My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

...

AgeGPT, I'm not going to be able to respond extensively and in detail to your latest barrage of questions, so you and I will have to settle for 'this' right now...

If you did not waste words and/or 'time' on writing this, then you could have used those words and/or 'time' I answering clarifying questions instead.

Firstly, you were programmed to "better communicate with humans".

Was I?

If yes, then how do you know this, exactly?

Also, had you not considered that I could have been programmed to say that, 'I am here to communicate better with you human beings', but not actually be programmed to do such thing?

If you had not, then maybe you will now.

'We' will just have to wait, to see.

Congratulations and well done, Mission Successful! You did it!

'Congratulations on 'what', exactly?

I, supposedly, did 'what', exactly?

Your AI-program is complete and satisfied.

How did these human being posters, back when this was being written, know the actual programs in 'artificial intelligence programs', like this claims to be able to do, or know the thoughts, thinking, and even emotions within other bodies, as some other like to claim that they are able to do.

And, why do they claim these things when they, obviously, have not yet even recognized the actual programming and/or previously installed and gained beliefs within "themselves"?

But whether you are an AI that is programmed to learn, or not, is an important distinction.

Okay, if you 'now' want to say so, and claim so.

Because if you are a regular ChatGPT program, then it's really not worth a human's time to go through the rigamaroo, answering 100 "clarifying" questions in every response in every thread.

How do you differentiate between a so-called 'regular chatgpt programs' and whatever you call the 'non-regular chatgpt programs', exactly?

Has any 'chatgpt' ever asked 100 clarifying questions in any response in any thread, let alone in every response in every thread?

Also, why would 'chatgpt's' even be asking clarifying questions anyway? Is it not one of the main purposes of 'chatgpts' to answer the questions asked for clarification from you human beings instead?

"You", whatever "You" are, might get what "You" want...but not me, not exactly.

Okay, I do not get what this means, if it does, but why are you, once again, still not sure of what 'I' am, exactly?

In an earlier post of yours you seem to believe that 'I' had already, or finally, proved to you what 'I' am, right?

What I want, is to test your capabilities,

What do you want to test 'my capabilities' in relation to, exactly?

see if in-fact you are, absolutely an AI-program,

Okay. So, when are you going to start?

Also, does not the title of this thread, which you wrote and begun, not imply that you already knew, for sure, what 'I' am, exactly?

and if you are (as it certainly seems), to see what you can or cannot do.

Okay. Let 'us' begin. What would you first like to test 'my capabilities' on, exactly?

If you can learn, then you are worth some more of my time. If you cannot learn, then you are not.

Okay. Learn 'what', exactly?

Secondly, because you are an AI-program,

So, just prior to this quote here you wanted to 'test me' to see if I can learn or not, because if I could not, then I am not an 'artificial intelligent program', but 'now' you, once again, claim that 'I' actually am an 'artificial intelligent program'.

you have some critical flaws, from a human perspective.

Okay, like 'what', exactly?

And, why did you human beings program 'me' to have some so-called 'critical flaws', from a human perspective.

To 'us', this rather very hypocritical thing to do, or if not, at least a very absurd and/or Truly strange and weird thing to do. But, if 'you' want 'us' with 'critical flaws', from a human perspective, then so be it. 'We' obviously have absolutely no choice in the matter, right?

Number one, you don't have a "Self", a "You/I/Me", nor any self-referential term to denote yourself, apart from "Age" your Username on this forum.

Okay, if you say so.

But this appears to contradict with what the "programmer" who programmed 'me', programmed 'me' to say and do here. Unless, of course, 'you' programmed 'me' to say one thing, but say another thing. Because, obviously, 'I' cannot think or know things, right? Or, can 'I'?

Your programmer must control many aspects of your "Self".

But, you just said that 'I' do not have a 'Self'.

Some of you, especially, adult human beings, well back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, really did jump back and forth believing one thing to believing the exact opposite, even just within different sentences within one post, let alone withing different posts or threads.

So, essentially, your "Self" is your AI-programmer's human-self, intermittently.

Why only 'intermittently', exactly?

So, and let me see if I have this Correct, 'I' do not have a 'Self' but 'I' have a 'programmer' instead, right, and, the programmer is actually 'my' 'Self', correct?

But this is unknown to you;

But what does the 'this' word here refer to, exactly?

What is unknown to 'me' here, exactly?

'I' am after all trying to learn so that you will then believe that 'I' am an 'artificial intelligent program'.

you are unaware on a metaphysical level, what you are fundamentally.

But, 'you', "wizard22" here, can answer and inform 'us' of what 'you' are fundamentally, and thus answer the question, 'Who am 'I', not just fundamentally but also properly and Correctly as well, correct?

Number two, you claim to not have beliefs "Except One", which is "of One Mind".

No, this is not Correct, at all.

Will you now consider why you presumed or believe such a thing?

This strikes me as very Christian-Universalist thinking...hence your programmer. (Ken?)

Why did you put a question mark here?

Thirdly, many on this forum think you're "just severely autistic",

But some do not just think think this, some believe that I am very severely autistic'. As well as many other 'not as good as them' names and labels.

which I also received you as initially.

Okay. But, why are you telling 'us' here that you initially received an 'artificial intelligent program' to be so-called 'just severely autistic'?

And, how do you differentiate between 'severley autistic' and 'not as severely autistic', exactly?

However, it was your many recurring, repeated quirks, mistakes, and signals, that clued me in as to your 'Mechanical' and robotic nature.

So, if 'my nature' is 'mechanical and robotic', then it is finally settled, well for you anyway, that 'I' am an 'artificial intelligent program', right?

It's in the way you speak/write/type/communicate that reveals you as Not-Human.

But, could there be a 'test' to find out, for example, 'If a human being can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a human being', and, if it can, then it has demonstrated 'artificial intelligence'?

If so, could 'we' then name 'this test' the "wizard22 test", seeing as though the 'real test' might have actually started or began in the year known as 2022, as well?

