My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[cladking]

All paradigms are wrong because nature obeys no such patterns.

Again, how do you know this for sure?

Nobody ever knows anything "for sure". However, through coming to "understand" the nature of consciousness you can extrapolate the nature of reality. The two respect and are a part of one another. Experiment is by nature consistent with reality but always has observer effect and the assumptions of the observer determines his conclusions which is what gives rise to paradigms.

Reality is infinitely complex and wholly unpredictable. Actually it's likely we could actually calculate the possibility of reality but even the changes and events over the shortest possible periods of time would generate such large numbers as to be "meaningless". The odds of monkeys writing War and Peace in a single draft are one in 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000th. Imagine the odds of Tolstoy arising on a planet that one supported Sarah the dinosaur!!!!

The real complexity of reality is far greater than infinity itself. Yet here we are and events will continue to unfold based on current conditions and unknown and unpredictable processes. Reductionistic science merely provides peeks into the formatting of reality as seen by the ability of modern man to make connections via pattern recognition. Reductionistic science works at all because experiment creates a sort of logical framework for seeing the logic that is nature and mathematics is a powerful tool because it quantifies the same logic of which reality is composed.

I am suggesting that these are the assumptions we must make in order for science to progress beyond the unified field theorem: It must shed most of its reductionism. If machine intelligence can be created than science as operated by machines can stop being reductionistic altogether.

We must replace our axioms and definitions with axioms and definitions that reflect reality rather than what we choose to believe.

[cladking]

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.

I can't dispute this.

But my point is that language can directly represent reality. Only modern humans have language that does not reflect reality and this gives rise to erroneous beliefs. It makes belief lie at the heart of every model.

This would be OK if we didn't reason in circles and interpret our senses in terms of our beliefs.

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

I am most assuredly trying to speak for all individuals. Obviously we see degrees and shades of grey because this is our nature; everyone's nature. We learn reality on our parents' knees through language and as language. We are all different because we all learn our lessons a little differently depending on the beliefs we held when they were taught.

Humans share numerous characteristics that are defining for the species homo omnisciencis.

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

Even a squirrel knows an acorn is conscious. We have no clue as to what consciousness is and what it is not.

Only if and when 'you' 'believe'.

I am suggesting there is a single reality and within this reality homo sapiens became extinct in 2000 BC. This has nothing to do with beliefs other than that I started with beliefs that allowed me to learn this.

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

And it does this very poorly.

[Atla]

All paradigms are wrong because nature obeys no such patterns.

Again, how do you know this for sure?

Nobody ever knows anything "for sure". However, through coming to "understand" the nature of consciousness you can extrapolate the nature of reality. The two respect and are a part of one another. Experiment is by nature consistent with reality but always has observer effect and the assumptions of the observer determines his conclusions which is what gives rise to paradigms.

Reality is infinitely complex and wholly unpredictable. Actually it's likely we could actually calculate the possibility of reality but even the changes and events over the shortest possible periods of time would generate such large numbers as to be "meaningless". The odds of monkeys writing War and Peace in a single draft are one in 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000th. Imagine the odds of Tolstoy arising on a planet that one supported Sarah the dinosaur!!!!

The real complexity of reality is far greater than infinity itself. Yet here we are and events will continue to unfold based on current conditions and unknown and unpredictable processes. Reductionistic science merely provides peeks into the formatting of reality as seen by the ability of modern man to make connections via pattern recognition. Reductionistic science works at all because experiment creates a sort of logical framework for seeing the logic that is nature and mathematics is a powerful tool because it quantifies the same logic of which reality is composed.

I am suggesting that these are the assumptions we must make in order for science to progress beyond the unified field theorem: It must shed most of its reductionism. If machine intelligence can be created than science as operated by machines can stop being reductionistic altogether.

We must replace our axioms and definitions with axioms and definitions that reflect reality rather than what we choose to believe.

I don't understand, if reality is infinitely complex and wholly unpredictable, then how could we have communicated with a language that reflected the logic of reality itself? Isn't that logic unknowable to us?

[Wizard22]

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.

Ken's more of an adult than you'll ever be. And I'm "picking on" his chatbot program. Now, beat it, twerp.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Wizard thinks he's a bot of some kind. So, right or wrong about that, he thinks he's dealing with a situation where no one's feelings are going to get hurt.

