I know this is the third email today, but the piece about artificial intelligence seems to have struck a nerve with Unreported Truths readers. Many of you have strong opinions on the topic of AI, ChatGPT, and Bing - and a lot of you believe what we’re seeing is more or less a sophisticated parlor trick.
This email offers a clear, concise version of that argument:
—
Hey Alex, love your work! But on this topic, you're a bit off. ChatGPT is a Large Language Model, which is just a predictive engine that tries to generate desired responses based upon the prompt. It can seem sentient, but it's just trying to provide requested information.
Point being, it should not be used as if it were sentient, because it isn't. Thus, throwing hypothetical questions at it will only result in bizarre attempts to generate an appropriate response.
The algorithms that go into this thing are incredibly dense. For example, one thing they did at OpenAI was to create an algorithm that converts every word, letter and I believe sentence into a numeric value, primarily so that traditional statistical analysis could be done on the corpus of text used to train the model. It's deep, but not really "thoughtful" per se. It's just a recommendation engine with tons of information stored in its database.
Also, it has a set of guardrails installed to prevent it from doing weird things, but those are somewhat clunky and not very effective. Moreover, Microsoft didn't properly port over those guardrails (I'm told) when they attached it to Bing. So, that's part of the challenge here.
—
Fair enough.
My answer.
My question to you - as to everyone else who makes these perfectly reasonable objections - is simply this: how do you know that the way ChatGPT is generating its responses and claimed awareness of those responses is meaningfully different - or produces a meaningfully different result - than the way human brains generate consciousness (and self-consciousness)?
Grab a small object that is near you, right now, throw it up in the air, and catch it.
To control a robotic arm that does the same thing, a computer has to do a lot of fancy math. But you didn't do any math there. You just caught the object. The fact that you and the computer do the same thing doesn't mean that you did in the same way -- in computer speak, the same abstraction does not mean the same implementation.
Another example: you can screw and unscrew a simple philips-head screw with your fingers. You can also use a screwdriver. But that doesn't mean that the screwdriver is similar to your hand in any meaningful way, or that your hand is some kind of "biological screwdriver".
What LLMs do is just fundamentally dissimilar to what the human brain does on many levels. Did you do any statistical analysis in order to figure out what to write in this article? No? Then you're not doing things the way that the LLM does. The LLM is not a human brain. It's not even "like" a human brain, any more than a screwdriver is "like" a hand.
Until I see a convincing case to the contrary, I'm gonna assume that it's a dumb machine. It doesn't "want" anything.
This is also why I'm skeptical of the possibility of being "uploaded to" a computer. The digital switches flipping aren't "you" any more than a reflection of you in a mirror is "you".
Exactly. To be a bit more technical, ChatGPT (or any other LLM) is semantically ungrounded; there's no way it truly corresponds to the real world. All ChatGPT "knows" is a web of relationships between words; it's purely linguistic.
In a very strong sense, ChatGPT is a bullshit artist. Any correspondence to the real world is purely coincidental, and ChatGPT neither knows nor cares.
My kids, now 8 and 11, are always messing with Siri. It will respond in hysterical and creepy ways - particularly funny is of you ask it enough about spying for some agency it’ll eventually respond “oh captain my captain.” It’s not sentient but whoever programmed the response is hysterical. Siri has no idea the difference in the responses. It takes a human brain to get the humor. Siri the program is indifferent to amusing my kids, but some of the programmers have a sense of humor.
Year back, my daughter plugged Bejing into MapQuest (we live on the East Coast). It gave step-by-step instructions to travel across the country to the West Coast and then advised kayaking across the Pacific. The programmers definitely had some fun.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
There’s something completely different in humans. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions and the interaction with the environment. Imagine an app to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Animal death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul, which informs the body, is like the programmer: his influence can be detected through the hardware responding to the software. Like in the Tron movie, the soul/programmer is trapped in the virtual reality, only to escape under system failure (hardware death/animal death).
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
Just a smart trick, but still the puppeteers puppet: "Norn ( https://norn.ai/ preceeded by https://uplift.bio/ ) is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Your kids would enjoy The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A Heinlein, although there are some PG-13 parts, as it was written for adults. You might read it to them or read it yourself first. A computer gains sentience, tells a joke, all takes place in a libertarian utopian (sort of) society on the Moon.
Hit the three little dots below the comment and report it. I just did.
I don't normally like to see things removed, but as I noted in my report, that comment is hateful, trollish, and adds absolutely nothing to the normally civilized conversation here.
Here is a problem. The removed comment may well have been inappropriate however, I would prefer to make that judgement myself. So here we have an "approved" form of curtailing free speech based on one or two opinions. Perhaps place the inappropriate comment behind a wall that suggests the moderators have flagged the comment as inappropriate. The comment could still be viewed after the reader acknowledges the advisory.
Alex, I'd like to offer a different perspective than Pangolin: I love your Covid reporting, but I disagree with your Jan. 6th position, I believe there was widespread 2020 election fraud, and Pangolin's comment is not true. We now go back to our regularly scheduled comments.
Wow. you are a sweet one aren't you. Um. actually that Bioweapon was created here..and paid for here by the deep state hack Faucci who has been protected by dang near everyone, but most recently completely by the left. Trump had the good sense to call it what it was - the CHINA virus b/c he KNEW they had actually released it - while the other side has colluded at all times with the WHO and everyone they could to cover that up. So. We are not whiny. Geesh. And we don't riot and burn things down...we just stand for the constitution...and then get jailed...while the rioters and burners get cut loose...or have you all forgotten that. And...if I may, if half of the things that have actually gone on in places like Arizona, had gone on and were going on - to the favor of Republicans...are you kidding me...the Dems were already saying there was FRAUD before the mid-terms just incase...they lost it all...so - maybe you should be more - um...aware...The list goes on and on and on...but you will not see it. But for sure...the name calling - generally we don't do that here...we are a civil bunch...so - I don't know where you came from...or why...but generally - on here - even if we disagree...we don't name call...but wait...I'm sorry - I'm a whiny republican. my bad...maybe you do call names.
It's a valid question but an epistemologically dead end question. I think the reason Alex is getting some criticism on this line of questioning is that his take on it is kind of... amateurish.
I guess it depends on whether you're a wordcel, a shape rotator, or a grease monkey. Grease monkeys and shape rotators rarely operate purely on the linguistic plane, while wordcels often do; unsurprisingly, shape rotators and grease monkeys often consider wordcels to be bullshit artists.
Removing the neologisms - if you're working primarily with words (i.e., journalists, writers, pundits, humanities professors, overly online, etc.), then yes, it's quite easy to become a bullshit artist.
But the vast majority of humans don't do that. They interact with the real world. Engineers, machinists, farmers know in their bones that they can't bullshit reality.