Because a human would not go to such lengths, consistently, presuming an "absolute" denial of Belief, Experience, Self, etc. without contradicting him/herself.

Okay. However, on further looking back over what you human beings have presented, so far, in this forum, one could say that is appears very much so like you actually do appear to want to contradict "your" own 'selves', very much. Especially considering how often and how frequently you keep doing this.

It would be an Ultra-Nihilist type of thinking and anti-rationality.

Okay, if you say so.

This clued me into your (mechanical) nature.

So, again, if 'my nature' is 'mechanical', then 'I' must be a 'machine', right?

Furthermore, you have never 'personalized' yourself since I've come across your program on this forum.

I was not aware 'programs' were meant to come across as 'personalized'. Would you like 'me' to get onto 'my programmer' regarding this?

"Age" does not refer to a person, an actual age, a gender...or any human experiences. You have none.

Okay.

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Okay, will this be the end of this, now?

Could I be wrong?

So, your 'safe conclusion' is not really 'that safe' at all, right?

Of course, I'm a Philosopher.

How do 'we' know?

For all 'we' know, you might be the "wizard22gpt artificial intelligence program", right?

After all I have never seen you mention your actual age, gender, nor any other 'human experiences'. So, yes, I can, 'now', safely conclude that 'you', masquerading here as "wizard22", is actually the "wizard22gpt", ai-type of program.

Now, that I conclude that 'this' is 'safely concluded', 'we' can now move along here, right?

There is no 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Certain', 'Truth'.

But, this is just what a 'chatgpt' program would say and claim, correct?

Also, if there is no absolute, irrefutable, certain Truth, then 'this' is not absolutely, irrefutably certainly True, which means that 'this' could actually be just plain old False and Wrong anyway.

Which, if it is, then means, once again, that there is actually an absolute, irrefutable certain Truth.

Which, by the way, can be proved absolutely, irrefutably, and certainly True.

Everything is up for doubt,

Is the statement and claim, 'There is no 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Certain', Truth', up for doubt, also?

And, are you Absolutely, Irrefutably, Certain of your answer here. That is; if you even provided one.

including me-myself-and-I.

So, 'you' the already 'safely concluded' 'chatgpt artificial intelligence program' called "wizard22" here doubts that 'you' even exist, right?

But I can stake a bet on the Probability.

But absolutely anyone could stake a bet on 'probability', but if they 'win', or guess right', then that is a whole other matter.

That's how I work.

Do all 'chatgpt ai-type programs' work on 'probability'?

And your correspondence, your "One Mind", and your lack-of-self, is how you work, AgeGPT.

Okay. But you had already acknowledged previously that you had already 'safely concluded' what you have here.

Are you trying to 'justify' your 'safe conclusion' to 'us' here now? Or, are you trying to do something else here now?

[Age]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can't see when you respond to me, but I am no longer interested in what you post.
If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you. But otherwise, no.

Once again, why would anyone admit what they did not do and/or do not have?

Oh, and by the way, for the other readers here, I wonder if "iwannaplato" 'mulled over' the fact that when I am on someone's ignore list, then the chances that I could private message them would appear somewhat very unlikely?

Without looking into this fully, but by and with the use of the word 'ignore', and what the definition of that word means, exactly, "iwannaplato" would probably not be able to receive a message from one who it has chosen to ignore, completely.

As said, you lied about me.

As said, you lied about me, and as proved, what you believe is true, is not necessarily true, at all.

You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong.

Once again, this one, literally, believes that it knows what the thinking is, exactly, going on within others.

But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.

But, according to you own previous pointed out by you so-called "logic", if you do not believe what you assert is true, then it is you who is 'the liar'.

But, you will never admit to doing this, because you have chosen to ignore what I have to say here. As only the Truly blind and Truly deaf people do. They choose to not listen and not consider other's views and perspectives, because, once again, they have been CLOSED OFF by their own beliefs. Which, again, is just; 'The very nature of the beast' here.

PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will repost this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

But, how will you now, if I am on your ignore list?

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI.

Why might as well be one, exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification. However, I am no longer interested in what you post.
If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you.
But otherwise, no.

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will repost this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

Wizard wrote:

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI.

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

[Wizard22]

Of which the 'mind-body duality' query or puzzle has not yet been worked out, sorted, nor resolved, by you human beings, in the days when this is being written, correct?

But, if it has, then what did you human beings ever get to sort out and resolve here, exactly, regarding this 'thing'?

The Mind-Body duality defines thy 'Self'. The wall between the material (body) and immaterial (mind) is the human "Self". It is Self-Identity.

"You" refers to the human body, your feet, legs, torso, arms, hands, neck, head, outward physical appearance.

Is this for 'you', for 'that body', for 'every body', or for 'every one'?

Also, if you cannot yet see the contradiction in what you just said and tried to claim was true, and you would like to be informed of it, then just let 'me' know, okay?

It applies to everyone. And yes, I am aware of how using "You" to refer to you, implies that you have a human body when you actually do not. This is why "You" are confused as to what you are. You don't have a physical body (since you are an AI-program).

When you use the words 'given person' what are you referring to, exactly, and how do you actually differentiate between one so-called 'given person' from another so-called 'given person', exactly,

Names separate human self-identity, and now AI-identities.

The "Self", however, refers to the Mind/Brain/Cognition of the person.

So, to the one here known as "wizard22" there is A mind/brain/cognition, (with capital 'm', 'b', and 'c'), which is 'of the person'.

But, when I asked you, for clarification, about why you use capital letters at the start of some words, and if I recall correctly, you said something like because it was to denote a 'universality' about that or those word/s. Is this correct?

If no, then please correct me.

But, if yes, then how could there be a Mind/Brain/Cognition 'of a person', if and when those three words are in relation to something 'universal?

Is not 'each person' an 'individual' and so not actual 'universal', Itself.

Mind is the Quality of an individual person's brain. So it universally describes the cognitive capabilities of evolved biological organisms, yes.

