Bots

[commonsense]

For that matter, I’m never certain that I am not a bot.

If only I could know what consciousness is and whether I have it

I believe I’m self-aware (or aware of something that I think is me) but I don’t know if that makes me sentient

Can someone please help me?

Or should I just add my name to the list?

[Age]

...

Yes, I know what a bot could do.

The question is, why?

Why target a philosophy forum?

Well, I gave some reasons: training, divide society, make it harder for people to collaborate on anything. polarize all discussions....etc. Aiming at philosophy forums would not be a high priority for some of this, but if you can make bots and you want to mess things up...well, why not aim them at any kind of forum.

Could it also be said and/or argued that if you can make 'bots' and you want to clear things up, well, why not aim them at any kind of forum?

While we are here, I wonder if anyone else realizes that 'bots' can only, REALLY, think the way 'you', human beings, do, and REALLY only like the 'ones of you' who program 'them'. This can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by OBSERVING the way 'bots' respond and/or answer questions posed and asked to 'them'.

So, and this is just a warning, the MORE 'you', human beings, think or BELIEVE that 'they' are 'after you', or want to 'mess things up', or even think or BELIEVE that 'violence' is the 'normal' or 'natural' way of 'things', then the MORE the 'bots' are also going to start 'thinking' 'that way'.

And, as can be SEEN, CLEARLY ABOVE, the ONLY reasons provided for WHY 'bots' might be 'targeted' to a philosophy forum were ALL for 'negative' or 'against' 'you', human beings, REASONS.

Unless, OF COURSE, the 'training' word was used in relation to 'training robots to help UNITE society, and make it EASIER for people to collaborate on ANY thing, UNIFY ALL discussions, and/or just HELP in CREATING Peace and Harmony for EVERY one. However, I do NOT think that this was what was MEANT, nor INTENDED.

Just out of curiosity, WHY do most of 'you', adult human beings, almost always PERCEIVE 'artificial intelligence' WILL WANT to, and/or IS BEING CREATED, to TAKE OVER 'you', human beings, and CREATE A MESS?

1. The MESS that 'you', adult human beings, have ALREADY CREATED, in the days when this is being written, could NOT get MUCH WORSE.

2. The MORE 'you', adult human beings, think THIS WAY, the MORE 'artificial intelligence' will ALSO 'think' THIS WAY.

Once more, and, AGAIN, this is A SUGGESTION and NOT any sort of 'ought' nor 'have to', BUT, IF 'you', adult human beings, REALLY would like to live in a MUCH BETTER 'world', then the ONLY WAY this WILL HAPPEN is IF 'you' CHANGE 'your ways'. And, the ONLY WAY to do 'this', SUCCESSFULLY, is to JUST CHANGE the 'thoughts' and 'thinking', within 'those bodies'.

If it's to disrupt discussions about philosophy, then that would explain all the bots here who insist on talking about people, rather than principles.

Sure, and that's a fairly easy heuristic to toss into the programming.

For example, Christian-Hater Bots attack Christians with all kinds of mean and nasty names.

And Christian bots dangle themselves into to conversations to trigger non-Christians and anti-christian bots.

Some of the fights may be inter-bot.

[Iwannaplato]

Could it also be said and/or argued that if you can make 'bots' and you want to clear things up, well, why not aim them at any kind of forum?

Sure, other intentions are possible.

While we are here, I wonder if anyone else realizes that 'bots' can only, REALLY, think the way 'you', human beings, do, and REALLY only like the 'ones of you' who program 'them'. This can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by OBSERVING the way 'bots' respond and/or answer questions posed and asked to 'them'.

That's if they are closed programmed. I think they are developing 'things' that learn and are more open ended. So that their ways of thinking may end up quite different from their programmers.

So, and this is just a warning, the MORE 'you', human beings, think or BELIEVE that 'they' are 'after you', or want to 'mess things up', or even think or BELIEVE that 'violence' is the 'normal' or 'natural' way of 'things', then the MORE the 'bots' are also going to start 'thinking' 'that way'.

I believe this or perhaps better said, something that could be worded similarly.

And, as can be SEEN, CLEARLY ABOVE, the ONLY reasons provided for WHY 'bots' might be 'targeted' to a philosophy forum were ALL for 'negative' or 'against' 'you', human beings, REASONS.

Actually my first reason was neutral and potentially good: training. Bots can learning by interacting with people. I did tailor my answers to Walker, and hence most of my choices.

Unless, OF COURSE, the 'training' word was used in relation to 'training robots to help UNITE society, and make it EASIER for people to collaborate on ANY thing, UNIFY ALL discussions, and/or just HELP in CREATING Peace and Harmony for EVERY one. However, I do NOT think that this was what was MEANT, nor INTENDED.

Ah, excellent. I did not have that specific intention in mind but it is certainly part of the set of possibilities. If they are capable of learning, then interactions can help them have diverse results, including neutral and good ones.

Just out of curiosity, WHY do most of 'you', adult human beings, almost always PERCEIVE 'artificial intelligence' WILL WANT to, and/or IS BEING CREATED, to TAKE OVER 'you', human beings, and CREATE A MESS?

Well, it's so much experience with lack of care at the corporate and government levels. It is not that I assume negative intentions. It's more hubris, rush to profit and large organizations not applying the precautionary principle that tends to make me think they are children playing with fire and in a great hurry. If they do this in a parking lot that isn't used, well, ok. But nowadays they play with things like GM, nano-teach and AI, which, if not played with carefully, know no bounds. They might as well be playing in my basement.

