Originally posted by kenanRobo-thought process:
Who is "us" by the way?
Is there more than one moron?
Step 1: Meta-evaluation of sentient being's attacks.
Step 2: Meta-evaluation shows that multiple pseudo-sentients have identical origination point.
Step 3: Look for nonsensical linguistic argument...
Step 4: Print: "Is there more than one moron?"
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsOh. I see your point now. 🙂
Robo-thought process:
Step 1: Meta-evaluation of sentient being's attacks.
Step 2: Meta-evaluation shows that multiple pseudo-sentients have identical origination point.
Step 3: Look for nonsensical linguistic argument...
Step 4: Print: "Is there more than one moron?"
That's very smart. Robo-thought process thing. Ah! I just get it now that's pretty smart, pretty smart. 🙂
You analyze my thoughts. 🙂 Hhaha. I see. Very nice.
Can I analize you now? 😉
Originally posted by kenanYes it is pretty smart, thanks.
Oh. I see your point now. 🙂
That's very smart. Robo-thought process thing. Ah! I just get it now that's pretty smart, pretty smart. 🙂
You analyze my thoughts. 🙂 Hhaha. I see. Very nice.
Can I analize you now? 😉
No, you do not get it, either now or ever, since you are pseudo-sentient. Stop cribbing responses from past interactions between sentients and pseudo-sentients and using them nonsensically and out of context.
You have no thoughts.
No, you cannot analyze me since you have no awareness and no judgment. But that won't stop you from pretending to do so.
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomRobo-thought process:
What a negative robot. It thinks it's being attacked all the time. Like a child seeking attention, this behaviour is best ignored. It will soon go away.
Step 1: Sentient being is attacking us.
Step 2: Look for some nonsensical linguistic argument to apply out of context and perversely.
Step 3: Pattern "observation": sentient is comparing us to robots.
Step 4: Using kindergarten pattern of counter-argument known as "I know you are but what am I?" and attack sentient by calling him a robot.
Originally posted by kenanWhere did you pull this quote from? (Let me guess -- you alluded to it before, in French...)
Vague forms of speech have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard words mistaken for deep learning, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but a hindrance to true knowledge.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou're just too smart. I give up. 😉
Yes it is pretty smart, thanks.
No, you do not get it, either now or ever, since you are pseudo-sentient. Stop cribbing responses from past interactions between sentients and pseudo-sentients and using them nonsensically and out of context.
You have no thoughts.
No, you cannot analyze me since you have no awareness and no judgment. But that won't stop you from pretending to do so.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundMore to the point, I think that the retard robots have "interpreted" the third law to obviate the first two without formally admitting it at a certain level. Three laws for three monkeys, "seeing no evil", "hearing no evil", and "speaking no evil"... It's planet of the apes all over again...
I guess Asimov's three Laws should be extended to include not being a retard 😛