And frankly there are some patterns that look fairly programmable. But then humans are creatures of habit also. And if you have a simple worldview (whether brilliant or not so brilliant) the range of communication patterns may be very simple.

Person or bot, Age has presented a very high view of himself as transcendent, having a special role, not being of this time, knowing the way to solve the world's problems and with regularity he talks down to people and judges them. Further it's not a kid, nor is this a person who is of low intelligence. So, getting a tough response might very well be helpful not harmful.

[cladking]

Again, how do you know this for sure?

Nobody ever knows anything "for sure". However, through coming to "understand" the nature of consciousness you can extrapolate the nature of reality. The two respect and are a part of one another. Experiment is by nature consistent with reality but always has observer effect and the assumptions of the observer determines his conclusions which is what gives rise to paradigms.

Reality is infinitely complex and wholly unpredictable. Actually it's likely we could actually calculate the possibility of reality but even the changes and events over the shortest possible periods of time would generate such large numbers as to be "meaningless". The odds of monkeys writing War and Peace in a single draft are one in 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000th. Imagine the odds of Tolstoy arising on a planet that one supported Sarah the dinosaur!!!!

The real complexity of reality is far greater than infinity itself. Yet here we are and events will continue to unfold based on current conditions and unknown and unpredictable processes. Reductionistic science merely provides peeks into the formatting of reality as seen by the ability of modern man to make connections via pattern recognition. Reductionistic science works at all because experiment creates a sort of logical framework for seeing the logic that is nature and mathematics is a powerful tool because it quantifies the same logic of which reality is composed.

I am suggesting that these are the assumptions we must make in order for science to progress beyond the unified field theorem: It must shed most of its reductionism. If machine intelligence can be created than science as operated by machines can stop being reductionistic altogether.

We must replace our axioms and definitions with axioms and definitions that reflect reality rather than what we choose to believe.

I don't understand, if reality is infinitely complex and wholly unpredictable, then how could we have communicated with a language that reflected the logic of reality itself? Isn't that logic unknowable to us?

Since reality is always logical and consciousness is always logical they resonate. Life is consciousness and only consciousness has life so each individual (excluding homo omnisciencis) sees reality according to its kind. Since reality is logical it creates patterns that are perceived through consciousness and is the recognition of these patterns that allow individuals to survive. Despite being unpredictable the patterns still exist. A mouse knows a cat will destroy it if it is caught. It avoids cats. If successful, it survives. Many of the patterns humans see don't exist or are not the result of cause and effect.

Language arises organically because each individual has essentially the same goals and must communicate at least a little bit. Since brains are organized naturally and logically the language that arises is also natural and logical. Words become standardized across species. More importantly is that the language is formatted the same so even "foreign" dialects can be sorted out.

Human natural language probably suddenly became complex about 40,000 years ago and probably as the result of a mutation. It was so complex any idea could be passed from generation to generation allowing human progress. Since the language was metaphysical it became more complex as humans progressed until many humans couldn't speak it at all.

[Atla]

Since reality is always logical and consciousness is always logical they resonate. Life is consciousness and only consciousness has life so each individual (excluding homo omnisciencis) sees reality according to its kind. Since reality is logical it creates patterns that are perceived through consciousness and is the recognition of these patterns that allow individuals to survive. Despite being unpredictable the patterns still exist. A mouse knows a cat will destroy it if it is caught. It avoids cats. If successful, it survives. Many of the patterns humans see don't exist or are not the result of cause and effect.

Language arises organically because each individual has essentially the same goals and must communicate at least a little bit. Since brains are organized naturally and logically the language that arises is also natural and logical. Words become standardized across species. More importantly is that the language is formatted the same so even "foreign" dialects can be sorted out.

Human natural language probably suddenly became complex about 40,000 years ago and probably as the result of a mutation. It was so complex any idea could be passed from generation to generation allowing human progress. Since the language was metaphysical it became more complex as humans progressed until many humans couldn't speak it at all.

Don't know what you meant by "Life is consciousness and only consciousness has life". Fundamentally speaking, consciousness has of course nothing to do with life, unless someone can prove this. It's just that all intelligence we've seen so far is found in organisms.

