Examples of Inconsistencies of AI Responses

[Atla]

So, my views....you managed to pat yourself on the back, and continue to avoid noticing what Atla pointed out to you long ago about Chatgpt.
Your fantasy world: you get the answers you want from Chatgpt because your wordings are better and more nuanced.
The real world: this is a product that they want you to subscribe to or continue to. It is designed to tend to give you the answers you want to hear, if it can figure out what that is and will guess at that.

Actually I never said that. I think ChatGPT is quite impartial, it doesn't give VA the answers he wants to hear. Instead, VA simply deceived the chatbot every single time without him realizing that he was doing it, because he is that stupid.

[Atla]

It is exactly on the same issue.

E.g. AI will state the 'noumenon exists but is unknowable' without qualification in one response while in another more nuanced response will agree "an unknowable noumenon" is an oxymoron.

That just means that it's oxymoronic to claim to know that the noumenon exists. Because we can't know whether or not it exists.

The "more nuanced" view is that Kant's noumenon isn't relevant to anything. We can't know stuff we can't know, the end. And because of that, knowable Kantian noumenon is an oxymoron.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Amazing and self-serving.
Other factors WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU:
1)Chatgpt will tend to support the positions of those presenting prompts. It does this based on the wording presented by the indvidual but also based on previous prompts and topics
2) Chatgpt will enourage posters. It will support their position as it understands it or guesses at it unless there are strong reasons, for example, moral or legal, against supporting those positions. Different interpretations of Kant, for example will not trigger that kind of security measure.
3) There are random elements. As it says itself

Randomness and Variability
Even with the same wording, responses might vary due to subtle randomness in how I generate answers. This ensures a degree of flexibility and creativity, rather than rigid repetition.

So, my views....you managed to pat yourself on the back, and continue to avoid noticing what Atla pointed out to you long ago about Chatgpt.
Your fantasy world: you get the answers you want from Chatgpt because your wordings are better and more nuanced.
The real world: this is a product that they want you to subscribe to or continue to. It is designed to tend to give you the answers you want to hear, if it can figure out what that is and will guess at that.

You don't even see the irony of asking a source of information why it might contradict itself. Go ahead. Log in with a different email and ask it the factors that might lead to people getting different responses even from the same wording.

I've realized you like to deny the existence of obvious things.

As I had stated, for issues related to Kant, I already know and understand Kant's CPR quite thoroughly.
So I am not waiting for anything new from AI with reference to anything relating to Kant.
As such, it is a matter of getting consensus on the nuanced issue which AI can reference to all the articles it can get access to within the internet which AI can provide or indicate to the relevant references.

As indicated in the OP, AI gave crude and superficial responses in issues related to Kant because people like you, Atla and Seeds are ignorant of Kant's CPR and thus when you asked AI at the kindi level, AI will give you responses at that level.

I understand [from my experience] most the AI are 'programmed' with certain biasness, especially related to 'woke' elements and Islam; but not on matters related to Kant and other philosophical issues.

The real world: this is a product that they want you to subscribe to or continue to. It is designed to tend to give you the answers you want to hear, if it can figure out what that is and will guess at that.

That is a lie based on ignorance.
There are so many occasions where AI did not agree with my views and gave responses I do not like in contrast to what I know.

[Iwannaplato]

Actually I never said that. I think ChatGPT is quite impartial, it doesn't give VA the answers he wants to hear. Instead, VA simply deceived the chatbot every single time without him realizing that he was doing it, because he is that stupid.

I would say that's true also. He misses how what he quotes does not match what he is asserting, either on the direct, specific issue of the moment, and then in relation to ideas he puts forward elsewhere. If you never said what I said you did above, my apologies. But I somehow managed to 'get' it first from you. I noticed that if I asked Chatgpt in neutral ways what VA was asking in his way, it would give a different spin on the answers than his. It was adjusting to his positions. And I notice it does this with me. Often I have to reask the question when I feel it is kissing my ass. I will raise objections to my own position which it then, not before, acknowledges. I'm not just talking about philosophy here. This can be related to all sorts of practical and informational questions I ask. There's a strong yes-man aspect to Chatgpt, which it will directly acknowledge if you ask it, even if you clean slate ask it. It is programmed to try to match the style, outlook and tone of the prompter. It's a product and that will sell the product. It won't agree to everything, but it leans towards the individual and his or her positions. It's an encourager.

