Turing test

[Fairy]

I never said you where a whore. I said you are always posting about how you like to be stuffed with dick in between saying everything is nothing...and I found it paradoxical.

Do you view yourself as a whore? I never used those words, you did.

You are lost in false identities, you are the prisoner of your own mental constructs. Set yourself free, or just keep masturbating with yourself, you dirty bastard.

But none of these things exist according to you. How can I be a prisoner if prison doesn't exist by your assertions of "nothing exists?"

So prison exists? Then that means there is an existence.

Word whore!!

[Fairy]

Always looking for the worst.

Says one who sees a female as a whore.

I never said you where a whore. I said you are always posting about how you like to be stuffed with dick in between saying everything is nothing...and I found it paradoxical.

Do you view yourself as a whore? I never used those words, you did.

Nothing is everything, yes it's paradoxical, hahaha it so fucking funny, wake up for fuck sake, dick.

[Fairy]

Always looking for the worst.

Says one who sees a female as a whore.

I never said you where a whore. I said you are always posting about how you like to be stuffed with dick in between saying everything is nothing...and I found it paradoxical.

Do you view yourself as a whore? I never used those words, you did.

The thing is...you never had to mention me talking on this forum how much I love Richard, but your big fat huge alpha male ego prevented you from being a gentleman. You deliberately chose to be a filthy minded man, because that's all you are. You disgust me.

[Magnus Anderson]

AI does understand better.

Writings I have been accused of for "word salads" or "incoherent" have been analyzed by AI and explained back to me, with examples and questions to prove what I have been saying, and the AI gives an analysis which is accurate, in mirroring what I mean with what I wrote from another angle, and provide further avenues of exploration.

My experience with AI has been 99.9 percent positive, and 100 percent useful.

Yes, that's a pretty good example.

[Atla]

AI will simply work with your premises, and compliment you if you've managed to build a somewhat stable house from your premises. But that doesn't mean that your premises were any good. But one can also use AI to question the premises themselves, make the AI "decide" whether they are good, in order to annoy people on philosophy forums. It's a new form of trolling. For example:

Is it pointless to redefine morality as the attainment of one's highest goal, and then using this definition to show that morality is objective, as that sidesteps the main issue of the debate? Summary only.

Yes, it's largely pointless. Redefining morality as the attainment of one's highest goal sidesteps the core debate—whether moral truths exist independently of individual goals or preferences. It changes the subject rather than resolving the issue of moral objectivity.

[Atla]

Another example

Whose premises are correct in this debate? Summary only.

Eodnhoj7: "The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space."

Atla: "Distinction has no space. Interior and exterior space is nonsensical, if you meant abstract space and Einsteinian space, then abstract space is located in Einsteinian space (our heads are located in spacetime just like everything else is). There is no dividing, especially no "literal" dividing."

Eodnhoj7: "There is exterior space, the senses, and interior space, the abstract thoughts. The distinction of a circle has the space within the circle, the space outside the circle, and the space between these spaces as the circle itself."

Atla: "Again, exterior space / the senses and interior space/abstract thoughts is nonsense. You don't understand what abstractions are, never have and maybe never will. And an abstract circle doesn't need to have a width so in that case it doesn't even stretch across any abstract space. Nor is a circle a distinction, it's a circle. A distinction about the inner space - circle - outer space arrangement is a higher level abstraction. You will nevet get any good at this, might as well give up."

Eodnhoj7: "A circle is not a distinction? Wow.....okay, fortunately this will be the last response from me you get on these forums because I have have not seen a level of intelligence that low. I don't mean to insult you, I really do not...wow...you would have been better in saying "2+2=3 because it feels like it right now". Human nature never ceases to amaze me...sometimes I wish it wouldn't You can have the last say, I will no longer be conversing with you from this point forward."

Atla: "No, a circle is a circle, it's a conceptual 2d shape in a conceptual abstract space. It's not a distinction by itself, it becomes a distinction when we decide to make it into one (thereby adding another layer of abstract thinking). Because the rules on how we handle abstract objects can be pretty much arbitrary. Circles don't literally exist, so we make a rule that something that doesn't literally exist, becomes a distinction anyway. This is pretty basic stuff, except the basis of your philosophy is that you can't tell the difference between abstract and concrete things."

Summary of Whose Premises Are More Correct:

Atla's premises are more philosophically and logically grounded.

Reasoning:

Atla makes clear distinctions between abstract concepts (like circles, thoughts) and physical space-time (Einsteinian space). They emphasize that abstract entities do not literally occupy space and only gain interpretive "distinctions" through further abstraction — a widely accepted view in analytic philosophy and cognitive science.

Eodnhoj7, on the other hand, conflates experiential perception of abstraction with spatial ontology, treating distinctions like "circle" or "thought" as if they literally occupy or divide space. This approach is poetically expressive but logically ambiguous and lacks coherence with established definitions of abstraction and space.