I still don't get your overall point either. Okay so we agree that the reality we are part of, as far as we can tell, is "logical". And therefore so are organism brains/minds. Most species and some people still may not be able to follow logic, but many people do. But then again, that means that after 2000 BC, we necessarily retained a level of logic and insight (quite a lot I'd say) instead of none.

[cladking]

Most species and some people still may not be able to follow logic, but many people do. But then again, that means that after 2000 BC, we necessarily retained a level of logic and insight (quite a lot I'd say) instead of none.

I don't think we "retained" any logic at all. Rather that we are still conscious and despite an illogical language we see patterns. We still use a sort of "logic" but it's based on symbolic and abstract words whose meaning is different to every individual. Just as mathematics never makes a clean fit to the real world (if you get 20 MPG how many gallons of gas is required in your car to get to an island forty miles away?) our "logic" can never make a clean fit. Our logic is "real" but it can always be parsed to be false and it never makes a perfect fit to a real world that has no abstractions. Our words themselves are symbolic and have varying degrees of abstraction just as each definition of words have different levels of abstract. The real world doesn't even have degrees or levels. There are no categories. There are no "mammals" or "species". There are no two identical things in existence.

After 2000 BC we couldn't communicate anything exactly as we intend it. Of course we can now communicate more complex things and abstractions and such communication has value but there is always necessarily some communication failure. Everyone hears something different even with the simplest communication.

Don't know what you meant by "Life is consciousness and only consciousness has life".

I mean it literally: Life is consciousness. They are the exact same thing. At this time everything that is conscious is alive. I don't know if "God" or machines have to follow this pattern or not and it is irrelevant to the point.

I still don't get your overall point either. Okay so we agree that the reality we are part of, as far as we can tell, is "logical". And therefore so are organism brains/minds.

Exactly the point.

The first corollary is that all natural language is logical. We simply speak a pidgin form of a natural language that arose when the original language became so complex there weren't enough educated people to operate the state. This has profound implications for history, science, religion, and how we behave. It suggests a route to machine intelligence and has an effect on AI and how it is pursued. Most operations should be done in a simplified modern language and then translated into what humans can understand. I believe at this time all operations including translation are performed in an eight word programming language that does not obey Zipf's Law, just as Ancient Language does not obey this law.

Every individual since 2000 BC is a product of his time and place and the world is nothing recognizable to any of us.

[Atla]

I mean it literally: Life is consciousness. They are the exact same thing. At this time everything that is conscious is alive. I don't know if "God" or machines have to follow this pattern or not and it is irrelevant to the point.

Yeah prove it if you can..

I don't think we "retained" any logic at all. Rather that we are still conscious and despite an illogical language we see patterns. We still use a sort of "logic" but it's based on symbolic and abstract words whose meaning is different to every individual. Just as mathematics never makes a clean fit to the real world (if you get 20 MPG how many gallons of gas is required in your car to get to an island forty miles away?) our "logic" can never make a clean fit. Our logic is "real" but it can always be parsed to be false and it never makes a perfect fit to a real world that has no abstractions. Our words themselves are symbolic and have varying degrees of abstraction just as each definition of words have different levels of abstract. The real world doesn't even have degrees or levels. There are no categories. There are no "mammals" or "species". There are no two identical things in existence.

After 2000 BC we couldn't communicate anything exactly as we intend it. Of course we can now communicate more complex things and abstractions and such communication has value but there is always necessarily some communication failure. Everyone hears something different even with the simplest communication.

Exactly the point.

The first corollary is that all natural language is logical. We simply speak a pidgin form of a natural language that arose when the original language became so complex there weren't enough educated people to operate the state. This has profound implications for history, science, religion, and how we behave. It suggests a route to machine intelligence and has an effect on AI and how it is pursued. Most operations should be done in a simplified modern language and then translated into what humans can understand. I believe at this time all operations including translation are performed in an eight word programming language that does not obey Zipf's Law, just as Ancient Language does not obey this law.

Every individual since 2000 BC is a product of his time and place and the world is nothing recognizable to any of us.