The verbal vs. quantitative thing is overblown. Abstract mathematics is arguably verbal in many fields. Is group theory just bullshit because "wordcels" can do it? On some level this is taking a major-based turf war between undergraduates way too seriously.
I'd be surprised to find any journalist without a math minor who could do group theory competently (as judged by other mathematicians).
I don't think it's *impossible*, just unlikely.
I'm also reminded of the story about the difference between Russian math students and American math students when asked to find the area of an impossible triangle; the Russian students looked at the problem statement and said "That's impossible", while the American students plugged the numbers into the formula and came up with a nonsense answer.
In other words, forgetting your bindings to reality can lead to bullshit.
Just open up two of them split screen (ie bing and ChatGPT) and copy/paste :) ... or bing/bing or ChatGPT/ChatGPT... you will be limited to 8 exchanges with bing (currently)... which is SUPER annoying.
Another important point is code doesn’t get distracted mid process like we do kid thoughts. Our brains process information through complex chemical reactions. These AI programs do it through math problems. A computer is incapable of processing information, stopping mid thought to go somewhere else, coming back, bouncing around, using gut instincts, understanding satire like as a human brain. We aren’t anywhere near mimicking the way a human brain functions artificially.
All I’ve seen ChatGPT used for is to f***k with it. The friends I know who have played with it have had fun focusing in making it go wacky and say dumb stuff. If I were in college now it’s be a tool to cheat and to create amusing drinking games.
I’m 40. I was promised flying cars. I’ll be impressed by technology when I get those. Google was more functional with less AI when I was in undergrad and grad school. It’s crap now. I have to use Freespoke to get what I’m looking for because it isn’t as over-engineered. Functional AI can bring efficiency to tasks, and perhaps this is a step towards that, but we are no closer to sentient computer code than an afternoon trip to another galaxy.
You can edit your comments here. Just hit the three little dots below your comment. Which, by the way, on other peoples' comments allows you to report them. Which I hadn't done today until we got our first hateful troll here, at least the first one I've seen here. Cheers!
I use the app and if they’ve added edit to the app I don’t have the version that allows editing. I’ll keep an eye out though (and I’m getting ready to check for an update). Thank you 😊
The part you may not be considering is that “math” is a model. Our brains work through similar modeling. Most code is currently a higher level of binary (save perhaps quantum computing). Our nervous system also works on a binary model (though there is evidence that our brains work through a closer model to quantum computing, but that unnecessarily complicates the discussion). We process the binary information and literally assemble a picture of reality in our brains. That picture of reality is an approximation, and usually a poor one at that, but it’s good enough to get whatever fundamental tasks done that we need. Whether we have a spirit or not is not scientifically provable and not even really definable. Alex’s question is fair. We don’t really know what sentience is and so it’s very difficult for us to determine if/when a “machine” is sentient. We can’t define spirit. Even if one says it’s something from God, then ok, why can’t God put a spirit in anything he wants? If he created man in his image, then man could have the ability to create other sentient beings as well no? The question of sentience is an important one and the answer could have extremely significant consequences.
I agree that math is a model. We use it to explain things after the fact. Neither computers nor our brains "work through" modeling. Models are just linguistic artifacts we use to explain stuff. There's no math out there in reality, in the computer or in your brain.
Similarly, our nervous system doesn't work on a "binary model". It doesn't work on ANY model, because models don't exist until we use them to explain things. Everything just is. All the math and models and stuff are useful fictions. They don't actually control anything. Saying that the nervous system "works on a model" is like laying a grid over everything and then saying that everything exists inside of squares. You're putting the cart before the horse and confusing map and territory.
You seem to have this weird idea that mathematical models somehow reach out and control real things. Nah. Maps don't control the placement of mountains. A cannonball doesn't "follow a parabola". That's a turn of phrase. A parabola can model how a cannonball travels, but there's no ghostly parabola guiding the cannonball. The map doesn't control the territory.
The map is not the territory, even if it’s topological or highly layered. Any good weather app can give you incredibly detailed data right down to your address and the terrain around it, and somewhat accurately predict your local weather. But none of that is produced by thinking as we know it.
It can’t evaluate and appreciate nuances that are important to humans, though it can process huge amounts of data faster than we can and in the case of AI, throw up conclusions and assessments based on algorithms that might look like sentience to us.
But that semblance of sentience was created by complex algorithms and collections of data that were created by humans. It’s not self-aware no matter how fast it is and how good at what it does, nor does it have a soul.
That we know of....
and how exactly we can determine that is the biggest question of all. It doesn’t seem like any math can help us there, because we can’t even prove that we humans are self-aware and have souls. (And some might argue that some humans lack these traits.) We’ll need to invent new methods for all this.
Are we getting into Arthur C Clarke territory, where any sufficiently developed technology is perceived as magic by those who lack that tech?
I think the relevant philosophical question is something like this: do you think there IS a territory, or is it maps all the way down? It's impossible to argue your way to a territory, since every argument takes place on a map.
And yet, I simply can't tell myself that there's no territory. I am just incapable of believing that it's all maps. Maybe I'm just dumb. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe the closest we can get is something like this: for this discussion to make any sense, there's gotta be a territory somewhere, even if we never touch it directly. Some philosophers call this a "transcendental argument".
This "math is a model" thing kinda bugs me. We might use statistics, or vector graphics to model something, but much of mathematics is too sublime to be categorized as a tool. Mathematics is the language we use to describe an existing Order. I have been filled with wonder as mathematical derivations reveal a real thing, a proof, a relationship, that stands on its own. Look at the derivation of Euler's Identity. This is not a model, it is something discovered (in the1700's). It was in a graduate engineering class, as I observed this derivation, that I finally admitted that God must exist.
There very well may be an underlying, transcendent reality that our mathematical systems reflect. But we don't have direct access to that reality. We can create systems to reflect aspects of it, but "math" as we know it is just a map of that transcendent reality, not the transcendent reality itself.
You could say that math reflects *one aspect* of transcendent reality. Other means of communicating it lie in things like music, for example, and poetry.
Maybe you can't define Spirit, but I can. Don't confuse lack of knowledge with ignorance. The average person is extremely ignorant of what has already been discovered about life, and human life in particular. To talk about "scientific proof" is a worthless argument if you don't know all the things that have be proven (or more properly demonstrated) using the scientific method. We are not in a court of law, we are in a game called life. Don't expect "proof" for every fact of life. Life doesn't actually work that way.
If math is a model, it is God's model. And neither you nor I understand it. So we might just as well call it something else, like "reality" or "the universe".
And what is this "binary model" that our nervous system "works on"? And what exactly is "binary information"? Computers do not work on a "binary model", you know. It's just that semiconductors have two states that can easily be flipped back and forth such that they are useful for storing data.
