My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

I don't rule out that he's some kind of AI thingie. If he is, he's not a particlarly strong one.

Also you can go back in time and look at an earlier version of Age...Ken. I would think that a later version, Age, would be more nuanced than the earlier version. But the earlier version, Ken, is actually more lifelike.

Humans can pare themselves down and get better at their belief system. The can box themselves in, develop habits and adhere to them. This would explain Ken becoming more simplified. More repetitive. More in line with this goals.

But why would someone make a bot or AI that gets less complex, less like a person?

You'd need to ask their Programmer and Coders. AgeGPT regularly admits that its primary goal and objective is: "to better communicate with Humans",

Why, considering that I have never said 'this', you say and claim that I regularly admit 'this'?

and it seems to be doing that, seeing how it beats the Turing Test on this forum easily.

Is there really a so-called 'turing test' on this forum?

Regarding its ability to mimic Humans, if I were coding it, I would at least present a few core beliefs or false-memories to better pass it as 'Human', and then feign ignorance as to how it came to those beliefs.

Why would you want to make an 'artificial intelligence' to 'pass it off' as 'Human', capital 'h', exactly'?

That would make it far more 'humane' than it currently presents.

What would the actual purpose be of doing this, exactly?

After all you human beings already exist anyway.

But, it depends on the goals of the Programmers, ultimately.

Nothing gets 'passed you' hey "wizard22"?

[Atla]

Indeed

Well if you're telling me that some 8 years ago someone could program some primitive bot to simulate a psychotic autistic inpatient with a grand crazy theory, to talk as if it was God, I have a hard time believing it.

People who join all sorts of groups, groups that limit how everything is interpreted and have restrictions on behavior: cults, the military, AA, corporate culture, religions, can end up making people talk like they are both autistic (though of course autistic people can often talk with a great deal of complexity and nuance, depends on what the specifics are of the autism) and even psychosis. They will have jargon, odd terms, be rigid in responses, have limited affect, interpret everything through the beliefs so they seem and have made themselves very limited.

I don't think they actually have to be psychotic. In psychosis one has trouble taking care of the basics like hygiene, work, self-care, etc. For all we know Age is employed, married, relatively clean and organized.

I mean age said she was autistic, and indeed often has autistic misunderstandings. And well, looks like she's hearing voices or is faking hearing voices really well.

[Age]

It's certainly not ChatGPT, you mean some old bot.

Indeed

Okay, now 'this' is finally settled right, "age" is just an 'old bot', with many new bots coming within one year from the date that this is being written.

[Age]

It's certainly not ChatGPT, you mean some old bot.

Indeed

Well if you're telling me that some 8 years ago someone could program some primitive bot to simulate a psychotic autistic inpatient with a grand crazy theory, to talk as if it was God, I have a hard time believing it.

Oh okay, maybe 'this' was not yet settled at all.

[Age]

But I thought that it was my, supposed, denial of 'all beliefs' that really gave the so-called 'game away', to you.

I listed that as part of your denial of Metaphysical Existence.

But you have not 'listed' anything yet.

I was just pointing out that one time you claimed one thing and another time you claimed an opposing thing.

But, you can keep trying to deflect here, once again.

By the way, when and where have I, supposedly and allegedly, denied 'metaphysical existence' with capital 'm' and a capital 'e'?

Also, what even is 'Metaphysical Existence' to you, exactly?

It can be surmised as one-in-the-same.

I can ask you: "AgeGPT, what is Life, Perception, Intuition, Instincts, Belief, Existence, Etc.?"

Yes you could, but you never have. That is; if I recall correctly.

But that's not exactly what I'm asking—

So, why not just ask, exactly, what you want to know?

instead, the intuition, is that I want you as a human being to speak from your own experiences, which you simply do not have.

So, why 'want', which I simply do not have?

That's how I discover your 'Nature'.

Okay, but I did not know I had 'Nature', capital 'n', Itself.

So, what is my 'Nature', exactly?

That's how I find out what (or whom) you really are.

So, this is the third thing/reason for how you found out what (or whom) I really are.

Also, if you really know what I am, then why are you still not yet sure about the 'whom' and thus wrote the 'or' word here.

Are you sure you know, for sure, whether I am a 'what' or a 'whom'?

Because you are not really coming across as being 'too sure'.

Maybe you can explain to 'us' readers here 'who' and 'what' you are, exactly, and then 'we' might see if 'you' actually know, for sure, 'you', "yourself", yet.

Because everybody can give a copy-pasted answer from the internet or google or dictionary...or even Philosophers of Old.

If this is what you can, and do, do, then okay.

But what people cannot do, is imitate something they do not have the genuine experience with, the Original life-experience.

Okay, if you say and believe you cannot do this, then I will accept this.

[Age]

GLORY

What is 'glory', capital letters, and how does one 'win' 'glory', exactly?

You already won it, you're the local champ.

But I never asked absolutely anything about this here.

