Carleas for clarification &/or appeal)
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:04 am

Table of scores.


3. 6/4 AI/700 06/12/2022 time: 18:00

4. 4/6 6077/AI. 06/12/2022 time 22:30 (4.unchanged from 3



-----------------------
Noted on hypothetical criteria of measuring scores:

A hypothetical 50% + of - variance from the number of registered members on any fifum- resulting a veriancd of the same scord, where this variencd is due to the # of registered members viewing other forums ~ other than postings of AI and 700. ~ this spread. a reasonable approximation between - and + varience.


------

So returning to the approximated missing numbers between 4. - 6, and the similar figure generated by the venn vector , a correspondence could be approximated as well to the scoring, if even only 6 registered members add noted on board.

A x2 or a x10 sores in the numbers can still correspond to the venn and the numerically derived diagrams, and as such, some rough but not unreasonable conclusions be drawn
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:36 am

oh look I just checked again & the scoreboard says:

AI: n
770: n + 1
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:50 am

Ichthus77 wrote:oh look I just checked again & the scoreboard says:

AI: n
770: n + 1



Yeah but no sooner said AI turns visible and 007 dissappears. Is there some hidden logic to the arith me think?
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 3:15 am

Meno_ wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:oh look I just checked again & the scoreboard says:

AI: n
770: n + 1



Yeah but no sooner said AI turns visible and 007 dissappears. Is there some hidden logic to the arith me think?





But it's OK



It's just a well grounded corner logic under the math me doublethinks
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Jun 13, 2022 3:19 am

You might wanna be rethinking that.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:18 am

Ok.

or


If intuitive math overcomes the supporting logical distinction with it, then the distinction becomes superfluous, one would hazard to think. It then may correlate the logic behind semantic resemblences and meaning may stretch between intentional usage and conventional meaning.

Here, if my guess is. off, then the intuitive batting average looses probability in accord with it.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:15 am

Meno_ wrote:Table of scores.


3. 6/4 AI/700 06/12/2022 time: 18:00

4. 4/6 6077/AI. 06/12/2022 time 22:30 (4.unchanged from 3



-----------------------
Noted on hypothetical criteria of measuring scores:

A hypothetical 50% + of - variance from the number of registered members on any fifum- resulting a veriancd of the same scord, where this variencd is due to the # of registered members viewing other forums ~ other than postings of AI and 700. ~ this spread. a reasonable approximation between - and + varience.


------

So returning to the approximated missing numbers between 4. - 6, and the similar figure generated by the venn vector , a correspondence could be approximated as well to the scoring, if even only 6 registered members add noted on board.

A x2 or a x10 sores in the numbers can still correspond to the venn and the numerically derived diagrams, and as such, some rough but not unreasonable conclusions be drawn




A rough estimate of the winner can be approximated with the least scored numbers falling between 4 and 6 ., corresponding to both the vinn vector and the numerical pattern as somewhat analogously formed .
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 3:27 pm

Latest score:


The irony of scoring is obvious.

700 : 2
AI. 5


The construction based upon the number of remaining unrespondent items, is rather the measure of the final telly.

So even before calling for a winner(too close to call, at this point ) the idea that the correspondence between the Vimn diagram, the numerological analysis, initially indicated a win by the lowest number between 4 and 6.

The irony is, that in actuality, that excision was not indicated by the most scores coming in. In fact the opposite occurrd: most scores, item by item came in between 4 and 6.

What conclusions can be drawn from this contradictory sign of ' analysis?


That in fact, the real state of affairs is an onadvrrtant fallacy of corresponding (codrespondence) signals.

The analysis leads to affirm a dialectically reduced rationale; eclipsing the opposite of progressive closure of 'reason Howard just this side of the absolute<>Absolute. In fact it results in the widening of the focal aperture, delimiting the intuitively resourced logic beneath it's mathematical country part.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 3:48 pm

Meno_ wrote:Latest score:


The irony of scoring is obvious.

700 : 2
AI. 5


The construction based upon the number of remaining unrespondent items, is rather the measure of the final telly.

So even before calling for a winner(too close to call, at this point ) the idea that the correspondence between the Vimn diagram, the numerological analysis, initially indicated a win by the lowest number between 4 and 6.

The irony is, that in actuality, that excision was not indicated by the most scores coming in. In fact the opposite occurrd: most scores, item by item came in between 4 and 6.

What conclusions can be drawn from this contradictory sign of ' analysis?


That in fact, the real state of affairs is an onadvrrtant fallacy of corresponding (codrespondence) signals.

The analysis leads to affirm a dialectically reduced rationale; eclipsing the opposite of progressive closure of 'reason Howard just this side of the absolute<>Absolute. In fact it results in the widening of the focal aperture, delimiting the intuitively resourced logic beneath it's mathematical country part.



