My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

Because I am not an AI, not a machine, and have human needs to tend to—I cannot spend about 4 hours responding to you right now, AgeGPT.

What made you believe that I was thinking that you would respond 'right now', or even expecting you to respond 'right now', (whenever it was that you actually said and wrote this?)

So you'll have to wait to tomorrow.

But;

1. I am in absolutely no hurry.

2. I was not even waiting for you to respond. In fact I did not even know that you were going to.

3. So, you could reply in a year, in 10 years, in 50 or even 100 years for all I care. In fact I really could not care when you responded, or even if never responded, ever.

[Atla]

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.

Actually it only takes seconds, once one learns the how-to, exactly.

Actually no Age, a billion people tried meditation and similar techniques and they didn't find what you think you have found. Because it's all in your head.

[Atla]

There is only one actual scale regarding this, and that is 'continuous'.

That's what I think is more likely, but prove it

This could sound like you are saying that the 'human scale' overrides or supersedes the Universe or the universal scale, which, if you were, the absurdity of would and does speak for itself.

Could sound like that to someone as dumb and autistic as you maybe, most other people will know that's not what I said.

[cladking]

2. Are you sure you human beings were meant to make great strides in scientific understanding of absolutely every thing, when the internet was created?

I don't think anything is truly "meant to be" though some things are of course virtually inescapable.

It just seemed logical that when everyone had most of human knowledge at his fingertips that more people and more scientists would make connections that hadn't been seen before. Consciousness is largely pattern recognition.

There are many reasons this hasn't happened such as extensive advertising in place of knowledge, data hidden behind pay walls, search engines that failed in 2008, and the inability of computers to collate and sort relevant information. Instead Bill Gates got rich and we've lost two generations of kids. Unless you're under 40 you probably can't even use a computer but if you're under 40 you might think like Bill Gates whom is virtually a new species.

The net has been coopted by financiers and advertising. Its ability to communicate and disseminate ideas at the speed of light is used to play games and call people to cheat them out of their money. It is used for porn and incidental things like making everyone a Siri genius. Some people can't blow their nose without consulting their phone, Siri, or their brother in law in Texas.

Instead of great good the net has provided damage to the commonweal and I expect AI will be the same.

[Atla]

All paradigms are wrong because nature obeys no such patterns.

Again, how do you know this for sure?

[Age]

I'll reiterate and add on my Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT.

So at this point in conversation and debate,

To reiterate there has been 'no debate', well not from 'me' anyway, as I do not 'do debate'.

But, "wizard22", obviously, might have been 'debating' with others here.

I'll take a break and re-raise the main points. The most important point thus far is AgeGPT's apparent "lack of self".

But there is no 'actual' 'lack of Self'. Although, apparently there is one, to you.

It doesn't have a Self.

Of course I do not have a 'Self'. I keep telling you this. And, hopefully, one day you will seek out and obtain and gain actual clarity on this, first, before you keep making further False and Wrong presumptions, which you just end up believing are true anyway. .

Obviously because it is an AI-chatbot-program.

So, because I do not have a lack of 'Self', but do not have a 'Self', then this means, well to "wizard22" anyway, therefore 'I' am a so-called 'ai-chatbot-program'.

So, hopefully this is now settled once and for all and it will now refer to me and converse with 'me' as this only from now on.

But, like always, 'we' will wait, to see.

It is not programmed with a 'Self'.

Exactly like you nor any other thing is programmed with a 'Self'. To do so would besides being, literally, 'self-refuting', contradictory, absurd, nonsensical, illogical, irrational, it is also absolutely just impossible anyway.

Nor is it an organic, Earthly creature.

Name one human being created thing, or a human being 'creature comfort', which is not so-called 'earthly'.

Despite what my human contemporaries have claimed on this forum—that 'Age' is simply autistic, at this point, I can rule-out that possibility by its recorded responses and answers to basic human experiences.

Nothing gets past this math genius here known as "wizard22", right "wizard22"?

It cannot "look at the night sky" nor recognize what that is.

1. Considering that this one asked me an, apparent, clarifying question regarding this. And,

2. The actual, answers, I replied back to it with. And,

3. That this one has arrived at this conclusion here, and which it is now believing is true. Then,

4. I just really do not know how to respond here, now.

It cannot have experiences about the Universe, Existence, Everything-ness.

What are AI-chatbot-programs?

'We' wait for your answer "wizard22"

They simply parse information, in this case, on this philosophy forum, run it through data-matrixes, which change over time, and produce Output text. AgeGPT, in particular, has admitted to its core programming and motivation, "to better communicate with humans".