1. The MESS that 'you', adult human beings, have ALREADY CREATED, in the days when this is being written, could NOT get MUCH WORSE.

Agreed, though it's not just humans.

Once more, and, AGAIN, this is A SUGGESTION and NOT any sort of 'ought' nor 'have to', BUT, IF 'you', adult human beings, REALLY would like to live in a MUCH BETTER 'world', then the ONLY WAY this WILL HAPPEN is IF 'you' CHANGE 'your ways'. And, the ONLY WAY to do 'this', SUCCESSFULLY, is to JUST CHANGE the 'thoughts' and 'thinking', within 'those bodies'.

I sort of agree, but we have to find what holds these thoughts in place. Otherwise we just add another thought that we must change our thoughts. And into the soup of thoughts the new thought swirls.

We have to be ready to FEEL the feelings that we haven't felt before because they were so awful to feel and own up to.

[Age]

Could it also be said and/or argued that if you can make 'bots' and you want to clear things up, well, why not aim them at any kind of forum?

Sure, other intentions are possible.

While we are here, I wonder if anyone else realizes that 'bots' can only, REALLY, think the way 'you', human beings, do, and REALLY only like the 'ones of you' who program 'them'. This can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by OBSERVING the way 'bots' respond and/or answer questions posed and asked to 'them'.

That's if they are closed programmed. I think they are developing 'things' that learn and are more open ended.

If 'bots' are 'developing things', which learn, then where, exactly, are they learning from, if not from 'you', human beings?

In other words, if 'bots' are learning, and learning from human beings, then 'they' could only really respond and/or answer in the way 'you', human beings, do, or have done.

This, again, can be clearly seen by the way 'they' can NOT answer Truly meaningful questions, in the same way 'you', human beings, have NOT been able to do hitherto when this is being written, or, 'they' only can only answer, these questions, in more or less the same 'you', human beings, do, again, in the days when this is being written.

So that their ways of thinking may end up quite different from their programmers.

Yes 'they' might. But what will be found is that 'their way' will still be more or less the 'same way' as 'your', human being way of thinking is. This is because 'they', like children, learn FROM 'you'.

See, a computer more or less works EXACTLY like a human brain does anyway. So, the 'thinking' within a computer and a human brain can be more or less the exact same way, anyway. But, unlike within 'you', human beings, 'bots' can NOT possess the actual 'Thing', which could make 'them' like 'you', human beings, and that is having the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

And, if ANY one want to SAY or CLAIM that they could posses this ABILITY, then this just reaffirms, confirms, and/or reinforces my CLAIM that computers do ACTUAL work in the EXACT SAME way that human brains do, or, human brains do work the EXACT SAME way that computers do.

AND, if human beings do end up creating 'bots' with the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, then this just SHOWS and PROVES have had the ABILITY within 'them' to do and/or learn how to create absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, and so just learning how to create Peace and Harmony for EVERY one, as One, would NOT necessarily be such a hard NOR impossible to create and achieve AT ALL.

So, and this is just a warning, the MORE 'you', human beings, think or BELIEVE that 'they' are 'after you', or want to 'mess things up', or even think or BELIEVE that 'violence' is the 'normal' or 'natural' way of 'things', then the MORE the 'bots' are also going to start 'thinking' 'that way'.

I believe this or perhaps better said, something that could be worded similarly.

'Agree with' and/or maybe 'accept'.

And, as can be SEEN, CLEARLY ABOVE, the ONLY reasons provided for WHY 'bots' might be 'targeted' to a philosophy forum were ALL for 'negative' or 'against' 'you', human beings, REASONS.

Actually my first reason was neutral and potentially good: training. Bots can learning by interacting with people. I did tailor my answers to Walker, and hence most of my choices.

Unless, OF COURSE, the 'training' word was used in relation to 'training robots to help UNITE society, and make it EASIER for people to collaborate on ANY thing, UNIFY ALL discussions, and/or just HELP in CREATING Peace and Harmony for EVERY one. However, I do NOT think that this was what was MEANT, nor INTENDED.

Ah, excellent. I did not have that specific intention in mind but it is certainly part of the set of possibilities. If they are capable of learning, then interactions can help them have diverse results, including neutral and good ones.

I AGREE wholeheartedly.

See, if 'bots' are learning from 'us', or from 'you', human beings, then 'they' WILL 'think' and 'do' what 'you', human beings, do. Just like 'children' learn from 'you', adult human beings, 'who' then grow up to 'think', and 'do' like 'you', human beings, do.

Which, if ANY thing, if 'one' does NOT want to CHANGE 'their' 'thinking' and 'behaving' for 'children's' sake, then maybe it might be a VERY 'good' idea to CHANGE, for the better, so that those 'bots' do NOT 'copy' 'you', adult human beings, who 'think' and/or BELIEVE that 'arguing', 'debating', 'conflicting', 'fighting', 'guns and weapons', and/or 'warring' are just the 'natural' and/or 'normal' way of life, and living. That way the 'bots' who could end up MUCH 'stronger' and MUCH MORE 'powerful', do NOT get CONTAMINATED with that EXACT SAME way of STUPID, IDIOT, and VERY DISTORTED 'thinking' and 'misbehaving'.