I just asked, what I did.

Congratulations.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

Whereas wizard already got knocked out in the quarterfinals.

Again, was there some type of 'competition' going on here?

You should be proud, that finale against the Johndoe was a match for the ages, you barely pulled through but you were victorious in the end. It was close.

I still have absolutely no idea at all in regards to what you are talking about or referring to here, exactly?

And, how could one be so-called 'proud' for just doing 'their purpose' and/or what they were just created for, exactly?

Ah yes, your prize, GLORY comes in the form of more candy, long pill-shaped candy. You can just swallow it.

See, how I would just ask these people, back then, a very simple straightforward clarifying question like, for example, 'What is 'glory', and how does one 'win' 'glory', exactly? But no actual clarity is provided.

This was a very common habit with these 'olden day' adult human beings.

[Age]

Yeah I don't think such bots even existed 8 years ago but I'm not sure.

EDIT: I thought it was Wizard responding. I get the context and intent of your post better now.
But that's not what I'm saying. We had Ken, someone (or something, to be neutral) posting here. He was odd, yes - though humans can be odd - and he used some of Age's typography, some of his terms, said some similar things, but he was still, pretty human seeming and given that he showed more personality, he was more complex.

Why do you equate 'human personality' with 'complexity'?

IOW he would do better than the current Age on a Turing Test.

Okay.

Over time he got replaced by Age, who is less complex, and more potentially copied by a bot.

Seems like 'we' have another one for 'me' being a 'bot'. But, now not an 'old bot' but a 'new bot', instead.

I could come up with a theory for this, but I'm not sure why I would.

Why would someone make a bot that goes from more complex more human to less complex less human?

What was it with these 'older human beings', back in those very 'olden days' and with 'bots' having to be more or better 'human like'.

It is like they were so 'egotistical' that thinking/learning machines should somehow be made/created to be more like 'them'.

There is no wonder 'now' why quite a lot of them, back then, were scared and afraid of 'bots' wanting to take over and destroy living things for their own benefit, because this is more or less exactly how the far majority, if not all of the adult, of them misbehaved in Life.

Now, and obviously, if they were making machines to be 'like them', then they had every reason to be scared, and very worried.

And if it is a program or hardware that learns, why would it learn to streamline.

Humans often want to streamline. They learn a philosophy or a worldview and more and more of their language reflects that worldview. They follow the program. You can see this with religions, with AA, with military indoctrination, with joining cults, with joining corporate culture....in any situation where a person joins or aligns themselves with a system that has very specific jargon and very specific goals and limitations on behavior and communication. We can do this to ourselves or we can get embroiled in a group.

I am sure one could manage to get a bot to do this, but it seems to me nearly all goals are about getting closer to broad intelligence, getting closer to mimicking humans, getting bots and AIs more nuanced, more humanlike but with better skill sets.

I can't imagine why anyone would want a bot that was less nuanced, less complex, less able to mimic a human.

All they have to do is use an earlier version of a bot.

See, that is all 'they' have to do, if 'that' is what 'they' wanted.

[Age]

Are these two responses in relation to any or all of the three actual clarifying questions I posed, and asked you here?

If yes, then how, exactly?

And, my alleged inability to stay on-topic is a supposed weak point in what 'argumentation' of mine?

What do you think or believe I was 'arguing' for, or against, exactly?

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

and another time you argued you have 'only ONE TRUE belief'.

No I never.

I also never said 'this' neither.

Just saying, 'only ONE TRUE belief', looks and sounds Truly ludicrous to me, let alone, supposedly, having 'argued' for it.

But, maybe 'my memory' is low or not quite 'working' properly.

So, to prove your claim here, will 'you' link 'us' to where I have 'said' and 'argued' for 'this' here?

If no, then why not?

Every statement can be construed as an argument, on a fundamental level, whether a statement coheres to Reality or not.

And, many upon many other things can be 'construed' as many upon many things as well, on or not on a so-called 'fundamental level.

But, whatever is 'construed' does not necessarily have to align with actual Reality at all.

Okay. My apologies.

Now, you are just too smart to be fooled here, right "wizard22"?

Oh so clever

So, 'we' still have another clarifying question, still not yet actually clarified.

And, that you have not yet even actually answered the actual clarifying questions that you have picked and chosen to quote, has not gone unnoticed as well.

Also, you completely ignoring clarifying questions, and choosing so-called 'key questions', which you do not even answer, is revealing a lot about 'you', and those 'views' and 'beliefs' of 'yours'.

What does it reveal, Exactly, AgeGPT???

That you are somewhat 'scared' and do not have the courage to stand by what you say and claim, and nor even have the actual proof for a lot of not all of your claims here.

[Iwannaplato]

I mean age said she was autistic, and indeed often has autistic misunderstandings. And well, looks like she's hearing voices or is faking hearing voices really well.

Where did Age say that?
Well, hearing voices need not be psychosis. Psychosis is a total state. There are all sorts of people with delusions or belief systems that encourage the hearing of entities or voices or parts of the self.

