You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
but you are just making shit up to win arguments.
I'm not trying to win anything. That's what you're doing. And you're doing a very bad job of it. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring the inconvenient parts of my argument.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Get off the cross. I disagree with you. Learn to cope. Instead of inventing retarded narratives to soothe yourself just give up. There is nothing to win here, sport, and disagreement is acceptable. Look at how hard you strain to simply avoid this obvious detente.
You're either not serious or you are unwell. Either way I don't plan to continue provoking your absurd diatribes.
"lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you. Well, makes you look like the winner, I guess.
You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
You keep saying that, yet you don't give any indication of why you think that I am wrong.
Having coauthored a 4th year Software Engineering dissertation in which we compiled and trained a Convolutional Neural Network, I am fairly confident of my understanding of the subject. If I am wrong and there are no neurons or no complex interactions, I'd love to know. Please, I welcome your detailed critique.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you.
What did you say? Oh, it is right here!
This thing can only copy.
The essence of your argument is: Neural Networks can only copy and not create anything original. It follows that what they do is an infringement of copyright, because you can recognize the style that is being aped.
I think my summation of your argument is succinct.
You know guy, for all your butthurt and bluster you have yet to provide any countervailing facts. You have done a bunch of quibbling over definitions, to your own benefit, but you haven't actually presented any alternatives beyond "I said so".
Now you've devolved to insults.
I guess we both know that your position isn't actually based on reason, huh?
You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
I'm not trying to win anything. That's what you're doing. And you're doing a very bad job of it. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring the inconvenient parts of my argument.
Get off the cross. I disagree with you. Learn to cope. Instead of inventing retarded narratives to soothe yourself just give up. There is nothing to win here, sport, and disagreement is acceptable. Look at how hard you strain to simply avoid this obvious detente.
You're either not serious or you are unwell. Either way I don't plan to continue provoking your absurd diatribes.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you. Well, makes you look like the winner, I guess.
You keep saying that, yet you don't give any indication of why you think that I am wrong.
Having coauthored a 4th year Software Engineering dissertation in which we compiled and trained a Convolutional Neural Network, I am fairly confident of my understanding of the subject. If I am wrong and there are no neurons or no complex interactions, I'd love to know. Please, I welcome your detailed critique.
What did you say? Oh, it is right here!
The essence of your argument is: Neural Networks can only copy and not create anything original. It follows that what they do is an infringement of copyright, because you can recognize the style that is being aped.
I think my summation of your argument is succinct.
You know guy, for all your butthurt and bluster you have yet to provide any countervailing facts. You have done a bunch of quibbling over definitions, to your own benefit, but you haven't actually presented any alternatives beyond "I said so".
Now you've devolved to insults.
I guess we both know that your position isn't actually based on reason, huh?
Have a great day.