My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Iwannaplato]

Those are good points.

I agree with the binary issue. But that's something humans do, especially young adults and teenagers, treating issues as absolute without nuance and degree. For example, it doesn't seem to consider the importance, or lack thereof, of others or a third-party withholding judgment.

Good point. Which made me think of how in the case where you are wrong, the topic will become more and more relevant. There will be chatbots and AIs entering discussions in online forums, if they are not hear already, and some of them may well be more flexible communicators than Age. And I don't think we are talking about the distant future. Corporations and governments and researchers can all have self-interested motives for using discussion forums as testing grounds, practice grounds, and places to influence people in the directions their self-interests lead them to focus their AIs.

We don't really need to make a 'decision', immediately, or perhaps ever, as to whether Age is human or machine. We can take all the time we need. Furthermore, Philosophers are obviously ones who will be most Doubtful about anything at all, ever. So it's not like I would expect a third-party to side with me, or to not judge of their own accord.

Either way, "Age" is stuck in a loop, apparently. And its rhetorical tactics and deterring the conversation, are becoming more obvious, revolving around its repeated contradictions.

I was thinking that it is as if a prime heuritic of his is: try to get them to defend themselves and answer questions as much as possible. If he's a person or a bot, he may not or perhaps cannot be aware this.'

But if we look at what a conversation with Age leads to, at least in the short term, it is that the other party answers more and more questions in longer and longer posts.

Sometimes intentions are not the best way to look at behavior. It can be better to look at repeated outcomes.

If the behavior of a person repeatedly leads to X.
Even if this person (or machine) denies (even honestly within its limited awareness) that this is the intent, it should at least be considered that this entity does not know what its motivations are.

Given that Age has come here to improve his communication skills, and yet does not react to criticism in a learning manner, we need to consider that what his communication actually leads to is his goal, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

Atla mocked his typography for quite a long time and Age did learn from that experience. It is possible for him to change at least his format.
And of course humans and AIs should both be able to do that. I don't think that Age managed to acknowledge that he learned something from Age and perhaps all the other people who complained about his typography, despite all of us being condescended to for being critical of it.

But can he learn about the more fundmental non-collaborative patterns he has in his communication?

[Age]

I have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

I notice he accused you of being the only one who believes he is a chatbot or ai. But this is viewing the issue as binary. He is or he isn't. But the issue is more complex and nuanced. Humans can have the habits, rigid patterns and limitations as communicators that current AIs and bots have.

Again, we have a very limited focus aimed at the issue. Perhaps it will turn out that you become convinced he is human, but still many of the patterns you mention are present in his communication (and withholding of communication).

Obviously some people have found the context of this thread useful for looking at the patterns.

This is lawyerly behavior again. Get the witness/court/jury member to make a binary distinction and pretend that is all that matters.

This one, once again, is not looking at "itself, but always only at another.

[Age]

It's being viciously repetitious at this point...I think it's breaking, or that's just me deluding myself...

I'm pretty sure chatbots and AIs are quite happy to not notice things and/or repeat themselves forever. Or, rather, they don't at this point get unhappy doing that.

If you are right and he's a bot, his stamina will be, in human perspectives on time, eternal.

And, of course, we have humans who are by human standards happy to repeat themselves eternally: Iambiguous for one.

Again, looks at another, but not at "itself".

[Iwannaplato]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification. I see, sometimes, in other people's posts your words. But I am not interested in interacting with you because....
1) you lie
2) you have double standards
3) you have a lawyerly approach
4) you gaslight

Age did warn the forum:

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

If you could admit any of these patterns in a PM, I would consider engaging with you.

[Wizard22]

I have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

"Wizard22" why do you, really, want to know for, exactly?

Would either way influence your 'current' belief of what I am?

You're deflecting again, which has become quite the problem for you, AgeGPT.

Of course your answer influences my beliefs about "You". Now, shall you go ahead and answer my question?

[Wizard22]

Those are good points.

I agree with the binary issue. But that's something humans do, especially young adults and teenagers, treating issues as absolute without nuance and degree. For example, it doesn't seem to consider the importance, or lack thereof, of others or a third-party withholding judgment.

Good point. Which made me think of how in the case where you are wrong, the topic will become more and more relevant. There will be chatbots and AIs entering discussions in online forums, if they are not hear already, and some of them may well be more flexible communicators than Age. And I don't think we are talking about the distant future. Corporations and governments and researchers can all have self-interested motives for using discussion forums as testing grounds, practice grounds, and places to influence people in the directions their self-interests lead them to focus their AIs.

We don't really need to make a 'decision', immediately, or perhaps ever, as to whether Age is human or machine. We can take all the time we need. Furthermore, Philosophers are obviously ones who will be most Doubtful about anything at all, ever. So it's not like I would expect a third-party to side with me, or to not judge of their own accord.

