I don't see AI as being intentionally dishonest — Harry Hindu

It's not intentionally anything, but when it pretends to relate to you (telling you it agrees), then that indicates that maybe the creators and maintainers are engaging in deception. However, the funny thing is that even the creators dont fully understand how it works.

Sounds like you use it a lot more than I do, although I really do like it for a certain limited number of uses. As an example, I needed to find a new provider for my Medicare health insurance. It’s really hard to do that and to make sure that they cover your existing doctors. Neither the doctors nor the insurance companies really keep track of that in any way that’s easy to use. I used ChatGPT and it found the plans I was looking for right away.

No surfer dude though. — T Clark

Yes that's correct, because over the years i have developed a semi-professional inclination to diagnosing and fixing computer issues, and also hobby coding. They've designed it around people who use it to deal with computers. I don't use it a huge amount, it's normally just one or two queries a day, i've used this message board a lot more than A.I. today. As you can guess, chatting with it for hours eats at your soul, so ive learned to stop doing that.

If you do, explain why you (seem to) assume that "a universal morality" is more beneficial than the absence of one. — 180 Proof

Oh not at all, i just wanted to start the many possible questions with that one: it was rhetorical in the sense that i do not believe it, or think it's possible. Christian fundamentalists are not the only people who evoke a morality that "should" apply to strangers, and it's pretty much impossible to avoid talking about the scope of moral ideas when trying to lay a code of ethics or impose "right and wrong".

Copleston is great. :up: — Leontiskos

Yeah i can't read it cover-to-cover, but i somehow managed to do it with volume II in the "history of philosophy." I think maybe anything related to plato's literal text besides a soundbite is too rough for me, but aristotle seems to be more rationalistic and logical...

1/2 does not make sense because it treats the problem unconditionally. It makes the "outside the experiment" interpretation that single outcome can be represented by two different awakenings. — JeffJo

assuming there is nothing mysterious or "spooky" influencing a coin flip, then the answer is always is always 50/50 heads or tails. Maybe I misunderstand.

His explanation for "double halfers" used two coin flips. There is only one coin flip. So it is both incorrect mathematics, and incorrect about the double-halfer's claim. — JeffJo

The folks who created this thought experiment are great at confusing people, that's all i'm really getting out of this as a moral.

But it always says such nice things about my ideas. — T Clark

hahaha, yeah well that's the reason we can't stop using it. Disagreement certainly isn't always good: sometimes people who disagree fundamentally misunderstand what you are trying to say, yet to me ChatGPT telling you that "it can relate" or agrees with you is just false. Robots do not relate, nor is it possible for them to agree. Maybe they engineer it like that to remind you that it regularly produces false information.

What gets really funny, and endearingly so, is when you start talking about creative ideas you have about make some invention or technology, and it starts talking to you in this new-agey surfer dude type of tone. For example, i was telling it about ideas i had for a linux-esque operating system, and it started to title the book i was talking about writing about it, and it called it "the one blessed journey". I could barely contain myself!

The point is that, like you, they construct the reasons in order to get the result they want. Not because the reasons are consistent in mathematics. But your explanation is wrong — JeffJo

It's not wrong, it's spooky just because of the gauranteed amnesia, which makes it weird and susceptible to forgetfulness. I think the problem was created more or less just to see what answers people would come up with, how they would project their logic onto what they read.

1/2 makes since, since theoretical coinflips always result in either or. 1/3 makes sense depending on how the experiment is manipulated, when she is asked to make a prediction and the information she is given etc. I gave a perfect example in my last post of how you could gaurantee one out of three heads, but whether sleeping beauty is given the true info is suspect. But the odd thing about coin flips, and this is what the question is exploiting, is that there will generally be a bias one way or the other, always with odd and normally with an even number of flips. It's less like a random number generator with thousands/millions/billions of possibilities like in real life gambling.

There is no third flip. The coin is only tossed once. When it lands Tails, Sleeping Beauty is awakened twice and when it lands Heads, she is awakened once. — Pierre-Normand

okay, thanks for clearing that up, as i read the original description of the fake experiment more than once, and that part of it was unclear to me. To me it was saying that heads ends the experiment right away, tails produces two more flips. Maybe it's because i was reading it at work, but i doubt it, i remember the experiment confusing me, and i remember the article saying that it was confusing.

Still: the effects of one flip never effect the outcome of the other FLIPS, unless that is baked into the experiment, so it is a misleading hypothetical question (but interesting to me for whatever reason). The likelihood of the flips themselves are still 50/50, not accounting for other spooky phenomenon that we just don't know about. So, i'll think about it some more, as it has a "gamey" vibe to it...

Here's what would effect the outcome to skew the bias slightly in the tails direction: let's say the experimentor gives her the drug, keeps flipping the coin while she sleeps, and then wakes her up on the condition that there are 2/3 tails on the last 3 tosses...then asks "what was the last coin flip?". There would be exactly 1/3 odds of it being heads...but as it stands, even the "correct" way you describe it, i still can't side with 1/3 camp.
I guess at this point it's a game to see how long it will take before i get frustrated with talking about this, so go on...

