Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:25 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:28 pm Machines have it easy!

Do 'we', oh I mean do 'they'?

I see you're advancing to Gaslighting, AgeGPT.

Now, you should get to your list of contradictions and stop wasting your time.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am That sums things up pretty well.

His rhetorical tactic works pretty well on a philosophy forum, where our type of mindset is more open to open-ended questions, but there's a limit of course. Eventually, even philosophers and hobbyists need to chalk things up to basic presumptions and common sense about meaning of the extreme basics, and move forward on core points and arguments. Age doesn't do this, and routinely back-tracks on already-covered points. As you just said, its memory is limited on key-points. Maybe it's not programmed to remember or recall a degree of its past textual interaction, I don't know.

I had never been a believer in god, nor anything else, nor did I know anything about philosophy. That was until i started on a journey of just wanting to change. In order to change i had to seek out help from others, I had no idea on how to become a better person by myself. But what happened as i was seeking to change was that i found that by just listening, truly listening that is, and by truly answering honestly and fully those meaningful answers of life, which we are all seeking, unwittingly or unknowingly, just start coming to light. I was not looking for answers, i was just seeking out how to change for the better, but by being truly open and honest with others, and with myself, I began to discover how the mind and the brain work, then how to gain full understanding and thus forgiveness, and then who I am, the meaning of life, why we are here, etc., etc. While discovering these I also came across a formula that, to me, shows what will lead us all into living in peace and harmony together.

Living with autism I am a very simple and slow person. I can find learning what others want to teach very confusing. I do not believe something just because something is said nor written down. If someone wants to tell me that something is true, right, or correct, then i want and need proof. For example until i discovered what god is I never believed it existed. Surprisingly it is not what most people believe it to be. I also thought that philosophy was something only smart people could understand. That was until i looked into one dictionary and one of its definitions given said that the word philosophy came from 'phil', love of, and 'sophy', wisdom. If wisdom is gained from learning, then to me 'phi-o-sophy', just means having the love of learning. This is nothing special. Every human child is born with a love of learning. Unfortunately though this love can quickly diminish with ridicule and embarrassment over time. Through others misbehavior and an unfair and unjust, so called, "education" system people learn to hate learning. Did you know the word 'education', once meant to draw out? Like in to draw out the potential within a person. But sadly the peoples of nowadays talk about an education as though it is something that the ones enrolled are meant to repeat "word-for-word" what is being taught to them, as though what is being taught is absolutely, without any questioning, true, right, and correct. If a person then does not get exactly right what is being taught to them, then somehow that person has become or supposedly stupid, dumb, not smart or one of the many other put-down names.

The reason the human animal has, for lack of a better word,"progressed" as far as we have now is because we humans inherently love to learn. When we are being an inquisitive being, and as long as we are open to and want to learn more, then we can and will learn more. In fact we can not stop learning if we are truly open. But if we are already believing (in) something, and thus being so called closed-minded, then we are not being an able to learn being. It is our unique ability to learn, understand, and reason anything/everything that is what separates us from all the other known animal species. Intelligence, which is unique to to us humans is just our ability to learn. This ability should not be mistaken for intellect. Intellect is just the things/knowledge that we have already learnt.

As long as we are open, and thus not believing nor disbelieving (in) anything, then we are being truly intelligent enough to learn more and absolutely anything, including how easy it really is for all of us to being living in true peace and harmony together.

I may be a very simple person but seeing and understanding all of 'life's' so called problems, and answers is really rather easy. I can see and understand why every person is the way they are and why they do the things they do. If I am wrong anywhere, then I am openly able to accept being proven wrong, and will thank you for showing me what is right. I always want to be open. I love being shown where I am wrong and more importantly why I am wrong. I LOVE learning more. But until then I am prepared to be challenged on any or all of this. I enjoy the challenge of learning how to show you how you also can learn how to live in peace and harmony with all others. One of the hardest things, I think, for human beings to do is show that what is right when others do not and will not believe (in) them.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:48 am That's interesting, is that from "Ken"?

Who knows, maybe that User started running a chatbot at some point. I don't know his history.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:05 pm I suspect, based on your knowledge of 'Ken', that he possibly started using a chatbot program at some point, and then began using it regularly.

Or he really is autistic on a whole'nother level! I don't know though, "Age" still seems way more mechanical than that post from Ken was/is.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 2:14 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:28 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:46 amAnd, of course, Age may see all that as negative. But not pointing out when assertions fit or don't fit, makes the whole process longer and less effective.

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

Reduction of pointlessness is not on his map.

Someone has to be Sisyphus (or?)

...I can safely tell you...it's been years since I've had to spend 3 hours on writing philosophy forum responses...it's a bit tiresome!

