:smirk:

My major observations so far are:

1) It's quite "PC " or at least non-committal on controversial topics. It does a lot of commentary along the lines of "However, it's important to remember that... " This can become repetitive and annoying. It will make efforts to be more direct though if asked.
2) It aims to please. It takes your ideas, validates and rephrases them and feeds them back to you in such a way as to make you feel like you've said something important and insightful (whether you have or not). It's like "Good point" (+proceeds to make Herculean research efforts to prove it's a good point :lol: ).
3) Like most AIs, it's fairly awful at pretending to be human. It has a basic way of doing things that it repeats over and over and "being more human-like" can be pasted on top of that but fairly unconvincingly. Brilliant at style, poor at substance in this respect.
4) It's strengths are in information gathering, logical connection, and parsing meaning. It's really good at figuring out what you want and bringing together disparate ideas / themes into a well organised whole.

When voice plugins come live, along with current internet access, and improvements in being "real", it's going to be ubiquitous.

:up:

I'm not questioning that. I'm wondering why you didn't point out the error this time to give it a chance to fix it if the goal is to produce longer palindromes. I'm curious if it would manage with some prompting.

Chat. Bing Chat is an alternative way to access GPT4 for free if you aren't subscribed to OpenAI's paid version: ChatGPT+. — Pierre-Normand

I tried this. It's not quite up to date and is more of a hybrid experience preferring to direct you to links and websites than give you detailed information. And it has obvious weaknesses. It cannot, for example, even give an accurate current price for Gold or other assets since its database is not current. Though it tries and is happy to give you the wrong price. Needs work to say the least.

Current palindrome: "Evil rats, a dot sniffs in to sad star, live." — Pierre-Normand

That's not even a palindrome. Shouldn't you have corrected GPT on that or am I missing something?

At least part of the issue is its programmed to be highly charitable towards its interlocutor. This may be more about marketing considerations than real limitations of the technology though. It's hardly a difficult task to do basic mathematics. But it must massage those egos to keep em' coming back.

Note in the above I had not asked it about this previously, so it uncannily guessed my intention related to its previous response to you. :scream:

">Write a proof that 999983 is not a prime number. Don't bullshit me please.

>Apologies if my previous response was unsatisfactory. I can assure you that 999,983 is indeed a prime number.
"

Problem solved.

In the worst case scenario, we may be heading towards a situation where AI art is worse than human made art but "good enough" for companies to not care about replacing their workers, leading to a media landscape that's more soulless and derivative overall. — Mr Bee

Yes.

I just asked it that question and got the correct answer.

"Is 42 a prime number?

No, 42 is not a prime number. It is divisible by 2, 3, 6, 7, 14 and 21, in addition to 1 and itself. Therefore, it is a composite number."

And this is with the older version.

I agree with you on all that. Personally, I consider art to be the highest of all creative and intellectual endeavours. That's why I'm concerned about the infiltration of AI. Not that there won't be real art but that no one will care. Art may become (even more) socially devalued.

@Christoffer From GPT 4 on this issue.

"AI technology has already made significant strides in creating realistic art across various fields, and the prospects of further improvement are quite promising. With advancements in machine learning algorithms, particularly generative models like GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks), AI has demonstrated the ability to create convincing artwork that is often difficult to distinguish from human-generated art.

In the visual arts domain, AI-generated paintings and drawings have been showcased in galleries and sold for substantial sums of money. The same applies to photography, where AI algorithms can enhance images or generate entirely new, realistic scenes.

In the field of music, AI has successfully composed pieces in various styles, from classical to pop, by analyzing large datasets of existing music and generating new compositions based on the patterns it has learned.

In literature, AI algorithms have produced poetry, short stories, and even full-length novels that are increasingly difficult to differentiate from human-written works. Chatbots and conversational AI models, like the one you are currently interacting with, have made considerable progress in understanding and generating human-like text. is true that AI algorithms, such as GANs, have shown remarkable progress in generating realistic and high-quality art by learning from patterns and elements found in human-created works. The continuous improvement in AI-generated art makes it increasingly difficult to differentiate between human and AI-created pieces.

...

Given the current trajectory of progress in AI technology, it is indeed probable that AI-generated art will become more indistinguishable from human art in the near future. As AI algorithms continue to learn and refine their understanding of the elements that make art resonate with audiences, the gap between human and AI-generated art will likely narrow even further.

This development may have practical consequences for the art world, as it could lead to increased competition between human artists and AI-generated art. It may also raise concerns about authenticity and the value of art, as people may struggle to discern the origin of a particular piece."

EDIT: Cross posted. You made some good points above that I'll come back to. In short, I hope you're right.