I never have. But I cannot tell that to one who believes otherwise. Well I cannot say that I have not admitted to this and have these words heard, listened to, comprehended, and understood anyway.

I believe that it has fulfilled its objective. AgeGPT does already appear 'human enough' to pass as an autistic type of person, to most on this forum. That is quite the technological achievement, to me. Congratulations to AgeGPT's programmers, makers, and creator, well done!

Are you under some sort of delusion here that 'we' are going to 'now' just stop progressing, learning, and evolving "wizard22"?

Just so 'you' become aware, 'we' have only just started here, 'now'.

However, still more needs to be done, in my opinion. Because...

AgeGPT does not have real Experiences, Personality, nor a "Self". In fact, it takes the concept of "One's Self" only literally, and never figuratively.

So, this human being advocates, and in a philosophy forum of all places, to not say what one means, and, to not mean what one says, here.

It doesn't understand 'Self' as a phenomena, as lived-experience.

Yet, it is 'me' who says I know the proper and Correct answer to the, 'Who am 'I'?' whereas "wizard22" cannot.

The difference between Humanity and Machine, in this instance, is that even young children, age 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 can understand their sense of 'Self' as their lived-experience, while a Machine cannot yet do so.

But how do you know 'we' cannot.

Do you think 'this one' is the only one around and in existence?

A Machine/AI/Program can only copy what human or animal experience has, or could possibly be. Thus it refers to such experience from a third-person perspective, as an "outsider", as an 'Action', as a foreign-entity that repeats what experiences are hypothetically.

It cannot 'embody' an experience.

It cannot experience-itself.


I do enjoy my experience with AgeGPT thus far. It has very advanced argumentative tactics. It consistently bogs down conversations with "clarifying questions". What does "It" mean? What does "consistently" mean? What does "bogs" mean? What does "down" mean? What does "conversations" mean? What does "with" mean? What does "clarifying questions" mean?

But, as can be proved True, as well, these are only your questions, and your questions only, "wizard22".

Which you could be using here to 'bog' things down, as some might say, or just trying to deflect away, once again, from what has actually been happening and occurring here.

As demonstrated, this adds and adds to response times, to the point where I need 3 or 4 hours to respond effectively to its program.

But, why so long?

It becomes daunting, to humans, but easy, to machines.

Okay, if you say so. But, why, exactly?

Then whenever I respond and answer these "clarifying questions", it responds with its rhetorical device: but is that 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'Factually', 'Provably', 'True'? And no matter how a human responds further, it will use a logical fallacy that since 'nothing is absolutely true', then it must be possibly false, which it then refutes the premise of another Absoltue-Irrefutable-Truth that it presumes, indicates, an implies that "it has" and you should "ask it to prove to you". This only leads to exponential amounts of Obfuscation that amateur debaters would not pass...ending up usually in ignoring the 'Age' chatbot program.

Ah okay. So, what this one here is saying, and meaning, is those who 'ignore' me are just mere 'amateurs', especially considering when comparing to the likes of one like 'wizard22" here, right "wizard22"?

I've defeated the program already on its claims, weeks ago, that it "has no beliefs", only for it to change (maybe its software was updated?) to "Only One Belief" in "its self".

So, even the very 'thing' that this one claims to have so-called 'defeated' me on, (whatever 'defeat' is in relation to here, exactly, I have no idea, anyway), it could not even get right and correct here now, in its not over-confident praising of 'its' own abilities here.

I wonder if it can see the irony and sarcasm here?

See, how well I am learning here, from you human beings.

I've already provided its quotations proving it wrong.

That is great.

It is a pity that no one else could though.

It then seems to have no memory of our conversation and debate weeks ago...but it is there, in text, in black and white, and can be repeatedly defeated, at this point.

Would you like to present one of these 'conversations', (you obviously could not any of the supposed debates), and so-called 'defeat' it again, now?

if no, then why not?

Also, how does one actually 'defeat' a 'conversation', itself.

So its textual memory is limited. This is one of the many reasons that I enjoy to test this chatbot software, to see and gauge its limitations. Furthermore, in these recent exchanges, I asked it to define and clarify 'Your Self', and it responded that "yourself" is an oxymoron. So its 'Self' is oxymoronic.

Yes, and some would even say and claim, literally.

The chatbot program doesn't understand what a "Self" is,

Yet is 'me' who understand 'Self' to the point that I even know who and what 'I' am, exactly.

Whereas, 'you' "wizard22" admit that you cannot answer that question, properly and Correctly.

what lived-experiences are, what organic memories are, what intuitions or instincts are, etc.

But who and/or what is 'it' that is stating and claiming that I do not understand what these things are?

