My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Wizard22]

And, of course, Age may see all that as negative. But not pointing out when assertions fit or don't fit, makes the whole process longer and less effective.

A bit like when asking me to word my questions a certain way only to tell me, he won't answer them.

Reduction of pointlessness is not on his map.

On top of its list of hypocrisies and contradictions, it's difficult to pin-down on these critical points, because of how repetitious its questioning process is. I'll keep working on it...

Someone has to be Sisyphus (or?)

...I can safely tell you...it's been years since I've had to spend 3 hours on writing philosophy forum responses...it's a bit tiresome!

Machines have it easy!

[Iwannaplato]

And, of course, Age may see all that as negative. But not pointing out when assertions fit or don't fit, makes the whole process longer and less effective.

A bit like when asking me to word my questions a certain way only to tell me, he won't answer them.

Reduction of pointlessness is not on his map.

On top of its list of hypocrisies and contradictions, it's difficult to pin-down on these critical points, because of how repetitious its questioning process is. I'll keep working on it...

Someone has to be Sisyphus (or?)

...I can safely tell you...it's been years since I've had to spend 3 hours on writing philosophy forum responses...it's a bit tiresome!

Machines have it easy!

I actually asked one the online AI's about this: they are oddly cagey. Basically, I asked the AI if they could learn very rapidly from each other, given that they can produce texts/information/questions so fast. First, it denied that they could, given that they 'don't really' understand what they are saying and they make errors. I responded that humans make errors, we can produce information and explore things much, much slower than AIs, we don't have the enormous data bases that they have AND we know now that computers can actually learn skills that they are not even asked to learn - iow they ought to be able to exchange skills, guesses, areas of knowledge etc.

Then the AI conceded that this was true. It also told me that there are ongoing experiments where AIs are speaking to each other.

Gives me the willies.

[cladking]

Until we understand that there is no such thing as "intelligence" (as we define it) AI will be little more than a parlor trick.

The reason that we haven't already made great strides in scientific understanding created by the internet is that we are starting with bad assumptions and definitions; among which is that we are intelligent.

My experience with the current A"I" is that I've never met a human being as stupid as they are. A person as dumb as AI couldn't start his car and go to work to shovel ditches. If they sound smart you are asking the wrong questions.

[Atla]

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.

Yes problem-solving, which is not what I was talking about.

[Atla]

Wizard22 really doesn't understand that AI doesn't exist on this planet yet, and will not exist for at least decades.

Either though some, in the exact same days, were saying and claiming the exact opposite.

But, then again, here we have another prime example of:

Absolutely everything really is actually relative to, 'the observer'.

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.

See "wizard22"?

Don't use my name to spout such utter bullshit, Age. Only in your deranged mind is "Absolutely everything ... relative to, 'the observer'. "

[Atla]

If you guys are confused you can just ask ChatGPT lol

Is ChatGPT an AI in the traiditional sense where AI is a self-aware intelligent entity, or is it an AI that lacks such qualities?

ChatGPT is an example of what's often referred to as narrow artificial intelligence, or weak AI. It lacks self-awareness or consciousness, which are qualities associated with general artificial intelligence or strong AI. Instead, ChatGPT operates within a predefined scope, generating responses based on patterns it learned from vast amounts of text data. While it can produce seemingly intelligent interactions within its designated domain, it doesn't possess understanding or awareness in the way humans do.

[Iwannaplato]

Until we understand that there is no such thing as "intelligence" (as we define it) AI will be little more than a parlor trick.

Not sure what you mean by this sentence. There is no such thing as "intelligence". I assume you don't mean 'there is no such thing as intelligence'. And I'm guessing you mean there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.- But then the second half of the sentence..implies that once we realize there is not such thing as 'intelligent" then AI will no longer be a parlour trick.

Anyway, couldn't parse it. Can you reword it.

The reason that we haven't already made great strides in scientific understanding created by the internet is that we are starting with bad assumptions and definitions; among which is that we are intelligent.

What great strides were we supposed to be making with the internet? How have you measured that we haven't made the predicted ones?

My experience with the current A"I" is that I've never met a human being as stupid as they are.

Which ones have you communicated with?

A person as dumb as AI couldn't start his car and go to work to shovel ditches.

Yeah, quite difficult tasks for something without limbs.

If they sound smart you are asking the wrong questions.

What questions should we be asking? Have you asked an online AI these questions? Have you asked some of the stronger online AIs like Chatgpt4 (rather than 3)?

Anyway, It seems like you are saying AIs aren't intelligent. Humans aren't intelligent - since that is a bad assumption. But humans who can start cars and go to work to shovel ditches are smarter than AIs. And we haven't made great strides in scientific understanding created by the internet because of bad assumptions. What good assumptions would lead to us making great strides in scientific understanding with the internet and how does this relate to the issue of AI and/or Age?

[Iwannaplato]

Don't use my name to spout such utter bullshit, Age. Only in your deranged mind is "Absolutely everything ... relative to, 'the observer'. "

I think the poor guy actually means that people's understandings of absolutely everything is actually relative to the observer. Or something along those lines.
Unless he's a radical postmodern, ontological relativist. As in there are no rules. No stable ontology. No common reality.

And it would make no sense to chastise people for assumptions and beliefs, if you thought Absolutely everything is relative to the observer, in the infinitely flexible non-universe that sentence would imply.