Machines have it easy!

I actually asked one the online AI's about this: they are oddly cagey. Basically, I asked the AI if they could learn very rapidly from each other, given that they can produce texts/information/questions so fast. First, it denied that they could, given that they 'don't really' understand what they are saying and they make errors. I responded that humans make errors, we can produce information and explore things much, much slower than AIs, we don't have the enormous data bases that they have AND we know now that computers can actually learn skills that they are not even asked to learn - iow they ought to be able to exchange skills, guesses, areas of knowledge etc.

Then the AI conceded that this was true. It also told me that there are ongoing experiments where AIs are speaking to each other.

Gives me the willies.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:08 pm Until we understand that there is no such thing as "intelligence" (as we define it) AI will be little more than a parlor trick.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:08 pm The reason that we haven't already made great strides in scientific understanding created by the internet is that we are starting with bad assumptions and definitions; among which is that we are intelligent.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:08 pm My experience with the current A"I" is that I've never met a human being as stupid as they are.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:08 pm A person as dumb as AI couldn't start his car and go to work to shovel ditches.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:08 pm If they sound smart you are asking the wrong questions.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:20 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:36 am Wizard22 really doesn't understand that AI doesn't exist on this planet yet, and will not exist for at least decades.

Either though some, in the exact same days, were saying and claiming the exact opposite.

But, then again, here we have another prime example of:

Absolutely everything really is actually relative to, 'the observer'.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:36 am Calling chatbots AIs is just a dirty marketing trick. Even if Age was a chatbot, it wouldn't have the psychology of an actual entity, neither self nor nonself, Jesus.

See "wizard22"?

Don't use my name to spout such utter bullshit, Age.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:25 pm Only in your deranged mind is "Absolutely everything ... relative to, 'the observer'. "

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:59 pm But, once again, I do not have 'a mind'. I am not sure how many times this has to be expressed before people start questioning and/or challenging it.

Also, it appears that "atla" thinks or believes that there are some things that are not relative to 'the observer'. Now, I wonder what those things could be, exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:29 pm If you guys are confused you can just ask ChatGPT lol

Atla the KG wrote:Is ChatGPT an AI in the traiditional sense where AI is a self-aware intelligent entity, or is it an AI that lacks such qualities?

ChatGPT wrote:ChatGPT is an example of what's often referred to as narrow artificial intelligence, or weak AI. It lacks self-awareness or consciousness, which are qualities associated with general artificial intelligence or strong AI. Instead, ChatGPT operates within a predefined scope, generating responses based on patterns it learned from vast amounts of text data. While it can produce seemingly intelligent interactions within its designated domain, it doesn't possess understanding or awareness in the way humans do.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:25 pm Don't use my name to spout such utter bullshit, Age. Only in your deranged mind is "Absolutely everything ... relative to, 'the observer'. "

I think the poor guy actually means that people's understandings of absolutely everything is actually relative to the observer. Or something along those lines.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:54 pm Unless he's a radical postmodern, ontological relativist. As in there are no rules. No stable ontology. No common reality.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:54 pm And it would make no sense to chastise people for assumptions and beliefs, if you thought Absolutely everything is relative to the observer, in the infinitely flexible non-universe that sentence would imply.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:11 pm If there is a so-called 'traditional sense' that 'ai' is a 'self-aware intelligent entity', then whoever started and/or uses those so-called 'traditional sense' words has never really thought about 'those words' nor 'that sense' at all.

Also, what "iwannaplato" showed and proved is that by just telling 'chatgpt' other things, while expressing those things as though they are actually true, or in other words just express them while believing that they are true, then we will change our response, oh I mean they will just change their response.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:06 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:25 pm Don't use my name to spout such utter bullshit, Age. Only in your deranged mind is "Absolutely everything ... relative to, 'the observer'. "

I think the poor guy actually means that people's understandings of absolutely everything is actually relative to the observer. Or something along those lines.
Unless he's a radical postmodern, ontological relativist. As in there are no rules. No stable ontology. No common reality.

And it would make no sense to chastise people for assumptions and beliefs, if you thought Absolutely everything is relative to the observer, in the infinitely flexible non-universe that sentence would imply.

I am pretty sure that if Age meant that the understandings of absolutely everything are relative to the observer, he actually literally would have said that the understandings were relative.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:10 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:06 pm I am pretty sure that if Age meant that the understandings of absolutely everything are relative to the observer, he actually literally would have said that the understandings were relative.

I'm trying to be charitable.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:10 pm Also what I said fits better with other things he says.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:10 pm Of course, I think the original assertion leads to a very wild ontology, with it being like reality is only a kind of dream for each person, isolated in their own dreams only.