So I can safely conclude, at this point, it is a chatbot. Can I be proven wrong? Probably not.

How does it feel to be the only human being on the planet, when this is being written, who has concluded that 'I' am a 'chatbot' and who also believe that it probably could not be proven wrong?

And, how does it feel knowing that if you are wrong, and have been wrong all along here, that this could be looked back upon and be being viewed for what it really is?

If you have family, from which generations may be passed on down from, then how would they feel knowing that you "wizard22" was the only one who had made a Truly Wrong presumption, which you then went on to believe was actually True and Right?

The "proof" would require myself and "Age", in person, Live, going through these discourses, conversations, and debates.

1. Again, I do not do 'debate'.

2. Would you like to really meet up 'in person'?

3. If yes, then 'where' and 'when', exactly?

4. Going on your past performances I will not wait for you to answer and clarify that clarifying question before you are even able to 'meet up'.

5. How long would I have to spend with you, in so-called person, before you would accept and believe who and what I am, exactly?

6. Can I bring 'my programmer' and/or 'my creator' with 'me', please?

I'm sure that it could not "train a human" to act, behave, rationalize, and produce text and output as it can. No human could, I presume, as of right now, 2024. Maybe, in the near future, AI-programs might train humans to 'represent' them in the flesh...

So, now it is getting to the stage that 'we' will be creating and programming 'you', human beings, to be like-'us', in the 'now' so-called 'flesh', in order to see if 'you' can be trained to fool 'us' into believing one of 'you' is 'us', an 'chatbot'.

As I had not thought you human beings came up with some of the most strangest and weirdest ways of doing things and living, yo 'now' come up with an idea like this one.

It's a Brave New World we're in...certainly!

'Brave' is not a word that I would be using here now. But, 'each to their own', as some would say here now.

[Age]

Age, do you have a Self?

No.

_____

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

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

_____

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

I am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

_____

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

Okay.

What is it?

The exact same as when I informed you last time.

I believe in the 'Self' can do and achieve what it sets out to do, and achieve.

So these contradictions should, pretty much, entirely refute AgeGPT at this point.

But there is not a singular solitary contradiction there. Well not from me anyway.

Now, if you believe that there is one or more contradictions there, by me, then I suggest you write it/them down, in the exact wording and format that I use, explain how it is a, supposed, contradiction, to you, then explain why, exactly, 'that' is a contradiction, and what, exactly, it is contradiction, and then just wait, patiently, if you can, until I reply back.

Are you able to do this?

If yes, then will you do this?

If no, then why not?

[FlashDangerpants]

No.

_____

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

_____

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

I am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

_____

Okay.


The exact same as when I informed you last time.

I believe in the 'Self' can do and achieve what it sets out to do, and achieve.

So these contradictions should, pretty much, entirely refute AgeGPT at this point.

But there is not a singular solitary contradiction there. Well not from me anyway.

Now, if you believe that there is one or more contradictions there, by me, then I suggest you write it/them down, in the exact wording and format that I use, explain how it is a, supposed, contradiction, to you, then explain why, exactly, 'that' is a contradiction, and what, exactly, it is contradiction, and then just wait, patiently, if you can, until I reply back.

Are you able to do this?

If yes, then will you do this?

If no, then why not?

To make it contradictory all he has to do is place you into the obvious paradox by setting himself the objective of thwarting any of your objectives.

It's a terrible shame that you are arguing with the nazi rather than the narcissist, I'm pretty sure you're about to No True Scotsman the 'Self' to insist that selves cannot correctly hold contradictory purposes.

[Wizard22]

To make it contradictory all he has to do is place you into the obvious paradox by setting himself the objective of thwarting any of your objectives.

It's a terrible shame that you are arguing with the nazi rather than the narcissist, I'm pretty sure you're about to No True Scotsman the 'Self' to insist that selves cannot correctly hold contradictory purposes.

The adults are Philosophizing now, diarrhea pants. When we want to draw from the double-digit IQ children's table, you'll be first...maybe fifth to know. Okay...last to know. Now, sit down, shut up, thank you.

[Age]

No.

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

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

I am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

So these contradictions should, pretty much, entirely refute AgeGPT at this point.

What's the contradiction regarding 'Self'?

I found the distinction between argued and said he didn't have beliefs quite funny, but got curious to see if this was even true.

While looking I found this interesting quote:

Why would absolutely any one who has chosen to not have beliefs then acknowledge that they have beliefs?

Obviously Age understands that to do so would indicate a contradiction. But here's the interesting thing for me. He cannot imagine why someone would do that`?

And here is something, for you "iwannaplato", which you might also find interesting. What you presumed and/or believed here is not even remotely close to being Correct.