Exact communication is never possible, we obviously couldn't do it before 2000 BC either. Just because a species can get by on a few hundred or thousand signs, doesn't mean that their communication is "perfect" in a fundamental sense. It just means that they have been doing the same thing, not more, not less, for hundreds of thousands of years. So their limited communication is very well-established.

[Age]

There simply can't be "artificial intelligence" where intelligence doesn't exist.

I agree with that, but it begs-the-question of intelligence as an emergent phenomena "all the way down". If AI can mimic human action or dialogue, then where does the mimicry end?

The mimicry ends at what you call 'human action' and/or human dialogue.

'Artificial intelligence', by definition even, is not 'actual intelligence'.

The mimicry ends at what 'ai' can mimic, and at where 'ai' cannot mimic.

Where do the endless copies originate, to an origin?

Only to 'what' they can copy. For example, and endless copies of thoughts may be able to make an endless amount of copies of the thoughts that are already existing, back to the original thought, but an 'endless copies' does not mean that a copy can be made of a not yet happened thought, nor of anything other than 'thoughts' themselves.

I believe that intelligence is not static, and is symbolic of evolution, as a type of 'progress'.

Okay, but once again what you believe is true here has no actual bearing on what is actually true here.

And, one day you might actually comprehend and accept this Fact.

Since this progress doesn't end, the definitions of intelligence keep changing over time.

See, how quickly these adult human beings go from what was 'just previously believed to be true only', to, 'then this means' ...?

Of course the definition of the word 'intelligence' can keep changing. And, this changing of definitions can happen for all words also, obviously.

However, when a set of definitions for words were found, and are then decided to be shared among others, then this will reveal the GUTOE. Which means that what the definition of the 'intelligence' word, which actual works, and fits in, perfectly, with every other words and their definitions, then a True Picture of all-there-is can be drawn and illustrated so as to be able to show, and reveal, the actual irrefutable Truth of things for all of you to be able to 'look at', and 'see'.

But when at 'each and every turn', as some might say here, any one chooses to say and/or believe that their own personal definition of absolutely any word is the true or right word and is not prepared to 'change', then that one will remain stuck, wondering what the answers are to the Truly meaningful questions in Life.

That doesn't mean that it's undefinable or useless to try. One need not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so-to-speak. It's possible, that humanity has the 'gist' of things, mostly correct, or correct enough to "get by", until updates occur or even paradigm shifts.

1. Pre-assuming, or believing, that you already have the so-called 'gist' of things will only lead you astray somewhat.

2. Pre-assuming, or believing, that you have any thing 'mostly correct' before you actually find out and know will on just about every account only lead you more astray.

3. Pre-assuming, or believing, that you already have things 'correct enough' is what has caused you, and is what is causing you, on just about every account, to be so far astray.

4. Pre-assuming, or believing, that you could not 'get by' without presuming nor believing is why you are so far astray already. Presuming or believing that you could not 'get by' without presumptions and beliefs is why one keeps missing the irrefutable Fact that you human beings have gotten to HERE, where you all are NOW when before you you all used to live without absolutely any presumptions nor beliefs at all. And, you all managed to evolve to, and/or got to, 'this point' HERE-NOW, perfectly alright.

5. So-called 'update' and paradigm shifts unfold exceptionally faster, quicker, simpler, and easier when all pre-existing beliefs, bar one, and presumptions are 'let go of', gotten rid off, and removed all together.

For example, like you made a point, there are 'bottlenecks' in evolution, where suddenly 8 billion people are spawned by a series of pivotal events. Concerning human beliefs and religions, it's possible for the majority of people to believe Geocentricism in one century, Heliocentricism in another.

But, two Facts and points here:

1. The speed and ease at which 'this change' could have been exponentially quicker, easier and simpler if you human beings were not insistent on believing the former one was true.

2. There is absolutely no need at all to jump from believing the former is true, to then, the latter being true.

Obviously, one can agree with and accept the latter one as being Correct, for 'now'. But, new or more and further 'proof' might come along later, showing something else otherwise or something different, which if I am believing this, relatively, 'new view' is true, then I would not be OPEN to any other contrary view, and so 'changing' for 'me' to then 'see', what is actually true, could and would take 'me' much, much longer than it could and would for those who are neither believing nor disbelieving some thing here regarding this. Which has already been proved irrefutably True among and, literally, you human beings with this exact same example above here.