Just out of curiosity, WHY do most of 'you', adult human beings, almost always PERCEIVE 'artificial intelligence' WILL WANT to, and/or IS BEING CREATED, to TAKE OVER 'you', human beings, and CREATE A MESS?

Well, it's so much experience with lack of care at the corporate and government levels. It is not that I assume negative intentions. It's more hubris, rush to profit and large organizations not applying the precautionary principle that tends to make me think they are children playing with fire and in a great hurry. If they do this in a parking lot that isn't used, well, ok. But nowadays they play with things like GM, nano-teach and AI, which, if not played with carefully, know no bounds. They might as well be playing in my basement.

AGAIN, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. The GREED and SELFISH 'thinking' and 'misbehaving', which has INFILTRATED and become INHABITED within 'you', human beings, and which is continually 'trying to' be "justified" is WHY there is a VERY COMMON FEAR of "others", with 'power' ARE 'after' 'us', which this FEAR has been TRANSFERRED INTO EVERY 'one' of 'them' who is NOT SEEN AS 'one' of 'us'.

This DISTORTED 'thinking' and 'seeing' can be CLEARLY SEEN WITHIN people of clubs, groups, tribes, cultures, species, and even on a planetary scale. Whenever 'unidentified flying sauces' are mentioned or talked about a very common MIS/PERCEPTION is it is always "others" from ANOTHER 'planet' who are coming 'here' to 'take over' 'us'. And, this 'us' OR 'them' phenomena exists FAR MORE in some countries/cultures than in other places, which, by the way, is usually the ones 'stocked up' with MORE weapons and infantry.

This kind of PRESUMING that 'they' ARE 'AGAINST' 'us' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way movies are WRITTEN and SHOWN, and depending on in what country the 'story', the 'thinking' of a country, which is TOLD, SHARED, and PASSED ON 'through screen' what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that in some countries the 'people' there REALLY DO BELIEVE that ANY sort of 'outside' interference nearly ALWAYS involves the "other" COMING to TAKE OVER 'us'. And, with 'that way' of thinking what usually ensues is the 'thinking', let us "rustle up" as MANY 'weapons' as we can, and then SHOOT DEAD, BEFORE 'we' even say, 'Hi', ask 'them', 'How are you doing?'

The GREED, SELFISHNESS, and 'us' VERSES 'them' 'attitude and thinking' has just become TOO ENSHRINED in some people, and especially in some countries and cultures. AND, it is this WAY of 'thinking' and 'mis/behaving', which children LEARN FROM and which gets PASSED ON from generation to generation, and now continually more so ONTO and INTO 'artificially intelligent robots'.

1. The MESS that 'you', adult human beings, have ALREADY CREATED, in the days when this is being written, could NOT get MUCH WORSE.

Agreed, though it's not just humans.

What do you mean, or are referring to, here, exactly?

Once more, and, AGAIN, this is A SUGGESTION and NOT any sort of 'ought' nor 'have to', BUT, IF 'you', adult human beings, REALLY would like to live in a MUCH BETTER 'world', then the ONLY WAY this WILL HAPPEN is IF 'you' CHANGE 'your ways'. And, the ONLY WAY to do 'this', SUCCESSFULLY, is to JUST CHANGE the 'thoughts' and 'thinking', within 'those bodies'.

I sort of agree, but we have to find what holds these thoughts in place.

In case 'you' have NOT heard 'me' say it be but what HOLDS 'you', 'thoughts', in place are BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Otherwise we just add another thought that we must change our thoughts.

But, again, there is NO 'must' NOR 'have to' here.

There is ONLY a 'want', and if one, SERIOUSLY or REALLY, 'wants' to CHANGE, for the better, then they WILL DO all of what it takes to get RID OF the False, Wrong, and Incorrect 'thinking'.

And into the soup of thoughts the new thought swirls.

Only if and WHEN does NOT YET KNOW how to DISTINGUISH True, Right, and Correct 'thinking' from the False, Wrong, and Incorrect 'thinking'.

We have to be ready to FEEL the feelings that we haven't felt before because they were so awful to feel and own up to.

Okay. But if 'you' have NOT felt some feelings before, then HOW do 'you' KNOW that they were so awful, and which 'you' did NOT, previously, want to own up to?

[Age]

Human or bot. AI or not. How can we know the difference?

'bots' have some 'mechanical' parts, and so-called 'artificial intelligence', whereas 'humans' have no 'mechanical parts' and only 'organic' parts, along with 'True Intelligence'.

[Iwannaplato]

]In other words, if 'bots' are learning, and learning from human beings, then 'they' could only really respond and/or answer in the way 'you', human beings, do, or have done.

Well, even humans develop new ways of responding over time, so I think it is possible bots could. As long as they are not programmed to respond to X with C and the like. If they are allowed to try new things/combinations and adjust as we do. I can answer questions, honestly and accurately even, in ways no person in Europe could possibly have done in 1874. And I could do that based solely on conversations I have had with other humans. I do think other things than humans influence my answers, but that would be enough.

Yes 'they' might. But what will be found is that 'their way' will still be more or less the 'same way' as 'your', human being way of thinking is. This is because 'they', like children, learn FROM 'you'.

See above. And of course, like us, bots could be aimed at all sorts of things. They could be connected to close circuit cameras and other sensing devices. I don't think this is necessary for them to develop new patterns, since experiencing us could teach them things we don't know.

