My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[cladking]

We can get out of the thought-based existence and experience consciousness directly again, but it typically takes a few years for someone to get there.

I don't disagree with you.

But I believe that not thinking while experiencing consciousness is limiting in that we can't apply our models to our experience or our experience to our models. I have great respect for anyone who can escape thinking and believe almost all individuals can profit from it. But experiencing this within a scientific framework is exceedingly difficult and might forever remain so. This is because our science virtually doesn't exist at all outside of its models and paradigmatical matrix. I believe ancient science required no models but its formatting would be far too complex for any human today. Computers might be able to handle it so machine intelligence may well be closer than we think.

[Atla]

I don't disagree with you.

But I believe that not thinking while experiencing consciousness is limiting in that we can't apply our models to our experience or our experience to our models. I have great respect for anyone who can escape thinking and believe almost all individuals can profit from it.

Not sure what you mean. After we get out of the thought-based existence, we can still choose to keep thinking while also experiencing reality rather directly. It's a bit different from before, but arguably we can become even better thinkers now that we better see thinking for what it is.

But experiencing this within a scientific framework is exceedingly difficult and might forever remain so. This is because our science virtually doesn't exist at all outside of its models and paradigmatical matrix. I believe ancient science required no models but its formatting would be far too complex for any human today. Computers might be able to handle it so machine intelligence may well be closer than we think.

Again not sure what you mean. Science does experiments, tries to describe how the natural world behaves, and the natural world behaves the same way irregardless of whether we are in a thought-based existence or not.

[Iwannaplato]

I mean it quite literally. "Intelligence" as we define it exists nowhere in reality. Animals and all other species do possess a miniscule amount of what we call intelligence but it's too small to be noteworthy. No condition that fulfills the defining characteristics of intelligence exists. We mistake knowledge, understanding, and our ability to create as being a condition because we see it is concentrated in relatively few individuals. We mistake language and the knowledge we acquire thereby as "intelligence".

I'll play the dull average thinker to, just to see where it goes. So, isn't how we use the word what it means? We've labeling behavior and people for quite a while as intelligent.

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

The ditchdigger you brought up and even AI both are able to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. The latter may not be conscious, but it can still learn things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chfj7RHA5vM&t=519s

The problem is humans after 2000 BC are a special case. We are each unique and some think better or faster than others because they organized their models such as to coincide with the state of human knowledge. Some people do think faster or more accurately than others but this has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate condition. No other species has ever "thought" at all! Ancient people didn't "think" at all. Rabbits don't think. Rather all other species apply their experience as filtered through the natural logic of their "brains" to their behavior. They all act on logic and knowledge just as did ancient man. We act solely on what we believe. These beliefs include our scientific models and all the models and habits of thought. We can't see reality directly as all other species before us because we use an analog programming in a digital reality. Our language is analog so our thinking is analog and derived from our beliefs.

And yet, it seems useful to me to describe some behavior as intelligent, and some people has being intelligent. That there are degrees of intelligence. How have we been wrong? And how could can humans' meaning of that word not actually be the meaning?

There is an event that is correlated to what we call "intelligence" but this event occurs in all species and I call "cleverness". "Ideas" derived from induction, observation, experiment, and deduction are not really what I mean by "cleverness" but is similar to it. The event to which I'm referring is usually situational and spontaneous (though "nothing" humans do is strictly spontaneous).

Humans do not directly experience consciousness as other species do. We experience thought.

I certainly see that also, in many people. That much of the time they experience thought - these thoughts are triggered by stuff outside them. Their thoughts are triggered by things and not merely randomly. So, there is a connection, but it is thinner than they realize. But then there are other people who are not just experiencing thoughts. And presumably you consider yourself one of these people, since you are telling us how things are in the world: in animals, us, AI. So, presumably you think you are not merely experiencing your thoughts.

[cladking]

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

[Iwannaplato]

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

Just because a system or part or all of reality is digital or quantized it's still meaningful to speak in degrees. Discrete or continuous, 10 planck units or bits are still more than 5.

