Would an artificial human level intelligence debunk Abrahamic theology?

[Muffled]

Dear Control Freak,

Long ago, in many and divers lands, humans survived for tens of thousands of years without the Bible. They lived in small bands, focused on survival, and staked their lives on careful observation. They believed in facts, not texts. They followed and venerated the game from which they drew sustenance. They meticulously documented the smallest details about species' properties and behaviours. Their familiarity with ecology was intimate; they understood the interaction of terrain, climate, soil, season, and biology. They knew the essence of how things worked.

There was equality of the sexes. One's developed abilities and inherited faculties determined one's value to the group, not race, sex, religion, or wealth. There was no Abrahamic notion of sexual deviancy. Property and inheritance were essentially nonexistent. Thanks to their ingenuity, we modern humans are still alive today, though figuratively "devolved" compared to our distant forebears. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived according to hard realities and facts, not delusions. They died at a younger age, perhaps, but they were hardier and healthier.

Necessity trumps hypocrisy.

I believe ancient people were just as likely to be sinful as modern ones but without a moral compass to tell them so.

 

[Muffled]

Well, yes-- but the "coding" in question is very "top level", i.e. changing parameters in the fuzzy logic algorithms.

The majority of code is never seen by humans. I'm speaking of things like "IF X THEN GOTO Z" type of code.

And yes, I'm a former Programmer of 17+ years experience. To me the word "code" has very specific meaning.

It is nice to meet a fellow coder (I'm retired). One of things that happened in designing programs was the introduction of code modules. So if one hits the right criteria on e grabs the associated code module. I can see an AI doing that and perhaps doing an evaluation of whether the module worked or didn't provide a good result and storing that away in memory. That would be a learning process and probably why computers play chess so well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is nice to meet a fellow coder (I'm retired). One of things that happened in designing programs was the introduction of code modules. So if one hits the right criteria on e grabs the associated code module. I can see an AI doing that and perhaps doing an evaluation of whether the module worked or didn't provide a good result and storing that away in memory. That would be a learning process and probably why computers play chess so well.

Yeah. When I started? It was in the 1979. I took computer classes using punch cards, running on IBM 370 mainframes.

At the end of college? The school finally installed terminals-- and I learned about EDLIN. ( a one line at a time line-editor. )

When my dad and I started in business? We decided on compiled BASIC. This was in 1981. And yeah, we used EDLIN at the start. For a couple of years-- then Microsoft released the first version of Quick Basic, that sported a whole page for editing. And a compiler too. Goodbye IBM compiled BASIC. Hello Microsoft.

We really didn't use code modules until many years into the project; it was simple enough to create "copy libraries" instead.

I quickly learned how to go from .EXE to the next, without loosing either progress or information. the BASIC CHAIN command was *not* that method-- memory corruption would creep in after the 2nd CHAIN call.

We used RUN instead, and passed variables in a binary file....

Oh, the memories that all brings back.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah. When I started? It was in the 1979. I took computer classes using punch cards, running on IBM 370 mainframes.

At the end of college? The school finally installed terminals-- and I learned about EDLIN. ( a one line at a time line-editor. )

When my dad and I started in business? We decided on compiled BASIC. This was in 1981. And yeah, we used EDLIN at the start. For a couple of years-- then Microsoft released the first version of Quick Basic, that sported a whole page for editing. And a compiler too. Goodbye IBM compiled BASIC. Hello Microsoft.

We really didn't use code modules until many years into the project; it was simple enough to create "copy libraries" instead.

I quickly learned how to go from .EXE to the next, without loosing either progress or information. the BASIC CHAIN command was *not* that method-- memory corruption would creep in after the 2nd CHAIN call.

We used RUN instead, and passed variables in a binary file....

Oh, the memories that all brings back.

Much like me then, but more self-taught.