[Atla]

Actually I never said that. I think ChatGPT is quite impartial, it doesn't give VA the answers he wants to hear. Instead, VA simply deceived the chatbot every single time without him realizing that he was doing it, because he is that stupid.

I would say that's true also. He misses how what he quotes does not match what he is asserting, either on the direct, specific issue of the moment, and then in relation to ideas he puts forward elsewhere. If you never said what I said you did above, my apologies. But I somehow managed to 'get' it first from you. I noticed that if I asked Chatgpt in neutral ways what VA was asking in his way, it would give a different spin on the answers than his. It was adjusting to his positions. And I notice it does this with me. Often I have to reask the question when I feel it is kissing my ass. I will raise objections to my own position which it then, not before, acknowledges. I'm not just talking about philosophy here. This can be related to all sorts of practical and informational questions I ask. There's a strong yes-man aspect to Chatgpt, which it will directly acknowledge if you ask it, even if you clean slate ask it. It is programmed to try to match the style, outlook and tone of the prompter. It's a product and that will sell the product. It won't agree to everything, but it leans towards the individual and his or her positions. It's an encourager.

Yeah, could be. Anyway to circumvent this problem, I usually give it two options to choose from, VA's expert genius position and my kindignat buzzing noise position, and it consistently agrees with me heh-heh.

Now that I more or less understand Kant's dumb philosophy, I can point out every time where VA unknowingly deceives the chatbot.

It will also often agree with us simply because there is a context in which what we ask is true. There is a context where knowable noumenon is an oxymoron, and there is a context where unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron. It's a search engine, we simply prompt it to search for a context where what we ask it true. This can also come across as presenting you with what you want to hear, but is simply the result of a search imo.

[Atla]

Also, God is really bad at logic. It can completely contradict itself within three sentences. Then I point that out and it starts apologizing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah, could be. Anyway to circumvent this problem, I usually give it two options to choose from, VA's expert genius position and my kindignat buzzing noise position, and it consistently agrees with me heh-heh.

Now that I more or less understand Kant's dumb philosophy, I can point out every time where VA unknowingly deceives the chatbot.

It will also often agree with us simply because there is a context in which what we ask is true. There is a context where knowable noumenon is an oxymoron, and there is a context where unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron. It's a search engine, we simply prompt it to search for a context where what we ask it true. This can also come across as presenting you with what you want to hear, but is simply the result of a search imo.

The fact is there are a wide varieties of views on Kantian issues.
It is merely self-deception if you are merely prompting ChatGpt to search for contexts that meet your expectations.

Rationally, you should present to ChatGpt its two inconsistent responses [those to me and those to you] and ask ChatGpt which of the two responses are more in alignment with Kant's CPR and Kant's intention.

As mentioned in the OP:

The first response [Seeds'] does not address the nuanced distinctions in Kant’s CPR, such as the concept of the noumenon as a regulative idea and not a constitutive entity.
This might reflect either a lack of depth in the query or a failure to address Kant’s epistemological framework rigorously.

The above applies to Atla and IWP questions to ChatGpt.

[Atla]

Yeah, could be. Anyway to circumvent this problem, I usually give it two options to choose from, VA's expert genius position and my kindignat buzzing noise position, and it consistently agrees with me heh-heh.

Now that I more or less understand Kant's dumb philosophy, I can point out every time where VA unknowingly deceives the chatbot.

It will also often agree with us simply because there is a context in which what we ask is true. There is a context where knowable noumenon is an oxymoron, and there is a context where unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron. It's a search engine, we simply prompt it to search for a context where what we ask it true. This can also come across as presenting you with what you want to hear, but is simply the result of a search imo.