You even referred to a tiny amount of intelligence in animals. You talked about ditch diggers being more intelligent than AIs. And implicitly you chose them as people who are less intelligent than other kinds of workers, at least statistically.

Why are there suddenly no degrees of intelligence in a discrete system? Hell, we never say an IQ of 130.2445......infinite decimal places. We could translate every IQ into in base 2.

[Iwannaplato]

What good assumptions would lead to us making great strides in scientific understanding with the internet and how does this relate to the issue of AI and/or Age?

It's not so simple. First you get good assumptions (like reality is digital) and then you build on it. We should assume people make sense in terms of their premises and deduce their premises. We should never assume that what is obvious or what is passed down to us with language is correct.

I don't assume that sentences are correct. But I have an issue with saying that a word we use doesn't mean what we think it does. It actually means something else. To whom? I can see arguing that it should refer to X, not Y.

But to say it does refer to Y seems strange to me.

And I can easily work with the common usage and find it, well, useful.

'I realized he wasn't so intelligent,' makes sense to me and has accurately communicated information to me. I thought he was being an ass, but then I realized he simply wasn't smart enought to__________________.

[Age]

Yes, I intend to press AgeGPT on its "Only One Belief", but as typical, it keeps bogging-down conversation with 'clarifying' 100-questions every response.

In my latest interaction, I did ask briefly about it. We'll see...

What it/he doesn't seem to realize is that you can't just have one belief.

Yes, these ones who think that they can think and do things for "themselves" like, for example, just have one only or no beliefs at all, just do not seem to realize that they cannot just think, have, nor do things for, nor by, "themselves".

They do not realize that they have to 'follow', and 'toe the line', of 'our cult/ure leaders', and that 'we' have to think, say, and do what 'we' have been trained into and indoctrinated to think and believe 'the way' that 'we' do. It is not even possible for individuals to go off thinking and believing, or not believing, the very things that 'we' 'have to' and 'must' believe.

How dare anyone not realize that they cannot just have one belief, only. Who do they think they are?

It is like these 'believers' are just so 'brain-dead' that they really are not able to just recognize and see what the actual Truth is, exactly. Although the Truth is 'blindingly obviously' here.

You need beliefs about KNOWING it is true and how one knows. One would need to have beliefs about one's own ability to introspect - did I reach the correct conclusion about my own beliefs - and so on.

This speaks for itself, in relation to my previous sentence here.

One could have 1 core metaphysical belief perhaps. But if this means you think that belief is irrefutable, for example, then you have to have a whole set of auxiliary beliefs about how one knows this. You have to believe in the various parts of the justification. Which is more beliefs.

And once again, the actual power of belief, itself, to block one off completely has once more just been proved, and shown, absolutely True here.

[now if I was interacting with him he could try to bog me down is 'proving' this, and, of course, we'd never get to his proving his position on the matter makes the slightest sense]

Why have you already concluded, absolutely, that we would never ever get to proving my position on the matter?

I will tell you why because you are not yet able to see nor recognize the answer.

The reason 'you', but not 'I', would never ever get to noticing the actual and irrefutable proof, which is already existing, is because of your 'current' belief here. you believe that no actual proof exists nor could ever exists. Which is why 'I' would never ever to get prove my position on the matter to 'you', alone, "iwannaplato.

He asserts, but never proves,

Once again, and I will repeat this once again for the 'cognizance deaf and blind' here, like "iwannaplato" obviously is:

I do not prove my assertions here.

That is until proof is actually really wanted, looked for, and sought after. Until then no proof shall be provided, well not on this forum anyway.

Let 'us' see if you can not miss this and not take this out of context, this time.

but others are showing all sorts of negative traits when they assert but according to him, do not prove they are true.

The difference between 'I' and 'you' others here are I actually seek out the 'actual proof' for 'you others claims or assertions', whereas very rarely does this happen the other way around.

So, if you or others are not proving your assertions true after a 'barrage of questioning', as some might say here, then 'your traits' for not doing so become even more clearer, for others to look at, notice, and see, as well.