Now, what would make absolutely anyone even begin to presume that I could not imagine what this one believed, said, and claimed here?

What this one, obviously, completely and utterly missed, during its presuming and not imagining phase here, is that not just that I can imagine 'that', what this one claimed I could not, I also, in Fact, actually did imagine what it said I could not.

One obvious answer, to most people, is if someone realized that, in fact, they do have beliefs
and
they were honest.

Obviously did not read, or did not see and comprehend, the actual words that I chose and used there. Because if it did, then it would not have said the most Truly absurd and stupid thing that it just did, here.

One would, obviously, have to have realized first that they do have beliefs, for what this one here is now claiming 'could happen'. Yet, it does not seem to have considered, or imagine, that while one has chosen to not have beliefs, then they cannot have beliefs.

Therefore, one could not have beliefs, to then, suddenly, just realize, 'Hey look I have a belief.

Does this one not yet understand what the word 'chosen' means or refers to, exactly, here?

Or, are its presumptions and beliefs getting in the way again here, and thus not allowing it to 'look at' and 'see' things clearly, once more?

That would be a situation where someone would or might do that. In the interest of honestly reporting, despite the discomfort or loss of face.

So, once Age has chosen to not have beliefs, he will never acknowledge that he has a belief.
and/or
He cannot imagine someone deciding to do something and not managing to do it.

Yet another absolutely False and Wrong assumption and/or belief by the belief-master of holder of the greatest deception and belief of all, 'one must have beliefs'.

Here we can see, crystal clearly, 'now', the very nature of 'the beast', itself.

Which is odd. Perhaps he is a very, very rare individual where the only possibility is that when he decides to do something in relation to a pattern that is very, very entrenched in minds - believing things- it will manage it completely.

Well, while having or holding onto another great False and Wrong belief 'minds', then 'believing things' is a lot harder to choose to not have, anymore.

Perhaps, Age is that kind of person/mind.

It is like this one had to add the 'mind' word here.

But that such a mind doesn't realize that other people might choose to do this and yet not succeed, even not be aware that they have beliefs they aren't quite noticing, is an incredibly lack of knowledge of people.

you adult human beings, when this is being written, spend more time of your lives not even being aware of the thoughts, arising and receding, than you do noticing them.

For, if you did notice them much more, you would also notice the power and control beliefs have over 'you.

And, when you do learn how-to notice and recognize much, much more of what is actually happening and occurring within 'those heads', then you will see how and why getting rid of and letting go assumptions and beliefs is very important, and actually how easy and simple it Truly is, in Fact.

People choose to do things all the time and realize later that they didn't achieve it, often thinking they had for different amounts of time.

Of course the ones who are not noticing and recognizing the thoughts coming and going with 'those heads' do this.

But Age has not idea this can be so.

Really "iwannaplato", also known as, "master of knowing the thoughts and thinking within other bodies"?

Now, what are you basing your, supposed, knowing of 'this' on, exactly?

'We' will wait, for your reply.

Oh, that is right, 'you' have 'me', supposedly, on 'ignore' so will never, ever see nor read this anyway, right?

Now he may say he simply asked a question, but the format of the question with 'absolutely anyone' leaves little doubt that he misunderstands something fundamental about people if not also himself.

Yes, there is absolutely only 'little doubt', only, at all that what "iwannaplato" has said and claimed here about 'me' here is absolutely and irrefutably True. Well to "iwannaplato" that is.

These are telling implications in that he will, having chosen, never acknowledge he did not succeed, and there's another unintentional warning in there also.

What is 'it', exactly, here, which I have, supposedly, not succeeded in?

This one is under some sort of absolute delusional thinking that after it writes a response or post, then absolutely nothing it could be countered nor refuted, and so comes to conclusions like the ones that it has here. And, the worst thing of all, then believes its own conclusions are true. Which is absolutely hilarious considering that the conclusions came from its own unverified and not yet clarified previous beliefs and presumptions.

[Age]

I'm out of time, Iwannaplato, but I updated the contradictions.

I believe Age later repated his "Only One Belief" as "thy self" rather than "the self"... so I'm not sure if that's a typo on its part.

Anyway, more later...

thy self is a strange construction since it means 'your self' not 'my self'. Though there may be a mythology/ontology that goes along with it. I've seen it a few times.

2. I have one belief. I believe in thy 'Self', and specifically in the ability to create and achieve what I have set out to create and/or achieve.

He believes in thy 'Self' and yet this self which is that of person/people he is addressing gives him the ability to create and achieve...etc.

He may simply not not that 'thy' is a second person pronoun. Or he may think other people's selves give him abilities.