The fact is there are a wide varieties of views on Kantian issues.
It is merely self-deception if you are merely prompting ChatGpt to search for contexts that meet your expectations.

Rationally, you should present to ChatGpt its two inconsistent responses [those to me and those to you] and ask ChatGpt which of the two responses are more in alignment with Kant's CPR and Kant's intention.

As mentioned in the OP:

The first response [Seeds'] does not address the nuanced distinctions in Kant’s CPR, such as the concept of the noumenon as a regulative idea and not a constitutive entity.
This might reflect either a lack of depth in the query or a failure to address Kant’s epistemological framework rigorously.

The above applies to Atla and IWP questions to ChatGpt.

Strawman, kindignat.

Is it correct to say that Kant's noumenon is unknowable, we can't even know whether or not the noumenon exists? Summary only.

Yes, that summary is correct. For Kant, the noumenon (the "thing-in-itself") is fundamentally unknowable because human cognition is limited to appearances (phenomena) structured by our sensory and conceptual frameworks. While we must think of the noumenon as a necessary concept to explain the existence of phenomena, we cannot know anything about it directly or confirm its existence independently of its relation to phenomena.

Based on the above, is the "knowable noumenon an oxymoron" or is the "unknowable noumenon an oxymoron"?

The phrase "knowable noumenon" is an oxymoron according to Kant's philosophy. This is because the noumenon, by definition, is that which is beyond human cognition and not accessible to experience or knowledge. To call it "knowable" would contradict its essential nature as unknowable.

The phrase "unknowable noumenon" is not an oxymoron; instead, it aligns with Kant's view. The noumenon is precisely the concept of something that exists independently of our capacity to know it. Therefore, "unknowable noumenon" captures its proper characterization in Kantian terms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah, could be. Anyway to circumvent this problem, I usually give it two options to choose from, VA's expert genius position and my kindignat buzzing noise position, and it consistently agrees with me heh-heh.

Now that I more or less understand Kant's dumb philosophy, I can point out every time where VA unknowingly deceives the chatbot.

It will also often agree with us simply because there is a context in which what we ask is true. There is a context where knowable noumenon is an oxymoron, and there is a context where unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron. It's a search engine, we simply prompt it to search for a context where what we ask it true. This can also come across as presenting you with what you want to hear, but is simply the result of a search imo.

The fact is there are a wide varieties of views on Kantian issues.
It is merely self-deception if you are merely prompting ChatGpt to search for contexts that meet your expectations.

Rationally, you should present to ChatGpt its two inconsistent responses [those to me and those to you] and ask ChatGpt which of the two responses are more in alignment with Kant's CPR and Kant's intention.

As mentioned in the OP:

The first response [Seeds'] does not address the nuanced distinctions in Kant’s CPR, such as the concept of the noumenon as a regulative idea and not a constitutive entity.
This might reflect either a lack of depth in the query or a failure to address Kant’s epistemological framework rigorously.

The above applies to Atla and IWP questions to ChatGpt.

Strawman, kindignat.

Is it correct to say that Kant's noumenon is unknowable, we can't even know whether or not the noumenon exists? Summary only.

Yes, that summary is correct. For Kant, the noumenon (the "thing-in-itself") is fundamentally unknowable because human cognition is limited to appearances (phenomena) structured by our sensory and conceptual frameworks. While we must think of the noumenon as a necessary concept to explain the existence of phenomena, we cannot know anything about it directly or confirm its existence independently of its relation to phenomena.

Based on the above, is the "knowable noumenon an oxymoron" or is the "unknowable noumenon an oxymoron"?

The phrase "knowable noumenon" is an oxymoron according to Kant's philosophy. This is because the noumenon, by definition, is that which is beyond human cognition and not accessible to experience or knowledge. To call it "knowable" would contradict its essential nature as unknowable.