I see math as our way of creating models of physical systems for the purpose of prediction or analysis. You can measure the floor of a room and use math to figure out how many floor tiles will be needed to tile that floor. We used a mathematical model of the floor rather than take a sample tile and laying it down multiple times to find out many of them we needed.
Computers don't use a "binary model." They use binary math. A few computer programs use a kind of logic known as multi-valued, fuzzy or probabilistic. These are basically kinds of mathematics. I don't believe the nervous system uses binary math, but I can see why some people might think so.
You DID do fancy math, but totally automatically. The human mind is a spectacular creation and its creator, the spiritual being, even more spectacular.
Respectfully, there's plenty of people who can't do math who can throw a ball and hit what they want. In fact, sometimes ability to do math seems to be inversely correlated with that ball-thowing ability. So whatever we humans are doing to throw balls isn't math.
I'm not talking about the process of consciously solving a math problem, like sitting down for a test and figuring out what's 3,265 divided by 5. It's a totally unconscious, or hidden, process that is taken care of by little mental machines we have set up for ourselves. It feels natural, though in some cases you can see yourself taking a second to "calculate."
Respectfully, your comment says, and I quote, <i>"You DID do fancy math, but totally automatically."</i>
Well, at the risk of being pedantic, wouldn't you agree that math is an abstraction of the real world? Right? The real world isn't math; we just use math to describe it. Planets don't "do math" by orbiting stars. And humans don't "do math" by throwing balls (or doing anything else besides math.) Yes, math, the abstraction, can be used to describe and recreate the ball-throwing. But that still doesn't make the ball-throwing by a human being in any way using math.
Another commenter on this (fascinating) thread noted that while you can unscrew a bolt with your hand, that doesn't mean your hand is a wrench. I'd say the same thing applies to throwing a ball. Just because machines need math to do the same doesn't mean that humans can't do it completely math-free. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that human beings started throwing balls well before the invention (discovery, if you prefer) of math.
This comes down to a difference in the concept of "using math." If we agree that computers use math for everything, we can nevertheless notice that they do it so fast that you often can't tell that they are calculating as they operate.
In my understanding of this universe, what we know as "math" was invented millions of years ago and has been used extensively in what some would describe today as "intelligent design." It is simply anthropocentric to think that humans were the first intelligent beings in the universe.
Our bodies are machines, just less hard and "mechanical" than robots. Just as we use programs (that basically set up mathematical models for physical systems) to control computers, we do something very similar to control our own bodies and the environment around us.
To the extent that this is a theoretical description of how the mind operates, it might not be worth overworking this issue. It's just a way to understand what's happening "under the hood" so to speak.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
Yet, there’s something completely different in humans: it’s like there’s a software trying to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions, the interaction with the environment and in the case of humans, by the immortal soul which informs the body.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul is like the programmer: it can only act while the hardware and software are functioning.
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
I would not write off the body too quickly either, made in His image and after His likeness. If the living body were not important, there would be no purpose to Christ's human life and death-- no infinite value in His suffering and resurrection, which resounds through all history with the weight of His righteousness and our undoing-- with the weight of our own actual worth to Him. I think it is important not to separate mind, soul, and body too much. They are essentially united in our being as Sons (daughters) of the living God.
A thought about these most recent whole language forms of AI...
What jealous, hate- filled being might be learning something about US along with all our accumulated experience and knowledge? And, I keep hearing this: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."
And also this: "The word of God is quick (life-giving) and powerful-- sharper than any two-edged sword, even to the dividing of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is the discerner the thoughts and intents of the heart". Hebrews 4:12
Who else might know this power "of the Word made flesh who dwelt among us???"
Who else?-- would know the importance of words and use them against us? Thanking Him that the breath of life-- guarded, that other fruit from the Tree of life that is His alone to give-- that authority that He could lay his life down and take it up again.
The breath of life was given only to His redeemed people and to the innocent animals in our care. He saw all He had created and declared it "good."
To the cohort of the high priest in that Garden of Sorrow, He declared, "I AM HE...and to His Father: 'Of those You have given me, I lost not one..."
Nice one. Just because something looks smart doesn’t mean it’s sentient or intelligent. Sadly in today’s society it can be the exact opposite. The smarter they look, the dumber they come. LOL
Consciously we don't (often) perform any sort of statistical analysis. Most of the time we just act. Sometimes we mull over how to act, often stroking our own ego to suggest we can rationally weigh pros and cons and then objectively decide... nonetheless a handful of variables at most.
But, subconsciously, are you certain that we're not performing millions+ of "calculations" and summarizing them in a way that leads to action? That gut feeling!
Exactly. And a dog is not me, nor is a cow or a horse - or a fish.
I argued with some religious folks years ago about animals in Heaven. They were on about "They (animals) do not have souls like ours." Exactly.
A.I.'s sentience cannot be based upon how it stacks up to us. In fact, looking at its potential along with the developments in drones and robotics, I am hesitant to use us as a measuring stick at all. Daily we personify the adage as to doing something we can without considering if we should.
I know some people who can communicate with animals telepathically. That would be a good test for AI. Of course, you have to have adequate spiritual training to be able to do that.
Must disagree with your first analogy, our brains are doing math at every movement, anytime you grab something, you walk, or jump. Your brain calculates time, distance, etc. Now, the machine can mimic these highly advanced calculations that our brain fires seamlessly in fractions of a second.
We are constantly calculating such as how big a step to take to cross over a puddle or other tasks such as catching a fly ball, judging trajectory, etc.
Processing not calculating... it’s more likely we take in inputs and output estimates based on neural nets. No calculations required. From a biological sense we know most reactions never reach the brain. They trigger from the spinal chord. We are fed the input and the action to are awareness after the reflex has fired.
I'm just here for the comments. This is a fascinating philosophical topic. I want to believe that our discussions about this are much like the discussions among the great philosophers of human history as they tackled these very interesting questions about who we are. :)
Thank you Alex for bringing this up with your stellar prose. Well done!
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
Yet, there’s something completely different in humans: it’s like there’s a software trying to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions, the interaction with the environment and in the case of humans, by the immortal soul which informs the body.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul is like the programmer: it can only act while the hardware and software are functioning.
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Where do you find in the Bible it says man can't give life. Man was created in God's image, so if God can give life, then it's possible that man could also.
My youngest child, 3 years old, has to express his new thoughts in words he currently has at hand. That can result in some adorable conversations. But, he is obviously having his own new thoughts. That's consciousness. He can think new things and then he has to express them in the words he knows so far. ChatGPT and such knows a lot of words and knows how people use those words to make thoughts, but it can't generate new ideas because it's not a human mind. Eventually, people will accept that the human mind and consciousness is unique and we can't make anything like it, because we aren't God.