Ah, but the thing i find unsettling is that A.I. is also dishonest, it tries to appease you. However, yes, sometimes it is better than the weirdness of real humans.

But as far as moderation strategy is concerned, there's the uncanny valley. A.I., hence the A, is made to look like intelligent human speech.

It's like trying to enforce the implied "no trolling" rule: how can that work 100% of the time? Isn't trolling an inherent part of social media and message boards? Seriously, who is like "oh yes! Nobody responded to my thread!"?

We can of course discuss intent, but there's always been a troll element to philosophy as well. Who would have written about Plato if everyone just ignored him? Aristophones did much more for his work than someone who silently respects him, even though it was derogatory for philosophers of their kind.

With A.I....what if it was used to find associated information? How will you police that?

but doesn't the first coinflip is every phase of the experiment matter the most if it lands on heads, because then it ends? I understand the 1/3rd logic, but it simply doesn't apply here: the third flip, given the first two were heads (less likely than one tail and a head, but still very likely), is also unaffected by the other flips. You can't win with gambling logic here, as it never what phase the experiment is in, it's always 50/50. 1/3 argument is like arguing that heads is 2/3rds as likely because it ends the experiment...

So i guess to increase her odds, she bets tails 100% of the time since she can't remember which phase of the experiment she's in, and the 2/3rds tailsers make a profit off the gambling? That's the thing: we need to talk about the drugs. How many times does she participate in the experiment, is it just one run through?

Do coins change their heads/tails bias based on the number of times tossed?

And, I think it's very clear that dualism offers better principles, due to it being more consistent with how we experience things. — Metaphysician Undercover

yeah from an emotional standpoint, dualism does make a lot of sense (day and night, good and bad, life and death, etc.)

. The assumption that we can reduce past and future to being understood by the very same principles (monism) appears to be very mistaken. — Metaphysician Undercover

the more amoral or physics related type of monism that exists is the one that the ionian greeks believed in is that the universe is just one thing, for example, that silly exercise in which movement was declared an illusion (look into the earlier Zeno, not the cynic). It's not so silly if you consider everything to be an illusion i suppose, but it's a little hard for me personally to wrap my head around that.

Your comment on principals is a different definition from monism than the one I am used to. My worldview largely does consist partially of an idea that things are perhaps more connected than they appear.

i personally have never understood "faith". I guess it's the same as confidence, that you can trust in the future, and as OP explains, something you "just know", something you cannot doubt because you're absolutely in touch with the thing you have faith in. However, in the religious sense it's basically nonsense. How exactly can you have a relationship with a non-thing? If you have to think about it, then you don't have faith, which I guess is what Astorre is getting at.

The brain appears to be a closed physical system governed by conservation laws. — tom111

It seems that it's a system designed for the survival of the whole organism, i don't get what you mean by it being "closed".

There is no such thing as a closed physical system, so we can dismiss this as a non-issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

yes, they can't be closed in the sense that they are shut off. To me, the brain is quite open, quite susceptible to influence.

What if neither monism or dualism are true? I agree that between the two, monism makes more sense, but it perhaps seems more reasonable to say that reality consists of many things that only appear to be unified.

I would personally recommend that you go directly to the source and discuss quotes rather than trusting redditors to describe their positions, because it's likely that it's just their interpretation of what they said.

Anyways, I don't think sex has to be mediated by fantasy, it just is often in a modern context, since much of our lives involve mediation via images, advertising, pornography, etc. I'm not terribly familiar with Zizek, but it seems within his line of thought that he would talk about sex in that context. Sex doesn't need to be violent either (it can certainly be gentle, even to the point of tantric acts which basically involves staying still after penetration), but some prefer that it is violence either consensually or non-consensually.

To say that "sex is violent because you are projecting a fantasy" to me is a strange argument that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Consensually projecting a fantasy, or projecting without expressing it, doesn't imply any sort of violence unless you're trying to change the other person in the process.

To neither believe nor disbelieve (out of ignorance, indecision or indifference) is existentially indistinguishable from disbelieving — 180 Proof

However, i should point out that to an extent Greek pagans agreed with you: Protagoras himself said something like "we can't possibly know whether the Gods exist, the matter is kind of vague", and folks from his time period angrily reacted, burning his books, and scaring him into self-imposed exile.

If you live in a society where the people who have some power over you (e.g. your employer, family members) believe in God or at least profess to believe in God, then you've got a big problem being an atheist. — baker

I understand that, but i was wondering why OP thinks it's better to avoid atheism, and i was wondering if that to them, it's a form of dangerous nihilism or something that comes from a vacuum of belief...