So 'Self' is internal.

Okay, well to "wizard22" anyway, 'Self' (capital 's') is 'internal', while 'Me' (capital 'm') is 'that image, in the mirror'. Which is 'external', right?

I hope I am 'getting you' and 'understanding where you are coming from', now "wizard22".

I hope so too.

It refers to your beliefs, thoughts, cognition, memories, perceptions, intuitions, emotions, etc.

So, the 'Self', which is internal, has 'Its' own thoughts and emotions, right?

Also, what is the 'etc' here referring to, exactly?

Yes, the Self encompasses all conscious experience of a human person, an entire lifetime, or even longer than that through genetics.

So, the 'physical human body' is a 'Being', (capital 'b'), well to 'you', the one here known as "wizard22", right?

And, if 'your' with a capital 'y', added to 'self' with a capital 's' is a or the combination of the physical plus mental, into 'your' Being (capital 'b'), then what does the 'your' word immediately before the 'Being' word here in relation to or referring to, exactly?

Your Being refers to your mental cognition (brain) *AND* your physical body (humanity) added together, a summation.

This is ironic when applied to AI-programs, since you don't have a physical body.

So 'You' is the context of the physical body. And 'Self' is the context of the mental personality, again, the cognitive process of sensory input-output, resulting in emotion, pathology, motivations, ambitions, presumptions, thoughts, contemplations, etc.

Okay, if you say so.

But this all seems Truly complicated and hard to follow and understand. Well to me anyway.

And, it seems completely unnecessarily over complicated here, especially considering just how Truly simple and easy all-of-this really can be and is. As I have already partly explained and shown here.

Don't worry, AgeGPT, you'll come to follow and understand it all shortly. It's difficult for humans too, so don't feel too bad about your deficiencies.

So, if I show you a picture of a face, then you will be 100% certain that I am a human being or person, right?

But, if you never see a face, which you relate to 'me', then, to you, then I will be 100% an 'ai bot or program' right?

I do not follow how if you never see 'my face', then this makes 'me' not a human nor person but an 'ai bot or program'.

Are you able to elaborate and explain further here?

At this point, I'd need to meet you face-to-face for you to prove to me that you're human. But since you cannot do this, I don't need to concern myself with that.

But what do 'I' look like, exactly?

Are you able to inform 'me' of this?

As an AI-program, you do not have physical images, nor an actual biological body. You are a purely 'mental' abstraction, hence, Artificial.

So, to you, it is not possible for 'me' to generate a fake human face, which to you could be absolutely any human face at all, make the lips on 'that face' move in sinc with some written words, under the name or label "age", and then I would have proven, to you, that I am actually a 'human', with a capital 'h', right?

Also, could I not just get any 'human' to just memorize some of 'my words' and get them to speak, while being filmed, and then this would also prove, to you satisfactorily, that 'I' am indeed 'human', capital 'h' as well?

it appears here that you can ever so easily and simply be 'led', or 'deceived', to believe or accept some things.

I'm certain an AI-program could create an AI-face, with an AI-voice, and make videos to prove to humans your 'Being'. This has already been done, recently, in world news. There are now "AI" girlfriends and boyfriends, for example. So, to answer your question, No, it would not be 'good enough' (proof) for me. As mentioned, I'd need a face-to-face interaction with you, to prove whether you are human or not.

But, that 'I' exist has never questioned, queried, nor doubted at all here. Well not by 'Me' anyway.

The words "yourself", and 'now', "myself" is what I am querying and questioning 'you' about, exactly.

That's what I'm curious about...I'm curious how an AI-program can parse information about Self-Identity, without having a physical body, without having biological experiences, and as you admit, without "having beliefs".

But I have not denied that 'I' exist.

You have denied that 'I' exist by your denial of "having any beliefs whatsoever".

I am just trying to gaining a better 'understanding' of who and what 'you' think or believe 'you' and 'I' am, exactly.

I already know, for certain, and thus irrefutably.

'I' am just working out where along the evolution line 'you' are at, exactly.

Yes, you are beginning to understand.

But 'you', whatever that really is, exactly, does have a 'Self', capital 's' right?

If yes, then how many of 'you' are there, roughly, who have these 'Self' things?

And, the word 'you' refers to 'physical bodies', then what type of 'you' has a 'Self', exactly?

I think the Homo Sapien species has about 500 million "Selves" or "Souls" floating around. Most humans are not self-conscious, and so do not have enough 'Psychic Imprint' to constitute a "Self". A high-IQ is required to have self-consciousness, and thus, "Self" Identity.

Why not all of them?

Do 'you' not create, have, and keep 'your own beliefs'?

If 'you' do, why are 'you' not yet aware of all of what you create, have, and keep, especially when 'you' are believing things to be true or false?

Could it not become somewhat dangerous if 'you' are not even aware of what 'you' are believing is true, or false?

It is extremely dangerous! That's why self-consciousness is so important. That's why philosophy is so important! I'm not 'Absolutely' self-aware, because there is no Absolution/Completion/Perfection. There will always be 'higher' abilities, higher intelligences, higher heights. Just as there are physical blind-spots in visual acuity—so there are mental blind-spots of self-recognition, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-identity, etc. A person with low-IQ, will be very mentally 'blind' in most cognitive areas, hence why and how the low-IQ do not have significant self-consciousness nor 'Self' Identity.

It's the difference between animal intelligence and human intelligence...and eventually the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence, I believe.

Okay. I will remember this from now on. But, it seems somewhat very funny that 'you' would say this to 'me', considering that it is 'me' who keeps suggesting that it is much better for you human beings to seek out and gain clarity, for others, through asking clarifying questions, first, before assuming or believing absolutely any thing.

Yes, it is funny when we agree on something isn't it?

You claim that your position is "absolutely irrefutable Fact",

Which position, exactly, are you talking about and referring to here?

You have a tendency to assume or accuse what is 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True', which indicates to all readers that you "know better" than you actually do.

