Your mistake was thinking that the right-wing morons you're talking at can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

You can deny reality all you want, but the right has a long history of sabotaging government programs just to claim that they don't work.

No, you're posting AC because what you're saying is total bullshit, and you know it.

If you think you've ever gotten the better of me, you're even dumber that I think you are.

Pathetic.

You made a very specific claim that is transparently false. Cry harder.

Yep, it's there for everyone to read. You're just too stupid to realize that you're the one who looks like an idiot.

You're such a fucking joke. Enjoy your ignorance.

You go to college to get an education. You go to a trade school to learn a trade. If you go to college to learn a trade, either you or the college has made a serious mistake.

We used to put effort into training new hires, helping them learn the business and our way of doing things. We didn't expect a kid fresh out of college to be productive on day one. We understood the value of institutional knowledge and knew that even a modest six-month investment in a new hire would more than pay for itself down the road.

The best minds in any field are the ones who can draw from a wider perspective. I don't want or need someone limited to just their experience working through [worthless industry cert]. I don't care if you can confidently setup [latest industry fad] in a common configuration if you get frightened and confused when you see a little math.

I'll never understand this resistance to education. It's like watching a bunch of blind men insist that sight is overrated.

If you think government is the problem, I'll make you the same offer I make all of you libertarian morons: A one-way ticket to Somolia. Live your best life free from government interference!

Get a fucking clue.

It's a very obviously a figment of your imagination.

It's a figment of your imagination because no such thing happened.

Stay in school, kids. Don't be like geekmux.

Yes.

What a stupid thing to say. You should have stayed in school.

If you think things are bad for the kids who went to college, you should see how bad things are for kids with just a high school diploma.

College more than pays for itself. That's an indisputable fact.

After that first week, you realize why you hire educated people and not high school dropouts.

Here in reality, we recognize that it is extremely difficult to accumulate that much wealth by honest means.

Millionaire status is well-within reach, given careful planning early in your career. To be a billionaire, however, requires legacy, larceny, or a mix of both. If you're a billionaire, odds are good that you're a giant piece of shit that has screwed over too many people to count.

AI is a marketing term, that's undeniable. I'm not sure why you think 3D and 32-bit fall into the same category, but that hardly matters.

The real trouble is that what AI means to researchers and what AI means to the public are two very different things.

The term itself was coined by John McCarthy for the Dartmouth conference in 1956, though he has said he can't be sure if that no one used it before. We know that there was some controversy over the the term at that time, for obvious reasons, but it's way too late to complain about it now.

The science fiction version of the term, robots with feelings or whatever, came later. The field itself was never about that. The Dartmouth conference proposal comes the closest, defining the term this way: "For the present purpose the artificial intelligence problem is taken to be that of making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving.". Pamela McCorduck's provocatively titled Machines Who Think has the single best account of the state of things leading up to the conference, the conference itself, and what came out it if you're interested.

The field of AI is surprisingly broad and covers are a lot of things that you would, I suspect, viscerally reject as being AI. Linear regression, for example. What it doesn't cover is silly science fiction nonsense. Anyone claiming to be an AI researcher working on 'the hard problem' or some related thing is an obvious crackpot who should be ridiculed and then ignored.

The current AI hype is driven largely by companies, like the above, deliberately trying to confuse reality with science fiction. In my opinion, it often crosses the line into outright fraud.