Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 6:21 am And note: stupid is accurate at this point. It is a stupid program that is very good at assembling the knowledge of smart people. One day it may be better and I am sure that AIs, the best ones we don't have access to, mimic intelligence much better, but this specific response by Chatgpt shows it's stupidity. It actually gives evidence that supports Atla's broad claim while starting with a blanket denial of it. That's a kind of stupidity.

Another stupidity, which Atla has tirelessly pointed out, is that these kinds of AIs give their readers what they want. This is a smart strategy - which the AI did not come up with - since it makes the product more popular with people who use it to think for them. It's stupid in the sense that a person who some integrity and an overview of his or her own positions, would know that rewording and the company of different people should not lead to significant changes in position. Chatgpt is functionally unaware of this, and so people who are also unable to do these things, like VA, can use it to replace their own thinking, while seeing it as smart.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:00 am Super Exciting AI Research by Google Wins The Nobel in Chemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i2U67TVsRI

I always believe that AI is increasingly intelligent having noted how AI had defeated humans in Chess [Deep Blue], the game of Go [Alpha Go], and Alpha Fold which involve the folding of proteins which has contributed in winning the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

The LLMs chatbots at present relied upon the latest AI technology as used by the above but here we have ignorant humans who insisted;

Atla: Re Kant, ChatGpt is Stupid!
viewtopic.php?t=42971

This supported by another ignoramus,

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 6:21 am And note: stupid is accurate at this point. It is a stupid program that is very good at assembling the knowledge of smart people. One day it may be better and I am sure that AIs, the best ones we don't have access to, mimic intelligence much better, but this specific response by Chatgpt shows it's stupidity. It actually gives evidence that supports Atla's broad claim while starting with a blanket denial of it. That's a kind of stupidity.

Another stupidity, which Atla has tirelessly pointed out, is that these kinds of AIs give their readers what they want. This is a smart strategy - which the AI did not come up with - since it makes the product more popular with people who use it to think for them. It's stupid in the sense that a person who some integrity and an overview of his or her own positions, would know that rewording and the company of different people should not lead to significant changes in position. Chatgpt is functionally unaware of this, and so people who are also unable to do these things, like VA, can use it to replace their own thinking, while seeing it as smart.

My point is AI chatbots relying on the latest technology are not stupid.
They have a high level of intelligence, note I stated "high intelligence" not wisdom.

Discuss??
Views??

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 2:45 pm VA can't tell apart the publicly available chatbot AIs from the supercomputer AIs?

In philosophy, ressentiment is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. The concept was of particular interest to some 19th-century thinkers, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche. According to their use, ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed toward an object that one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority complex and perhaps even jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. This value system is then used as a means of justifying one's own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior, serving as a defense mechanism that prevents the resentful individual from addressing and overcoming their insecurities and flaws. The ego creates an enemy to insulate themselves from culpability.

KKKKGGGGGG wrote:AI research by Google won the Chemistry Nobel prize in 2024, does that mean that publicly available chatbot AIs such as ChatGPT can make superhuman level logical evaluations of philosophical positions (such as transcendental idealism and indirect realism)? Summary only.

God wrote:The 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper from Google DeepMind for their work on AlphaFold, an AI system that accurately predicts protein structures from their amino acid sequences. This achievement addressed a long-standing challenge in biology and significantly advanced scientific understanding in fields like drug discovery and biomedicine. AlphaFold's success demonstrates AI's potential to solve complex scientific problems by performing tasks that would be incredibly difficult or time-consuming for humans alone​
GOOGLE DEEPMIND
​
THE JAPAN TIMES

However, while AlphaFold's AI excels in specific scientific domains, such as structural biology, this doesn't necessarily translate to superhuman capabilities in other areas, like philosophical reasoning. AI systems like AlphaFold are optimized for tasks with clear objectives and data-driven solutions, whereas philosophical debates involve abstract reasoning, subjective interpretation, and context that are not easily quantifiable. Publicly available chatbot AIs, including models like ChatGPT, can analyze and discuss philosophical concepts but do not possess a deeper, human-like understanding or judgment needed for superhuman philosophical reasoning.