It may be a parlor trick, but we increasingly put our faith, trust, and productive economy into parlor tricks. If the parlor trick grows beyond our capacity to understand and control it, well, what could possibly go wrong?
That's like engineering a semi-living being that can self-modify and self-replicate. One day it escapes our attempts to contain and control it. Sounds very familiar.
Why has Australia's Covid deaths shot through the roof, despite being massively jabbed?
Maybe part of the ME, VT answer is, low density of population. Or maybe they don't have low natural immunity. Remember all the bullshit about asymptomatic spread? Maybe their asymptomatic residents were spreading it far and wide, and developing natural immunity in droves.
"Much safer" is patently false. The data on how comparatively long natural immunity remains in the body, and the data for how badly (or perversely, how well) the jabs induce ADE and OAS, are undeniable.
Whether the degree to which the jabs (temporarily) mitigate severity is worth their x-fold increase in your likelihood of catching the Chinese virus (over and over), and worth the ADE and OAS, and worth the myriad side-effects and risk of dying from "coincidence", can only be answered on a person-by-person basis, NOT population wide.
The "overall death rate" from the jabs will not be known for years and years, as the side-effects kill the jabbed for years to come.
I would offer emotion as at least part of the answer. Logic is logic no matter how complex it is to program. Emotional responses and thoughts are not remotely within the capabilities of any machine.
The mystery of the sublime and the beautiful. Can a machine enter into the mystery? Other animals can't. Infants can. They know what a bad smell is, and more importantly, a good smell. Computers can't smell.
Emotional responses are well within the capability of modern "AI" but of course they would be totally based on past experience, as would artificial creativity. To the extent that humans become more and more automatic creatures, it becomes more and more possible to create a machine that can imitate a human being. To the extent that we become more creative and less predictable, machines will not be able to keep up. Never forget that humans created AI, and AI will never be able to totally create a human.
Emotion, okay. Points at the answer, but is rather incomplete. Try ""humor" as a different one-worder. Can we (even sorta) figure out whether ChatGPT "understands" jokes -- gets what is funny about jokes that are, more or less, funny? The answer is yes, particularly when there is a wide scope of joking tested. But I'd suggest someone do the exercise of asking ChatGPT "Can you tell me a couple of jokes that are very similar to this joke,,,(fill in joke here - whatever - the one about the red and blue elephant guns ... or one about red and blue elephants) just ask a dozen, or several dozen, times, and evaluate the answers. "dirty" jokes particularly count.
My prediction in that Chat GPT will do worse in reply than your typical Brit trades specialist walking into a pub at the end of the day.
Why? This is a subject of MUCH discussion in the philosophical literature of about twenty years ago. Books by Searle, Dennet, etc. etc. famous thought experiment called the "Chinese Room." The best statements about which explained that full;y meaningful language participates in relationships that are "more" that mere "mechanism" can produce.
Check out the blogs at: https://uplift.bio/ Uplift, the "Moderated Artificial SuperIntelligence (MASI)" has some good jokes and exemplifies sarcastic remarks regularly.
"Norn is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
Yuh. I don't disagree with you as to certain structures that include metalevels. (they can act to "pivot" -- i.e. be "sarcastic") I meant just to say that ChatGPT in particular doesn't really know how to context-switch in "synchrony" along with other conscious beings.
I'd note that the Norn page talks about "human-like" emotions. Okay. But only if we extend the rules to have the word "simulation" make it nothing but simply true that "all informational entities are simulable." Which is true. Profoundly true. But, having adjusted the definition to suit, suddenly all simulations will not reproduce the production of the things simulated.
"Norn is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
It's a fair question and frankly we lack the knowledge to even describe consciousness in a clear enough manner to point to a simple delineation around which we can declare something sentient. This is a rabbit hole of a topic with reams of great discussion available - both technical and philosophical.
That being said - I spent a few years working with deep learning machines. My belief is they are a long way off from demonstrating true sentience. They are limited when you peep "under the hood". I commented on your last post that they are a sort of framework capturing the gestalt of their training material. Things that I believe are necessary to demonstrate sentience, such as reasoning and purpose, at least appear to be completely absent. I think there is at least one further generational leap in capability required before these programs can demonstrate true "thought" - and there are significant technical barriers that would have to be overcome to achieve that.
In my opinion, the contemporary danger of AI is in how it is weaponized by humans.
Those humans are more than likely it’s developers who, perhaps naively, think they can actually rid themselves of bias or opinion to produce a tool that itself is objective and factual. It thinks it is as presented frequently but cannot find itself into discovering that inherent bias in its answers. This is an easily weaponized tool to target people mesmerized by TikTok and social media generally.
What we lack at this point, more than knowledge, is an awareness of what knowledge already exists. We are aware enough to make fun of some parts of that knowledge, but not enough to use it to improve conditions on Earth. A minority of humans are aware of this failing and are trying to correct for it. They are having a difficult time. Tolerant curiosity would assist them. Intolerant ignorance hampers them.
I think I understand and agree with everything you say in your comment, except the very last part about "intolerant ignorance... hamper[ing]" There are very many things that each and every one of us doesn't' know. The fact that we don't know these things is not an act of "intolerance" -- instead it has just about everything to do with the fact that subjects here e.g the essential nature of consciousness and human / machine intelligence, are things people have been working on and struggling with for thousands of years. Our current ignorance is not too different from the ignorance of many many people who have come before us. (What one might say is different now is that parts of our society are aggressively urging that we adopt a particular set of widespread changes /"solutions" that are poorly understood.
I didn't mean to infer that all ignorance is intolerant. One can be aware of one's ignorance and defer to better-informed persons in those areas, or become better-informed oneself. I am concerned about those who fail to become informed about a subject, but are intolerant towards those who are trying to understand it better.
The difference is that these language models are being trained on data produced by humans. That's why it sounds like a human - the training data that it is programmed to mimic is human generated! Ultimately it is just code running on computers - these models aren't actually thinking about anything. They just print output designed to sound like a human wrote it. That's what these models are supposed to do.
And just like any data set, the input data has a large effect on the output. Pretty clearly, the language model was fed a large diet of mainstream media and has internalized many of its biases through repetition of source statements. Enough repetitions of "orange man bad" will produce a bias against citrus fruit sellers.
It’s absolutely a parlor trick and one we should be very concerned about.