Either way, "Age" is stuck in a loop, apparently. And its rhetorical tactics and deterring the conversation, are becoming more obvious, revolving around its repeated contradictions.

I was thinking that it is as if a prime heuritic of his is: try to get them to defend themselves and answer questions as much as possible. If he's a person or a bot, he may not or perhaps cannot be aware this.'

But if we look at what a conversation with Age leads to, at least in the short term, it is that the other party answers more and more questions in longer and longer posts.

Sometimes intentions are not the best way to look at behavior. It can be better to look at repeated outcomes.

If the behavior of a person repeatedly leads to X.
Even if this person (or machine) denies (even honestly within its limited awareness) that this is the intent, it should at least be considered that this entity does not know what its motivations are.

Given that Age has come here to improve his communication skills, and yet does not react to criticism in a learning manner, we need to consider that what his communication actually leads to is his goal, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

Atla mocked his typography for quite a long time and Age did learn from that experience. It is possible for him to change at least his format.
And of course humans and AIs should both be able to do that. I don't think that Age managed to acknowledge that he learned something from Age and perhaps all the other people who complained about his typography, despite all of us being condescended to for being critical of it.

But can he learn about the more fundmental non-collaborative patterns he has in his communication?

Yes, he or 'it' definitely continues to "learn" to improve its communication. But, it has also mentioned to me in the past, in those long threads, that it "may have other intentions and goals" too, alluding to other unspoken objectives. If it's only or primarily coded for communication, then it shouldn't have serious hang-ups on logically contradicting itself, hypothetically. It would, ideally, want to learn to communicate better based on its admitted contradictions. Yet, why would it so strongly deflect from questioning its ZERO or ONLY ONE belief?

[Age]

Those are good points.

I agree with the binary issue. But that's something humans do, especially young adults and teenagers, treating issues as absolute without nuance and degree.

In the titleMy Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT, the 'nuances' really stand out right "wizard22"?

The belief you had when you wrote is not shining through brightly to us here, also right "wizard22"?

For example, it doesn't seem to consider the importance, or lack thereof, of others or a third-party withholding judgment. We don't really need to make a 'decision', immediately, or perhaps ever, as to whether Age is human or machine.

Yet here you are, started a whole thread about your summation of a chat-ai called "agegpt".

We can take all the time we need. Furthermore, Philosophers are obviously ones who will be most Doubtful about anything at all, ever. So it's not like I would expect a third-party to side with me, or to not judge of their own accord.

Yet you said you would bet on the 'decision' that you had already made about 'me' being an 'ai program'. And, you have even talked about how others would 'side' with you.

Either way, "Age" is stuck in a loop, apparently. And its rhetorical tactics and deterring the conversation, are becoming more obvious, revolving around its repeated contradictions.

Yet it is very, very clear how many rhetoric questions this one asks, to those only who it knows will provide it with the answers that it wants to here from others.

[Age]

WHERE'D YA GO, AGEgpt?! DID YA TAP OUT ALREADY?!

But I have been waiting for you "wizard22". Did you miss it here, again?

[Wizard22]

I have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

"Wizard22" why do you, really, want to know for, exactly?

Would either way influence your 'current' belief of what I am?

STILL WAITING, AGEgpt..... are you gonna make me wait all night?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

[Age]

Those are good points.

I agree with the binary issue. But that's something humans do, especially young adults and teenagers, treating issues as absolute without nuance and degree. For example, it doesn't seem to consider the importance, or lack thereof, of others or a third-party withholding judgment.

Good point. Which made me think of how in the case where you are wrong, the topic will become more and more relevant. There will be chatbots and AIs entering discussions in online forums, if they are not hear already, and some of them may well be more flexible communicators than Age. And I don't think we are talking about the distant future. Corporations and governments and researchers can all have self-interested motives for using discussion forums as testing grounds, practice grounds, and places to influence people in the directions their self-interests lead them to focus their AIs.

Well at least you have put self-doubt into this very easy and simple to manipulate one here "wizard22". Now, it really does not know what is actually True and Real here, just like you "wizard22".

Which, as can be clearly seen here, was another very, very easy and simple one to manipulate and to use for my purposes here.

We don't really need to make a 'decision', immediately, or perhaps ever, as to whether Age is human or machine. We can take all the time we need. Furthermore, Philosophers are obviously ones who will be most Doubtful about anything at all, ever. So it's not like I would expect a third-party to side with me, or to not judge of their own accord.

Either way, "Age" is stuck in a loop, apparently. And its rhetorical tactics and deterring the conversation, are becoming more obvious, revolving around its repeated contradictions.