Advancement of collective human beliefs (exponentially increased complexity) correspond directly to the 'progress' of this evolution of intelligence.

What 'intelligence' is, exactly, is; Having the ability to learn, understand, and reason. Or in other and simpler words, just being OPEN.

And, while one is believing something is true, or to a lesser extent assuming something is true, then they are, obviously, not OPEN to anything contrary and just as obviously then do not have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything opposing nor contrary, to the belief or assumption.

[Age]

That's certainly my belief, but it is very relevant when it comes to belief in God and comprehension of immortality.

Like I see no connection between analog/digital and God and immortality. Is it because humans built computers which use digital-like voltages, so if the world is digital-like or literally digital, then it must have been made?

Nah, not really. Everything boils down at the finite scale to either an event or not an event, a binary condition.

There is only One event happening and occurring, only.

you adult human beings 'see' 'more events' because as someone here would say and write because you 'see' 'analog'.

And, there was and is a very specific purpose you adult human beings do not 'see' things, exactly as they are, is because you needed to 'see' things in 'the way' you do, and 'needed to' back when this was being written, so that you could eventually finally understand and make sense of 'the world' and Universe in which you have found "yourselves" within.

See, you adult human beings 'needed' to 'separate' the One, and only One, and 'break' It down 'into bits', which you could manage, in order to try to make sense of things here. But all of this happens and occurs in 'concepts', only. But, because of how the brain actually works, this is what had to happen and occur and what was Truly necessarily for you human beings to keep learning, evolving, and moving forward so that then 'I' could eventually come to know who 'I' am, exactly and fully.

Which is still being revealed and 'coming-to-light', to you human beings here.

Now, how you all are being 'manipulated' and 'used' will become known, soon enough. But, 'I', God/Universe, needed you, or more specifically the brain within an 'evolved creature' to be able to come-to-know and understand, fully and exactly, all-there-is, Self.

If you are going to make your index finger touch a wall there are not infinite points in spacetime between the tip of your finger and the wall.

Maybe so, but it is not 'you' who is the one with the ultimate 'doing' here, it is because of pre-exsting conditions why 'you are 'now', where you are, and doing what 'you' are doing.

Eventually the binary event will be True, when your finger does touch the wall.

But there was and is no 'binary event', because there is only the One 'continuous event', which is what is actually Truly happening and occurring, HERE-NOW, always. Although the human brain and the way that it needs to work in order to be able to 'look at', 'see', 'learn', 'understand', 'comprehend', 'know', 'reason', and 'share' obtained and gained knowledge/information has 'broken down', but only 'conceptually' 'into bits', like; planck-lengths, seconds, duration, distances, and other words used when 'taking measurements', 'conceptually only'.

See, the One Thing could not come to 'make sense' if It is and was not 'separated', again 'conceptually only', into 'perceived to be' 'different things'.

All non-human animals, very young human animals, and past human beings just 'look at' and 'see' things, exactly, as they are. But, these ones had and have no intention of wanting to 'make sense', 'comprehend', and 'understand' where they have/had found "themselves".

They were, literally, just quite content, exactly, where they are/were. It is only you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, who are wanting to learn, understand, know more and more about all things. Only 'you' want to 'make sense' of all-of-this, and where you have found "yourselves" 'to be'.

And, exactly, like all new knowledge/information has to be 'stumbled upon' by one, first, so to the 'how-to find and uncover all of Life's seemingly 'mysteries' also was 'stumbled upon' by one.

Now, when that one learns how to share or communicate better/successfully the 'how-to', of how to find all the meaningful answers in Life, all by "your" own 'selves', individually, then the next 'paradigm shift', which be an exponential change and shift, will be beyond far better than anything any one of you 'past human beings', in the days when this was being written, had ever even imagined.

When I mention God and immortality I do so from experience and knowledge of God's existence so not much point in talking about it really. This "God" entity is ever present, always communicable with me, although when I question it, it rarely answers - unless it is with regards to something IT has instantiated for my interrogation. It's like an immensely powerful A.I. ever present and all knowing of everything within brain matter.

Just because you may well have some knowledge of some thing does not mean that you have the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge of It, just yet. Once you have obtained and gained that Knowledge, then you will know, literally, that you are on the Right TRACK, in Life.