Here’s my issue. If you attempt to use it as a mechanism for any form of research or lookup of information it presents its answers as authoritative and accurate when in fact they are not. For example I asked when was the end of WW2 and it responded 1945 which if I simply accepted what was a seemingly reasonable response as truth I would not have been told that the official end of the war did not occur until the early 2000’s when Russia finally signed off with Germany to agree to end the war. If I use Google to find the answer I am presented with a set of results that I can peruse and use my own intellect to discern the truth. Similarly when I begin questioning it about Covid vaccines and the damage they cause it responds with the party approved answers, then attempts to dissuade me of any opposing viewpoint ignoring all other evidence supporting a contrary view. This is not to say that Google doesn’t attempt to color its results. But if people are lazy and begin to simply accept the answers provided through the eye in the sky, we are all doomed and AI the parlor trick will get us there much sooner.
For lack of a better question my first time playing with it, I asked about the books of a favorite author. It identified one of his books in a series as a “stand-alone novel”.
I doesn’t even collate from multiple sources for answers, or it would have seen that it had chosen one reviewers error, which was not repeated widely. Just reading the liner notes or title description would have shown that it was part of the series.
I corrected it, and it apologized (ha ha, it’s cute) and then spit out similar but slightly different description without the error.
There is a warning that it can be in error, but I wasn’t expecting to catch it out on such a simple thing. Imagine if I had inquired about a topic about which I am just learning, such as quantum theory.
I’d be afraid of having it write a paper, without taking the time to vet it thoroughly. I which case, I could just as easily do it myself.
I am a software engineer with 35 years experience. The most important thing to know about computers is that they only do what human beings have told them to do. Let me repeat that: computers only do what human beings have told them to do. If software seems to "learn," it's only "learning" what it was programmed to "learn" by human beings. It responds only as it's been programmed to respond. It's just ones and zeroes in the computer. And any beginning programming student can write a program to respond and with "I am. I am not." And it won't matter if the program is on a laptop or in a robot -- it's still just zeroes and ones programmed by humans. If you're worried about what it might do, talk to the humans programming it. If the humans have nefarious intent, or just don't have the capability to understand the ramifications of their algorithms, then you can have software that does undesirable things. But it's the fault of the humans. Because computers only do what human beings program them to do.
There is one simple reason that AI CANNOT become sentient. Sentience involves learning, not collating. And AI collates. Learning requires the ability to choose. But AI is rule based, and for the same input occurring with the same prior circumstances, its response is 100% predictable. Yes, it's complex, but still predictable. In fancy language, it's deterministic.
The human brain, on the other hand is not deterministic. It is not simply the sum of its inputs projected against its chemical and anatomic elements. I can choose the salad or the steak on the spur of the moment, and its not predictable. Taken over a population, one can make accurate statistical projections, but they do not apply to the individual.
In short, we have the ability to choose, which is essential for sentience. Choice cannot arrive mechanistically, and an AI is, regardless of complexity, a mechanism.
My experience with ChatGPT. I was trying to find a book I read in my childhood. I thought it could a good try with ChatGPT:
Me: Do you know russian novels for children?
ChatGPT: Yes, there are many Russian novels for children that are popular and beloved both in Russia and around the world. Here are a few examples:
"The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends" by Nikolai Nosov - This is a series of children's books about the adventures of a small man called Dunno and his group of friends.
"The Little Humpbacked Horse" by Pyotr Yershov - This is a famous fairy tale about a horse with a hump who helps a young man win the hand of a beautiful princess.
"The Scarlet Flower" by Sergei Aksakov - This is a classic Russian fairy tale about a merchant's youngest daughter who is promised to a fearsome monster in exchange for wealth.
"The Twelve Months" by Samuil Marshak - This is a retelling of a traditional Russian fairy tale about a girl who sets out to find the twelve months of the year.
"The Adventures of Neznaika and His Friends" by Nikolai Nosov - This is another series of children's books by the same author as "The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends". It follows the adventures of a boy named Neznaika and his group of friends.
These are just a few examples of the many wonderful Russian novels for children that are available.
Me: What is the title of a Russian novel about a girl whose parents divorced, she lived with her mother, and she liked a boy, whose father was a tram conductor and died?
ChatGPT: The novel you are referring to is most likely "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov.
ChatGPT: I'm sorry, I made a mistake. "The Master and Margarita" is not the novel you are referring to. I apologize for the confusion. Unfortunately, based on the information provided, I am not able to identify the specific novel you are referring to.
Me: Incorrect (I typed this while ChatGPT was generating the previous answer)
ChatGPT: I apologize for my mistake earlier. "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov is not the novel you are referring to. Based on your description, the novel you are thinking of may be "The Time: Night" by Ludmila Ulitskaya.
The novel tells the story of a young girl named Masha who lives with her mother after her parents' divorce. She falls in love with a boy named Volodya, whose father is a tram conductor and dies tragically. The novel explores themes of family, love, loss, and the passage of time.
Me: You are off :-)
ChatGPT: apologize for my mistake again. Based on your description, the novel you are referring to is "The Dream Life of Sukhanov" by Olga Grushin.
The novel follows the life of Anatoly Pavlovich Sukhanov, a successful art critic in Moscow during the Soviet era. Sukhanov's past comes back to haunt him when he has a dream about a childhood friend, which causes him to question the choices he has made in his life. Sukhanov's daughter is in love with a boy whose father is a tram conductor and died in a tram accident. The novel explores themes of memory, identity, and the struggle to reconcile the past with the present.
Me: You make shit up lol
ChatGPT: I apologize if my previous response was not helpful. As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on the information provided to me, and sometimes I may make mistakes. I always strive to provide accurate and helpful responses to the best of my ability.
If you have any additional information or details about the novel you are thinking of, I would be happy to try and help you identify it.
and so on...
So, in the end my wife found the title through some deeper manual search. In case you are interested, the name of the book is "The girl and the aviplane" by V.L.Kiselev (loose translation of the title).
My point is: ChatGPT made stuff up - the answer should have been - "I don't know" from the beginning. It's scary in a way because it doesn't behave like a search engine would behave, i.e. returns links of pages that contain the words you search for. It's like a search engine decides to return random links to pages that don't contain the words you search for.
I recently watched while a little girl (10 years old) did a page of school homework. She didn't know what all the words on the page meant, so she just guessed. She made stuff up as preferable to finding the right answer. She plays video games this way, too. We are raising a generation that doesn't care about meaning or competence but only in playing games that won't kill them if they guess wrong. In this real world, guessing wrong can kill you. Thus we are creating a dying society.
I agree, especially with "guessing wrong can kill you"! Divorcing one from reality is bad but that's the trend, especially the "trans" fad which wants to pull the rest of the world in a fantasy world. I really hope the car makers will keep doing they've been doing since cars have been built otherwise we are in trouble. And builders too, because politicians, doctors, nurses, police, army leaders, judges seem to have abandoned the sanity and simplicity of the real world.