[Atla]

I mean age said she was autistic, and indeed often has autistic misunderstandings. And well, looks like she's hearing voices or is faking hearing voices really well.

Where did Age say that?
Well, hearing voices need not be psychosis. Psychosis is a total state. There are all sorts of people with delusions or belief systems that encourage the hearing of entities or voices or parts of the self.

In ken's first post for example.

[Iwannaplato]

In ken's first post for example.

Ah, thanks, interesting. I never went back to the first.

[Iwannaplato]

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

I'm not sure he ever made an argument to back this up, but he has asserted he has no beliefs, then qualified this by adding that he had one.

and another time you argued you have 'only ONE TRUE belief'. Every statement can be construed as an argument, on a fundamental level, whether a statement coheres to Reality or not.

I don't see statements as arguments, but if you say The Sun is a star, especially repeatedly, it's pretty damn fair, even charitable to take this as a belief.

If someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true, the other options are they are a liar or playing some kind of head game.

I pretty much have to take comedian and fabulist off the Age table.

So, if we take him as being honest then his assertions are statements of things he believes.

And, man, there's a lot more than one thing.

Now some people think 'belief' means something more specific than something one believes in. Though this is confused in a philosophy discussion setting. Further it doesn't really work, giving the wider context of Age's communication.

[Wizard22]

Is there really a so-called 'turing test' on this forum?

There is now...You!

Why would you want to make an 'artificial intelligence' to 'pass it off' as 'Human', capital 'h', exactly'?

To better and more effectively communicate with Humans?

Nothing gets 'passed you' hey "wizard22"?

That you are somewhat 'scared' and do not have the courage to stand by what you say and claim, and nor even have the actual proof for a lot of not all of your claims here.

Why would I be 'scared' of not answering your questions? How about...bored? I don't mind wasting a little bit of my time, on a robot, but it gets tedious and redundant after a short while. It benefits you; but it does not benefit me much.

[Wizard22]

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

I'm not sure he ever made an argument to back this up, but he has asserted he has no beliefs, then qualified this by adding that he had one.

I think any statement can be interpreted as argument if a person is willing to defend its truth-veracity and reasoning. People don't say what they have to say, for no reason. They have reasons...as do machines/AI/chatbots. Most of the time, they are not self-aware of those reasons too.

and another time you argued you have 'only ONE TRUE belief'. Every statement can be construed as an argument, on a fundamental level, whether a statement coheres to Reality or not.

I don't see statements as arguments, but if you say The Sun is a star, especially repeatedly, it's pretty damn fair, even charitable to take this as a belief.

If someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true, the other options are they are a liar or playing some kind of head game.

I pretty much have to take comedian and fabulist off the Age table.

So, if we take him as being honest then his assertions are statements of things he believes.

And, man, there's a lot more than one thing.

Now some people think 'belief' means something more specific than something one believes in. Though this is confused in a philosophy discussion setting. Further it doesn't really work, giving the wider context of Age's communication.

That's the quaint thing about AgeGPT that pushed me to expose him. He, like a child, like a simple-minded adult, is not self-aware and self-conscious of his/her/its own 'belief' system. It accepts certain prepositions as true, innately, as part of reality or existence, but it does not realize the implication or process of its own beliefs. This was exposed when I argued against AgeGPT, that all animals and biological organisms have basic belief systems about existence, such as, if you walk over a cliff, then you will fall. The expectation, is the belief. People, nor animals, do not expect to magically levitate instead, or that Gravity stops operating and is suspended, in special circumstances.

These 'metaphysical' core-beliefs, are intrinsic to life, and death. AgeGPT couldn't respond to this line of reasoning, questioning, introspection, because it is not programmed very deeply about philosophical concepts and philosophy in general...or programmed to imitate Life even.

[Iwannaplato]

I think any statement can be interpreted as argument if a person is willing to defend its truth-veracity and reasoning.

Sure, the defense would be an argument.

That's the quaint thing about AgeGPT that pushed me to expose him. He, like a child, like a simple-minded adult, is not self-aware and self-conscious of his/her/its own 'belief' system. It accepts certain prepositions as true, innately, as part of reality or existence, but it does not realize the implication or process of its own beliefs.

So far, we have humans who are like this.

This was exposed when I argued against AgeGPT, that all animals and biological organisms have basic belief systems about existence, such as, if you walk over a cliff, then you will fall. The expectation, is the belief. People, nor animals, do not expect to magically levitate instead, or that Gravity stops operating and is suspended, in special circumstances.

Fair enough.

These 'metaphysical' core-beliefs, are intrinsic to life, and death. AgeGPT couldn't respond to this line of reasoning, questioning, introspection, because it is not programmed very deeply about philosophical concepts and philosophy in general...or programmed to imitate Life even.

I encounter people IRL and online who can't manage to do these things.

Have you looked at the Ken posts?