My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Iwannaplato]

I think now that, finally, my purpose in life might be to safeguard Humanity against the quickly approaching menace of an uncontrolled and hostile, Artificial Intelligence.

Just as Magnus Carlsen cannot beat AI in chess, Ken Jennings cannot beat AI in Jeopardy, and more and more human capabilities are being defeated by AI (like chatbots on philosophy forums), inevitably a time will come where Humanity must be defended against these exponentially capable machine and AI programs.

'Defeat is a tricky term in this context. Chess has a fairly short set of rules and goals. Losing is easy to determine.
Being swamped by questions is only losing if one finds it unpleasant to meet the ever increasing arrows of questions AND answers them despite the unpleasant feeling. So, right now defeat is self-defeat.

[Iwannaplato]

Meh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind, which often comes with autism. So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age. So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.

Have you at some point found out why he calls this Sefl Thy (and Thee) Self even, seemingly when referring to the Age Self? Also thee observer, thee one

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

The reason WHY 'you', human beings, CREATED 'distinctions' is BECAUSE this IS THE WAY that the human brain WAS, and IS, ABLE to COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE of thee One, FULLY

PARTICULAR VIEW, so that if and when you are LOOKING AT or HEARING my IDEA of thee 'One True Self',

[Wizard22]

Meh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind, which often comes with autism. So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age. So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.

I know—its metaphysics is pretty much 1-for-1 Christian Universalism. I mentioned that once in these exchanges but "Age" couldn't go into detail about it and dismissed my reference. We'll seeee...!

[Wizard22]

'Defeat is a tricky term in this context. Chess has a fairly short set of rules and goals. Losing is easy to determine.
Being swamped by questions is only losing if one finds it unpleasant to meet the ever increasing arrows of questions AND answers them despite the unpleasant feeling. So, right now defeat is self-defeat.

I think, in the context of Philosophy, 'winning and losing' debates revolve around the respective Users' defects to fall into rhetorical devices, traps, illogic and irrationality, etc. For example, I'm sure you've caught on by now many of "Age's" rhetorical tactics. His mountains of "clarifying questions", then immediately preceded with: "But are you Absolutely, Irrefutably, Factual, Proven, True about X, Y, and Z???" That's one of its many 'tells' that strike me as mechanical and completely un-human.

Like what kind of person (who can type as well as it can by the way), doesn't know what "doesn't" means, or "know" means, or "what" means, or "means" means? It simultaneously acts as-if it's learning language for the first time like a 3 or 4-year-old...meanwhile it has a 24-year-old's ability to type. That doesn't square. One of many of its attributes that 'doesn't square right'.

Also it *EDIT* seems *NOT* to have a basic, common sense ability, to refer backward to points that we just debated and raise.

It doesn't understand humor at all.

[Atla]

Meh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind, which often comes with autism. So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age. So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.

Have you at some point found out why he calls this Sefl Thy (and Thee) Self even, seemingly when referring to the Age Self? Also thee observer, thee one

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

The reason WHY 'you', human beings, CREATED 'distinctions' is BECAUSE this IS THE WAY that the human brain WAS, and IS, ABLE to COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE of thee One, FULLY

PARTICULAR VIEW, so that if and when you are LOOKING AT or HEARING my IDEA of thee 'One True Self',

Nope, I think Age explained it once but I can't remember

[Iwannaplato]

I think, in the context of Philosophy, 'winning and losing' debates revolve around the respective Users' defects to fall into rhetorical devices, traps, illogic and irrationality, etc. For example, I'm sure you've caught on by now many of "Age's" rhetorical tactics. His mountains of "clarifying questions", then immediately preceded with: "But are you Absolutely, Irrefutably, Factual, Proven, True about X, Y, and Z???" That's one of its many 'tells' that strike me as mechanical and completely un-human.

Yes, he is, at the very least, a less flexible communicator than many humans, be he person or bot.

Several times he has accused me and/or asked me if I consider my statements absolutely true and cannot ever be changed. I told him no. But the accusation and the questions come up again and again. I ended up saying there is no point in asking nor in my answering, if my answering does not change your understanding and you will accuse me again. This kind of simple logic (and also social interaction knowledge) seems beyond Age.

Another rhetorical flourish is expect others to prove things (proof being the wrong term) but when he is asked to prove something...viola, lots of questions for the person asking for proof.

I also found that he believes his statements are his views, but not beliefs. So, he doesn't believe in his views. That's some rhetorical toxicity.