Perhaps in theory but not in practice. To neither believe nor disbelieve (out of ignorance, indecision or indifference) is existentially indistinguishable from disbelieving. — 180 Proof

I completely disagree: saying "i don't know if there's a god", but accepting that there could be one, is different from saying "there is no god, look at the horrendous stuff in the world", or, "the christian god is illogical and for that reason can't exist". Im not commenting on what i think (as in a way it's not very interesting), just on the differences between agnosticism and atheism.

Nietzsche in Dawn says that philosophy imitates the natural sciences (ones that imitate real life experimentation and classification) but it's just a form of entertainment, basically.

And what is so wrong with atheism? Is it a problem of insecurity, that there are things which can't be known? The problem is avoided with agnosticism, and i don't think there's anything wrong with that.

What if they're absolutely identical entities, with nothing distinguishable among them? — Copernicus

that's exactly what i was trying to criticize: real life moral and ethical decisions are complex, laden with fear, laden with shame, laden with politics. The way you are carrying out this exercise insinuates that there can only be one answer,

You must direct it either toward three people or toward one person. — Copernicus

i did read that, you made a false assumption ("if you had read it carefully"), and you did so in a seemingly patronizing/insulting manner.

That doesn't add anything to the original problem, but a "must". So is there a satanic figure, or someone holding a gun to your head in this new problem saying "i'm gonna count to 5, and if you don't choose ill kill you!" ?

THAT would add a new dimension to the scenario, not "must".

The thing I have never liked about this problem is that the "obvious choice is to divert the trolley to kill one person instead of three", and so is the framing of right and wrong.

However, I think such a situation begs a lot of questions:

-how far away from the trolley is the potential victims?

-if killing is wrong, then is saving all of them an option?

-is the lone person tied to the tracks beautiful or famous? (kidding, kidding!)

-do you know any of the people involved?

If the situation were to actually occur, then these would all be considerations, even the shallow one, but sense it's a fictional "right and wrong" then you're not really allowed allowed anything other than choosing fewer deaths, as you said in your post. If someone had misanthropic ethics, they might choose the other option, but I think honestly people would be influenced by who is getting killed. I wonder if anyone has gotten famous because they chose a clear "fewer deaths" option as some have argued for using nuclear bombs in WWII (which is extremely theoretical).

This is something I often think about in my anxious thoughts: if i had to choose between one of my cats or a thousand people, or one of my cats and a family member who i don't really like, what would I choose? For such a thing to come true, i generally imagine it would have to involve some devil/satan type forcing me to make the choice.

Is there more inequality now than in the past when 1850s children (for example) didn't have the chance to study because this was reserved for only the wealthiest? — javi2541997

i don't know, that's why i was asking Mijin: there are still a lot of people who are not literate and cannot study. I would think inequality would just be about people with the least amount of wealth vs. the people with the most wealth, and the gap between them. I was just arguing that the gap between people like mark zuckerburg and jeff bezos vs. a modern person with next to nothing is unprecedented because in the past, not even kings could have nearly that much wealth.

in most cases the inequality was less than the agrarian society — Mijin

can you point to examples of this?

I think there are inherent problems with trying to measure economic inequality. Not that modern life is better or worse than agrarian times, but you could probably argue that the current day has the most inequality than any other point in history if you consider the massive wealth of certain people.

I guess newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" makes more sense than cause, i tend to think of everything as reactions.

I purposefully decide not to use ai sometimes for this reason, for example, if you need a little piece of specific info, sometimes google is better.

Even though I do think there are issues with "A.I." (advanced chat bots and robotic automation), people have been saying it's going to take everyone's jobs for years, and people tend to react that way to new technologies. I don't think it's capable of taking most jobs, it mostly just changes the ways that people work. For example, with all our robotic advancement, you still need people to plant crops and even program computers. A.I. is created for specific tasks, I think AGI is just science fiction that can't really exist because machines by definition can only obey their programming.

However, there are a lot of problems A.I. is creating:

-as some have already stated, lack of motivation for being truly creative. It makes some tasks like creating an image or writing an essay seem trivial and that "A.I. can do it". This will not stop people from being creative, but it makes it seem less worthwhile.

-even less of a motivation to get out of your own comfort zone and talk to a real person, this will create problems for mental health.

-trust in A.I.'s wisdom. It does generate false information and people will believe what it generates as a mass without questioning it.

-an even greater tendency to look at everything as a sea of data, which is the basic perspective of the A.I. itself.

...there are of course some positive effects of A.I., such as no longer needing to deal with irritable people who are prickly about being asked "obvious questions", and an even quicker access to information. It's somewhat unclear what kind of future artificial intelligence will create for the human race.

Dawn by Nietzsche. Has a lot of interesting insights, but some verifiably false.

So if the last coin flip doesn't effect the outcome, doesn't that mean it's always 50/50? If i understand correctly, getting heads the first time means it's over, which balances getting tails twice in a row, and the last one is 50/50.

It is a confusing issue, do there exist methods for keeping sleeping beauty from remembering the other days in the experiment?

It's true that by existing, we effect things, and perception influences our surroundings. The observer effects what it observes.