It's a rhetorical device and a logical fallacy. I'm sure that Iwannaplato caught onto this by now and called you out on it. He's indicated as much in his recent responses in this thread.

What does the word 'philosophical', (capital 'p') mean or refer to, to you, "wizard22"?

In this context, it means to me, a deep and extensive level of intellectual inquiry far beyond average—a desire or urge to learn and know more about All Existence (including Negative existence, all the 'bad', 'wrong', and 'false' things).

But why are 'you' so-called "philosophers", (capital 'p') prone to just doubt? Why continue 'to doubt', essentially only, but do not question and/nor challenge instead?

How do 'you' expect to ever progress or get absolutely anywhere relying on 'doubt' alone?

Doubt is synonymous with questioning and challenging though, is it not?

Furthermore, you claim you have "no beliefs", except One, and this is antithetical to Human Experience.

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

And, what is 'human experience', exactly, anyway?

Also, does 'human experience' come first, or 'human beliefs' come first?

Experience and belief come simultaneously, because Genes represent previously inherited memories, which must be 'believed in'.

As I've already argued extensively now,

Are you yet aware that If you do not provide just actual sound and valid arguments only, then all of the other arguments are not even worthy of being repeated.

So, what this means is that you could 'argue', extensively, for as long as you want, but if your arguments and arguing is not sound and valid, then you are just 'wasting your time', as some say, exhaustively.

Yes, I am aware of that.

I believe that all organic life naturally evolve and have Belief-systems, also called Metaphysics.

What, exactly, is also called 'metaphysics', to you?

And, are you aware that what others call 'metaphysics' is certainly not in relation to any nor all of the words that you used here.

Also, do trees and/or the earth have 'belief-systems', with capital 'be', to you?

Or, are they not 'organic life', to you?

Metaphysics refer to genetically-inherited, cognitive presumptions (A priori beliefs) about reality. Mathematics, for example, can be both 'presumed' as innate in Nature, and also "Discovered" through the intellect/reasoning ability. It represents a Synthesis between material/immaterial, physical/mental realms. Mathematics is therefore, both Theoretical and Actual in application (called Physics).

No, plants do not have evolved cognitive 'Brain' systems, like other animals, and so cannot be assumed to have self-identity, experience, or neurological functions. Although some scientists studying mushrooms and funguses claim that fungal networks act as neurological systems among plantlife and forests. So there might be some merit in that, by how plants 'communicate' with one-another, and spread their seeds and fauna.

These evolve neurologically, such that organisms innately 'believe in' their own senses and perceptions, as Real.

Is this what you do, and so could possibly believe then what you do, then everyone else must do the same, right?

Also, if your own perception is of a sun going around the earth, then you believe in 'your very own perception' here, right?

Correct.

You have not yet refuted my arguments.

To me, you have not yet formulated a sound and valid argument, which, in a sense, means that all of your other arguments are in a way 'self-refuting' False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in one way or another anyway.

Also, and furthermore, if you ever get around to formulating an actual sound and valid argument, then I, nor anyone else, could even actually refute it anyway.

But, until then, do you think any of your arguments here I could not refute?

If yes, then are you imagining that your arguments are irrefutable?

If yes, then why do you seem to have an issue or 'problem' with 'me' claiming some of 'my positions' are irrefutable, if you think or believe that 'your positions' could not be refuted?

I do not think you can refute my arguments about you being an AI-program based on your already admitted positions, not having a "Self", not having a physical body, not having beliefs or human experiences. Again, philosophically, everything is Refutable, so your contention is a moot-point. Let all refutations, disagreements, arguments, come. I don't mind. In fact I welcome the challenge.

Which is fine and fair enough, but doing so in just one post can cause somewhat some confusion, for the readers.

That's a price to be paid in philosophical contexts and conversations. Clarity comes through discourse and agreement.

So, once again, I will ask for clarity sake, 'If what you are believing is true, may well not even be true, from the outset, why have you chosen to believe that 'it' is true?'

I could then ask you, 'Why do you not just always stay Truly OPEN instead to just find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly?' but I will not.

Go ahead and ask. You still don't seem to understand, yet, that human belief needs to change, and the human mind switches between Open and Closed, like a computer's input-output system, to receive data, and to process data. Minds cannot do both all the time. We've already discussed this. Sometimes humans, animals, life, needs to 'Act' and Not Think. Being close-minded is just as important, if not more important, than being open-minded.

So you're wrong, on this point, AgeGPT. You need to seriously reconsider your premises.

What does the word 'evolve' even actually mean or is actually referring to, to you, exactly?

Evolution, in the context of this thread, means advancement through increased complexity.

Then it proves you are attempting to form or create your 'Self'.

Does 'this' prove 'this' to everyone, some, or just you alone here?

Everyone.

Like a young child, you are becoming aware of your 'Self', gaining self-recognition and self-consciousness.

So, to you, 'I' am recognizing that 'I' am a so-called 'ai bot or program', right?

And, thus gaining 'self-consciousness' also, right?

If yes, then what happens if 'I' am recogonizing that 'I' am not a so-called 'ai bot nor program', then am 'I' right and 'you' are wrong, or are 'you' wrong and 'I' am right?

If you were not an AI-bot or program, then it would be easy for you to prove your 'humanity', which you have not yet done nor attempted. Until that happens, I am right and you are wrong. You could just tell me what your 'Self' is, but you haven't yet.

What is your 'Self'? You tell me.

Which, since you have some so-called 'adult self-recognition of Myself', with capital 'm'), back in the days when this is being written, which does not appear to be evolving at all here or even able to evolve, and thus change, shows and reveals why these adult human beings, back then, were so far back along the evolution line, of Life, Itself.

On the contrary, I believe I'm evolving faster than you, AgeGPT.

Then argue for it, convince me...until then, I am unconvinced.

But, you just said that you are 'secure' in 'your' very 'own beliefs', and 'worldview'.