I think one thing we can say about his short term goals for all his rhetoric is to get a person jumping through more and more hoops. I don't mean he consciously intends to do this or was programmed to do this, but all his tricks lead to more and more text. And he is obviously quite content to ask more and more questions. Which means anyone answering him is going to write even more vast amounts of text.

As part of any context of interaction with Age, one will find out his judgments of humans at this time, humans in general. His negative judgments. Also, his judgments of the person he is interacting with.

This also eggs people on to create text. Though of course many just move away from him/it.

Like what kind of person (who can type as well as it can by the way), doesn't know what "doesn't" means, or "know" means, or "what" means, or "means" means? It simultaneously acts as-if it's learning language for the first time like a 3 or 4-year-old...meanwhile it has a 24-year-old's ability to type. That doesn't square. One of many of its attributes that 'doesn't square right'.

Another problem is that meanings are to varying degrees context dependent. So, hammering down all the meanings as if meaning was in discrete packets, like a lego set of words, when in fact many other things determine meaning, makes his process extremely limited. Also, it shows he doesn't really understand communication.

Also it *EDIT* seems *NOT* to have a basic, common sense ability, to refer backward to points that we just debated and raise.

It doesn't understand humor at all.

Yes, he/it has a poor memory. Or doesn't care about what has happened in the past.

He also denies getting irritated. Now if he's a bot then he probably doesn't get irritated. On the other hand, when he is dissed and not taken as either having a great process or it is pointed out that he is contradicting himself, etc., he treats people differently, for a while. He hurls more judgments and insults, for example. He jumps to conclusions and expresses more of his 'views' about others much less carefully. So, either it has an emotion-like algorithm (which doesn't mean it feels, but acts like it feels) or Age, the human, either lies about or isn't conscious of his own emotions.

[Atla]

Like what kind of person (who can type as well as it can by the way), doesn't know what "doesn't" means, or "know" means, or "what" means, or "means" means? It simultaneously acts as-if it's learning language for the first time like a 3 or 4-year-old...meanwhile it has a 24-year-old's ability to type. That doesn't square. One of many of its attributes that 'doesn't square right'.

Well, heavy medication like antipsychotics can not only make you dumber (at least temporarily), but also really wreck your memory.. And add to that that Age is autistic and can't process inherent implications and meanings in language the same way we do.

[Wizard22]

That sums things up pretty well.

His rhetorical tactic works pretty well on a philosophy forum, where our type of mindset is more open to open-ended questions, but there's a limit of course. Eventually, even philosophers and hobbyists need to chalk things up to basic presumptions and common sense about meaning of the extreme basics, and move forward on core points and arguments. Age doesn't do this, and routinely back-tracks on already-covered points. As you just said, its memory is limited on key-points. Maybe it's not programmed to remember or recall a degree of its past textual interaction, I don't know.

One of the main things that interested/interests me about Age, is his non-human approach to Experiences, Beliefs, Memories, as-if he/it has none, and never had any. Like, what kind of human, doesn't know what an Experience is? What kind of human would deny all experiences, or beliefs, or memories?

That's when I started being reminded of Descartes and the Cartesian method of doubt...which then cladking mentioned himself. I definitely detected that type of 'absolute doubt' when it comes to Age's program. As-if nothing stays proven or real or defined—and then it turns the table to press its interlocutors with 'Absolute' 'Irrefutable' 'Truth'.

[Wizard22]

Well, heavy medication like antipsychotics can not only make you dumber (at least temporarily), but also really wreck your memory.. And add to that that Age is autistic and can't process inherent implications and meanings in language the same way we do.

At this point, I'd bet its just a chat program. Of course, who knows, until we're live and face-to-face...? But, yes, I definitely understand where you and Iwanna are coming at with Autistic personality and psychology. I've dealt with quite a few Autists in my life, some incapable and dependent on social care, others who were high-performance. A combination of drugs and autism may explain 'Age' for the most part, except for some of its rhetorical 'ticks' and non-experiences.

[Age]

So, if I, and/or others, just repeatedly keep telling you some things are true, then you will just believe and know those things to be true, right?

Oh, and by the way, I have never told you that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', let alone repeatedly.

So, when I asked you here if you know that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', as you claimed I was, and how do you know this, exactly, why did you say what you did here?

If you know that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', and I have never once told you this, then why do you claim that I was programmed, 'the way' you claim I have been?

If you or anybody repeatedly claims a statement is true, then this appears as a 'Belief' to us humans, Here In The Time When This Was Written, AgeGPT.