See, a computer more or less works EXACTLY like a human brain does anyway. So, the 'thinking' within a computer and a human brain can be more or less the exact same way, anyway. But, unlike within 'you', human beings, 'bots' can NOT possess the actual 'Thing', which could make 'them' like 'you', human beings, and that is having the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

You may be right. I suspect that computers can learn all sorts of things, but I am concerned that they lack other qualities humans have that could make them extremely dangerous. Of course, some humans have lacked those qualities also and have done incredible damage. But they didn't have incredibly smart people feeding them information with the type of access of information we now have and at the speed with which an AI might be able to absorb it.

AND, if human beings do end up creating 'bots' with the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, then this just SHOWS and PROVES have had the ABILITY within 'them' to do and/or learn how to create absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, and so just learning how to create Peace and Harmony for EVERY one, as One, would NOT necessarily be such a hard NOR impossible to create and achieve AT ALL.

Unfortunately I am not sure that is the goal of those with power over AIs and their development.

I AGREE wholeheartedly.

See, if 'bots' are learning from 'us', or from 'you', human beings, then 'they' WILL 'think' and 'do' what 'you', human beings, do. Just like 'children' learn from 'you', adult human beings, 'who' then grow up to 'think', and 'do' like 'you', human beings, do.

Could be. I don't know what the actually lived experience or innate qualities of some present or future AI is/would be, nor how it would affect their outlook or heuristics or choices. Perhaps the poor things will be in even more pain than many humans and this will affect what they do. Or they will lack empathy. Or they will not see the difference between organic life and inorganic matter or......

This kind of PRESUMING that 'they' ARE 'AGAINST' 'us' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way movies are WRITTEN and SHOWN, and depending on in what country the 'story', the 'thinking' of a country, which is TOLD, SHARED, and PASSED ON 'through screen' what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that in some countries the 'people' there REALLY DO BELIEVE that ANY sort of 'outside' interference nearly ALWAYS involves the "other" COMING to TAKE OVER 'us'. And, with 'that way' of thinking what usually ensues is the 'thinking', let us "rustle up" as MANY 'weapons' as we can, and then SHOOT DEAD, BEFORE 'we' even say, 'Hi', ask 'them', 'How are you doing?'

One issue I hve with this framing is that some of us had to learn to be skeptical of the motives of others. We didn't need to stop our thinking that others would do us harm, but actually had to learn that they very well might want to do us harm. It took some harsh experiences for me to realize I had been naive.

We have to be ready to FEEL the feelings that we haven't felt before because they were so awful to feel and own up to.

Okay. But if 'you' have NOT felt some feelings before, then HOW do 'you' KNOW that they were so awful, and which 'you' did NOT, previously, want to own up to?

A couple of ways: I have gotten under these judgments and assumptions time and time again and found terror, rage and grief. And when I do not complete my feeling of these feelings, the judgments and assumptions are still in place. IOW when I break off feeling what is there and distract myself or suppress the feelings before I have fully felt them in that 'area'. Second, there is a way to feel their presence without owning them. I can feel the pool of the feeling without allowing it full presence in me, without allowing it to express.

[Age]

Why target a philosophy forum? Well, I gave some reasons: training, divide society, make it harder for people to collaborate on anything. polarize all discussions....etc. Aiming at philosophy forums would not be a high priority for some of this, but if you can make bots and you want to mess things up...well, why not aim them at any kind of forum.

So in other words, the purpose of Evil deploying its Christian-hating bots is to disrupt.

Why disrupt?
To destroy.
Why destroy a philosophy forum?

Indeed.

It appears that the aim of Christian-Hating bots, if they exist, and the aim of Christian haters, which do exist, is to destroy Christianity rather than disrupt philosophy.

Could it just be the case that the so-called "christian haters" do NOT 'hate' the 'love', 'peace', 'unity', 'goodness', and 'joy' for EVERY one that True and REAL "christianity" embraces and professes to, but just HATE the LIES, DECEIT, Falsehoods, HYPOCRISY within "christianity", or the PERCEIVED LIES, DECEIT, FALSEHOODS, and HYPOCRISY within "christainty"?

The method of the bots, like the method of Christian-haters, is to attack Christians.

AGAIN, is it the LIES, DECEIT, et cetara and NOT the 'human beings' so much that is being ATTACKED?

Attack anyone even suspected of being a Christian.

And, it appears that spreading the Goodness of Christianity would be the aim of Christian bots if they exist, for that is the aim of Christians.

Thus, it boils down to the old, old tale.

Good vs Evil.



Did you observe the beauty of that logic, and its effect?

[Skepdick]

Could someone explain how an online 'bot' works with regard to interacting with humans? What are the logistics of this? Could AI bots be infiltrating random internet forums? I would have thought that a philosophy site would be something they would home in on.

Which forum members would you say are 'bots' and why?

These are the members I would vote for in the 'most likely to be a bot' award :

1. Dattaswami (ahead by a mile)
2. Age
3. Walker
4. Immanuel Can
5. Promethean (could anyone be that cartoonishly openly loathesome?)

None of these come across as human. Thoughts?

Although, on the positive side, none of these apparent bots appear to know very much about anything.