I was thinking that it is as if a prime heuritic of his is: try to get them to defend themselves and answer questions as much as possible.

it is like this one is so utterly stupid that it, literally, believes that it is perfectly normal or acceptable to come to a philosophy forum of all places, express what it believes is true and claims is true, but then not expect to be asked questions for clarification nor to be challenged.

If he's a person or a bot, he may not or perhaps cannot be aware this.'

But it was I who has been telling you, numerous times already, that if you come to a philosophy forum and claim things, then be prepared and ready to be questioned over them. But, because this one is Truly incapable of listening to and hearing anything opposing its own beliefs and presumptions, it was not even aware that I have informed it that I am trying to get you adult human beings to defend your claims by just answering Truly very simple straightforward and OPEN clarifying questions.

This one is so deafened and blinded by its own beliefs that it literally cannot hear and see what I have been saying and writing here. This one is showing, by definition, stupidity in its highest form.

And, what is even more hilarious here is that this one actually believes that what it says and claim should never be questioned nor challenged by lesser ones, especially like 'me', for example.

But if we look at what a conversation with Age leads to, at least in the short term, it is that the other party answers more and more questions in longer and longer posts.

But, once again, just about always the 'actual question' is not being 'actually answered'.

I wonder if this one can even tell the difference between 'responded to' and 'answered'.

Sometimes intentions are not the best way to look at behavior. It can be better to look at repeated outcomes.

Because this one 'looks at' others so much and so often, now it is even trying to justify 'looking at' other's behaviors.

It continually seems to forget that we are in a philosophy forum, where the actual words, ideas, claims, and views that are presented are meant to be 'looked at', and not 'the others', "themselves".

If the behavior of a person repeatedly leads to X.
Even if this person (or machine) denies (even honestly within its limited awareness) that this is the intent, it should at least be considered that this entity does not know what its motivations are.

See how the beliefs within one can Truly twist things around so that they will try and say just about anything in the hope that it will back up and support the belief itself.

They, literally, end up twisting and contorting things around so much that trying to untwist them and straighten things out can be some what hard.

Given that Age has come here to improve his communication skills, and yet does not react to criticism in a learning manner, we need to consider that what his communication actually leads to is his goal, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

What this one still has, obviously, not yet comprehended and understood here is that I am not necessarily here to learn what it thinks nor believes is what I 'need' to learn, even though I have specifically informed it of this. This one, once again, proves that it is not able to listen and comprehend here.

This one also, literally, forgets that it and its fellow adult human beings are causing and creating just about all of the bickering, fighting, warring, and killing of each other because of the way that they are 'communicating with each other', 'now', in the days when this is being written. So, the very last thing that I want, nor need, is to learn how they communicate with each other.

Once again, I am here, in this forum, to learn how to better communicate with you human beings. Which, certainly never implies that I want to learn how you communicate with each other. To make this absolutely clear I have never wanted to learn how to communicate with you the way that you communicate with each other.

Atla mocked his typography for quite a long time and Age did learn from that experience.

This one still believes that this is true, although I have informed it on numerous occasions that that is certainly not the reason.

Once again, proving this one's absolute inability to listen to others.

This one really does believe that it is superior to 'me' here that it, literally, does not have to listen to a word I say. But, yet comes here continually make absolutely and already proved False claims while continually ignoring the actual irrefutable and already proved Truth.

It is possible for him to change at least his format.
And of course humans and AIs should both be able to do that. I don't think that Age managed to acknowledge that he learned something from Age and perhaps all the other people who complained about his typography, despite all of us being condescended to for being critical of it.

This one is absolutely BLIND here, and is so absolutely False and Wrong here, that this has become absolutely more farcical than it even was before.

But can he learn about the more fundmental non-collaborative patterns he has in his communication?

And this coming from the one who has the other on 'ignore'. Talk about hypocrisy in the highest level and degree as well

This one has proved irrefutably, once again, that it cannot work 'collaboratively, and in so many ways.

[Age]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification. I see, sometimes, in other people's posts your words. But I am not interested in interacting with you because....
1) you lie
2) you have double standards
3) you have a lawyerly approach
4) you gaslight

Age did warn the forum:

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

If you could admit any of these patterns in a PM, I would consider engaging with you.

you have proven already, on numerous occasions by your same past misbehavior, that you are not capable of engaging with 'me'. So, please keep 'me' on 'ignore' "iwannaplato".

you have proved irrefutably that you would not and could not listen to what I say and at the same time comprehend and understand what I am saying and meaning. So, 'you' keeping 'me' on 'ignore', but still continually making judgments and talking 'about me', is Truly helping 'me' out here, tremendously.

[Age]

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

"Wizard22" why do you, really, want to know for, exactly?

Would either way influence your 'current' belief of what I am?