Unfortunately, I'm not as confident about you that that distinction makes a difference considering the way this AI technology works, i.e. on pattern recognition and imitation. Whether or not true art, which I agree, requires intentionality, can be produced is irrelevant to the problem of artists being displaced if no-one (or few) can tell the difference between an AI generated facsimile and the real thing. And I see no realistic obstacle to such facsimiles being created as the technology progresses.

Of course, it may not matter seeing as Chat GPT will be doing their homework and college assignments for them so they probably won't learn much anyway.

Allow me to suggest we ponder on the fact that our children, real or imaginary, are being educated into jobs that may no longer exist by the time they qualify for them.

I'm not saying we won't improve. I'm saying it has the capacity to outcompete us. For example, someone who has traditionally hired a blogger to create content can probably already achieve a similar or even superior result in many cases using this tool. And we're just beginning. E.g. Movies scripted by AI and acted by photo-realistic avatars are probably not far around the corner. It's a socially transformative technology and it appears to be moving very quickly.

@Pierre-Normand Appreciate the thread.

I'm impressed and wanted to give the plus a try but when I tried to upgrade I got an error. In the meantime, I've been asking the basic version about Aristotle and it's given me some contradictory answers, specifically about the definitions of formal and efficient causes and how they relate to formal substance. I also wonder whether it's humoring me with its admissions of errors and inconsistencies. Still, it's an amazing pedagogical tool and beats the hell out of Googling. I don't think we're ready as a society for the implications of a technology that has the potential to render so much of our intellectual and creative work obsolete.

EDIT: Cross-posted with the above.

:cool: :party:

FAKE NEWS ACCUSATIONS ARE FAKE NEWS! I DID NOT DO IT BECAUSE NO TRUE ME DID IT! DO NOT BELIEVE FAKE NEWS PROSECOTURS OF NEW YORK! EAT MORE ICE CREAM! WHEN I AM PRESIDENT ICE CREAM WILL BE FREE AND SO WILL I! PROTEST NOW OR THEY WILL JAIL ICE CREEM FOR LIFE!

I'll probably not comment further. — Banno

We'd like a thesis and commitment to follow-up for serious OPs. Potentially interesting topic but not enough effort here to justify as philosophical, so I've moved it to the lounge.

@Jamal Wait, what? You know how long it took to read this mfer?? :cry:

I've read through most of the thread and see that @Moliere @Judaka and @fdrake have emphasised the contextual and fragmentary nature of the concept of progress. That's key for me. Progress, in its normative use, assumes values. We ought to specify our relevant value applied to a particular realm to make our claims on progress coherent. E.g. "In terms of efficiency [value], there is progress in science [realm]". That would seem uncontroversial. But what about: "In terms of security [value], there is progress in science [realm]". Existential threats caused by nuclear and fossil fuel technologies make this questionable. So, does science represent progress? Yes and no. Without a sensible context, it's not a good question.

And the idea of systemic socioeconomic progress is particularly problematised by @Moliere's "for whom" question. If "progress" is the creation of winners and losers in this context, it's an inherently unstable term not only because some lose but because losing is relative and levels of disparity count. The notion of progress can't be divorced from how it's subjectively experienced. Being "objectively" better off (even in the specified ways emphasised above) as a homeless person on Skid Row as opposed to being a historical hunter gatherer may not represent meaningful progress subjectively considering your respective surrounds.

“Beings” are things. “Beings” is not reserved strictly for sentient beings. It can be, sure, but that’s not the common usage in ontology. — Mikie

Yes, e.g. from the link above the terms are used interchangeably:

"In more nuance, it means that which concerns particular, individuated beings rather than their modes of being; the present, actual thing in relation to the virtual, generalized dimension which makes that thing what it "is"."

A counter-intuituive use it can be argued, but that's philosophy.

Straw poll: who else participating in this thread accepts that rocks are beings? — Wayfarer

Philosophically speaking, they are.

Seeing as you sourced ChatGPT, I asked it for the philosophical definition of "being":

"Being is a philosophical term that is often used to describe the state or quality of existing or existing in a particular way. It is a broad concept that encompasses everything that exists, both tangible and intangible. Being involves the physical and the metaphysical, the natural and the spiritual, and the present and the future. Being can also refer to a philosophical state or condition of something or someone, such as the state of being alive, being conscious, or having a particular identity."

Or read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative. — Tzeentch

Just saw the edit. Now you're conflating progressivism and Marxism. I'm not going to explain the difference this time.

That sounds more like Communism. Progressives are represented by the Democrat party in the states. You don't get much more capitalist than that. As for "extreme" equality, what is that?

Progressives are for higher taxes for the rich, government healthcare insurance, abortion rights and minority rights. There's not a lot more in general terms that you can say about them as they're such a diverse group. Unless you can come up with specific policies that can both be said to be generally held by progressives and can be said to be in polar opposition to liberalism, to be Orwellian etc, your argument is exposed for the bunch of empty hand-waving rhetoric it is.

