> Have you not experienced being on the recieving end of such accusations?
No, I have not been accused of being an AI. I have seen people who format their texts get accused due to the formatting sometimes, and thought people could accuse me for the same reason, but that doesn't count.
> I think this demonstrates the same point.
You can't detect general intelligence from a single message, so it doesn't really. People accuse you for being an AI based on the structure and word usage of your message, not the content of it.
> People accuse you for being an AI based on the structure and word usage of your message, not the content of it.
If that's the real cause, it is not the reason they give when making the accusation. Sometimes they object to the citations, sometimes the absence of them.
But it's fairly irrelevant, as they are, in fact, saying that real flesh-and-blood me doesn't pass their purity test for thinking.
Is that because they're not thinking? Doesn't matter — as @sebastiennight said: "This is a battle that can't be won at any point because it's a matter of faith for the forever-skeptic, not facts."
So is your argument is that all skeptics are unreasonable people that can't ever be convinced based on being called an AI once? Don't you see who is the unreasonable one here?
There are always people that wont admit they are wrong, but most people do come around when presented with overwhelming evidence, it has happened many times in history and most people switches to new technology very quickly when its good enough.
No, I have not been accused of being an AI. I have seen people who format their texts get accused due to the formatting sometimes, and thought people could accuse me for the same reason, but that doesn't count.
> I think this demonstrates the same point.
You can't detect general intelligence from a single message, so it doesn't really. People accuse you for being an AI based on the structure and word usage of your message, not the content of it.