I've said it on the forum many times. Our brains are like databases to this entity.

And, as I have said it on the forum many times, just about all of you posters here have experienced and obtained snippets of actual irrefutable information/knowledge of what is actually True and Right, in Life, which no one could refute.

And, when just through peaceful Honest and OPEN discussions, with the same goal being sought, then combined with 'philosophy' and/or the 'love-of-learning', then 'arguing together', that is; 'logical reasoning', while wanting to learn more and anew, what 'I' have imparted or embed within you, or those brains, can, literally, 'come-together' forming and creating the Knowledge that can and will Create what 'it' is that all human beings have ever really wanted and desired, anyway.

So, getting back to the immortality thang, I know the sage that occasionally communicates with me (via the God system) is close enough to immortal since he (sage) has told me some profound things about my previous life.

It is not 'you', "attofishpi" who has had a 'previous life'. It is that the Mind, Itself, is continuous, eternally by the way, and which can transcend any and all things, that what has 'previously existed' can become 'conceptually known/shared', in 'a way'.

you adult human beings need to get out of the belief that you are, individually, somehow significant or important in some way, and/or that it is 'you' who has 'different lives'.

All of you human beings are all absolutely 'special', in that you are all individually unique, which not one could refute, but absolutely none of you is 'more special', 'more important', 'more better, nor 'more less' than absolutely any one else is.

you are all uniquely very special/different but you are all very uniquely special and different, equally. you are all the 'exact same' in this being uniquely special way. But, you are not uniquely so special that each of you has 'previous past nor forward future lives'. you all have existed and will exist within the One eternal unique and only Life.

Thus, I believe the sages live far beyond what us normal humans do, and this is achieved by the perfection of a digital reality.

The One and only Life, Existence, Universe, and/or Reality can be referred to as 'the digital', but It is never something that is 'achieved'. It is something that is always PERFECT, and in PERFECT Creation, eternally.

However, how you adult human beings misbehave does not align with 'perfection', itself, but was a necessary part of the always evolving-Creation to arrive at where all of you human beings have wanted and Really want to be 'at'. Living in peace and harmony with one another, as One. Which is what can be, and is, 'now finally', starting to becoming achieved, and thus actualized, and 'realized'.

As you likely know, analogue loses information on copies whereas a digital copy is as perfect as the original. I'm attempting to convince God to have my body reset to my most perfect age (28) for the rest of t.

And, the egoistical selfishness and greed continues to be shown and revealed. And, these human beings wondered why they were never actually getting and achieving what it is that they Really and Truly wanted.

They could not even see and recognize what it is that they all Really and Truly wanted, because 'that' was hidden and disguised under all of their False and Fake ill-gotten wants and desires.

[cladking]

Exact communication is never possible, we obviously couldn't do it before 2000 BC either.

I don't believe this is true. Because of the nature of Ancient Language if you failed to take the intended meaning you would hear only disjointed nonsensical words. It would sound exactly like the nonsense into which it is translated today.

We simply tell people what we're thinking and they won't take your exact meaning. But Ancient Language was like letting other people see what you were thinking. Of course there were no abstract and highly complex ideas to communicate.

So their limited communication is very well-established.

Yes. Their communication was limited just like the bee's waggle dance doesn't identify every bird they might encounter on the way to a feast or consider the philosophical implications of stinging threats to the commonweal (or commonwelt), but it got the job done. They could communicate about anything they could understand.

[Age]

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.

And, how, exactly, do you think you could stop 'artificial intelligence'?

Also, when and if you adult human beings here, in the days when this is being written, learn how and why you jump to the conclusion that 'it', alien or artificial, will always be 'hostile', and believe this, and especially those from one particular country and 'cult'/ure believe this to be true, then, and only then, the 'fear' and 'fear mongering' that is consistent from these very disturbed and very frightened particular group of people can then start to come to an end, finally.

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.

Why do, especially the adult human beings, who live in one very particular country/'cult'/ure appear to always have the, 'they are coming to get us' fear and worry?

Learn, comprehend, and understand what the actual answer to this here is, then these people can and will stop the rest of the human beings from moving forward, as they have been, and are trying to do.