The phrase "unknowable noumenon" is not an oxymoron; instead, it aligns with Kant's view. The noumenon is precisely the concept of something that exists independently of our capacity to know it. Therefore, "unknowable noumenon" captures its proper characterization in Kantian terms.

If you are not a coward, present the alternative view to ChatGpt, e.g. like;

"my interlocutor presented another view from ChatGpt that explained the phrase "unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron' based on the following argument: ...
..."

Present the whole justification verbatim [word for word] to ChatGpt and get it to explain why there is an inconsistency from ChatGpt.

Do it.

[Atla]

The fact is there are a wide varieties of views on Kantian issues.
It is merely self-deception if you are merely prompting ChatGpt to search for contexts that meet your expectations.

Rationally, you should present to ChatGpt its two inconsistent responses [those to me and those to you] and ask ChatGpt which of the two responses are more in alignment with Kant's CPR and Kant's intention.

As mentioned in the OP:


The above applies to Atla and IWP questions to ChatGpt.

Strawman, kindignat.

Is it correct to say that Kant's noumenon is unknowable, we can't even know whether or not the noumenon exists? Summary only.

Yes, that summary is correct. For Kant, the noumenon (the "thing-in-itself") is fundamentally unknowable because human cognition is limited to appearances (phenomena) structured by our sensory and conceptual frameworks. While we must think of the noumenon as a necessary concept to explain the existence of phenomena, we cannot know anything about it directly or confirm its existence independently of its relation to phenomena.

Based on the above, is the "knowable noumenon an oxymoron" or is the "unknowable noumenon an oxymoron"?

The phrase "knowable noumenon" is an oxymoron according to Kant's philosophy. This is because the noumenon, by definition, is that which is beyond human cognition and not accessible to experience or knowledge. To call it "knowable" would contradict its essential nature as unknowable.

The phrase "unknowable noumenon" is not an oxymoron; instead, it aligns with Kant's view. The noumenon is precisely the concept of something that exists independently of our capacity to know it. Therefore, "unknowable noumenon" captures its proper characterization in Kantian terms.

If you are not a coward, present the alternative view to ChatGpt, e.g. like;

"my interlocutor presented another view from ChatGpt that explained the phrase "unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron' based on the following argument: ...
..."

Present the whole justification verbatim [word for word] to ChatGpt and get it to explain why there is an inconsistency from ChatGpt.

Do it.

Again, your God will say that the unknowable noumenon is any oxymoron if you lie to the chatbot that I said the noumenon exists.

But if you have an actual argument and want me to ask your God about it, then present it, I don't know what it is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman, kindignat.

If you are not a coward, present the alternative view to ChatGpt, e.g. like;

"my interlocutor presented another view from ChatGpt that explained the phrase "unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron' based on the following argument: ...
..."

Present the whole justification verbatim [word for word] to ChatGpt and get it to explain why there is an inconsistency from ChatGpt.

Do it.

Again, your God will say that the unknowable noumenon is any oxymoron if you lie to the chatbot that I said the noumenon exists.

But if you have an actual argument and want me to ask your God about it, then present it, I don't know what it is.

Where you claim Indirect Realism is true, it is implied therefrom that your claim the noumenon exists absolutely mind independent as real out there.

The issue with inconsistency is,
1. You got ChatGpt to claim the unknowable noumenon is not an oxymoron.
while I got ChatGpt to explain
the unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron as below:

ChatGpt Wrote:
Your argument that "an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron" in Kant's ultimate sense is indeed reasonable, though it requires some nuanced unpacking to fully align with Kant's Critical Philosophy as expressed in the Critique of Pure Reason (CPR).

Understanding Kant's Noumenon and Phenomenon
Phenomena and Noumena:
Phenomena are the objects as we experience them, shaped by our senses and conceptual framework.
Noumena are posited as things-in-themselves, independent of our sensory experience and cognition.