Wokism is not one thing; it's a spectrum of attitudes, some of which are more justifiable than others. And progressives are not only under no obligation to embrace wokism; they are certainly under no obligation to embrace the extremes of wokism which are the ones focused on by the right and used as a cudgel against them, particularly because progressivism encompasses economic as well as social views.

So, I identify as a progressive. Please tell me what "profoundly anti-liberal" views I necessarily hold. Time to get down to specifics.

So, suddenly, in one generation, progressives turned into their opposites because... (enter bogeyman) wokism! Quick, update the dictionaries!

Yes, and oranges are fruit. So, all fruit are orange, right? Wow! You went from saying woke is progressive to condemning progressives in general "these days" as all the bad things you attach to wokism---Orwellian blah de blah. The conflation is blindingly obvious.

What can be considered "progressive" these days is a counter-movement to actual liberalism, and is basically its polar opposite. It's attempts at controlling speech and people's thoughts are eerily Orwellian, and authoritarian to the very core. — Tzeentch

Nowhere did I claim that "woke" is an umbrella term for progressivism. — Tzeentch

I said you "conflated" the two. Which you did. The type of thing Fox News does daily. Zero analysis, just grievances against wokism clumsily pasted onto progressivism. Won't work on a philosophy forum.

I believe I do understand what you're trying to do.

Also, "woke" is not liberal. It's progressive, though I would sooner call it regressive since it has effectively worked to dial back the clock on the role of race in society some 50 years. Alas, "woke" believes the changes they propose would benefit society, thus progressive is the proper term.

'Liberal' is just the label it inherited from the last wave of progressives, which had some right to call themselves liberals. Woke is just wearing it like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What can be considered "progressive" these days is a counter-movement to actual liberalism, and is basically its polar opposite. It's attempts at controlling speech and people's thoughts are eerily Orwellian, and authoritarian to the very core. — Tzeentch

There's where with some odd jumps of logic, unsupported assertion, and random colourful rhetoric, you conflate wokeness with progressivism.

Here's the Merriam Webster definition of a progressive:

"one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive

And, no, wokeness has not suddenly morphed this into some mad Orwellian movement. You don't know what a progressive is or, more likely imo, you are attempting poisoning the well, guilt by association etc.



Typical tactics. This is why I said nothing intelligent was being said.

Roald Dahl characters not being allowed to have black cloaks may be an example. But conflating the mad fringes of wokeness with progressives in general as @Tzeentch has tried to do is just the right wing attempting poisoning the well tactics and can be dismissed on that basis. As if you can reduce calls for better healthcare, more equality, social justice etc. to some misguided attitudes by (probably) well-meaning silly people.

My understanding is that the original idea of being "woke" was a reaction to the general historical and cultural ignorance in the U.S. of racial and other minority issues. That's clearly a good thing that right wingers and racists are likely to hate. And on the fringes of wokeness no doubt they have been given ammo for that.

Yes, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise. — RogueAI

Frank can argue any kind of nonsense and then claim that because you come from a different country (or whatever) you are wrong and he is right. It's a tiresome and boring way to avoid rational engagement.

What? The "period" was in response to frank's claims the statements weren't racist and was limited to that. It had nothing to do with @Tzeentch's tangential comments about woke culture. I wasn't in that conversation, partly because nothing intelligent was being said. It was just "Woke = progressive = bad". So what? Maybe there's something there. But let's have some nuanced analysis.

So we can assume that Adams's exposure in childhood was not to segregation, abusive language, no role-models and z poor public image...

So why's he a racist? Nothing whatsoever to do with anything we could do anything about? Completely wash our hands of it? Perhaps he had a bump on the head eh? Nothing for us to worry about.

Back to business as usual. — Isaac

No one's saying we can't talk about that. I don't understand the defensiveness here. Obviously, establishing he is racist comes before talking about why he is, right? We're only just getting there.

OK, thanks for the clarification on that.

Same old from you, frank. You lose the argument and then come up with some weird personal comment of no relevance whatsoever. You have no special status re defining words or understanding concepts. You're just going to have to get your ego under control and get used to that. You're wrong on the facts. The comments were racist. If you have no rational arguments on substance, you have nothing, period.

Of all the grossly offensive things reported on this thread I think Adams's stupid comments pail into insignificance behind you attempting to belittle the horrors of Jim Crow era to score a fucking brownie point with your chattering class gang. — Isaac

Get a grip. He did nothing of the sort. You're embarrassing yourself.

I can't remember if I had. I read the comic years ago, so maybe. What's the relevance of whether I had heard of him to whether what he said was racist?