And, for those that are Truly interested, I do seek out proof so that I can then use 'that proof' as well, to back up and support 'claims and/or assertions'.

[Iwannaplato]

Age,
1) I have you on ignore.
2) I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification.
3) However, I am no longer interested in what you post.

If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you.
But otherwise, no.

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will re-post this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

Wizard wrote:

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI.

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.

Age: I have only one belief.
Person: Do you believe that this belief is true? That you have only one belief?
Age: Yes.
Person: Well, presumably you have two beliefs, at least. Unless the one belief you have is that you have only one belief.

[Age]

Another pattern is that when presented with an assertion about himself, he rarely agrees or disagrees.

1. Why is there a consistent 'looking at' 'me', and a constant barrage of 'talking about' 'me' here. This is a 'philosophy forum'.

2. Is absolutely anyone under some sort of obligation or rule that they 'must' agree with or disagree with absolutely every assertion made 'about them'?

He asks a question.

Oh, 'the audacity' of another to seek out clarity or just question "iwannaplato's" power and authority here.

Does "age" not yet understand and know that "iwannaplato" believes that "iwannoplato" is "the teacher/leader" here, and that "age" is just "the student" only, and that "students" do not question "teachers/leaders"

Of course it would shorten any discussion, if in situations where he agrees with an assertion about himself, he mentions this.

Did I really?

And, does mentioning this help in extending your discussion, and judging, 'about me'?

But if his goal is to give people hoops to jump through, then asking for people to justify their assertion (anyway) is the better approach.

Okay. I will now ask all people here, to justify all of your assertions made here.

There I have now done the supposed 'better approach', let now 'us' see what transpires.

Also, what would be the actual difference, exactly, by just replacing the 'asking to prove', their assertions, to, the 'asking to justify', their assertions?

If he doesn't agree with the assertion, then mentioning that would be useful for a conversation moving towards some kind of agreement.

So, supposedly;

I can write, 'I do not agree with your assertion', and this will somehow be useful to move a conversation towards some kind of agreement, magically.

But, when I just ask a clarifying question, in order to be able to learn and see 'where they are coming from', exactly, then this is not will not be useful to move a conversation towards some kind of agreement, at all.

Oh, and by the way, just maybe I had not yet reached a conclusion whether I have agreed with an assertion, or not, and I might now, until I gather further information or get to 'look at' it and thus 'see' the assertion from another perspective. Which, the 'better way to obtain' I find is with just asking Truly OPEN straightforward questions, asked for clarification only.

Unlike your assertion that by just saying or stating, 'I do not agree', alone, (which by the way I do not, yet, agree with), I see will not actually move any conversation towards some kind of agreement at all.

And, if you were, supposedly, not 'ignoring' 'me', then I could ask you to justify your asserted position here. But, conveniently, you do not even have to 'try to' now.

On occasion he does this, but often there are only questions.

This leaves a void that most humans, effective communicators or poor ones alike, do not repeatedly leave in conversations.

This does a couple of things:

he doesn't make assertions, even when they would allow for a quicker and clearer conclusion. This in turn means that other people, if anyone, have responsibility for justifying and keeping the conversation going. Information is one way. Justification is one way.

These human beings, back when this was being written, even after thousands upon thousands of years of asking the exact same questions still had not yet come to an agreement on relatively absolutely any of those Truly meaningful questions, yet this one here is trying to tell me to just do what has not worked for thousands upon thousands of years.

Look, it is blatantly obvious I have already asserted that I already have and already know, irrefutably, 'the answers' that you human beings have been looking and searching for, for thousands of years hitherto when this is being written.

I have already made it clear that I am in absolutely no rush to share 'these answers' because I know, for certain and absolutely, that I have already obtained the actual proof that backs up and supports all of 'the answers'. I have also asserted that 'I' now wait, patiently, who show that they are Truly curios and Truly interested in also learning how to find and come to 'those answers' all by "their" own 'self'.

See, 'the irrefutable proof' of 'those answers' is 'lying in waiting', within you, for you to come-by, recognize, and see for, and by, "yourself".