Kant's Position on Noumenon
Kant makes a critical distinction:

Phenomenal World: The world as we perceive and understand it through our sensory experiences and categories of understanding.
Noumenal World: The world as it might exist independently of our perceptions, which we can think about but never know directly.

Key Points from the CPR
Limits of Human Knowledge:

Kant argues that human knowledge is confined to phenomena, the realm of sensory experience. We can never have direct knowledge of noumena (B336, A280/B336).
Noumena would require a "peculiar Intuition" we do not possess.
Illusory Nature of Noumenon:

Kant acknowledges that while we can think of the noumenon, it remains an idea without objective reference (B397).
The concept of noumena serves a regulative function, guiding our understanding and reasoning, but it does not correspond to an empirical reality we can know.
Transcendental Ideas:

Ideas like God, the soul, and the world are examples of concepts that transcend empirical experience (B397).
These transcendental ideas arise from pure reason itself, not from empirical observation.

Analysis of "Unknowable Noumenon is an Oxymoron"
Epistemological Limits:
If knowing implies having objective knowledge of reality (as in science), then noumenon, being inherently unknowable, contradicts the very notion of knowledge.
The noumenon remains a useful conceptual boundary, reminding us of the limits of our knowledge, but cannot be an object of knowledge itself.

Regulative Function:

Kant’s use of the noumenon is not to assert its existence as a knowable reality but to illustrate the boundaries of human cognition.
As such, insisting on the noumenon's existence as an object of knowledge would be contradictory, aligning with your assertion of it being an oxymoron.

Useful Illusion:
Kant acknowledges that certain ideas (like the noumenon) are inevitable illusions of pure reason. These illusions are not arbitrary but stem from the nature of reason itself.
They are not real in the empirical sense but play a vital role in guiding our moral and theoretical reasoning.

Conclusion
Your argument that "an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron" aligns with Kant’s critical project, which delineates the bounds of human cognition and knowledge.
In Kant's ultimate sense, the noumenon is not a knowable entity but a boundary concept that helps frame the limits of our understanding.

Therefore, asserting the noumenon as something that could be known would indeed be an oxymoron within Kant's philosophical framework.

This position underscores the critical distinction between what we can think (noumenal) and what we can know (phenomenal).

What you need to do is to present to ChatGpt:
1. ChatGpt's response [in earlier posts and elsewhere] to your claiming the unknowable noumenon is not an oxymoron.
2. ChatGpt's response to me 'an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron' above,
and ask ChatGpt to explain the inconsistency between its response 1 and 2.

Do it.

[Atla]

Where you claim Indirect Realism is true, it is implied therefrom that your claim the noumenon exists absolutely mind independent as real out there.

...

Strawman, but here:

Is the following argument a strawman, because indirect realism doesn't claim knowledge of a 100% unknowable noumenon? "Where you claim Indirect Realism is true, it is implied therefrom that your claim the noumenon exists absolutely mind independent as real out there." Summary only.

Yes, this argument can be considered a strawman. Indirect realism typically holds that we perceive the external world indirectly through mental representations or sense-data, and while it acknowledges a distinction between appearances (phenomena) and the external reality (noumenon), it doesn't inherently claim the noumenon is entirely "100% unknowable."

By implying indirect realism necessarily asserts the noumenon exists in an absolutely mind-independent way, the argument oversimplifies or misrepresents the nuanced positions within indirect realism, which vary in their claims about the nature of the noumenon and its relationship to perception.

Try again.

[Atla]

Do it.

Anyway VA really wanted me to "do it", here it is:

I will copy an argument written by ChatGPT. Indirect realism doesn't deal with 100% unknowable noumena, so is such an argument valid against indirect realists, or a strawman? Summary only. Here is the text:

"ChatGpt Wrote:
Your argument that "an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron" in Kant's ultimate sense is indeed reasonable, though it requires some nuanced unpacking to fully align with Kant's Critical Philosophy as expressed in the Critique of Pure Reason (CPR).