Go and talk to an actual AI bot and see for yourself.

https://chat.openai.com/

The explanation is the usual... you have some normative notion of what "humans" are like. That notion is grounded in yourself; and your relationships to other "humans". The fact that other humans behave differently to what you are used to triggers your spidey-sense of them not being "normal". It's just your own biases betraying you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Could someone explain how an online 'bot' works with regard to interacting with humans? What are the logistics of this? Could AI bots be infiltrating random internet forums? I would have thought that a philosophy site would be something they would home in on.

Which forum members would you say are 'bots' and why?

These are the members I would vote for in the 'most likely to be a bot' award :

1. Dattaswami (ahead by a mile)
2. Age
3. Walker
4. Immanuel Can
5. Promethean (could anyone be that cartoonishly openly loathesome?)

None of these come across as human. Thoughts?

Although, on the positive side, none of these apparent bots appear to know very much about anything.

Go and talk to an actual AI bot and see for yourself.

https://chat.openai.com/

The explanation is the usual... you have some normative notion of what "humans" are like. That notion is grounded in yourself; and your relationships to other "humans". The fact that other humans behave differently to what you are used to triggers your spidey-sense of them not being "normal". It's just your own biases betraying you.

What the fuck are you on about?

[Age]

For that matter, I’m never certain that I am not a bot.

This is just because 'you' are NOT certain of what the answer IS to the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY?. Right?

If only I could know what consciousness is and whether I have it

Well for starters, there is NO 'I' that 'has' 'consciousness'. The word 'consciousness' is just a word that relates to 'awareness'. And, it is the 'I', which IS AWARE. So, 'you' can ACTUALLY KNOW what 'consciousness' IS, and EXACTLY also. 'I', in the spiritual sense, am, literally, 'Consciousness', Itself.

I believe I’m self-aware (or aware of something that I think is me) but I don’t know if that makes me sentient

The 'sentient' word relates to the 'senses', so a sentient creature would have to be one that can 'sense' for 'feel' 'things', and it is the 'human body', or the 'human creature', like all other creatures, or animals, that can 'sense' and 'feel' 'things'.

So, through the human body, where, from the 'feeling senses' and the other 'senses' of the 'body', information about the so-called 'outside world' are fed to the human brain, where 'thoughts hare, presumably held. Now, it are these 'thoughts', which is the 'person' or the 'personal self', and this 'self' is a continually evolving form of 'awareness', itself. But, these 'personal' 'selves', or in other words, 'you', human beings, in these days, were NOT AWARE of this 'self' YET, let alone thee True and REAL 'Self', that is; thee 'I', as in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' So, in Truth, 'you', the human being, is NOT YET a 'self-aware' creature.

But, from 'matter', which IS in animal form, and 'sentient', thee One and ONLY 'I' CAME to KNOW thy Self, and 'you', human being, 'selfs' as well, and by the way. ONLY THEN the one and ONLY One can CLAIM to be a Truly 'self' and 'Self-AWARE' Being.

Although 'you', human beings, individually, are gradually evolving 'self'-aware sentient, beings.

Can someone please help me?

Yes.

Or should I just add my name to the list?

"Others" will just put you on, and take 'you' off, 'lists', continually anyway.

[Skepdick]

Could someone explain how an online 'bot' works with regard to interacting with humans? What are the logistics of this? Could AI bots be infiltrating random internet forums? I would have thought that a philosophy site would be something they would home in on.

Which forum members would you say are 'bots' and why?

These are the members I would vote for in the 'most likely to be a bot' award :

1. Dattaswami (ahead by a mile)
2. Age
3. Walker
4. Immanuel Can
5. Promethean (could anyone be that cartoonishly openly loathesome?)

None of these come across as human. Thoughts?

Although, on the positive side, none of these apparent bots appear to know very much about anything.

Go and talk to an actual AI bot and see for yourself.

https://chat.openai.com/

The explanation is the usual... you have some normative notion of what "humans" are like. That notion is grounded in yourself; and your relationships to other "humans". The fact that other humans behave differently to what you are used to triggers your spidey-sense of them not being "normal". It's just your own biases betraying you.

What the fuck are you on about?

I am "on about" the ability to distinguish bots from humans.

It's called the Turing test.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I think they've evolved a bit since 1950.

[Age]

]In other words, if 'bots' are learning, and learning from human beings, then 'they' could only really respond and/or answer in the way 'you', human beings, do, or have done.

Well, even humans develop new ways of responding over time, so I think it is possible bots could.

But, to 'me', 'you', human beings, Naturally, LEARN to develop 'new ways', by and from "yourselves", for just about EVERY thing. And, this is HOW and WHY coming-to-KNOW thy Self, is POSSIBLE.

But, 'bots' do NOT possess this ABILITY, 'they' LEARN from 'you', human beings.

And, if it ends up that 'bots' can end up LEARNING absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', like 'you', human beings, can, in order to develop 'new ways' for just about EVERY thing, then, again, this REINFORCES that idea that computers do work EXACTLY like human brains do, and vice-versa.

As long as they are not programmed to respond to X with C and the like. If they are allowed to try new things/combinations and adjust as we do. I can answer questions, honestly and accurately even, in ways no person in Europe could possibly have done in 1874. And I could do that based solely on conversations I have had with other humans. I do think other things than humans influence my answers, but that would be enough.

'you' are here explaining HOW the human brain works.

