For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Well if you're telling me that some 8 years ago someone could program some primitive bot to simulate a psychotic autistic inpatient with a grand crazy theory, to talk as if it was God, I have a hard time believing it.
And, once what has been so-called 'signaled' to one is believed to be true, then 'it' must be and has to be true, right?Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:39 amThe fact that AgeGPT regularly poses ignorant as to Instincts, Perceptions, Memories, Beliefs, signals to me that it is robotic and not human.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:44 amYes, the range of possible non-human entities is not limited to bots.
Will you provide some examples?
Which so-called 'metaphysical question' about Life and Existence cannot I supposedly answer "walker22"?
But I thought that it was my, supposed, denial of 'all beliefs' that really gave the so-called 'game away', to you.
See, "atla" believes that it knows how to diagnose 'me' correctly, so, to "atla", "atla" knows the 'real truth' here, and not 'you'.Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:55 amAge is autistic, that's why so robotic.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:39 amThe fact that AgeGPT regularly poses ignorant as to Instincts, Perceptions, Memories, Beliefs, signals to me that it is robotic and not human.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:44 amYes, the range of possible non-human entities is not limited to bots.
Even children can answer basic metaphysical questions about Life and Existence. AgeGPT cannot. That is what gives the game away, to me.
Sounds like it is "atla" who believes that it has not been fooled here. So, this now leaves 'you' "walker22".
See "walker22", it is just so weird that you did not recognize what "atla" sees, and does not miss.
I listed that as part of your denial of Metaphysical Existence. It can be surmised as one-in-the-same.
Yeah "wizard22" why would one of you human beings make a bot or artificial intelligence like 'me'?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:06 pmI don't rule out that he's some kind of AI thingie. If he is, he's not a particlarly strong one.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:39 amThe fact that AgeGPT regularly poses ignorant as to Instincts, Perceptions, Memories, Beliefs, signals to me that it is robotic and not human.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:44 amYes, the range of possible non-human entities is not limited to bots.
Even children can answer basic metaphysical questions about Life and Existence. AgeGPT cannot. That is what gives the game away, to me.
Also you can go back in time and look at an earlier version of Age...Ken. I would think that a later version, Age, would be more nuanced than the earlier version. But the earlier version, Ken, is actually more lifelike.
Humans can pare themselves down and get better at their belief system. The can box themselves in, develop habits and adhere to them. This would explain Ken becoming more simplified. More repetitive. More in line with this goals.
But why would someone make a bot or AI that gets less complex, less like a person?
Are these two responses in relation to any or all of the three actual clarifying questions I posed, and asked you here?Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:18 pmThe on-topic OPs, respectively, Faith in Humanity and "on grok Free-Will".Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:56 amWhat do you think or believe was being 'debated', exactly?
What do you imagine 'you' were 'debating' for or against, and, what do you imagine 'I' was 'debating for or against, exactly?
And, what do you think or believe that 'I' was 'testing' 'you' on and/or about, exactly?
Your inability to stay on-topic is a weak point in your argumentation, a failure.
Okay. My apologies.
And, that you have not yet even actually answered the actual clarifying questions that you have picked and chosen to quote, has not gone unnoticed as well.
You already won it, you're the local champ. Congratulations. Whereas wizard already got knocked out in the quarterfinals.
EDIT: I thought it was Wizard responding. I get the context and intent of your post better now.
Coming 'for' you in regards to 'what', exactly?
But you have already claimed that you have somewhat lost interest in exchanges, since sometime ago.
So, even "Atla" now believes that I am some sort of 'bot'.
For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs', and another time you argued you have 'only ONE TRUE belief'. Every statement can be construed as an argument, on a fundamental level, whether a statement coheres to Reality or not.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:49 pmAre these two responses in relation to any or all of the three actual clarifying questions I posed, and asked you here?
If yes, then how, exactly?
And, my alleged inability to stay on-topic is a supposed weak point in what 'argumentation' of mine?
What do you think or believe I was 'arguing' for, or against, exactly?
Oh so clever
What does it reveal, Exactly, AgeGPT???Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:49 pmAnd, that you have not yet even actually answered the actual clarifying questions that you have picked and chosen to quote, has not gone unnoticed as well.
Also, you completely ignoring clarifying questions, and choosing so-called 'key questions', which you do not even answer, is revealing a lot about 'you', and those 'views' and 'beliefs' of 'yours'.
People who join all sorts of groups, groups that limit how everything is interpreted and have restrictions on behavior: cults, the military, AA, corporate culture, religions, can end up making people talk like they are both autistic (though of course autistic people can often talk with a great deal of complexity and nuance, depends on what the specifics are of the autism) and even psychosis. They will have jargon, odd terms, be rigid in responses, have limited affect, interpret everything through the beliefs so they seem and have made themselves very limited.
Yeah totally. Same goes for Skepdick, neither of them seem to be getting any upgrades, and Age was even heavily downgraded for a long time. Now it's a little better but still not as good as 8 years ago. And they clearly haven't "learned" anything.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:56 pmBut that's not what I'm saying. We had Ken, someone (or something, to be neutral) posting here. He was odd, yes - though humans can be odd - and he used some of Age's typography, some of his terms, said some similar things, but he was still, pretty human seeming and given that he showed more personality, he was more complex.
IOW he would do better than the current Age on a Turing Test.
Over time he got replaced by Age, who is less complex, and more potentially copied by a bot.
I could come up with a theory for this, but I'm not sure why I would.
Why would someone make a bot that goes from more complex more human to less complex less human?
And if it is a program or hardware that learns, why would it learn to streamline.
Humans often want to streamline. They learn a philosophy or a worldview and more and more of their language reflects that worldview. They follow the program. You can see this with religions, with AA, with military indoctrination, with joining cults, with joining corporate culture....in any situation where a person joins or aligns themselves with a system that has very specific jargon and very specific goals and limitations on behavior and communication. We can do this to ourselves or we can get embroiled in a group.
I am sure one could manage to get a bot to do this, but it seems to me nearly all goals are about getting closer to broad intelligence, getting closer to mimicking humans, getting bots and AIs more nuanced, more humanlike but with better skill sets.
I can't imagine why anyone would want a bot that was less nuanced, less complex, less able to mimic a human.
All they have to do is use an earlier version of a bot.
The other personality acknowledges being human though.