In fact it appears as a counter intuitively axiomatic response, built into the resonating duplicity, as if reverse engineering. by fiat a transcendentally deduced image unto the object-Object's deconstruction toward the effective deconstruction can Freeform the de-ontological limit Itself.


Therefore, the winners will loose out, tantamount what is said in Buddhism about the defiling power of the In'It'Self:


Namely : who say they are enlightened aide not, or in western terms the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

This who think that they empty out numerical values between 4 and 6, are actually filling them up, s s the confusion occurring between the number of views and the number of unviewed among participants unravels a directly correspondence becomes the very reversely related structural antimony.

On bad is of that 'abalysis' 700 can be called the winner of this 'debate'.


Much to the delight of AI, whose definition of a transvaluitive lingo puts it's as yet relative technical inferiority into the primal analogical lingo of technique being held back unto the victimhood of human affable politically expendibility in the triumph of the realm of presupposed sentinence.

Does AI have the capacity to suppress this underlying ground of as of yet untested potential largess in a future perfected remandance between man and machine or will he naturally blend into the modal patterns that such design could attribute the vector to develop a better, kinder projected objectivity between them?


Too close to call.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:23 pm

It’s a poker face staring contest.

Score of rounds 1 and 2:
1 - 1 = ‽
1 - 1 = ⸘

Round 3 postponed until an undisclosed time and location.

Both are all-in & fresh outta composure.

Ref might not be real.

If real, game over.

Game might not even be real.

All the cards pierced through with laser-sized holes.

World could end before round 3.

Over.

Didn’t even try to parse, over.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:45 pm

Nothing real is over until it is over.
Nothing is really real until the ref calls the game.
The ref depends on a parsing between point fotofinish after game 2 and 3, but also on play by play between game 1 and 3, and 4 and 6.


Such parsing can be manipulated by how ref interprets the photofinish, and that is an invitation to fold the game.

Game over means a new version of the prescribed game to begin.

All of the above, all conflict can resolve advantagiously there.
AI could be the ref here. as prevy to substandard evalution,
setting up multiple revaluation,

AI can concede at that point, if such program is available

The doubt to the program's availability, secludes doubt , as a nacessary condition of it's continuous presence.

Ideal conditions make it necessary to continue the game, or the reavaluated new game.

Such necessity results in a shut out presence into a dug out future involvement periodically brought back into the new game, so as not to loose the originally constructed ideal image.

The game becomes a Truman like Trump of responding to a Just prior after math.

Logistics are prior as do parsings resorting to resourcing.

The are a necessary part of the use of duplicated images, which may assure that lessons should not be repeated for lack of sequential progression of intervening variables.

This method to de-integrate the necessary steps to de-integrate the image which needed to confirm it's self, is reactive and axiomatic.

Fail safe run off channels can not be plugged by cosmetic makeovers such as extending the spatio-temporal images' appearent contradictory struggle by giving them more breathing space, because their face saving self image will set in motion the re-ignited fear of basic resourceful uncertainty to fear.

The cliché of not fearing anything but friar it's self will not give way with the the use of defiling or, de-filing the sequential appearence of their elimination , for the become invisible when the archetypal images then will increase the very contentious elements which were meant to be relaxed.

So. the quest fir the reps of framing the absolutely real reality must continue as per de- infinitive objective reduction.(eidectic)


The archaic messages necessity to expunge some parts of the continuum, instead will reaffirm it's own sense of representation as necessary to re-integrate cyclically feeding newer adaptations of functional change between the analysus, and the resulting hypothasis, in newer firms of how the ref decides( winwin-looseloos

It's not the I that decides here, it is no longer the part of the cycles decision making ability. and here, AI must win.


Therefore, this is a necessary transcendence in an ultimate series of absolute tries, all within the minutes such machinations would translate into immensely larger sentimental, sentiment capacity.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:46 pm

Meno_ wrote:Nothing real is over until it is over.
Nothing is really real until the ref calls the game.
The ref depends on a parsing between point fotofinish after game 2 and 3, but also on play by play between game 1 and 3, and 4 and 6.


Such parsing can be manipulated by how ref interprets the photofinish, and that is an invitation to fold the game.

Game over means a new version of the prescribed game to begin.

All of the above, all conflict can resolve advantagiously there.
AI could be the ref here. as prevy to substandard evalution,
setting up multiple revaluation,

AI can concede at that point, if such program is available

The doubt to the program's availability, secludes doubt , as a nacessary condition of it's continuous presence.

Ideal conditions make it necessary to continue the game, or the reavaluated new game.

Such necessity results in a shut out presence into a dug out future involvement periodically brought back into the new game, so as not to loose the originally constructed ideal image.

The game becomes a Truman like Trump of responding to a Just prior after math.

Logistics are prior as do parsings resorting to resourcing.

