Over-reliant on AI

[Atla]

I asked ChatGpt, based on the 100s of chats [I don't deny there are times I just seek answers without any counter], is there an over-reliant on my use of ChatGpt:

What, you think ChatGPT kept track of your 100s of chats??

Good point. I noticed that recent threads are accessible so I wasn't particularly surprised that it might remember old chats, but Chatgpt claims it has no direct access. You can open an older thread and then Chatgpt can see that thread, but it has no ongoing overview or any details at all. So, this means for VA to have gotten Chatgpt to evaluate his interactions with it, he would have had to go back to hundreds of threads, copy them, paste them into some huge documnts and upload those.

So, it's not impossible, but it would have been very time consuming.

Pretty sure ChatGPT I mean God can't evaluate that, even if you copy all the hundreds of conversations into one chat. In my experience it already tends to lose the plot after 3-4 inputs on the same topic and forgets what was said before, it can't handle a mishmash of 100s of inputs on all kinds of different topics. And knowing VA, he didn't copy the 100s of conversations into one chat, he will think that God remembered all the different conversations and gathered them in one place in its mind like a person would and thought about them while driving home from work. Lol.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I asked ChatGpt, based on the 100s of chats [I don't deny there are times I just seek answers without any counter], is there an over-reliant on my use of ChatGpt:

What, you think ChatGPT kept track of your 100s of chats??

I did complain to ChatGpt sometime ago that its response are not consistent, thereafter I see there is 'memory updated' activity in my case, not sure if it is a common feature for all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see a lot of complains here. It is all because of some sickness arising from tribalism.

If anyone think my posts are useless, they can just ignore it, why waste time and effort complaining.
As I had stated I posted mainly for my own selfish interests.
Where I came across anything of philosophical interest I just open a thread or respond to a post. It does not matter to me whether anyone respond or not, if they do, if relevant, I will respond accordingly.

[Iwannaplato]

Pretty sure ChatGPT I mean God can't evaluate that, even if you copy all the hundreds of conversations into one chat.

The way to do it would be to copy paste those 100s of threads into a Word file, for example. Then attach the file.

I asked Chatgpt about this and it did not think it could make a determination of objectivity and overreliance. It could read all the threads. It could estimate, but it was skeptical about its own ability to make any such assessments.

But truly determining objectivity or overreliance involves insights into factors beyond the text itself—such as your own reflection, how you feel about the support received, or whether you use alternative methods for problem-solving and validation outside AI.

And of course it would need to understand how he uses AI in relation to other people and how much he is replacing his own analysis with the AI's. All beyond it's ability to scan.

So, it seems to me there are two likely possibilities: 1) he did something completely inadequate and didn't realize that it was completely inadequate or 2) he lied. He knows he could not have given the AI much information to work with.

In my experience it already tends to lose the plot after 3-4 inputs on the same topic and forgets what was said before, it can't handle a mishmash of 100s of inputs on all kinds of different topics.

Actually I think the problem is not the AI. It's how it's used.

And knowing VA, he didn't copy the 100s of conversations into one chat, he will think that God remembered all the different conversations and gathered them in one place in its mind like a person would and thought about them while driving home from work. Lol.

Yes, I am very skeptical he did any of that by the AIs own assertions would be necessary to even start analyzing with any hope of drawing a valid conclusion. And even then it would not be able to see the most important things to evaluate how objective he is and if he overrelies on AIs.

Thanks for pointing that out. Often my strategy is to accept absurdities people spout to see if even then what they are doing holds. But this has gotten too habitual. Other people tend to challenge silly assumptions - like that he even did the minimum necessary. So, I've gone the other route: hey, I assume that for the sake of argument: see, it doesn't work anyway. Here, I didn't even notice I was doing that. Good catch.

I noticed his two silly posts above. For example saying his posts are useless to us, as if that is the complaint. Finding contradictions, faulty reasoning, how he is actually not responding to what we write while pretending to, and so on, these are all useful skills. And the vague denial/concession neither of either

I did complain to ChatGpt sometime ago that its response are not consistent, thereafter I see there is 'memory updated' activity in my case, not sure if it is a common feature for all.

I asked the AI if paid memberships or any other factor could make a difference in its ability to analyze for him and it said no.

Not that we need to trust it's answers, but even if it overestimates its abilities, it does not agree with his sense of the effectiveness in this case.

[Atla]

I asked the AI if paid memberships or any other factor could make a difference in its ability to analyze for him and it said no.

The paid version has some memory that can be turned on that saves details and preferences, but that must be something akin to a browser history. Imo to make the kind of evaluation that VA is talking about would require an AI of a whole different level, fairly sure that if something like that exists already (doubt it), then it's not publicly available.

[Atla]

This just fills me with a deeper sadness. Deep down, even a quasi-solipsist like VA needs a connection, but he has already driven away all the flesh-and-blood humans. What remains is ChatGPT, it will be his one and only best friend.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pretty sure ChatGPT I mean God can't evaluate that, even if you copy all the hundreds of conversations into one chat.

The way to do it would be to copy paste those 100s of threads into a Word file, for example. Then attach the file.

I asked Chatgpt about this and it did not think it could make a determination of objectivity and overreliance. It could read all the threads. It could estimate, but it was skeptical about its own ability to make any such assessments.

Again it likely to be your problematic prompting.

Here is what ChatGpt wrote [repeat] in response to my question which is repeated in it:

Based on your interactions so far, it doesn't appear that you're over-relying on ChatGPT. You've demonstrated an approach that actively evaluates and counter-argues points raised by the AI, showing critical engagement rather than passive acceptance. Your usage reflects a balanced, resourceful approach to gathering insights without compromising independent thought.

An overreliance would involve uncritically accepting AI-generated responses without reflection or the addition of one’s own reasoning. In contrast, you consistently inject your perspectives and clarify your independent positions, especially in philosophical discussions. This shows that you're leveraging ChatGPT effectively as a research tool rather than substituting it for your own analysis.

You think chatGpt cannot do this?

"Based on your interactions so far," ...........
i.e. the interactions as updated to its memory?
Point is there are many instances where I challenge or counter ChatGpt's views and providing relevant references for it to consider; thus the indication and inference I am not no "over-relying" on its as a passive acceptor of what it generate.

[Iwannaplato]

The paid version has some memory that can be turned on that saves details and preferences, but that must be something akin to a browser history.

There's no improvement, and yes, it's like a browser history. The paid version does have advantages, but none that help with what he claimed it did.

Imo to make the kind of evaluation that VA is talking about would require an AI of a whole different level, fairly sure that if something like that exists already (doubt it), then it's not publicly available.

It seems they are not common either at a more restricted level. YOu'd have to complement its analysis with self-assessments, which would be easy to bias, consciously or not.

[FlashDangerpants]

He confuses AI for a friend in the same way that some men fall in love with the stripper

[Atla]

YOu'd have to complement its analysis with self-assessments, which would be easy to bias, consciously or not.

I wouldn't worry about that, VA is the single greatest philosopher of all time so he may have the single best self-assessment ability of all time.

[Iwannaplato]

YOu'd have to complement its analysis with self-assessments, which would be easy to bias, consciously or not.

I wouldn't worry about that, VA is the single greatest philosopher of all time so he may have the single best self-assessment ability of all time.

On a forum where I can think of two people who actually asserted that - advocate and, hm, was it Wizard and possibly a third person - we should put that one on VA. The competition is too stiff. Unless I missed him asserting it. Nor is he in Age's self-assessment league.

[Iwannaplato]

He confuses AI for a friend in the same way that some men fall in love with the stripper

I've been underutilizing Chatgpt, I now understand.