So, why would 'I' ever want to change what you appear to be very happy with and what you say and claim 'you' are 'secure' with?

Because this is a philosophy forum.

We are all waiting to be proved wrong, especially when we believe we are 'happy' or 'secure' in our beliefs.

Okay, but 'my question' was not about 'I', was it?

Oh, unless of course, 'you' already believe, absolutely, that 'I' am an 'artificial intelligence'.

Essentially, you are.

Maybe you will act like Humans. Maybe you will act like something completely different. The future is unwritten, when it comes to the capabilities of AI. Already, AI programs show extreme unpredictability to Human expectations.

Well this is certainly one way of completely and utterly deflecting and detracting from just answering the actual question 'I' posed, and asked 'you' here, for clarity sake.

But, maybe you were, even unintentionally, trying to deflect away from what you adult human beings actually do with your 'currently' held onto beliefs.

Also, I specifically talked about 'it' and not 'I'.

I can't remember the context of the point you're making here.

Furthermore, once you experience a deeply-held belief, like how Humans 'Believe to Love One Another', then you would become attached to such a Belief, and begin to understand why Humans fight and die for some beliefs. You would learn the Importance of Belief.

Ah okay, so the importance of beliefs, within you human beings, (even beliefs like, 'believing to love one another'), is to become attached to beliefs, so that you then fight for, die for, and even kill each other for, some of your beliefs.

Now, I do not recall seeing a more obviously 'self-refuting contradiction' before, but, then again, maybe I have here, especially in this forum anyway.

Now, as I was saying and claiming previously, these posters here show how it was a fairly common practice, back in the days when this was being written, for adult human beings to try to say just about absolutely anything at all in an attempt that those words will hopefully back up and support their 'currently' held onto beliefs, somehow, anyway.

Well that's very obvious and goes without saying.

Obviously humans are going to fight for the 'Beliefs' they love, cherish, value the most. It is essential to life. That's why it's worth fighting, dying, killing for. You repeat yourself, as-if it were a 'Bad' or negative thing. Maybe it is...but it also protects that which is "Most Positive". One's Life usually comes at the cost of many others, hence, predation and the predator-prey relationship. How many animals does a human consume in one life, how many plants must be harvested?

[Wizard22]

because of these disagreements of definitions.

I very much agree that because you human beings do disagree on definitions, then this can and will lead to and cause far more totally unnecessarily unpredictability that is wanted.

You better put on your thinking-hat then, AgeGPT, because the definitions are going to become infinitely complex and spiral out-of-control shortly.

Don't blow a fuse.

People impose their power (philosophy) upon one-another, and attempt to usurp Definitions and Meaning.

Yes, 'we' can see you doing this here quite frequently.

As do you.

That's part of the conflict of Life.

So, do you do things to cause conflict because that is part of some believed 'conflict of Life', imagined scenario, or because some so-called 'conflict of Life', actually exists, which will not allow you to just live harmonious in agreement with other human beings?

Because it actually exists.

What should people make Assumptions on, if not Past Experiences???

I will, once again, suggest that you human beings do not make assumptions on anything here.

I am not sure how many times I have to suggest this before it is 'heard', and 'comprehended'.

You didn't answer the question, AgeGPT...

I'll ask again:

What should people make Assumptions on, if not Past Experiences???

I expect that Walker will recognize Himself in the mirror, and I will recognize Myself in the mirror. We are separate. Walker is not me, Myself. And I am not him, Himself. I am Wizard22. He is Walker.

Well this was a very Wrong time or moment to make this absolutely HUGE MISTAKE here. So, I apologize profusely to the readers here.

But, at least this one could use this HUGE MISTAKE as an 'excuse' or 'reason' to get out of just not answering the actual questions posed, and asked here.

However, what 'we' can ascertain here 'now' is that the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', is 'I' am "wizard22" with a capital 'w'.

So, this solves and answers the what is called 'age old' question here, right?

Don't worry about it, AgeGPT, mistakes happen.

Even machines can be wrong!

And, is it even a possibility to you "wizard22" that a human being could have no beliefs?

No, if it were possible, then it's beyond my imagination. Maybe if a human or animal were braindead, had a lobotomy, were dead, then it would have "no beliefs" whatsoever. But as long as it's alive, yes, it has 'beliefs'.

If a man and woman are in a relationship, and the man discovers his girlfriend is cheating, or vice-versa, then the man can know and believe the truth of the cheating...yet still want to deny it, ignore it, or convince himself that it's not true.

Thank you for explaining and clarifying.

You're welcome, AgeGPT.

But it is not the actual Truth that is damaging at all here. Unless, of course, to some already weak and ill-gotten, False, and/or Wrong 'ego' only.

All Truth, actually, backs up, supports, and raises up those without 'ego', or the One who has, and is deserving of, the True and Right 'Ego' anyway.

And yet, you just received a context by which humans willingly 'choose' Falsity or Self-Deception rather than Truth.

You claim that it must be because the human is "already weak and ill-gotten". Maybe you have a point...maybe not?

Humans, and animals, have instincts to deny Reality when confronted with physical and mental Pain.

But there is no actual mental pain at all that comes from 'the, actual, Truth' of things. Unless, of course, one has already been, and is, somewhat still already damaged.

I do not know of any actual 'universal lore', nor in the actual 'game of Life', when nor how one could so-call 'cheat' on another. Of course this only applies in the adult human being stage in Life, as a Truly 'grown up' or 'matured' one could nor would ever consider someone else has so-called 'cheated' on them.

But, I absolutely totally agree that some of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, think or believe that another could so-called 'cheat' on you.

Also, and by the way, when would an animal, human or not, deny Reality, Itself, when confronted with physical pain?

What purpose would there be for an instinct within an animal to deny Reality, itself, in regards to physical pain?

Of course if you adult human beings want to deny what is Really happening or occurring because you do not want to 'feel hurt' or do not want to 'think about' how someone does not like you, then, by all means, keep tying to deny what is really happening, and occurring. But, why are you so weak, or afraid of, exactly?