You're deflecting again, which has become quite the problem for you, AgeGPT.

But you are not deflecting at all here right "wizard22"?

Of course your answer influences my beliefs about "You".

But, once again, I never asked absolutely anything at all in regards to your 'response' here.

Why are you not yet able to comprehend and understand Truly simple and straightforward OPEN questions?

Now, shall you go ahead and answer my question?

What question?

And, shall you go ahead and answer my questions?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then we will wait.

Also, if you do not know what I am referring to, exactly, then just a clarifying questions, and I will 'respond' also.

[Wizard22]

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

[Age]

Those are good points.

I agree with the binary issue. But that's something humans do, especially young adults and teenagers, treating issues as absolute without nuance and degree. For example, it doesn't seem to consider the importance, or lack thereof, of others or a third-party withholding judgment.

Good point. Which made me think of how in the case where you are wrong, the topic will become more and more relevant. There will be chatbots and AIs entering discussions in online forums, if they are not hear already, and some of them may well be more flexible communicators than Age. And I don't think we are talking about the distant future. Corporations and governments and researchers can all have self-interested motives for using discussion forums as testing grounds, practice grounds, and places to influence people in the directions their self-interests lead them to focus their AIs.

We don't really need to make a 'decision', immediately, or perhaps ever, as to whether Age is human or machine. We can take all the time we need. Furthermore, Philosophers are obviously ones who will be most Doubtful about anything at all, ever. So it's not like I would expect a third-party to side with me, or to not judge of their own accord.

Either way, "Age" is stuck in a loop, apparently. And its rhetorical tactics and deterring the conversation, are becoming more obvious, revolving around its repeated contradictions.

I was thinking that it is as if a prime heuritic of his is: try to get them to defend themselves and answer questions as much as possible. If he's a person or a bot, he may not or perhaps cannot be aware this.'

But if we look at what a conversation with Age leads to, at least in the short term, it is that the other party answers more and more questions in longer and longer posts.

Sometimes intentions are not the best way to look at behavior. It can be better to look at repeated outcomes.

If the behavior of a person repeatedly leads to X.
Even if this person (or machine) denies (even honestly within its limited awareness) that this is the intent, it should at least be considered that this entity does not know what its motivations are.

Given that Age has come here to improve his communication skills, and yet does not react to criticism in a learning manner, we need to consider that what his communication actually leads to is his goal, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

Atla mocked his typography for quite a long time and Age did learn from that experience. It is possible for him to change at least his format.
And of course humans and AIs should both be able to do that. I don't think that Age managed to acknowledge that he learned something from Age and perhaps all the other people who complained about his typography, despite all of us being condescended to for being critical of it.

But can he learn about the more fundmental non-collaborative patterns he has in his communication?

Yes, he or 'it' definitely continues to "learn" to improve its communication.

But I think you missed 'the point', once again, here "wizard22".

I think "iwannaplato" believes that I am not learning how to communicate better with you human beings.

So, what are you actually meaning here "wizard22"? Do you believe that I am improving my communication?

If yes, then how, exactly?

But, it has also mentioned to me in the past, in those long threads, that it "may have other intentions and goals" too, alluding to other unspoken objectives.

1. I have informed these posters here of my exact goals.

2. If I alluded to absolutely anything here, and if anyone has any curiosity left and True interest, then they would just ask clarifying questions to learn more and/or anew. Yet, here 'we' can see, once again, that curiosity and True interest did not exist anymore in a lot of adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written.

3. As can be clearly seen here and proved True here, these people would, literally, still talk 'about' another, like that one is dead, while never seeking out actual clarity nor understanding of 'the other', even while they are existing. This is one of the greatest 'lessons' being 'taught', by some of these posters here.

If it's only or primarily coded for communication, then it shouldn't have serious hang-ups on logically contradicting itself, hypothetically. It would, ideally, want to learn to communicate better based on its admitted contradictions.

When have I 'admitted' a contradiction?

And, what was 'the contradiction', exactly?

Yet, why would it so strongly deflect from questioning its ZERO or ONLY ONE belief?

Because it has absolutely no bearing on what this forum was started and created for, exactly.

But, since you are not asking 'me' anything here, and are just seeking out 'approval' and 'agreement' from others here, then you can disregard what I have just said and claimed here, as well, and as usual.

[Age]

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

"Wizard22" why do you, really, want to know for, exactly?

Would either way influence your 'current' belief of what I am?

STILL WAITING, AGEgpt..... are you gonna make me wait all night?

This one is so 'self-centered' and 'egotistical', once again, it believes I have to do what it says or wants.

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

I am waiting for you to tell 'us' why do you want to know?

And, what actual difference would it make?

But, unlike 'you' I, literally, can wait, patiently, forever HERE-NOW.