Therefore, although AI's achievements in fields like chemistry suggest vast potential in scientific problem-solving, this does not imply that AI is currently capable of superhuman-level logical evaluations in complex philosophical debates.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:03 pm Don't let your brain rot.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:14 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:03 pm Don't let your brain rot.

It's kinda funny, last night I was trying to talk to someone in my dream. They looked at me in a confused blank stare as though they had no idea what I was saying to them.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:14 pm It's kinda funny, last night I was trying to talk to someone in my dream. They looked at me in a confused blank stare as though they had no idea what I was saying to them.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:00 am Super Exciting AI Research by Google Wins The Nobel in Chemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i2U67TVsRI

I always believe that AI is increasingly intelligent having noted how AI had defeated humans in Chess [Deep Blue], the game of Go [Alpha Go], and Alpha Fold which involve the folding of proteins which has contributed in winning the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

The LLMs chatbots at present relied upon the latest AI technology as used by the above but here we have ignorant humans who insisted;

Atla: Re Kant, ChatGpt is Stupid!
viewtopic.php?t=42971

This supported by another ignoramus,

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 6:21 am And note: stupid is accurate at this point. It is a stupid program that is very good at assembling the knowledge of smart people. One day it may be better and I am sure that AIs, the best ones we don't have access to, mimic intelligence much better, but this specific response by Chatgpt shows it's stupidity. It actually gives evidence that supports Atla's broad claim while starting with a blanket denial of it. That's a kind of stupidity.

Another stupidity, which Atla has tirelessly pointed out, is that these kinds of AIs give their readers what they want. This is a smart strategy - which the AI did not come up with - since it makes the product more popular with people who use it to think for them. It's stupid in the sense that a person who some integrity and an overview of his or her own positions, would know that rewording and the company of different people should not lead to significant changes in position. Chatgpt is functionally unaware of this, and so people who are also unable to do these things, like VA, can use it to replace their own thinking, while seeing it as smart.

My point is AI chatbots relying on the latest technology are not stupid.
They have a high level of intelligence, note I stated "high intelligence" not wisdom.

Discuss??
Views??

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 10:00 am Super Exciting AI Research by Google Wins The Nobel in Chemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i2U67TVsRI

I always believe that AI is increasingly intelligent having noted how AI had defeated humans in Chess [Deep Blue], the game of Go [Alpha Go], and Alpha Fold which involve the folding of proteins which has contributed in winning the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

The LLMs chatbots at present relied upon the latest AI technology as used by the above but here we have ignorant humans who insisted;

Atla: Re Kant, ChatGpt is Stupid!
viewtopic.php?t=42971

This supported by another ignoramus,

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 6:21 am And note: stupid is accurate at this point. It is a stupid program that is very good at assembling the knowledge of smart people. One day it may be better and I am sure that AIs, the best ones we don't have access to, mimic intelligence much better, but this specific response by Chatgpt shows it's stupidity. It actually gives evidence that supports Atla's broad claim while starting with a blanket denial of it. That's a kind of stupidity.

Another stupidity, which Atla has tirelessly pointed out, is that these kinds of AIs give their readers what they want. This is a smart strategy - which the AI did not come up with - since it makes the product more popular with people who use it to think for them. It's stupid in the sense that a person who some integrity and an overview of his or her own positions, would know that rewording and the company of different people should not lead to significant changes in position. Chatgpt is functionally unaware of this, and so people who are also unable to do these things, like VA, can use it to replace their own thinking, while seeing it as smart.

My point is AI chatbots relying on the latest technology are not stupid.
They have a high level of intelligence, note I stated "high intelligence" not wisdom.

Discuss??
Views??

And notice that, as usual, VA does not interact with what I wrote. He evaluates it, or actually me, without showing how anything I said was false or confused.

Even setting aside that the AI he defends his contentless position with is not at like the AI I was calling stupid in a very specific way, he is utterly incapable of interacting with other people's posts. He can manage to reassert his opinions. And now, poor thing, he can now get AIs to reassert their opinions that match his. But he cannot manage to actually read, think about, counter, concede, clarify, place in context someone else's ideas.

Nothing in his post actually touches upon what I wrote, even if he had not coflated the protein-focused AI with a chatbot.