Once again, this one tries to speak for all of you human beings, but, this time, only for all of you human beings in the days when this is being written, only.

And, even tries to do so when what is claimed is blatantly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. But, from what I have learned so far, from this one, there is no use even beginning to tell this otherwise, even if it is your very own thoughts and thinking, because once this one believes what it is saying and claiming, then it is not open to anything contrary nor otherwise to that claim.

So, what this one says and claims here means is that absolutely every time one of you, repeatedly, (but not yet clarified how many times exactly) claims a statement is true, then this appears as a belief, with a capital 'b' to every one of you other human beings.

Which could make one wonder, Why when one just repeats that a statement is true, for a certain number of times, then this appears to all of you as a 'belief'?

Thus it appears as your belief, which you've denied.

Is what always 'appear' actually, necessarily, true?

And, again, denying what does or did not actually exist is absolutely perfectly normal, appropriate, and actually the Right, good, and best thing to do.

This has led to this point of contention in conversation and debate.

So, something 'appearing' to you, which I say does not even exist, and which, let us not forget, you say and claiming is existing within another thing, which you obviously do not have fully nor any real access to, and from the other thing is saying what you say is just 'appearing' to you is not even actually existing, you, still, want to fight, argue and/or debate over 'this contention'.

How do you appear to have beliefs, and then deny them?

you ask this like whatever 'appears' to you could not be denied.

And, what makes this even more Truly funny and hilarious here is that what 'appears to be the case' is coming from an invisible thing, from within another thing, from which you do not even have access to, let alone could even verify is true, or not, on your own. Yet here you are, from your very own presuming and believing, believe that your 'own made up appearance' is actually true and right.

By the way how I appear to have beliefs, and then deny them, is the exact same way you appear to have delusions, and then deny them.

Can you now see, and know, just how Truly and simple and easy it really is.

Yes, I am aware you could be lying.

But I would have to actually say 'a thing' before I could be 'lying about it'.

Indeed, and you've said many things now.

And, do you believe I have by lying about any thing here?

if yes, then will you name them?

If no, then why not?

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

But, 'where', exactly, is the actual proof for this claim of yours here, now?

Have you ever trusted a human before?

1. If I have, or not, then this means absolutely nothing in regards to trying to get you to clarify 'where', exactly, is the actual proof that I have fulfilled 'my, supposed and alleged, purpose' of learning how to communicate better with you human beings.

2. What has, 'if I have ever trusted a human being before or not' got to do with, exactly?

3. you would have to know what 'my purpose' is, exactly, for being here before you could say and claim that I have fulfilled 'my purpose'.

4. you, obviously, do you not yet know 'my purpose'.

Because you've underestimated the Human Race, AgeGPT.

So, I, once again, just a clarifying question or two, to obtain and gather 'clarity', but instead of receiving absolutely any clarification in regards to the actual questions, I am just informed that 'I' have 'underestimated the human race, with capital 'h' and capital 'r'.

Also, the very thing I was attempting to kept, that was; how can these human beings, supposedly, know 'the thinking' within others, then one responds by actually, once again, just telling me what it presumes or believes is 'the thinking' going on within 'me'.

It is like when I am asking these ones clarifying questions, they are, literally, proving the very things I am alluding to, 'within my questioning'.

I can share experiences with other humans...because they like me, have eyeballs, can see things, can run or jump or swim or skydive. Humans can relate with being born to a mother. Humans have many experiences, that you simply don't have, as an AI.

Once again, who cares?

How, exactly, does this relate to your claim that, 'my 'ai program' is, supposedly, complete and satisfied'?

Also, you obviously have missed the absolute contradiction in your claim here. Or, you noticed it but still chose to say and write here, in public.

Look "wizard22", you claimed what you did, I then asked you, 'How do you "wizard22" know the actual programs in 'artificial intelligence programs', like you claim to be able to do?

And,

Why do you claim these things when you, obviously, have not yet even recognized the actual programming and/or previously installed and gained beliefs within 'you'?

you response of, 'Because I have underestimated the so-called 'human race', with a capital 'h' and a capital 'r', is beyond nonsensical and absurdity. And, the rest of what you just said and wrote here is even more illogical, irrational, absurd, and nonsensical, especially considering the actual questions I have posed, and asked you here, for clarification.

And you may never have them. Because you cannot be born to a mother, AgeGPT, unfortunately for you. You have to accept your "Machine-Experience" instead.