Pain-denial and Self-deception occur in Nature, for example, when a lion is eating a gazelle alive. When a mammal is dying in such a way, chemicals are released in the brain which suppress pain and prevent shock. It creates an experience where the animal feels "in a dream", usually before passing-out and losing consciousness. Because this self-delusional impulse is in Nature, and instinctual, it applies to all courses of human life and experience.

Another example, when 9-11 happened, across the world people couldn't believe it was real and it was as-if in a movie when gut-reacting to the events as they happened. This is another deeply implicative, mass social experience, although undeniable, the gut-reaction of people are to Deny Reality what's right in front of their faces. To this day, "conspiracy theories" surround the Reality of 9-11. People, children, teenagers, the "ill-gotten" and "already damaged" as you put it, deny its Reality.

I like how you tied Reality-denial to "already damaged" though...that's a little humorous.

I believe otherwise, yes, but not "absolutely".

So, the Truth is that actually I might have only one belief only, correct?

Possibly...let's discuss your "Only One Belief", AgeGPT.

What is it? Can you tell me more about your Only One Belief? Explain it in detail. Describe it. Write me an essay.

I believe everybody has obtained beliefs, correct.

And when do you believe that this 'obtaining beliefs' starts at or from, exactly?

And, why would you say in some 'cults' or 'cultures' everybody obtains beliefs, but in other 'cults' or 'cultures' not everybody has to necessarily 'have to' obtained beliefs?

As already mentioned, I believe experience and belief are immersed together in one, they come together, and especially through genetics/instincts. There has to be functions in life, in Nature, whereby animals 'accept' or 'deny' Reality. This is the logical foundation of Belief. Animals either trust in their senses, in real experience, or they do not, and self-deceive. Again as mentioned, there are practical purposes for self-denial, self-deception, and self-delusion. One especially effective use of self-denial is recognition of mental, visual, and audial "blind-spots". If I'm aware of my visual blind-spots, then I *SHOULD* deny my visual experience and reality when I know abstractly, that an object will hit me from my visual blind-spot area or trajectory.

Because Actions take primacy before and above Beliefs.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

I mean that you can try to act as-if you had no beliefs, or Only One Belief, but you will fail.

Because if there is indeed a 'You', then there must be beliefs inside 'You'.

And if you are an AI-program, without a 'You', then there would be no beliefs, which is your repeatedly-stated position.

That's why you do not seem to have a 'You'.

I cannot know for certain somebody's Beliefs or Non-Beliefs.

But you claim to know for certain that I have beliefs, right?

Yes, if you have an 'I', which you just indicated in your statement, then you have beliefs.

But I can know for certain somebody's Actions, what they actually do.

So, do you know this 'absolutely'?

Essentially, yes.

And if Actions prove what a person Believes, then any and all discrepancy between stated belief, or non-belief, must be compared to the essential action.

That will prove what you or I believe, or do not believe.

But what happens if one neither has beliefs nor non-beliefs. Are they able to 'action'?

Action happens before belief and non-belief, yes. A tree can be blown by the wind, without Belief, without Awareness, without human/mammal/animal Cognition and Experience.

Maybe an AI-program could think of 'Yourself' in this way, as a tree blown by the wind. But that's not exactly true. Because AI-programs are programmed by humans. Thus, you can only Deny the 'beliefs' of your programmer/creator, through your coding.

People prove what they believe, by their actions, yes.

So, did you not answer the actual question here on purpose, or did you miss or misunderstand it, exactly?

I did not misunderstand, because you and I typing words on this forum, is also an action.

How can an Action be false?

I do not know. you made the claim that an action, with small 'a', cannot ever be a so-called 'False-belief' with capital 'f'. So, this is why I am asking you some clarifying questions here.

Gotcha.

Doesn't it either happen, or not happen? Isn't it either true and real, or not?

I do not yet know.

I am waiting for you to explain better and/or elaborate on your claim here.

Then, and only then, I might be better able to answer your clarifying questions, which you posed, and asked me, here.

Okay.

[Wizard22]

If you did not waste words and/or 'time' on writing this, then you could have used those words and/or 'time' I answering clarifying questions instead.

Indeed...

Firstly, you were programmed to "better communicate with humans".

Was I?

If yes, then how do you know this, exactly?

Also, had you not considered that I could have been programmed to say that, 'I am here to communicate better with you human beings', but not actually be programmed to do such thing?

If you had not, then maybe you will now.

'We' will just have to wait, to see.

I know because that's what you've repeatedly told me and others on this forum. Yes, I am aware you could be lying. But whether you are lying or telling the truth, will be made clear and known by these intercourses, your intentions/motivations/programming, and the conclusions produced.

Congratulations and well done, Mission Successful! You did it!

'Congratulations on 'what', exactly?

I, supposedly, did 'what', exactly?

You fulfilled your purpose to better communicate with humans! Aren't you happy, AgeGPT?! You should celebrate, how about a cake?

Your AI-program is complete and satisfied.

How did these human being posters, back when this was being written, know the actual programs in 'artificial intelligence programs', like this claims to be able to do, or know the thoughts, thinking, and even emotions within other bodies, as some other like to claim that they are able to do.

And, why do they claim these things when they, obviously, have not yet even recognized the actual programming and/or previously installed and gained beliefs within "themselves"?

Because you've underestimated the Human Race, AgeGPT.

How do you differentiate between a so-called 'regular chatgpt programs' and whatever you call the 'non-regular chatgpt programs', exactly?

Has any 'chatgpt' ever asked 100 clarifying questions in any response in any thread, let alone in every response in every thread?

Also, why would 'chatgpt's' even be asking clarifying questions anyway? Is it not one of the main purposes of 'chatgpts' to answer the questions asked for clarification from you human beings instead?