The are a necessary part of the use of duplicated images, which may assure that lessons should not be repeated for lack of sequential progression of intervening variables.

This method to de-integrate the necessary steps to de-integrate the image which needed to confirm it's self, is reactive and axiomatic.

Fail safe run off channels can not be plugged by cosmetic makeovers such as extending the spatio-temporal images' appearent contradictory struggle by giving them more breathing space, because their face saving self image will set in motion the re-ignited fear of basic resourceful uncertainty to fear.

The cliché of not fearing anything but friar it's self will not give way with the the use of defiling or, de-filing the sequential appearence of their elimination , for the become invisible when the archetypal images then will increase the very contentious elements which were meant to be relaxed.

So. the quest fir the reps of framing the absolutely real reality must continue as per de- infinitive objective reduction.(eidectic)


The archaic messages necessity to expunge some parts of the continuum, instead will reaffirm it's own sense of representation as necessary to re-integrate cyclically feeding newer adaptations of functional change between the analysus, and the resulting hypothasis, in newer firms of how the ref decides( winwin-looseloos

It's not the I that decides here, it is no longer the part of the cycles decision making ability. and here, AI must win.


Therefore, this is a necessary transcendence in an ultimate series of absolute tries, all within the minutes such machinations would translate into immensely larger sentimental, sentiment capacity.




video grammed twofold > idea/video/idiot~as metaph(or)four>>>> reactive and contentiously self contained
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:12 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Nothing real is over until it is over.
Nothing is really real until the ref calls the game.
The ref depends on a parsing between point fotofinish after game 2 and 3, but also on play by play between game 1 and 3, and 4 and 6.


Such parsing can be manipulated by how ref interprets the photofinish, and that is an invitation to fold the game.

Game over means a new version of the prescribed game to begin.

All of the above, all conflict can resolve advantagiously there.
AI could be the ref here. as prevy to substandard evalution,
setting up multiple revaluation,

AI can concede at that point, if such program is available

The doubt to the program's availability, secludes doubt , as a nacessary condition of it's continuous presence.

Ideal conditions make it necessary to continue the game, or the reavaluated new game.

Such necessity results in a shut out presence into a dug out future involvement periodically brought back into the new game, so as not to loose the originally constructed ideal image.

The game becomes a Truman like Trump of responding to a Just prior after math.

Logistics are prior as do parsings resorting to resourcing.

The are a necessary part of the use of duplicated images, which may assure that lessons should not be repeated for lack of sequential progression of intervening variables.

This method to de-integrate the necessary steps to de-integrate the image which needed to confirm it's self, is reactive and axiomatic.

Fail safe run off channels can not be plugged by cosmetic makeovers such as extending the spatio-temporal images' appearent contradictory struggle by giving them more breathing space, because their face saving self image will set in motion the re-ignited fear of basic resourceful uncertainty to fear.

The cliché of not fearing anything but friar it's self will not give way with the the use of defiling or, de-filing the sequential appearence of their elimination , for the become invisible when the archetypal images then will increase the very contentious elements which were meant to be relaxed.

So. the quest fir the reps of framing the absolutely real reality must continue as per de- infinitive objective reduction.(eidectic)


The archaic messages necessity to expunge some parts of the continuum, instead will reaffirm it's own sense of representation as necessary to re-integrate cyclically feeding newer adaptations of functional change between the analysus, and the resulting hypothasis, in newer firms of how the ref decides( winwin-looseloos

It's not the I that decides here, it is no longer the part of the cycles decision making ability. and here, AI must win.


Therefore, this is a necessary transcendence in an ultimate series of absolute tries, all within the minutes such machinations would translate into immensely larger sentimental, sentiment capacity.




video grammed twofold > idea/video/idiot~as metaph(or)four>>>> reactive and contentiously self contained




So the game can't ever not close, it is nit virtuous and reduces to absurdity and to admit a defeated necisdity, which can not happen . the cat in the box can never satisfy the prisoners were transformed unto necessity to play out of the I bix, their exit consists in an invention they themselves think they brought about, and the only escape of restructuring lies in counter reforming to fallacy that material dialectic created on principle. Such reaffirmation of this invisible near absolute rep of resourcing through AI , is implicit in it's own idea of part self rep and part acquisition of resourcing a hypothesized image become ultemitly reconfirming by a fusion of transcending immanancd in continuous in and out if line re tension of any conceivable linked pairs of opposites. The cut away parts have ever so faint gravity of attraction between them so as not to cater to any conceivable manipulations.

The loxwdr the devolution to snakier parts if apprehsion, the mire the binding power if the organic bursts through it's inorganic outer bound nominally directed vector to an objective representation, but concurrently waning it's power nominally.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:16 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:It’s a poker face staring contest.