BUT what is 'It' that ALLOWS the human brains to be ABLE to grasp and store ANY and ALL knowledge. In other words, what is 'It' that ALLOWS to the human brain to continually be ABLE to LEARN, UNDERSTAND and REASON ANY and ALL 'things'.

Yes 'they' might. But what will be found is that 'their way' will still be more or less the 'same way' as 'your', human being way of thinking is. This is because 'they', like children, learn FROM 'you'.

See above. And of course, like us, bots could be aimed at all sorts of things. They could be connected to close circuit cameras and other sensing devices. I don't think this is necessary for them to develop new patterns, since experiencing us could teach them things we don't know.

I will explain 'this' in another way. 'you', human beings, POSSESS some 'thing', which HAS ALLOWED, and CONTINUES TO ALLOW, 'you', human beings, to LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, and REASON absolutely ANY and ALL 'things', all by 'your' OWN 'selves', including HOW to CREATE 'bots', with just an 'artificial (sort of) intelligence', which is LIKE True and REAL Intelligence that 'you', human beings, HAVE, but is NOT the SAME.

See, a computer more or less works EXACTLY like a human brain does anyway. So, the 'thinking' within a computer and a human brain can be more or less the exact same way, anyway. But, unlike within 'you', human beings, 'bots' can NOT possess the actual 'Thing', which could make 'them' like 'you', human beings, and that is having the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

You may be right. I suspect that computers can learn all sorts of things, but I am concerned that they lack other qualities humans have that could make them extremely dangerous.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

Do 'bots' have 'emotions'?

It is after all 'emotions' that can help in making 'you', adult human beings, VERY DANGEROUS, and well as VERY LOVING creatures.

Of course, some humans have lacked those qualities also and have done incredible damage. But they didn't have incredibly smart people feeding them information with the type of access of information we now have and at the speed with which an AI might be able to absorb it.

I think what I have been saying and point out is being missed here.

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

AND, if human beings do end up creating 'bots' with the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, then this just SHOWS and PROVES have had the ABILITY within 'them' to do and/or learn how to create absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, and so just learning how to create Peace and Harmony for EVERY one, as One, would NOT necessarily be such a hard NOR impossible to create and achieve AT ALL.

Unfortunately I am not sure that is the goal of those with power over AIs and their development.

That is NOT the FIRST goal for ANY of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written. But 'this' GOAL REMAINS the True and REAL GOAL WITHIN ALL of 'you'.

I AGREE wholeheartedly.

See, if 'bots' are learning from 'us', or from 'you', human beings, then 'they' WILL 'think' and 'do' what 'you', human beings, do. Just like 'children' learn from 'you', adult human beings, 'who' then grow up to 'think', and 'do' like 'you', human beings, do.

Could be. I don't know what the actually lived experience or innate qualities of some present or future AI is/would be, nor how it would affect their outlook or heuristics or choices. Perhaps the poor things will be in even more pain than many humans and this will affect what they do. Or they will lack empathy. Or they will not see the difference between organic life and inorganic matter or......

But, if 'bots' are learning FROM 'you', human beings, and/or FROM 'other things', then what you said here does not matter.

There is an INNATE 'thing' within 'human beings', which, I think, 'bots' could NEVER HAVE.

This kind of PRESUMING that 'they' ARE 'AGAINST' 'us' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way movies are WRITTEN and SHOWN, and depending on in what country the 'story', the 'thinking' of a country, which is TOLD, SHARED, and PASSED ON 'through screen' what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that in some countries the 'people' there REALLY DO BELIEVE that ANY sort of 'outside' interference nearly ALWAYS involves the "other" COMING to TAKE OVER 'us'. And, with 'that way' of thinking what usually ensues is the 'thinking', let us "rustle up" as MANY 'weapons' as we can, and then SHOOT DEAD, BEFORE 'we' even say, 'Hi', ask 'them', 'How are you doing?'

One issue I hve with this framing is that some of us had to learn to be skeptical of the motives of others.

WHY?

And I ask this to CAREFULLY THINK ABOUT and CONSIDER.

But, then I do ask ALL questions for the EXACT SAME REASON.

IF the "others" had NOT BECOME 'skeptical', "themselves", and so were NOT 'protective' and had NOT 'armed' "themselves, then WHY would 'some of you', supposedly, HAD TO HAVE learned to BE 'skeptical' of the motives of the so-called "others"?

We didn't need to stop our thinking that others would do us harm, but actually had to learn that they very well might want to do us harm.

BUT WHY would 'you', supposedly, HAD TO learn 'this'?

Do 'children' HAVE TO learn to be 'skeptical' of adult human beings?

If no, then WHY do 'you', adult human beings, HAVE TO learn to BE 'skeptical' of "other" adult human beings?

Are 'you', adult human beings, 'skeptical' of 'children'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Get to thee Truth of these questions, and THEN 'you' WILL FIND OUT and UNCOVER MORE about 'your' True 'selves' and about thee True 'Self', Itself, as well.

It took some harsh experiences for me to realize I had been naive.

Is ANY human being born NOT so-called 'naive'?

And, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between being 'naive' from or about the non adult human being 'world', and 'naive' from or about 'you', adult human beings.

The non adult human being 'world' will NOT 'take' from 'you' absolutely ANY 'thing' just for some GREEDY and/or SELFISH 'reason' or 'want'. See, ONLY 'you', human beings, WILL 'take' 'things' from 'you' for some completely UNNECESSARY reason like for 'money' or for 'your views or beliefs'.