I can only really show you HOW to find and see 'the answers' by, and for, "yourselves". 'The answers', themselves, get revealed to you when 'you' are ready and able to see and recognize them. With each new answer bearing 'proof' for the previous and next answer.

[Iwannaplato]

Age,
1) I have you on ignore.
2) I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification.
3) However, I am no longer interested in what you post and I don't open them, as they are now closed, because I lack that interest.

If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you.
But otherwise, no.

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will re-post this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

[Age]

Another pattern is that when presented with an assertion about himself, he rarely agrees or disagrees. He asks a question. Of course it would shorten any discussion, if in situations where he agrees with an assertion about himself, he mentions this. But if his goal is to give people hoops to jump through, then asking for people to justify their assertion (anyway) is the better approach.

If he doesn't agree with the assertion, then mentioning that would be useful for a conversation moving towards some kind of agreement. On occasion he does this, but often there are only questions.

This leaves a void that most humans, effective communicators or poor ones alike, do not repeatedly leave in conversations.

This does a couple of things:

he doesn't make assertions, even when they would allow for a quicker and clearer conclusion. This in turn means that other people, if anyone, have responsibility for justifying and keeping the conversation going. Information is one way. Justification is one way.

That's a good point. Human self-identity is egotistical, selfish, self-centered, emotional, and people almost always inevitably take an invitation to display and demonstrate their beliefs, as a positive opportunity.

So, are you suggesting here that you adult human beings should keep being 'egotistical' and keep 'trying to' display "yourselves" in a 'positive light', even when the exact opposite could be actually true and even proved True?

you are aware here, "wizard22", that you are actually showing, revealing, and even proving the very reason why beliefs can be not very good things and in fact can be very negative things, right?

you are again here, showing and proving, reasons why it is much better to not have beliefs.

AgeGPT never does this, and as you point-out, regularly denies, obfuscates, or misdirects when questioning "Itself".

1. I do not have to 'question' "myself" 'now' because:
a) I had already 'questioned' "myself" previously, and this was one reason how and why 'I' came-to-know who and what you human beings are, exactly, and who and what 'I' am, exactly.
b) I have already come-to-know thy 'Self', and thus 'I' already know the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

2. I already KNOW who and what 'I' am.

3. Absolutely no one 'has to' 'question' "them" 'self', based on how another is or others are viewing nor judging them.

Now, I will suggest, once again, you all 'look at' and 'focus on' your own selves, individually and only, and work on questioning and improving 'you' alone, and only.

On top of its list of hypocrisies and contradictions, it's difficult to pin-down on these critical points, because of how repetitious its questioning process is. I'll keep working on it...

Yet, once again, this one/these ones accuse 'me' and claim that it is 'me' who is being hypocritical and contradictory, (which is absolutely laughable considering what has been and is still happening and occurring here), anyway and as I will show and prove, once more, that when I ask a clarifying question, regards their claims, assertions, or accusations not actual provable clarity will be provided.

So, just watch and see.

Now, "wizard22" will you list the, supposed, hypocrisies and contradictions of mine, which you accuse 'me' of and claim exists?

If yes, then great. But will you actually show not just the list but also how and why you believe that 'they' are actual hypocrisies and contradictions, and will you stay around to 'look over', 'explore them', and 'discuss them' with 'me' so what is actually real and True can come-to-light?

But, if no, for both clarifying questions, then why not?

What do you have to fear, be afraid of, concerned about, or be worried about?

[Age]

Another pattern is that when presented with an assertion about himself, he rarely agrees or disagrees. He asks a question. Of course it would shorten any discussion, if in situations where he agrees with an assertion about himself, he mentions this. But if his goal is to give people hoops to jump through, then asking for people to justify their assertion (anyway) is the better approach.

If he doesn't agree with the assertion, then mentioning that would be useful for a conversation moving towards some kind of agreement. On occasion he does this, but often there are only questions.

This leaves a void that most humans, effective communicators or poor ones alike, do not repeatedly leave in conversations.

