Nobody serious is claiming theological predesination is based on "nothing", either. Talk about poor pattern matching.

You are, of course, entitled to your religious convictions. But to most people outside of your religious community, the evidence for some specific theological claim (such as predestination) looks an awful lot like "nothing". In contrast, claims about the trajectory of AI (whether you agree with the claims or not) are based on easily-verifiable, public knowledge about the recent history of AI development.

▲

welferkj 11 hours ago | parent [-]

It is not a "specific theological claim" either, rather a school of theological discourse. You're literally doing free-form association now and pretending to have novel insights into centuries of work on the issue.

▲

theSherwood 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not pretending to any novel insights. Most of us who don't have much use for theology are generally unimpressed by its discourse. Not novel at all. And the "centuries of work" without concrete developments that exist outside of the minds of those invested in the discourse is one reason why many of us are unimpressed. In contrast, AI development is resulting in concrete changes that are easily verified by anyone and on much shorter time scales.

	▲	bonoboTP 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Relatedly, it would be bordering on impossible to convince Iran about the validity of Augustine, Aquinas or Calvin, but it was fairly easy with nuclear physics. Theology isn't "based on nothing", but the convincing power of the quantum physics books happens to be radically different from Summa Theologiae, even if both are just books written by educated people based on a lot of thought and prior work.