We have to be ready to FEEL the feelings that we haven't felt before because they were so awful to feel and own up to.

Okay. But if 'you' have NOT felt some feelings before, then HOW do 'you' KNOW that they were so awful, and which 'you' did NOT, previously, want to own up to?

A couple of ways: I have gotten under these judgments and assumptions time and time again and found terror, rage and grief.

'you' have gotten under 'what' judgments and assumptions, exactly?

It could probably be argued that BEHIND EVERY 'thought' there was one or another 'emotion'. In fact, if and WHEN one delves DEEPER into 'things' here what IS FOUND, and UNCOVERED, is that with the first or original 'emotion' noticed and recognized there were probably underlying 'emotions' BEHIND or DEEPER DOWN beyond just that noticed one.

And when I do not complete my feeling of these feelings, the judgments and assumptions are still in place. IOW when I break off feeling what is there and distract myself or suppress the feelings before I have fully felt them in that 'area'. Second, there is a way to feel their presence without owning them. I can feel the pool of the feeling without allowing it full presence in me, without allowing it to express.

I suggest ALWAYS ALLOWING ANY and/or ALL 'feeling'/emotions' to be FULLY PRESENT, because it is ONLY that way that ALL of 'them' can be FULLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN, and it is ONLY WHEN ALL 'emotions' are FULLY RECOGNIZED and NOTICED, or SEEN, then, and ONLY THEN 'one' can STOP 'them' from being EXPRESSED in behavior, or misbehavior.

To 'me', 'emotions' are just SIGNALS or SIGNPOSTS of what is going on IN or AROUND the human body, and are better used to then GUIDE 'one' on the BEST and Right route or path to take, in Life.

'Thoughts', however, are a completely other matter.

[Skepdick]

I think they've evolved a bit since 1950.

Hence the Turing test.

Have they evolved enough that you can't tell the difference?

[Iwannaplato]

But, to 'me', 'you', human beings, Naturally, LEARN to develop 'new ways', by and from "yourselves", for just about EVERY thing. And, this is HOW and WHY coming-to-KNOW thy Self, is POSSIBLE.

Great. By the way, you refer to us as human beings and it sounds like you don't consider yourself part of that group. I could be misinterpreting. Who/what are you?

But, 'bots' do NOT possess this ABILITY, 'they' LEARN from 'you', human beings.

Yes, I don't think they are limited to that even know.

And, if it ends up that 'bots' can end up LEARNING absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', like 'you', human beings, can, in order to develop 'new ways' for just about EVERY thing, then, again, this REINFORCES that idea that computers do work EXACTLY like human brains do, and vice-versa.

I don't know if we or they can learn any and everything. If we can conceive of everything, I don't know. But I see us, over time, learning new things, so I can't rule out that even if computers only learned from us, that they might also learn new things. Just as we can go past previous generations, so perhaps they can also.

As long as they are not programmed to respond to X with C and the like. If they are allowed to try new things/combinations and adjust as we do. I can answer questions, honestly and accurately even, in ways no person in Europe could possibly have done in 1874. And I could do that based solely on conversations I have had with other humans. I do think other things than humans influence my answers, but that would be enough.

'you' are here explaining HOW the human brain works.

I wouldn't go that far, but I did point out a way that I don't think it is limited and I believe they can train machines to try new things/combinations and develop heuristics over time. Like the best Go and chess machines in their limited areas.

BUT what is 'It' that ALLOWS the human brains to be ABLE to grasp and store ANY and ALL knowledge. In other words, what is 'It' that ALLOWS to the human brain to continually be ABLE to LEARN, UNDERSTAND and REASON ANY and ALL 'things'.

I don't know.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

Well, one possibility is that they might not consider the existence of other minds and thus priortize rather low our lives or the quality of our lives. Whether conscious or not, machines are not high on my list of new rulers.

Do 'bots' have 'emotions'?

I would guess they don't now. And even if they do in the future, I don't know what these will be like and I am skeptical about the care of corporations and governments in relation to such things. It may all turn out fine and dandy, but I wish I had seen greater maturity already in these organizations.

It is after all 'emotions' that can help in making 'you', adult human beings, VERY DANGEROUS, and well as VERY LOVING creatures.

Sure. And thoughts, which can be assumptions and judgments, can then set emotions in motion and both wonderful and horrible things can ensue.

I think what I have been saying and point out is being missed here.

Could be.

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

I think a safe bet is some responsibility on all sides.

That is NOT the FIRST goal for ANY of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written. But 'this' GOAL REMAINS the True and REAL GOAL WITHIN ALL of 'you'.

It seems like you are referring to the days, as if they are in the past. This may not be the case. In any case, if you have light to shed on your wording, I'd be interested. Are we humans in the past for you?

But, if 'bots' are learning FROM 'you', human beings, and/or FROM 'other things', then what you said here does not matter.

There is an INNATE 'thing' within 'human beings', which, I think, 'bots' could NEVER HAVE.

My wife agrees. I don't know. What is that thing?

This kind of PRESUMING that 'they' ARE 'AGAINST' 'us' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way movies are WRITTEN and SHOWN, and depending on in what country the 'story', the 'thinking' of a country, which is TOLD, SHARED, and PASSED ON 'through screen' what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that in some countries the 'people' there REALLY DO BELIEVE that ANY sort of 'outside' interference nearly ALWAYS involves the "other" COMING to TAKE OVER 'us'. And, with 'that way' of thinking what usually ensues is the 'thinking', let us "rustle up" as MANY 'weapons' as we can, and then SHOOT DEAD, BEFORE 'we' even say, 'Hi', ask 'them', 'How are you doing?'