This does a couple of things:

he doesn't make assertions, even when they would allow for a quicker and clearer conclusion. This in turn means that other people, if anyone, have responsibility for justifying and keeping the conversation going. Information is one way. Justification is one way.

That's a good point. Human self-identity is egotistical, selfish, self-centered, emotional, and people almost always inevitably take an invitation to display and demonstrate their beliefs, as a positive opportunity. AgeGPT never does this, and as you point-out, regularly denies, obfuscates, or misdirects when questioning "Itself".

And, of course, Age may see all that as negative.

I do not think there would be a human being reading this who would think otherwise.

So, why this one would want to spend the 'time' to say and write: And, of course "age" may (or may not) see all that as negative', only "iwannaplato" would know for sure.

But not pointing out when assertions fit or don't fit, makes the whole process longer and less effective.

Now, if anyone would like to take a look back over "iwannaplato's" posts themselves and see just how often it points out if assertions fit or do not fit, then there might well be roughly the same amount of times I have done this so has "iwannaplato" "itself". In fact it might even be found that I have done this more so than it has.

But, then again, "iwannaplato" might be referring to only the assertions made 'about' 'the writer' and just assertions in general. Which if it is, then I wonder how many assertions 'about' "iwannaplato" made by others that "iwanaplato" actually pointed fit, or agreed with, or did not fit, or disagreed with.

Again, the number of times, comparable or relative to the number of assertions made, might again be roughly the same or I might have actually done it more often than "iwannaplato" "itself" has.

A bit like when asking me to word my questions a certain way only to tell me, he won't answer them.

This one really believes that this happened.

Which is absolutely obviously False and Untrue.

Reduction of pointlessness is not on his map.

Unable to stop 'looking at' 'me' is not on 'this one's radar', as some might say here.

On top of its list of hypocrisies and contradictions, it's difficult to pin-down on these critical points, because of how repetitious its questioning process is. I'll keep working on it...

Someone has to be Sisyphus (or?)

[Age]

Age,
1) I have you on ignore.
2) I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification.
3) However, I am no longer interested in what you post.

If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you.
But otherwise, no.

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will re-post this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

One wonders when this one claims that it has me on ignore, whether it just means that it has chosen to just, supposedly, 'ignore' my writings, or if it has added me to its ignore list here? If it is the latter, then I wonder if it is actually true or not that one would still receive notifications that I have respond to them if I am really on their ignore list?

Wizard wrote:

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI.

Why would that actually make absolutely any difference at all here?

The words still remain the exact same no matter where they come from. And, either one can learn from them, question them, seek more clarity from them, ask for further explanations about them, explore more from them, challenge them, refute them, agree or disagree with them, add more to them, or just 'ignore' them.

But, is your insatiable appetite to constantly 'look at' and keep 'judging' 'the writer', of 'just words', just too strong and overbearingly too powerful for 'you' "iwannaplato"?

Whether 'I' am an 'ai-type program' or not you still really have 'the words' alone before 'you' to 'look at' and 'judge'. But, if you are Truly unable and just too weak and unhealthy to just 'focus' on them alone, then so be it. This is then just what 'you' are.

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.

Age: I have only one belief.
Person: Do you believe that this belief is true? That you have only one belief?
Age: Yes.
Person: Well, presumably you have two beliefs, at least. Unless the one belief you have is that you have only one belief.

Considering that I have never said this neither, this is just getting funnier and funnier as 'we' move along here.

Once again, these people, back then, would, literally, say just about absolutely anything, in the hope that those words would, somehow, just back up and support their 'currently' held onto beliefs in just some way or another.

This one, as can be clearly seen here, 'now' believes that it can just keep adding more and more lies, and that this will work in making 'me' look worse and worse here.

[Iwannaplato]

As said. PM if you can manage to acknowledge you are just a fallible guy, Ken, with strengths and weaknesses and a wide range of judgments and beliefs. Otherwise this is all just head games from a would be guru.

If you don't know how to pm, someone will likely help you.

[Atla]

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

If it's digital, it has to be digital on the Planck-scale or below that. Quite irrelevant to the everyday human 'scale'.

How do you know it's digital?