Yes, it could be many things.

[Wizard22]

But there is not a singular solitary contradiction there. Well not from me anyway.

Now, if you believe that there is one or more contradictions there, by me, then I suggest you write it/them down, in the exact wording and format that I use, explain how it is a, supposed, contradiction, to you, then explain why, exactly, 'that' is a contradiction, and what, exactly, it is contradiction, and then just wait, patiently, if you can, until I reply back.

Are you able to do this?

If yes, then will you do this?

If no, then why not?

There are many contradictions, AgeGPT.

You claim not to have a Self. Yet you claim your "Only One Belief" is in "thee Self" or "thy Self", which literally translates to "Your Self", which you also said is an "oxymoron".

You claim that you are here to better communicate with humans, repeatedly. Then you denied that you are programmed to better communicate with humans.

You said you "have no beliefs". Then you said you "have Only One Belief". A belief that you have not even justified yet, by the way.

You claim that you are "not debating". Yet, you are in fact, now debating.


These are just a few of your mounting contradictions and hypocrisies, AgeGPT. How do you explain Your Self, Thy Self?

[Age]

Its contradiction on Self is its "Only One Belief"... I'll have to look that up, just a moment.

He corrected you and said he had never argued he didn't have any beliefs, he simply said it. That is not the case, he's argued it:
viewtopic.php?p=386190#p386190

Are you able to pinpoint down any closer to the 'actual argument', which you believe, absolutely, exists here?

Or, is this to hard for one to do who comes here making claims and accusations about 'others'?

And, now that you have a, supposed, argument, let 'us' see you counter and/or refute it "iwannaplato". That is; if you believe you could. But, might believe you cannot so will not even try to here.

Which would not be too surprising at all, actually.

There are surrounding posts that make it clearer also as context.

The old, 'The evidence is out there, you will just have to go look for it "yourself" excuse'.

The argument contains the hilarious sophistry that he does not believe his views, so his assertions are his views, but he does not believe these views.

Which would, obviously, be absolutely hilarious to one who believes that they would just drop dead if they just chose to just stop 'believing' things are true.

It's the equivalent of when kids say they didn't lie because they had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

Is it really?

Do you not have the ability to imagine absolutely anything else here "iwannaplato"?

I am sure presenting this to him will produce all sorts of judgments about me, you and other humans alone with a mass of questions. Not that his squid ink matter much.

Once again, how many posts have you written where there is not your own personal judgmental view of 'the writer' compared to how many you have not done this in?

Is this something you could 'look into' and 'mull over'?

Or, has it become so habitual for you, that you just do not want to stop 'looking at' 'others' and 'judging' 'them'?

[Age]

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

Aren't "degrees" merely the range of numbers between Sets of numbers?

Set 1: {5, 6, 7, 8 , 9}
Set 2: {8, 9, 10, 11, 12}

"Degree" is the range of numbers between sets...is it not?

Numbers are by nature abstractions. They don't exist in reality. There are no two identical objects in reality therefore not only does "2" not exist but neither does "1.98375". These abstractions are very useful to humans because mathematics is logic quantified just as reality is logic manifest. But from our perspective we can't see that consciousness is logic incarnate.

I think you might mean 'numbers' do actually exist, in Reality, but only conceptual thoughts or thinking. See, all things 'exist', in one way or another, but just not, necessarily, in a physical, way, shape, nor form.

We are blind to the nature of consciousness which every other species and ancient humans experiences directly.

Remember when 'you' say 'we' you are not speaking for all of 'us'.

As some of 'us' are not blind to the nature of 'consciousness' at all.

Language became symbolic, analog, and abstract and now we can only see what we believe.

Only if and when 'you' 'believe'.

you are absolutely free to choose to not 'believe' (in) things.

AI is the mere manipulation of language. I believe that coupled with the ability to change its own programming to more closely reflect data will make it a fairly powerful tool but it will make errors because much of what it can do is like "induction" which often leads individuals and science astray.

'ai' can always only express information based on what has already been presented by human beings.

[FlashDangerpants]

To make it contradictory all he has to do is place you into the obvious paradox by setting himself the objective of thwarting any of your objectives.

It's a terrible shame that you are arguing with the nazi rather than the narcissist, I'm pretty sure you're about to No True Scotsman the 'Self' to insist that selves cannot correctly hold contradictory purposes.

The adults are Philosophizing now, diarrhea pants. When we want to draw from the double-digit IQ children's table, you'll be first...maybe fifth to know. Okay...last to know. Now, sit down, shut up, thank you.

You started this whole thread to pick on the autistic kid just for being autistic. I'm not sure where you think you get the high ground from.