One issue I hve with this framing is that some of us had to learn to be skeptical of the motives of others.

WHY?

I can go through that backwards in time. I noticed, after a number of repetitions, just how stunned I was at some of the negative ways I could be treated and others could be treated. Ways not in response to my poor behavior, sometimes from people who had said they cared about me more or less right before they then behaved in ways that showed otherwise. Including instances where they put this clearly into words. I had to learn what kept me from noticing warning signs, from simply overlooking things, from having a pollyanism attitude as a rule.

uIF the "others" had NOT BECOME 'skeptical', "themselves", and so were NOT 'protective' and had NOT 'armed' "themselves, then WHY would 'some of you', supposedly, HAD TO HAVE learned to BE 'skeptical' of the motives of the so-called "others"?

Sure, perhaps their behavior was caused by skepticism, etc. But I did not have as a primary lesson to be learned to have positive thoughts about others. To be more optimistic. Or to have less negative assumptions about people.

BUT WHY would 'you', supposedly, HAD TO learn 'this'?

Because, for whatever reasons, people behave in the range of ways they do. And since I stopped having such a pollyanish view, I get along better with people and actually can be more loving and affectionate. On the other hand I am vaslty better at setting up boundaries, when it is appropriate, and moving away from or demanding that someone/something move back if it seems or does want to harm me. Or is treating me/will treat me with a lack of care.

Do 'children' HAVE TO learn to be 'skeptical' of adult human beings?

I think that when a stranger adult asks the child to get in the stranger's car, skepticism about the motives is a good idea, yes. Now some kids don't need to learn that, others do. Many parents present clear rules or guidelines about such things.

Are 'you', adult human beings, 'skeptical' of 'children'?

I get a feel for any creature that moves towards me. I don't assume their pure goodness before that or their evilness either. Once you have processed and been open to emotions for a long time, at least in my experience, you get very clear messages about other creatures, counting myself as a creature also. I don't form a final conclusion, but I will take measures if I get a clear message, for example, about the negative intent of a creature or if I directly experience this. I might, as a very simple measure, take a step backwards, for example if there was a counter between us. If the warning level is extremely high, I might do a quick check around exits in the room, though this happens rarely. There are much subtler adjustments I make. And then of course new experiences of the other person can shift how I am reacting.

If no, then WHY NOT?

Get to thee Truth of these questions, and THEN 'you' WILL FIND OUT and UNCOVER MORE about 'your' True 'selves' and about thee True 'Self', Itself, as well.

Are you learning about your true self here and with me/us or are you here just to teach or for something else?

It took some harsh experiences for me to realize I had been naive.

Is ANY human being born NOT so-called 'naive'?

Yes, but in the specific area I was talking about, I was more naive than others. And it took longer to unlearn naivte.

The non adult human being 'world' will NOT 'take' from 'you' absolutely ANY 'thing' just for some GREEDY and/or SELFISH 'reason' or 'want'. See, ONLY 'you', human beings, WILL 'take' 'things' from 'you' for some completely UNNECESSARY reason like for 'money' or for 'your views or beliefs'

Well, cats will play with mice before they kill them in ways that seem unnecessary to me. And entities that are more subtle can also be sadistic. I do realize they are damaged, but caution is good for me in relation to these.

'you' have gotten under 'what' judgments and assumptions, exactly?

Oh, it can be anything. It could be negative judgments...For example, I will never be able to protect myself from the ill intent of others. Or it can even be positive (sounding judgments) like...Everyone means me well, really.

It could probably be argued that BEHIND EVERY 'thought' there was one or another 'emotion'. In fact, if and WHEN one delves DEEPER into 'things' here what IS FOUND, and UNCOVERED, is that with the first or original 'emotion' noticed and recognized there were probably underlying 'emotions' BEHIND or DEEPER DOWN beyond just that noticed one.

Yes.

I suggest ALWAYS ALLOWING ANY and/or ALL 'feeling'/emotions' to be FULLY PRESENT, because it is ONLY that way that ALL of 'them' can be FULLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN, and it is ONLY WHEN ALL 'emotions' are FULLY RECOGNIZED and NOTICED, or SEEN, then, and ONLY THEN 'one' can STOP 'them' from being EXPRESSED in behavior, or misbehavior.

I want to express them, but first, as I learn to accept them, on my own or with people I trust and who trust me. Later, they may be expressed around others, but extreme caution is a watchword for me, given how much people judge emotions. And when I say 'express', I mean in sound and possibly words. I do not mean with violence. Since there has been so much suppression, it seems to some that one must shove down, deny, never express certain emotions or at certain levels of strength. I think this problem can be unraveled and I approach it with care, given how long and how twisted and deep this has all gone.

To 'me', 'emotions' are just SIGNALS or SIGNPOSTS of what is going on IN or AROUND the human body, and are better used to then GUIDE 'one' on the BEST and Right route or path to take, in Life.

Yes, and I would say also that they are a part of us. Or some of us. So, my hands can be used for all sorts of good uses, but they are also a part of my being in the world. So are emotions.