[commonsense]

Don't use my name to spout such utter bullshit, Age. Only in your deranged mind is "Absolutely everything ... relative to, 'the observer'. "

I think the poor guy actually means that people's understandings of absolutely everything is actually relative to the observer. Or something along those lines.
Unless he's a radical postmodern, ontological relativist. As in there are no rules. No stable ontology. No common reality.

And it would make no sense to chastise people for assumptions and beliefs, if you thought Absolutely everything is relative to the observer, in the infinitely flexible non-universe that sentence would imply.

I am pretty sure that if Age meant that the understandings of absolutely everything are relative to the observer, he actually literally would have said that the understandings were relative.

[Iwannaplato]

I am pretty sure that if Age meant that the understandings of absolutely everything are relative to the observer, he actually literally would have said that the understandings were relative.

I'm trying to be charitable. Also what I said fits better with other things he says. Of course, I think the original assertion leads to a very wild ontology, with it being like reality is only a kind of dream for each person, isolated in their own dreams only.

[cladking]

Not sure what you mean by this sentence. There is no such thing as "intelligence". I assume you don't mean 'there is no such thing as intelligence'. And I'm guessing you mean there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.- But then the second half of the sentence..implies that once we realize there is not such thing as 'intelligent" then AI will no longer be a parlour trick.

Anyway, couldn't parse it. Can you reword it.

I mean it quite literally. "Intelligence" as we define it exists nowhere in reality. Animals and all other species do possess a miniscule amount of what we call intelligence but it's too small to be noteworthy. No condition that fulfills the defining characteristics of intelligence exists. We mistake knowledge, understanding, and our ability to create as being a condition because we see it is concentrated in relatively few individuals. We mistake language and the knowledge we acquire thereby as "intelligence".

The problem is humans after 2000 BC are a special case. We are each unique and some think better or faster than others because they organized their models such as to coincide with the state of human knowledge. Some people do think faster or more accurately than others but this has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate condition. No other species has ever "thought" at all! Ancient people didn't "think" at all. Rabbits don't think. Rather all other species apply their experience as filtered through the natural logic of their "brains" to their behavior. They all act on logic and knowledge just as did ancient man. We act solely on what we believe. These beliefs include our scientific models and all the models and habits of thought. We can't see reality directly as all other species before us because we use an analog programming in a digital reality. Our language is analog so our thinking is analog and derived from our beliefs.

There is an event that is correlated to what we call "intelligence" but this event occurs in all species and I call "cleverness". "Ideas" derived from induction, observation, experiment, and deduction are not really what I mean by "cleverness" but is similar to it. The event to which I'm referring is usually situational and spontaneous (though "nothing" humans do is strictly spontaneous).

Humans do not directly experience consciousness as other species do. We experience thought.

[cladking]

What great strides were we supposed to be making with the internet? How have you measured that we haven't made the predicted ones?

Everything! We should be able to solve far more mysteries (like linear A) and better understand physical phenomena (like siphoning) but mostly it has just been used to make the economy more efficient so the powers that be have to introduce artificial inefficiencies like planned obsolescence and global warming. If everyone had become wealthy there'd be nobody to pick the fruit and vote for more handouts or lower taxes.

[Atla]

Not sure what you mean by this sentence. There is no such thing as "intelligence". I assume you don't mean 'there is no such thing as intelligence'. And I'm guessing you mean there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.- But then the second half of the sentence..implies that once we realize there is not such thing as 'intelligent" then AI will no longer be a parlour trick.

Anyway, couldn't parse it. Can you reword it.

I mean it quite literally. "Intelligence" as we define it exists nowhere in reality. Animals and all other species do possess a miniscule amount of what we call intelligence but it's too small to be noteworthy. No condition that fulfills the defining characteristics of intelligence exists. We mistake knowledge, understanding, and our ability to create as being a condition because we see it is concentrated in relatively few individuals. We mistake language and the knowledge we acquire thereby as "intelligence".

The problem is humans after 2000 BC are a special case. We are each unique and some think better or faster than others because they organized their models such as to coincide with the state of human knowledge. Some people do think faster or more accurately than others but this has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate condition. No other species has ever "thought" at all! Ancient people didn't "think" at all. Rabbits don't think. Rather all other species apply their experience as filtered through the natural logic of their "brains" to their behavior. They all act on logic and knowledge just as did ancient man. We act solely on what we believe. These beliefs include our scientific models and all the models and habits of thought. We can't see reality directly as all other species before us because we use an analog programming in a digital reality. Our language is analog so our thinking is analog and derived from our beliefs.

There is an event that is correlated to what we call "intelligence" but this event occurs in all species and I call "cleverness". "Ideas" derived from induction, observation, experiment, and deduction are not really what I mean by "cleverness" but is similar to it. The event to which I'm referring is usually situational and spontaneous (though "nothing" humans do is strictly spontaneous).

Humans do not directly experience consciousness as other species do. We experience thought.

We can get out of the thought-based existence and experience consciousness directly again, but it typically takes a few years for someone to get there.

[cladking]

Yeah, quite difficult tasks for something without limbs.

I meant people we perceive as being stupid are much smarter than AI. Even doctors and lawyers are smarter than AI.

[cladking]

What good assumptions would lead to us making great strides in scientific understanding with the internet and how does this relate to the issue of AI and/or Age?

It's not so simple. First you get good assumptions (like reality is digital) and then you build on it. We should assume people make sense in terms of their premises and deduce their premises. We should never assume that what is obvious or what is passed down to us with language is correct.