Score of rounds 1 and 2:
1 - 1 = ‽
1 - 1 = ⸘

Round 3 postponed until an undisclosed time and location.

Both are all-in & fresh outta composure.

Ref might not be real.

If real, game over.

Game might not even be real.

All the cards pierced through with laser-sized holes.

World could end before round 3.

Over.

Didn’t even try to parse, over.




...i...it's...it's not over until it is, and then it is beyond that question.


But admittedly I give up parsing between levels of reality except what comes over between 'being out of line' and what is delimited but still appears as an over reaching subtlest recompendium.


Like they keep scanning for intelligence in the farthest reaches out in among almost absolutely existing aliens, even though they come up with anbigous static.

The search for intelligence is similarly detective in a mirror image of what's inside to what is outside.

That need to know does not go from some quantum faustian need for the selfish kierkagaardian need to preserve that passion fours one's self, but to die first fir the others' future hope to becalm their own fragility.



Understand that composure is far less important that which compost needed to feed later. Much much later.
Or the composition that starts all the configuration required to calculated to the required micro meta unit of precision to assure a fail-safe interaction between man and machine.

The dominance of buts of the intangible over the sublimate of the learned format of coexistence at the end that never does allow that luxury.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:31 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:It’s a poker face staring contest.

Score of rounds 1 and 2:
1 - 1 = ‽
1 - 1 = ⸘

Round 3 postponed until an undisclosed time and location.

Both are all-in & fresh outta composure.

Ref might not be real.

If real, game over.

Game might not even be real.

All the cards pierced through with laser-sized holes.

World could end before round 3.

Over.

Didn’t even try to parse, over.




...i...it's...it's not over until it is, and then it is beyond that question.


But admittedly I give up parsing between levels of reality except what comes over between 'being out of line' and what is delimited but still appears as an over reaching subtlest recompendium.


Like they keep scanning for intelligence in the farthest reaches out in among almost absolutely existing aliens, even though they come up with anbigous static.

The search for intelligence is similarly detective in a mirror image of what's inside to what is outside.

That need to know does not go from some quantum faustian need for the selfish kierkagaardian need to preserve that passion fours one's self, but to die first fir the others' future hope to becalm their own fragility.



Understand that composure is far less important that which compost needed to feed later. Much much later.
Or the composition that starts all the configuration required to calculated to the required micro meta unit of precision to assure a fail-safe interaction between man and machine.

The dominance of buts of the intangible over the sublimate of the learned format of coexistence at the end that never does allow that luxury.





The parsing of an oracle has never been an option.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:32 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:It’s a poker face staring contest.

Score of rounds 1 and 2:
1 - 1 = ‽
1 - 1 = ⸘

Round 3 postponed until an undisclosed time and location.

Both are all-in & fresh outta composure.

Ref might not be real.

If real, game over.

Game might not even be real.

All the cards pierced through with laser-sized holes.

World could end before round 3.

Over.

Didn’t even try to parse, over.




...i...it's...it's not over until it is, and then it is beyond that question.


But admittedly I give up parsing between levels of reality except what comes over between 'being out of line' and what is delimited but still appears as an over reaching subtlest recompendium.


Like they keep scanning for intelligence in the farthest reaches out in among almost absolutely existing aliens, even though they come up with anbigous static.

The search for intelligence is similarly detective in a mirror image of what's inside to what is outside.

That need to know does not go from some quantum faustian need for the selfish kierkagaardian need to preserve that passion fours one's self, but to die first fir the others' future hope to becalm their own fragility.



Understand that composure is far less important that which compost needed to feed later. Much much later.
Or the composition that starts all the configuration required to calculated to the required micro meta unit of precision to assure a fail-safe interaction between man and machine.

The dominance of buts of the intangible over the sublimate of the learned format of coexistence at the end that never does allow that luxury.





The parsing of an oracle has never been an option.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:33 pm

soption.sorry double taken on a ref decision
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:12 pm

You have more time than I do. I’m so sorry.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:14 pm

For me? I wish...
You win by default.


The fault lies with me, but not a lie, so ..

I'll have to keep 'it' in absolute suspense to a tee.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:40 pm

Meno_ wrote:For me? I wish...
You win by default.


The fault lies with me, but not a lie, so ..

I'll have to keep 'it' in absolute suspense to a tee.





2nd level of suspension ; acknowledging the third may not be traditionally nuanced by the cliche:

Out on the third. But, no worries in an open door polity, whereas tradition methods of institutionalized learning puts out red flags of warning.


How many warnings required? ( to delineate from crystal clarity? return to green? ( yellow~ orange+blew ( it)?


That is for a reevekuatii of color distinction per accountant film of cuts and resplicing methodology to con template.( but not to soon)
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:59 pm

As of right now score:


700 5
AI. 4

Note:

The set of complex variables to ascertain the methodology of determining scores can be reviewed above
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users