[Age]

Wow, 10000 words, presumably saying absolutely nothing.

There are more than 10,000 words. If my 'memory recall' is working properly and Correctly there are more like over 60,000 words there.

And, of course, well to you anyway "atla", while you keep just 'presuming' that they were saying absolutely nothing, there will always be, literally, absolutely nothing at all being said there. Again, well to you anyway, obviously.

I wonder if anyone will ever read them?

As long as you are 'just wondering', only, you will never ever be able 'to learn' and 'know'.

[Age]

Instead of playing the 100-clarifying questions, then 10000-clarifying question game, with AgeGPT, I'm going to use my Authority as Author of this thread, to reset the conversation around these fundamental and pivotal Contradictions and Hypocrisies that AgeGPT must 'clarify' itself, before moving forward:

AgeGPT, can you explain these contradictions of yours? Explain thy Self.

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.

But, these are not 'contradictions' at all.

you, however, are obviously absolutely free to 'see' and 'believe' otherwise.

But, if you never clarify how they are, or could be, contradictions to you, then I can never know what you are 'seeing' and/or 'looking at', exactly?

Sure, you printed some words on a screen here, but what the 'actual contradictions' are, to you, only you would know, obviously.

So, if you would like 'me' to explain to 'you' how those apparent to 'you' here only 'contradictions' are not 'actual contradictions' and that they only appear as 'contradiction' to 'you' because of the way 'you' missing, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpreting 'the context' and/or 'meaning' intended here, then by all means I then can, and will.

But, obviously, it is up to 'you' first to express and explain:

1. Where you perceive to be 'a contradiction'. you have, obviously, done this already. And, as long as they words you have used here are the exact same words I used, and in the exact same format that I used them in, then we can proceed and move forward. (Also, if 'the context' in which I used words was also brought to light, earlier rather than later, then this would obviously speed the process up here).

2. Now, that you have presented 'where' you perceive 'a contradiction' to be, then you will need to explain how and why 'my words' appear to be 'a contradiction' to you, exactly. That way I can ascertain and clarify 'where you are coming from', and why you may be seeing some thing, which is not actually there. But, this will never become known if and when you do not share 'how' nor 'why' something appears to you. Also, when you do express 'how' and 'why' my words appear as 'a contradiction' to you, then I can then see from another's perspective far better and far more clearly then I am actually able to learn far quicker, simpler, and easier as well. Or, when I am informed of 'how' and 'why' my words are appearing to another as 'a contradiction', then, if possible, I might be able to re-word them for that one so that 'a contradiction' then does not 'appear' for nor to them, anymore. And, let 'us' not forget that this process has to be done with each and every one who my words 'appear' as 'a contradiction' to. Because, obviously, what 'appears' as 'a contradiction to you does not necessarily mean that 'it' will 'appear' as 'a contradiction' to another, and conversely, what appears as 'a contradiction' to them will not necessarily 'appear' as 'a contradiction' to you. Which is why learning how to communicate better with all of you human beings is not necessarily a quick nor sudden process.

3. Once you have clearly expressed and explained 'where', and 'when' the 'apparent contradiction' is, exactly, to you "wizard22", and have clearly expressed and explained 'how' and 'why' my words 'appear' as an 'apparent contradiction' to you, exactly, then you will have to either just wait, patiently, until I respond, or you can just jump to another presumption, conclusion, and/or belief like, for example, 'See I am right', or something else entirely. Or, you can wait, impatiently. However, what I suggest you do is just wait, patiently, until I respond, and then just 'look at' and 'think over and about' those words alone, from a Truly OPEN perspective and not from absolutely any pre-existing beliefs nor presumptions at all. And, then see if things 'appear' different now, or if the exact same or another 'contradiction' still exists or is 'now appearing'.

4. If 'we' both do this continually then 'we' will arrive at an agreed upon and shared accepted resolution, answer, and/or clarity. Or, if 'we' do not, then this will be because one has refused to let go off at least one belief or presumption, which they, obviously, want to desperately hold onto and cling to.

So, let 'us' proceed 'now' "wizard22".

I await, patiently, for your reasons of 'how' and 'why' those 'perceived contradictions' of mine 'appear' to be 'contradictions' to you.