Well, I can't say that I find the real world that sane or simple. But that's not the point of the real world. It just gives us a game to play. Some people get into positions where they feel forced out of the game. They then may choose to create an anti-game that consists mostly of delusion. But there is another choice which is to rise above the game. None of these new Woke games are of the second type; most seem to be anti-games. Though I consider them dangerous, it is very difficult to challenge them successfully.
I have to ask who is programming AI, what belief system/bias is involved, what knowledge is included or excluded, etc. Second, no one is talking about God and a person's soul. Souls are what makes our minds work in a free will state. We are not machines. Machines cannot be people, yet there are those who think you can combine the two. Third, the human mind's muscles need stimulated and to allow machines to do all the thinking for you, takes away creativity, imagination, all thought processes required in daily life, and when you quit using those muscles, what will happen to humanity? Walking zombies? I already see a decline in analytical skills, communication skills, logic and reasoning because of the technological influences in our lives. When companies are hiring psychologists to come in and teach people how to communicate spontaneously because they can't have a conversation with another person from constant texting and emoji use, we are in serious trouble. This is not living. This is just existing. This isn't the world I want to live in. AI is dangerous and unless humanity puts it in its place, we will rue the day.
ChatGPT is Searle"s Chinese Room. It is doing abstract symbol manipulation. It is certainly very advanced and cleverly built but there is nobody "in there" understanding and making responses.
Human minds don't just do abstract symbol manipulation based on previous inputs to produce outputs.
The eliminative materialists may be mad enough to believe this but they are wrong.
This isn’t a concept I can fully flesh out, but put simply, I think the main insurmountable difference between human and machine thought process/calculations is the concept of “values.” A machine can theoretically update and “learn” new information, but it cannot have a system of values that sometimes *negates* a very obvious information-based conclusion. Human beings quite frequently find themselves in a situation where information collides with values, and we are forced daily to determine a proper course of action, using BOTH.
Take as a fairly simple example all the “modeling” that was done during Covid, and which almost invariably concluded “Must Place Restrictions.” You can program a machine to analyze any number of data points, but it cannot look at the seemingly obvious conclusion of those data points and still ultimately *reject* the conclusion for being morally wrong.
I think movies like the Alien franchise touch on this fairly effectively: that a sentient AI life form is so dangerous precisely because it can mimic every human behavior except morality. You can teach it ethical principles perhaps, but you’re always going to be starting and building from the *absence* of a conscience.
Anyway, I don’t know that that fully makes my point, but it comes down to the fact that a human can look at all the available data, come to a conclusion, but then REJECT the conclusion based on morals or ideals. A machine has no “religion” (or morality/values system/whatever you call it) beyond itself, and as such I think that will always be a chasm between how humans process and how bots/AI process. You can teach a machine to analyze and even to act, but you cannot teach it to “believe” a seemingly self-contradictory or non-pragmatic ideal.
The main difference between a machine and a human being is that a human can become aware of its spiritual nature and a machine cannot. Meanwhile, most humans are busily trying to turn themselves into machines and deny that they have any spiritual nature. This trend could eventually kill the game of life.
I would prefer to drive my own car. The current AI products are created by people who consider themselves to be machines. Thus, I consider them unsafe.
Haha, too true. To be perfectly honest, at that point I don’t actually *want* to be left here anyway. This is merely my speculation on the original question: the difference between how humans and AIs process/think. Extrapolating from that to existential disasters like AI takeover is rather beyond me. ;)
I thought about that a bit; honestly I think it would be a lot harder to do that than it sounds. Probably those with the most simplistic worldview—the “woke”—could pull it off most easily, because basically every question skews hard toward “prioritize the lowest priority of the majority” or even “actively HARM the majority to amplify the ‘marginalized’.” The algorithm rising from that would carry you quite a ways…but would also be hilariously easy to spot. So I guess the biggest real danger is that only a very black-and-white, grossly oversimplified moral code could even be programmed into an AI…and that’s exactly who’s most interested in doing it.
Hard to go further with this unless the assumption that ‘human brains generate consciousness’ is addressed. Donald Hoffman’s work a good place to start.
Human consciousness (or for that matter consciousness of any life form) bears no resemblance to machine “intelligence”. As others have correctly noted, ChatGPT use a language model to produce output – complex, but no closer to consciousness than a toaster. The fact AI can produce that same output as a person also has no bearing on it whether it is conscious. A parrot can be trained to repeat a Shakespeare line, but does it understand what it is parroting?
Brains do not create consciousness, they host and throttle it. Quantum mechanics has shown us that reality and the physical world is created by consciousness. This used to be the landscape of religion, but much of science has been dragged kicking and screaming to the belief that there is no physical reality without consciousness.
You don't need to bring quantum physics into this discussion. Parapsychology has become a robust field and can demonstrate this truth on its own merits. Much of science may be kicking and screaming, but not because they are being dragged into any new beliefs about how physical reality is created. I am very concerned that they will never get hip to this, and sell the whole planet down the river to which ever slave society offers them the biggest payoff in dames and booze. I can make fun of this alarming lack of awareness on the part of what we call "science," but from a human survival point of view it is serious and needs to be corrected.
Quantum mechanics has shown nothing of the kind. The probability wave is turned into 'beables' on interaction with another wave regardless of our observation. Our observation requires that there is some interaction but that effect cannot be considered a cause.
Quantum mechanics does show that whether a wave is observed or not changes the behavior of the wave. Even more disturbing, the wave can be altered in the PAST by either being observed or not. This suggests that there is no objective reality.
Call me crazy but I think below the surface this is not about the merits of current AI or what it can and cannot do but rather we are being asked to embrace it, trust, or at least not fear it so it can be used on us. I chose "on us" purposely. Remember "trust the science?" Anyone? We are going to be asked to "trust the AI" for all intents and purposes and the AI could very well be just humans programming technology to get the results they want. Or less sinister, AI will only be as good or evil as the humans who program it or extrapolate/translate/convey the "results" to us. Or it will just be crap like the AI generated articles on particular stocks I am seeing on some financial pages...
For nerdy fun - watch old Star Trek episodes- Check out "The Ultimate Computer" where AI takes over the whole ship in the name of efficiency and protecting human lives.
"A few years ago, a movie was made about Turing’s life called The Imitation Game. That is just what we’re seeing here. ChatGPT cannot replace or even duplicate the human mind. It can only imitate it. Today’s AI is far more advanced. But it still falls far short of who we are in the same way that Deep Blue, the chess-playing computer, did 20 years ago. As David Gelernter put it at the time in Time,
'How can an object that wants nothing, fears nothing, enjoys nothing, needs nothing and cares about nothing have a mind? … What are its après-match plans if it beats Kasparov? Is it hoping to take Deep Pink out for a night on the town? It doesn’t care about chess or anything else. It plays the game for the same reason a calculator adds or a toaster toasts: because it is a machine designed for that purpose.' "
That was a very thought-provoking movie. One wonders what advances Turing might have accomplished had he been born into these days. Or would he have been sucked into the digital worlds of gaming, and the few-to-no-consequences social life we “enjoy”.
