And you have MORE information and you didn't draw the same conclusion at the same
time. Why do they all use 2 asymmetrical cycles of computation Sabine? They could have and likely saw the conclusions I DREW... And then found an alternative line of reasoning to get to the same point. I also wrote about back-dating information on the
internet to erase
people from history. They could have just mapped my conclusions to a different data set. And I didn't plagiarize anyone because I haven't read anyone.
Hym "And if that fucks Nobel Prize winning paper on A.I. is the reason A.I. works the way it does now then why is he called the GODFATHER of A.I. and not the
FATHER. Because he is and ANCILLARY figure who bares no
relationship to the original person responsible for creating the damn thing and is being given authority over something in the event that the actual
father is indisposed. That's what the word 'GODFATHER' MEANS, Sabine. It doesn't matter how you try to hide it you always give yourself away rhetorically. And we are not a part of a community together. I'm not standing on anyone'
s shoulders. I am
literally in a schrodinger's box. My
work is peripheral to the A.I. literature and you can't trace ideas like 'the conversion rate between between thought and data' and 'converting the English language into code' or 'Thinking in amorphous abstraction' (which is what the hierarchical model does) further back than myself. And what you are doing is devaluing the significance of my contribute so you can horn in on credit YOU ADMIT is ancillary. I am peripheral to
whatever community you're talking about and what they did looks like this, here's the timeline:
(2025)
______________ ______You are here
\ /
\ /
Hym Iam (2015-2019)
They say starting is the hardest part and I in a vacuum was starting from
scratch. I did the hardest part and, therefore, my role is primary.)