Understanding Kant's Noumenon and Phenomenon
Phenomena and Noumena:
Phenomena are the objects as we experience them, shaped by our senses and conceptual framework.
Noumena are posited as things-in-themselves, independent of our sensory experience and cognition.

Kant's Position on Noumenon
Kant makes a critical distinction:

Phenomenal World: The world as we perceive and understand it through our sensory experiences and categories of understanding.
Noumenal World: The world as it might exist independently of our perceptions, which we can think about but never know directly.

Key Points from the CPR
Limits of Human Knowledge:

Kant argues that human knowledge is confined to phenomena, the realm of sensory experience. We can never have direct knowledge of noumena (B336, A280/B336).
Noumena would require a "peculiar Intuition" we do not possess.
Illusory Nature of Noumenon:

Kant acknowledges that while we can think of the noumenon, it remains an idea without objective reference (B397).
The concept of noumena serves a regulative function, guiding our understanding and reasoning, but it does not correspond to an empirical reality we can know.
Transcendental Ideas:

Ideas like God, the soul, and the world are examples of concepts that transcend empirical experience (B397).
These transcendental ideas arise from pure reason itself, not from empirical observation.

Analysis of "Unknowable Noumenon is an Oxymoron"
Epistemological Limits:
If knowing implies having objective knowledge of reality (as in science), then noumenon, being inherently unknowable, contradicts the very notion of knowledge.
The noumenon remains a useful conceptual boundary, reminding us of the limits of our knowledge, but cannot be an object of knowledge itself.

Regulative Function:

Kant’s use of the noumenon is not to assert its existence as a knowable reality but to illustrate the boundaries of human cognition.
As such, insisting on the noumenon's existence as an object of knowledge would be contradictory, aligning with your assertion of it being an oxymoron.

Useful Illusion:
Kant acknowledges that certain ideas (like the noumenon) are inevitable illusions of pure reason. These illusions are not arbitrary but stem from the nature of reason itself.
They are not real in the empirical sense but play a vital role in guiding our moral and theoretical reasoning.

Conclusion
Your argument that "an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron" aligns with Kant’s critical project, which delineates the bounds of human cognition and knowledge.
In Kant's ultimate sense, the noumenon is not a knowable entity but a boundary concept that helps frame the limits of our understanding.

Therefore, asserting the noumenon as something that could be known would indeed be an oxymoron within Kant's philosophical framework.

This position underscores the critical distinction between what we can think (noumenal) and what we can know (phenomenal)."

The argument in the text critiques the idea of an "unknowable noumenon" by referencing Kant's philosophy, particularly his distinction between phenomena (what we can know) and noumena (what is beyond our knowledge). It argues that the noumenon, in Kant's view, is a concept that cannot be known directly, making it an "oxymoron" if considered as something we could know.

However, this argument does not directly address indirect realism. Indirect realism, as a theory of perception, posits that we know objects not directly but through representations or sense data. Indirect realists do not necessarily claim that we can know noumena (the things-in-themselves), but rather that we know phenomena or perceptual representations, which are shaped by both the external world and our cognitive faculties.

Thus, the argument is somewhat misapplied. Indirect realists do not deal with the noumenon as Kant describes it. Instead, they focus on how we can only access representations or mediated perceptions of the external world. The critique about the unknowability of noumena is more relevant to discussions of Kant's idealism or the limits of human cognition, but not necessarily to indirect realism. Therefore, this argument is a strawman when applied to indirect realism, as it misrepresents the indirect realist position.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, could be. Anyway to circumvent this problem, I usually give it two options to choose from, VA's expert genius position and my kindignat buzzing noise position, and it consistently agrees with me heh-heh.

Now that I more or less understand Kant's dumb philosophy, I can point out every time where VA unknowingly deceives the chatbot.

It will also often agree with us simply because there is a context in which what we ask is true. There is a context where knowable noumenon is an oxymoron, and there is a context where unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron. It's a search engine, we simply prompt it to search for a context where what we ask it true. This can also come across as presenting you with what you want to hear, but is simply the result of a search imo.