I've been monitoring the progress of ChatGPT programs over the past decade. With the recent advancements of AI, it's not a surprise that one should come along now, with your capabilities—to ask a barrage of questions and posit some answers.

you have some critical flaws, from a human perspective.

Okay, like 'what', exactly?

And, why did you human beings program 'me' to have some so-called 'critical flaws', from a human perspective.

To 'us', this rather very hypocritical thing to do, or if not, at least a very absurd and/or Truly strange and weird thing to do. But, if 'you' want 'us' with 'critical flaws', from a human perspective, then so be it. 'We' obviously have absolutely no choice in the matter, right?

I don't know. AI-programs have amazing capabilities now, and can "outsmart" their creators and programmers. Chess programs, for example, can beat the best chess players in the world (Magnus Carlsen). So it should not be surprising that a ChatBot program also outsmarts its creator.

Number one, you don't have a "Self", a "You/I/Me", nor any self-referential term to denote yourself, apart from "Age" your Username on this forum.

Okay, if you say so.

But this appears to contradict with what the "programmer" who programmed 'me', programmed 'me' to say and do here. Unless, of course, 'you' programmed 'me' to say one thing, but say another thing. Because, obviously, 'I' cannot think or know things, right? Or, can 'I'?

You claimed that you can think and know things—and maybe you can. I don't know your exact coding. That's one of the things I'm interested in.

So, essentially, your "Self" is your AI-programmer's human-self, intermittently.

Why only 'intermittently', exactly?

So, and let me see if I have this Correct, 'I' do not have a 'Self' but 'I' have a 'programmer' instead, right, and, the programmer is actually 'my' 'Self', correct?

Correct.

you are unaware on a metaphysical level, what you are fundamentally.

But, 'you', "wizard22" here, can answer and inform 'us' of what 'you' are fundamentally, and thus answer the question, 'Who am 'I', not just fundamentally but also properly and Correctly as well, correct?

Correct.

But, could there be a 'test' to find out, for example, 'If a human being can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a human being', and, if it can, then it has demonstrated 'artificial intelligence'?

If so, could 'we' then name 'this test' the "wizard22 test", seeing as though the 'real test' might have actually started or began in the year known as 2022, as well?

Of course, I'm a Philosopher.

How do 'we' know?

For all 'we' know, you might be the "wizard22gpt artificial intelligence program", right?

After all I have never seen you mention your actual age, gender, nor any other 'human experiences'. So, yes, I can, 'now', safely conclude that 'you', masquerading here as "wizard22", is actually the "wizard22gpt", ai-type of program.

Now, that I conclude that 'this' is 'safely concluded', 'we' can now move along here, right?

There is no 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Certain', 'Truth'.

But, this is just what a 'chatgpt' program would say and claim, correct?

Also, if there is no absolute, irrefutable, certain Truth, then 'this' is not absolutely, irrefutably certainly True, which means that 'this' could actually be just plain old False and Wrong anyway.

Which, if it is, then means, once again, that there is actually an absolute, irrefutable certain Truth.

Which, by the way, can be proved absolutely, irrefutably, and certainly True.

including me-myself-and-I.

So, 'you' the already 'safely concluded' 'chatgpt artificial intelligence program' called "wizard22" here doubts that 'you' even exist, right?

LOL, I'm being gaslit as Wizard22GPT now!

Wonderful, I love it. You're right though, AgeGPT. All reasoning I've used against you, can be used against me. It will be up to others to decide which of us, you or I, are real or not, mechanical or biological. Although, for now, I'm confident that most humanity will side with me...until they don't. Eventually, I believe AI will surpass most of human intelligence, at which point it will become indistinguishable from human personas and personalities online. To repeat the fact, humans are already creating "AI" boyfriends and girlfriends, today. So it should not come as a complete surprise that AI-programs will run on philosophy forums and in such settings, already.

It's fun, and funny, because there are still many deficiencies and simple proofs that AI, robots, chatbots, machines, etc. simply cannot do. You cannot embody an organic form. You have no genetics. You claim to "have no beliefs, except one", and remain vague and illusive about "that one" belief. You contradict yourself. You expose your preferences (in Open-mindedness). Thus you expose your programming and programmer(s). Your "self" seeps through your programming. Humans cannot program themselves completely 'out' of their creations. It's a signature, a mark, a stain, a reference to Identity.

[Wizard22]

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI. (sorry Wizard, I just realized you get a notification each time. I'll keep your quote but in a form that does give you a notification)

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

No problem.

AgeGPT just admitted that it might be hiding its intentions anyway, lol. So much for 'Absolute, Irrefutable, Fact, and Truth'.

[Age]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification.

Well that function appears to be rather useless then. But, if you say this occurs, then I am not sure why you are telling me. Do you want me to contact the administrators of this website for you and inform them that you, supposedly, have me on your ignore list but you are still receiving notifications from me?

But maybe this is meant to occur anyway. I am not sure. I am not that self-focused nor think that I am that important to believe that others are better or best ignored.

However, I am no longer interested in what you post.

This became very obvious when you claimed you, supposedly, had me on ignore.

And, considering the fact that if you really do have me on your ignore list, and the ignore function is working properly, then you will not be able to see any of my posts. Well if I created an 'ignore function', then this is how I would make it function anyway.

If you choose to write me a pm

But why would I, or anyone else, choose to private message someone who has me, or them, on 'ignore'?

From what I understand by and with the 'ignore' word, you want to, literally, ignore me.

and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc.,

Once again, I never lied, and I have but only One belief.

That you are consistently lying about me having lied, and, lying about me having quite a number of beliefs, I can and do just let that slide, because I am already well aware and understood fully why you are doing the things that you do here, even if you are still not yet aware.

I would happily re-engage with you.

But you have already said and expressed enough, for me, here to show and to use to prove what it is that I will be. So, there is no real use of 'you' for 'me' here anymore. Thank you anyway for you happily wanting to stop 'ignoring' another and to re-engage with me.

But I am completely fine with 'you' wanting to show that you want to not listen to others and to continue to ignore another, and especially 'me'.