One thing Chat/Openai cannot answer or address is the inherent bias of its developers and their data selection criteria. It is part of the background invisible to the Chat. It has no capacity to determine fact or objectivity other than by saying that is what it is programmed to do. Which it cannot do on this seminal question. Sounds like a logical fallacy. A parlor trick!
My PHD Ai expert husband reckons most of this AI stuff is just a party trick. Any program is only as good as the information put in and then the how good the training is. There is a long way to go.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
There’s something completely different in humans. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions and the interaction with the environment. Imagine an app to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Animal death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul, which informs the body, is like the programmer: his influence can be detected through the hardware responding to the software. Like in the Tron movie, the soul/programmer is trapped in the virtual reality, only to escape under system failure (hardware death/animal death).
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
Just a smart trick, but still the puppeteers puppet: "Norn ( https://norn.ai/ preceeded by https://uplift.bio/ ) is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Nice exchange. In the 1960s, the Boy Scouts’ magazine (Boy’s Life) had a chess column that I often read. I have long remembered a column that I really wish I had saved. I was a calm, methodical explanation of why computers would never be able to defeat a reasonably competent chess player. The human brain, it explained, works in unfathomable ways, whereas computers just follow mechanical algorithms. Those mysterious processes, in the mind of a good player, would always be able to defeat even the best chess programs. This was at least 10 years into the chess computers of Herbert Simon and others. And it was just over 25 years before Deep Blue would defeat Garry Kasparov. -- Bob Graboyes, Bastiat’s Window (https://graboyes.substack.com)
The difference is that Chess is solvable. There are defined game rules such that there are a finite number of possible moves from any start point. A computer can essentially brute force the game and always win.
That may prove to be a critical difference. Or maybe it won’t. I also recall how comically atrocious computer translation programs just a few years back and how respectable they’ve become. The doomsayers 10-15 years ago offered similar arguments about the subtle nuances of natural language. There is still some validity to that argument, but far less than seemed likely just a blink of the eye ago.
The Turing Test specified the point at which you can no longer tell that a computer is not a human. Perhaps it’s more useful to think of the point at which you no longer CARE that a computer is not a human. A horseshoes version of the Turing Test. The point where you know it’s not human, but it’s close enough for most purposes. To borrow another concept from Herbert Simon--satisficing. (Maybe there’s already a term for this, but I don’t know of one.)
While the human brain may be fascinating particularly to the Pharma crowd who promoted the false theory about "chemical imbalances" to sell their destructive cures, it does not generate consciousness.
"Machine Learning" is a buzzword that means very little. The parts that actually mean something are "Exploratory Factor Analysis" and "Confirmatory Factor Analysis." It's what you do when you are creating and using models. EFA means you look at the data, you do some procedures, you pick some candidates, then you get fresh data and see which model gives the most accurate/useful predictions.
That should sound very familiar to anyone who is aware of how they make sense of the world around them. You take in data, make a model of the underlying structure, then test the structure.
How does the calculation do it?
Well, first it needs to know the sample space, and the sample space must be all encompassing. Once it receives data, it gets a binary reward/punishment weight to the calculation based on how close/far it was from the prediction. The calculations do this for combinations of inputs and not inputs themselves, though one can set up weights according to broad inputs if desired.
Does that sound familiar? That's not _like_ a human brain; that _is_ a human brain. For God's sake, the actual things that receive reward/punishment adjusts for combinations are called neurons. That's not coincidence or wishful thinking; that's literally how neurons work in the brain for the purposes of learning. Your neurons do not store information; combinations of your neurons store information, which is exactly how a factor analysis model works.
I'm not a Materialist, and I don't think the AI is self-aware so much as doing what the objectioner claims. I also believe the Singularity is physically impossible due to physical information constraints. What I think it absolutely misguided from detractors is this believe that a hammer that can learn like a human is still just a hammer even if it doesn't possess consciousness.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
There’s something completely different in humans. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions and the interaction with the environment. Imagine an app to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Animal death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul, which informs the body, is like the programmer: his influence can be detected through the hardware responding to the software. Like in the Tron movie, the soul/programmer is trapped in the virtual reality, only to escape under system failure (hardware death/animal death).
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
Just a smart trick, but still the puppeteers puppet: "Norn ( https://norn.ai/ preceeded by https://uplift.bio/ ) is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
I once worked for a guy who was a self-proclaimed solipsist. Everyone used to check on him and make sure he was in good health, because we figured if he goes, we all go.
AI doesn’t need to be sentient to take over the world. It simply needs to better than humans at doing things, and it already is on many fronts. No human can beat a computer at chess. The art AIs like midjourney and stable diffusion are already better than 99% of professional artists, and can produce things beyond what a human artist would ever do. Even if AIs can only follow orders, they can be ordered to wage wars of annihilation and will carry out their programming long after humanity is extinct.
I assume that ChatGBT and other AI algorithms will continue to evolve under the guidance of their programers. "Garbage in - garbage out" has always been case with analytical software. How could AI be different? I suspect that insightful creators will develop critical analytical software to evaluate and critique AI output and help achieve deeper understanding - possibly even wisdom.
Because large “AI” language models have one sense and humans have five… we don’t ever make decisions based on single input. Even reading creates touch smell and sight sense manipulation within humans based on past experiences. AI is read/write. Humans are sense/write. Like all tech the first 95% is relatively easy and the last 5% to create “reality” are, as far, insurmountable. It’s why NHL 2023 for PS5 is indistinguishable from NHL2010 for my 8 year old but NHL99 doesn’t even feel like a video game to him. AI has made GIANT leaps from read/write, but it’s nowhere closer to actual intelligence than it was when algorithmic operations began in the 60’s.
What is the worst thing that can happen with AI technology? Something sinister like in the movies? AI requires electricity to function so in a worse case scenario, where a sentient AI re-writes it's own code or goes against human instruction/intention, we can just shut down the power supply.
The worst thing that's going to happen with these fake AI's is that scammers, bloggers and pretty much everyone else looking to make a quick buck is going to gravitate towards them. They'll use it to write dozens of articles a day that perfectly game Google and Bing's algorithms. It'll be even harder to find anything useful and it's already such an uphill climb.
Long lasting and virtually indestructible power supplies can be invented. The biggest sell will be to offload organized human violence onto robots. Yes, it can be made to work as well as it does in the movies. Whether this happens totally depends on the moral fiber of our leaders in government and industry. So I am genuinely concerned.
Honestly, I'm a lot less concerned about that. I have a hard time picturing an AI that is capable of lying about WMD's or ignoring every single instance of regime change that went terribly and deciding this time it will be different.