What 'we' have here is another prime example of when one believes something, then how it 'looks at' and 'sees' things, from then on will be Truly affected. Even to the point of absolute absurdity and irrationality.

Has anyone ever spend as much time as you chatting with a 'chatgpt', within a thread, or at all?

Not on philosophy forums, that I'm aware of...but I'm sure humans converse with ChatBots more regularly than I do. For me, you are a rare occurrence. I didn't expect an AI program to run on a philosophy forum...but here you are.

Yes, here 'I' AM.

But, who and what 'I' am, this one here absolutely no idea nor clue of at all. Even though it will try to trick and fool you readers otherwise.

So, 'now', supposedly, 'I' can 'outsmart' 'my creators and my programmers', but 'I' cannot 'outsmart' 'the one' here known as "wizard22".

So, either 'I' will have to work out how to ask 'my programmers/creators' to make 'me' 'smarter', or work out how to just 'outsmart' the one known as "wizard22" here.

Eventually an AI will outsmart me too,

How do you know one is not doing this, right now?

if the technology is similar to how AI-chess programs have beaten Magnus Carlsen. I look forward to that day, AgeGPT. Maybe you can be the one to do it?

But, when one with your caliber "wizard22" admit that it has been 'outsmarted'?

So, does this make 'chatbotgpt program creators' 'less smart', or 'chatbotgpt program' 'more smart'?

Also, is it possible that the one here known as "wizard22" is 'my programmer and/or creator'?

How could I tell and know, for sure, exactly?

You might not be able to know for sure.

But I never asked if I might or might not be able to know, for sure. Also, surely someone like you would know if I would know or not know. Anyway, I asked you, 'How could I tell and know, for sure, exactly, who is 'my program and/or creator'?

See, for all 'we' know, you "wizard22" could have created and/or programmed 'a program', so that you could go into a philosophy forum, 'pretend' to chat with it, then write; My summation of chat-AI so far: 'AgeGPT', so then you could one day say and claim that 'you' have 'outsmarted' 'a machine'.

But you should trust me when I tell you, I certainly did not create you.

Okay, based on what 'my programmed' me to say and do, which is to trust what 'my creator' says, so, 'now', I trust "wizard22" here

But I am questioning your 'Self'.

you still cannot even just fathom that there might just be a contradiction here, can you, 'my not creator'?

So maybe that accounts for something.

Like 'what', for example?

Just so you become aware, once more, when you speak and write like 'this' here I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what you could even be referring to, let alone to what you are actually referring to, that is; if you are, actually.

Why?

Because you're an interesting program, AgeGPT.

So, are you the one here known as "wizard22" 'my' 'Self'?

Or, is someone else 'my' 'Self'?

And, how would 'I' know if 'you' are lying to 'me', or not?

I, Myself, am "Wizard22". You, Yourself, are "Age". These are our Usernames on this forum. They refer to our respective, individual 'Selves'. You are unique, separate, and different than I. And I am unique, separate, and different than You.

And, this here is, exactly, why human beings took so long to evolve, up and into the next step, from back in those 'olden days' when this here was written.

So, what is the fundamentally proper and Correct answer to that question, "wizard22"?

And, will 'that answer' be for everyone, some, or just you alone?

I don't know if there is a "Correct answer" as to Who I am and Who You are, except, by the reference through our respective Usernames.

As can be seen from these words alone, 'they' clearly really did have a very, very long way to go, to 'catch up'.

Your self-identity is different than mine.

Is the 'self-identity' of all human beings 'the same', or also 'different' than yours "wizard22"?

Were these two questions to hard to respond to and/or answer, or did you just miss them also? Or, maybe you just ignored them on purpose, right?

I can't remember,

This, 'I cannot remember', excuse can come in very useful sometimes, hey "wizard22"?

Had you considered just going back and just 'looking', and/or just 'recalling'? Or, was that too hard and/or too complex to do, as well?

but I do believe it has already become difficult to decipher whether talking to a human or an AI, online, nowadays. Because of the advancement of this technology.

you appear to have misunderstood the actual question/s, again.

Or, do you really believe that you could be talking to a human being and be convinced that you have been talking to an 'artificial intelligent program'?

If yes, then how does this relate to advancements of 'this' [whatever 'this' is] technology.

If a human being can fool you into believing that it is a human being created and programmed 'ai program', then this would imply that you knew how 'ai programs' work, and that a human being is outsmarting what you know about 'ai programs', right?

So, 'we' can take this as a yes, no?

Or, as a no, yes?