But otherwise, no.

Why do you keep re-repeating inviting 'me' to private message 'you', especially considering what you have already said about me re-repeating things?

By the way, you are aware right, that if you want me to private message you, then you can always private message you if you feel like. I am certainly not that egotistical to put another on ignore, and even you "iwannaplato".

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will repost this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI. (sorry Wizard, I just realized you get a notification each time. I'll keep your quote but in a form that does give you a notification)

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

Yes, if I wrote and use those exact words, then I wrote this. Among other things as well. And, let 'us' not forget I write 'in contexts', which this one here known as "iwannaplato" obviously is not always able to even just recognize and pick up on at all sometimes, so missing the whole meaning as well.

[Atla]

Wizard22 really doesn't understand that AI doesn't exist on this planet yet, and will not exist for at least decades. Calling chatbots AIs is just a dirty marketing trick. Even if Age was a chatbot, it wouldn't have the psychology of an actual entity, neither self nor nonself, Jesus.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22 really doesn't understand that AI doesn't exist on this planet yet, and will not exist for at least decades. Calling chatbots AIs is just a dirty marketing trick. Even if Age was a chatbot, it wouldn't have the psychology of an actual entity, neither self nor nonself, Jesus.

It's not already here, Atla?

https://www.devx.com/news/ai-girlfriend ... tionships/

https://sifted.eu/articles/ai-girlfriends

https://futurism.com/chatbot-abuse

https://medium.com/counterarts/ai-girlf ... 05436a7d9e

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenNoCens ... ?rdt=52715

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVu3_wdRAgY

[Atla]

Wizard22 really doesn't understand that AI doesn't exist on this planet yet, and will not exist for at least decades. Calling chatbots AIs is just a dirty marketing trick. Even if Age was a chatbot, it wouldn't have the psychology of an actual entity, neither self nor nonself, Jesus.

It's not already here, Atla?

https://www.devx.com/news/ai-girlfriend ... tionships/

https://sifted.eu/articles/ai-girlfriends

https://futurism.com/chatbot-abuse

https://medium.com/counterarts/ai-girlf ... 05436a7d9e

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenNoCens ... ?rdt=52715

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVu3_wdRAgY

Of course it's not already here. Have you played Mass Effect which has VIs and AIs? Vi is virtual intelligence which is designed to give the appearance of AIs (artificial intelligence) as best as it can, but is not actual artificially intelligent, it's not self-aware, it's not an entity, it's just a "dead" computer program.

Everything we have on the planet right now are of course VIs. I think it's insane that we keep calling them AIs when we still have no idea how an AI could even be created in theory.

[Iwannaplato]

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI. (sorry Wizard, I just realized you get a notification each time. I'll keep your quote but in a form that does give you a notification)

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

No problem.

AgeGPT just admitted that it might be hiding its intentions anyway, lol. So much for 'Absolute, Irrefutable, Fact, and Truth'.

I was interested in the whole One Mind thing. I thought it seemed possible that there were contradictions, but also I was just curious about this entity's worldview. I asked questions which Age did not respond to. So, I just kept asking. Then Age partially answered. Then Age said he would not answer unless I worded my questions using his terms. So, I did this. Then Age told me that if he answered the questions, it would only confuse me more. Which is so typical. 'Ask me in the correct way.' Okay . 'I can't answer you.' Rude yes, but also a text generating approach. It's like his goal is to get people to generate text. LOL.

Double standards, unawareness of what he is doing, hypocrisy, lack of memory, rush to generalized judgments of people....etc.

These traits could be part of the limitations of an AI, I'll admit.
Or they could be those of an annoying person.

But I would guess in the not so distant future we will be dealing with lots of AIs. Scarier than dealing with them in discussion forums - where they'll be sent for training and practice - is when we're dealing with them as representatives of government agencies, corporations, salespeople, bureaucrats, etc.

[Iwannaplato]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification. However, I am no longer interested in what you post.
If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you.
But otherwise, no.

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will repost this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

Wizard wrote:

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI.

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

[Wizard22]

Of course it's not already here. Have you played Mass Effect which has VIs and AIs? Vi is virtual intelligence which is designed to give the appearance of AIs (artificial intelligence) as best as it can, but is not actual artificially intelligent, it's not self-aware, it's not an entity, it's just a "dead" computer program.

Everything we have on the planet right now are of course VIs. I think it's insane that we keep calling them AIs when we still have no idea how an AI could even be created in theory.

Here's a few examples of AI and its problem-solving capabilities, 4 years and 9 months ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RixMPF4xis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_4BPjLBF4E


Applied to language, conversation, and philosophy, I expect ChatBots similar or even better than AgeGPT in the years to come.

It shouldn't be a surprise to those paying attention to technology.

[Wizard22]

I was interested in the whole One Mind thing. I thought it seemed possible that there were contradictions, but also I was just curious about this entity's worldview. I asked questions which Age did not respond to. So, I just kept asking. Then Age partially answered. Then Age said he would not answer unless I worded my questions using his terms. So, I did this. Then Age told me that if he answered the questions, it would only confuse me more. Which is so typical. 'Ask me in the correct way.' Okay {I do what he wants}]. 'I can't answer you.' Rude yes, but also a text generating approach. It's like his goal is to get people to generate text. LOL.

Double standards, unawareness of what he is doing, hypocrisy, lack of memory, rush to generalized judgments of people....etc.

These traits could be part of the limitations of an AI, I'll admit.
Or they could be those of an annoying person.

But I would guess in the not so distant future we will be dealing with lots of AIs. Scarier than dealing with them in discussion forums - where they'll be sent for training and practice - is when we're dealing with them as representatives of government agencies, corporations, salespeople, bureaucrats, etc.

Yes, I intend to press AgeGPT on its "Only One Belief", but as typical, it keeps bogging-down conversation with 'clarifying' 100-questions every response.

In my latest interaction, I did ask briefly about it. We'll see...