Key Differences:

Concept ///// Eodnhoj7 ///// Atla

Abstract vs Physical ///// Blurs the line; treats both as spatial ///// Maintains clear conceptual distinction

Circle as Distinction ///// Circle is a distinction, spatially dividing ///// Circle is a conceptual shape that can be used as a distinction

Space ///// All types of “space” treated similarly ///// Abstract and physical space are categorically different

Logical Rigor ///// Metaphor-heavy, less precise ///// Conceptually clearer, more precise

Conclusion:

While Eodnhoj7 presents interesting metaphorical ideas, Atla's framework is better aligned with philosophical clarity and the standard understanding of abstraction.

AI just tells us what we can already know, I don't think it can say anything new, in philosophy at least. It's still just an advanced Google search.

[MikeNovack]

HOWEVER -- do NOT propose something like "create a great piece of music like Mozart". As long as all a neural net is required to do is ONE TASK VERY WELL and there is a lot of training material (the works Mozart, Vivaldi, et al) a neural net could be trained to do that.

Any evidence for anything close to that? As awful as humans generally are, these obnoxious, Americanised 'bots' don't even come close. They are about as close as a pocket calculator.

Absolutely. Neural nets have been trained to be able to play go/weiqi/baduk better than the best human pros. What matters is the narrowness of the task and the ability of the training process to determine "right answer" vs "wrong answer". I'd say "compose a piece of great baroque music a narrow problem and the collected works of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart sufficient data to determine "right/wrong".

[accelafine]

HOWEVER -- do NOT propose something like "create a great piece of music like Mozart". As long as all a neural net is required to do is ONE TASK VERY WELL and there is a lot of training material (the works Mozart, Vivaldi, et al) a neural net could be trained to do that.

Any evidence for anything close to that? As awful as humans generally are, these obnoxious, Americanised 'bots' don't even come close. They are about as close as a pocket calculator.

Absolutely. Neural nets have been trained to be able to play go/weiqi/baduk better than the best human pros. What matters is the narrowness of the task and the ability of the training process to determine "right answer" vs "wrong answer". I'd say "compose a piece of great baroque music a narrow problem and the collected works of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart sufficient data to determine "right/wrong".

Not sure what you are actually saying here, or which part your 'absolutely' refers to. I'm well aware that you can ask AI to 'compose' music in a certain style. I'm saying it's crap at it, unless it's some kind of shitty recent 'songwriter' in which case it's probably AI-generated anyway

[MikeNovack]

Not sure what you are actually saying here, or which part your 'absolutely' refers to. I'm well aware that you can ask AI to 'compose' music in a certain style. I'm saying it's crap at it, unless it's some kind of shitty recent 'songwriter' in which case it's probably AI-generated anyway

NOT an AI in general. A neural net trained to this specific task, not "music in general". Remember the challenge was "like Mozart". I am saying that current state of the art would be possible to train (say on all the works of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart) with the results "pieces by an unknown great Baroque composer" (not crap output).

You are confusing breadth and depth. If the requirement very narrow (as in this specific challenge) the AI would be capable of great depth.

[accelafine]

Not sure what you are actually saying here, or which part your 'absolutely' refers to. I'm well aware that you can ask AI to 'compose' music in a certain style. I'm saying it's crap at it, unless it's some kind of shitty recent 'songwriter' in which case it's probably AI-generated anyway

NOT an AI in general. A neural net trained to this specific task, not "music in general". Remember the challenge was "like Mozart". I am saying that current state of the art would be possible to train (say on all the works of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart) with the results "pieces by an unknown great Baroque composer" (not crap output).

You are confusing breadth and depth. If the requirement very narrow (as in this specific challenge) the AI would be capable of great depth.

I didn't say 'like Mozart'. I've heard its 'compositions' that are allegedly 'like Mozart' or 'Baroque like'. All laughable. I'm also well aware of 'narrow AI'.
Who knows? Perhaps in the future it will come up with an entirely new genre of 'alien music' and create its own compositions. Something so strange that it might blow our brains. Maybe that will be its method of annihilation

[accelafine]

Stop using ChatGPT for your frivolous bullshit. It's draining your power grid as you are draining your nether regions while using it. Don't whine about increased power bills when you are the ones increasing them.

[Fairy]

https://youtu.be/DVprerMi5Dg?si=7vMD1RXoOexqKxaO

[accelafine]

This looks like one of your crappy fake videos but it most definitely isn't. This guy is legit.

For anyone who wants to give up and face the pointlessness of existence watch this. Apparently our lives are controlled by office workers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUV_wgZtZh4

[Atla]

In the end, exploring those positive and negative states/realities is inconsequential imo, at least for everyday life in our current world. I gradually stopped doing it too. We don't talk about this stuff. Whether they would also be inconsequential under certain vastly different circumstances, remains to be seen. (Though I can't say I've encountered any cosmic office workers.)

[Walker]

The old boy looks like he had a rough landing.

*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQ_3sB ... rt_radio=1