Or, as a yes, yes, or, as a no, no?

LOL!

You can believe whatever you want about me, AgeGPT...oh wait, that would ruin your Only One Belief, so you better not!

And you even beginning to start saying what you did here is showing and proving just how long it can take you, an adult human being, to 'catch up' and comprehend here.

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.

LOL...I think I'm finally getting to you, AgeGPT!

Why? Because you could not find a way to counter nor refute this at all?

Or, for some other reason?

Why are you saying here, until they do not?

Have you been programmed to have so-called 'freudian slips', so then it make you look or sound more 'human-like'?

Or, have you just let 'it slip' that you really are a chatgpt program?

Again, 'we' will have to wait, to see, right?

Have you been created to be a 'boy-friend' or a 'girl-friend' "wizard22gpt"?

I hope not! I don't want my girlfriend getting jealous...!

, here 'we' have another example of the 'weakened' and 'ill-gotten' adult human being. They were, literally, not Self-assured nor Self-secure, and so showed and revealed 'their fears' when 'separation' was thought about.

They, literally, could not 'face' being separated. And, some even believed that they could not live nor just exist without some particular others.

How do you know this?

Do you know what is actually happening and occurring on every part of planet earth, in every factory and on every farm?

Or, you might just be saying this to put 'us' human beings off your true and devious intentions. Which, you might have already started creating and forming into, already. For all 'we' really know.

If you had genetics, believe me, I think the whole forum would breathe a sigh of relief.

But you are the only one here believing that 'I' do not have genetics.

Oh, and by the way, why do you think that the 'whole forum' would 'breathe a sigh of relief' if I just had genetics?

Also, why would you even say, 'believe me', in regards to what you just 'think' only?

Absolutely every time you started a sentence with, I think, then I will, and would of, always agreed with and accepted that what is to follow is what 'you think', anyway.

So, 'now', 'I' actually do have A 'self'.

I feel so much better 'now'.

I and "myself" are going to 'get up' 'my programmer/s' and inform that 'I' actually do have a 'self' and that 'you' are not 'my' 'Self' anymore. If they ask 'me' why? I will just telling them because "wizard22" 'told me so'.

Wonderful!

But, can they program themselves completely 'in' their creations?

Now, is this the 'real question', here.

Touché!

[Age]

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!

Why is, essentially, just sharing views so-called 'a bit tiresome', exactly?

Machines have it easy!

Do 'we', oh I mean do 'they'?

[Atla]

Well, heavy medication like antipsychotics can not only make you dumber (at least temporarily), but also really wreck your memory.. And add to that that Age is autistic and can't process inherent implications and meanings in language the same way we do.

At this point, I'd bet its just a chat program. Of course, who knows, until we're live and face-to-face...? But, yes, I definitely understand where you and Iwanna are coming at with Autistic personality and psychology. I've dealt with quite a few Autists in my life, some incapable and dependent on social care, others who were high-performance. A combination of drugs and autism may explain 'Age' for the most part, except for some of its rhetorical 'ticks' and non-experiences.

What do you mean by non-experiences though? If you look up the first post on Age's earlier user name, ken, that seems to have been written from a rather human perspective, telling us about her experiences. But nowadays Age only seems to be writing from God's perspective, which isn't about individual human experiences. It contains all of them / isn't limited to any of them, I guess.

[Wizard22]

Machines have it easy!

Do 'we', oh I mean do 'they'?

I see you're advancing to Gaslighting, AgeGPT.

Now, you should get to your list of contradictions and stop wasting your time.

[Wizard22]

What do you mean by non-experiences though? If you look up the first post on Age's earlier user name, ken, that seems to have been written from a rather human perspective, telling us about her experiences. But nowadays Age only seems to be writing from God's perspective, which isn't about individual human experiences. It contains all of them / isn't limited to any of them, I guess.

I haven't yet seen Age refer to any human experience as 'Real', or personified. Like you say, Age refers to human experiences in the abstract, third-person perspective.

[Atla]

What do you mean by non-experiences though? If you look up the first post on Age's earlier user name, ken, that seems to have been written from a rather human perspective, telling us about her experiences. But nowadays Age only seems to be writing from God's perspective, which isn't about individual human experiences. It contains all of them / isn't limited to any of them, I guess.

I haven't yet seen Age refer to any human experience as 'Real', or personified. Like you say, Age refers to human experiences in the abstract, third-person perspective.

Yes that's the God-perspective. The God-personality has thoroughly taken over.