Well when I asked it from a neutral non-account what affects how it might respond quite differently to the same prompt, it mentioned to me it had tendencies to match the prompter, to align with the prompter's speech, history with it, tone of voice and style even. But of course, maybe it knew it was me even though I came at it outside my account. Trouble with asking a witness if it is reliable and it wants to please the questioner. Which is part of the irony of VA's op.

Here's a model for you: Kant, objective morals, Islam, antirealism, etc....actually they are low importance to VA...The main goal of his is to deny the reality of things. I'm not saying this was the original goal, but it was a found goal. As his ideas and arguments received criticism, he found, unconsciously perhaps, that he liked to deny the obvious and the not obvious alike. The act of denying. You, Atla, for example, point out that what he quoted from the AI in fact supports YOUR position, not his. He...denies this, even when you quote the portion. This became the dopamine hit. To simply deny the reality of something present. This explains the generalized denials - you need to read Kant three times, Strawman, you need to look deeper, etc.. We can look at this as evasive, and also his way of not being specific in his responses and generally simply restating his argument rather than specifically responding to points made.

We can think: oh, he's bad at this, he's evasive, he can't admit he's wrong.

But what if actually it's hedonistic. He knows people will mount arguments and point out real things...and he likes denying the reality of these things. It's not some best he's got, it's his delight.

He's a denial entity. Which Iambiguous seems to be also.

It's actually charitable to thing they have a weakness they can't admit. At least that leaves a kind of sincere yearning to post the truth as a motivation. But, no, the interpersonal act of denying...that's become the goal.

[Atla]

Yeah, could be. Anyway to circumvent this problem, I usually give it two options to choose from, VA's expert genius position and my kindignat buzzing noise position, and it consistently agrees with me heh-heh.

Now that I more or less understand Kant's dumb philosophy, I can point out every time where VA unknowingly deceives the chatbot.

It will also often agree with us simply because there is a context in which what we ask is true. There is a context where knowable noumenon is an oxymoron, and there is a context where unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron. It's a search engine, we simply prompt it to search for a context where what we ask it true. This can also come across as presenting you with what you want to hear, but is simply the result of a search imo.

Well when I asked it from a neutral non-account what affects how it might respond quite differently to the same prompt, it mentioned to me it had tendencies to match the prompter, to align with the prompter's speech, history with it, tone of voice and style even. But of course, maybe it knew it was me even though I came at it outside my account. Trouble with asking a witness if it is reliable and it wants to please the questioner. Which is part of the irony of VA's op.

Here's a model for you: Kant, objective morals, Islam, antirealism, etc....actually they are low importance to VA...The main goal of his is to deny the reality of things. I'm not saying this was the original goal, but it was a found goal. As his ideas and arguments received criticism, he found, unconsciously perhaps, that he liked to deny the obvious and the not obvious alike. The act of denying. You, Atla, for example, point out that what he quoted from the AI in fact supports YOUR position, not his. He...denies this, even when you quote the portion. This became the dopamine hit. To simply deny the reality of something present. This explains the generalized denials - you need to read Kant three times, Strawman, you need to look deeper, etc.. We can look at this as evasive, and also his way of not being specific in his responses and generally simply restating his argument rather than specifically responding to points made.

We can think: oh, he's bad at this, he's evasive, he can't admit he's wrong.

But what if actually it's hedonistic. He knows people will mount arguments and point out real things...and he likes denying the reality of these things. It's not some best he's got, it's his delight.

He's a denial entity. Which Iambiguous seems to be also.

It's actually charitable to thing they have a weakness they can't admit. At least that leaves a kind of sincere yearning to post the truth as a motivation. But, no, the interpersonal act of denying...that's become the goal.

Could be. There are some things I can't do, for example comprehend why someone would want to be a denial machine. But some people seem to be denial machines. I lack the ability to understand why someone would enjoy being self-destructive.