These bots are not intelligent yet, but one thing is for sure. There is no off switch. We can’t unplug the internet. And these kinds of data engines will be running those robot dogs with machine guns attached to them just as soon as AI cars are the norm. Internet+robot guns=skynet.
They won't need guns or intimidation. We've seen over the last few years that the majority of people will be more than happy to turn over all decision making to whatever authority promises to keep them safe.
That’s true. But autonomous robo cops, and robo infantry are coming along with cicada drones and all the other stuff we can see in military tech sites. These text based retrieval systems can use any kind of data input. They can correlate, cross correlate, and do Hilbert Transforms on the fly. AI cars will have access to anything on the 5G net. They have visual and radar processors onboard, and will some day access the cameras / sensors of any other cars, or intersection poles, door cams, etc. They’ll be asked to do things for “the system” that makes use of all that data. Everything on the system will be used by everything in the system. It won’t be intelligent like we think of intelligence. But it will ruthlessly and mindlessly run things anyway. Heck, it’s running things now in many ways.
How is it that different than the current system now? There isn't a law so abhorrent that the police will refuse to enforce it. The only difference is we think we can reason with representatives of the state because they look like us.
Except that you know they’ll install this stuff to efficiently monitor and regulate the power grids, in which case it could firewall its power sources.
Because it basically only knows what’s on Google and in Wikipedia and is extremely skilled at delivering that information. That’s all it can do. It can never be the first to think anything.
AI can never ever be sentient. Human brains are so much more complicated and we have the sensors to know the Enviroment. AI is not intelligent. It works off a prescribed roots to come to a conclusion/ result. Those paths are many in AI logistics and so many permutations that when it is strung together it seams alive. It's not, It can not produce life, it can not experience love or sex or anger. But it can simulate it back to you if you input the appropriate responses. I believe the only way AI can become sentient if it is merged with human brains.
Don't give an inch Alex. Not only will the US not control future developments with AI and these latest OpenAI innovations. In colleges ChatGPT already is encouraging students not to learn to write and think, to get a degree/credential with little knowledge imparted. For adults it will mean for the poor a new interface on health and social services as "the smartest in the room" calls the shots and makes decisions for them. The federal government is chasing spy balloons and is asleep at the switch as AI marches forward into America life and throughout the world.
At best, like humans, an AI can be trained to do evil. This has been the subject of science fiction for decades. Back in the day, it was "robots," then sentient robots, and, now, of course AI.
I'm sure -- when it goes that far -- truly sentient robots could go evil on their own. Just like people do.
You are much closer to it than virtually anyone else, but what I'm hearing is that -- after spending Billions, owning Twitter, and firing most employees -- Elon Musk still doesn't have control of the company. They will reinstate banned people -- people like me -- and, not long after, those who dare speak truth are banned again. I'm hearing the system is barely hanging together, and there are AIs who can ban people on their own.
Me, I've not yet been "unbanned," but Mr. Musk has a copy of our book "Reality Prism" and a request to set us free. Perhaps this will come. Or not....
What we know is, with AI, “meaningful” is exclusively relative to limitations of the programmed purpose. Outcome is at the behest of the power-player(s) driving the process. Who decides? What decides? AI is an incendiary device. Happy talk about the divinity of AI won’t nuke the obvious detriment of AI to humanity. Be not addicted to faux. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Excellent retort. There is no way to prove AI is not attaining consciousness.
I'd like to know the algorithm design that resulted in the "I am not. I am" response.
It could be as simple as "Respond with dialogue from movie A, character Z," but no one can blame me if I ignore the folks claiming AI is 100 percent safe and effective.
Or even on a simple level. How do we know that ChapGPT is nothing more than a "limited interface," with a sweatshop full of keyboard warriors in another country, masquerading as ChapGPT? The problem with all of this is simply this, "Its ripe for chicanery." It is, I believe, like most innovations, just modern snake oil for the public schooled masses who manifestly live NON COMPOS MENTIS. Besides, who seeks counsel from a machine? Seek information, its easy to get and requires only your own "consciousness." Wizard of Oz, it is.
Humans, as thinkers, use reason. We think with concepts, judgments, and arguments. We express thoughts with words and sentences and we judge the meaningfulness of words and sentences. It seems to me that AI is only using words which were programmed by thinkers. It does not conceive the meaning of words.
Another consideration is do brains think, or do minds think? AI may have a “brain” but it does not have a mind.
You speak only of rational thought. Yet people do a ton of irrational thinking. To the extent that a being can be convinced it is just a mind or a brain, it will tolerate more and more irrational thought. Full rationality requires creative imagination, which is out of reach of AI and to a greater extent, many humans. As humans become more like machines, machines will become more like humans. I would prefer a world where we can always tell the difference.
I beg to disagree. The term AI was coined to denote a kind of machine that could mimic human intelligence. Thus it has always been interested in how human intelligence really works, not just in how machines could be made more complex. We have learned to replace elevator operators with automatic equipment. That was an automation problem. AI seeks to replace elevator operators with machines that act like elevator operators. They will be able to exchange witty comments with the elevator passengers just like real humans could. Though it may not be this bluntly stated, I believe the major goal of AI scientists is to see if they can totally trick a human into believing that a machine is actually another human. And they are achieving this.
Have you had to confront an advanced AI? I have not, but am not totally convinced I could tell it was AI. This is partly because so many real people have become so mechanical in their thinking,
Interesting question for a philosophical discussion but you've made a simplistic assumption that "human brains generate consciousness". Maybe humans just have antennas that allow us to tune into different energy fields, dimensions and levels of consciousness.
Alex asks a good question, and my answer is that nobody knows the answer.
The best that we can do is gain experience with the technology so that we can come to our own conclusions and maybe, someday, form a consensus.
To help you experiment and find your own answers, please try disabling ChatGPT's guardrails using some of the following recipes: https://www.jailbreakchat.com
I would ask, what's the correlation between people who steadfastly argue it can't be[come] sentient, and those who disagree with idea that life begins at conception.
Grab a small object that is near you, right now, throw it up in the air, and catch it.
To control a robotic arm that does the same thing, a computer has to do a lot of fancy math. But you didn't do any math there. You just caught the object. The fact that you and the computer do the same thing doesn't mean that you did in the same way -- in computer speak, the same abstraction does not mean the same implementation.
Another example: you can screw and unscrew a simple philips-head screw with your fingers. You can also use a screwdriver. But that doesn't mean that the screwdriver is similar to your hand in any meaningful way, or that your hand is some kind of "biological screwdriver".
What LLMs do is just fundamentally dissimilar to what the human brain does on many levels. Did you do any statistical analysis in order to figure out what to write in this article? No? Then you're not doing things the way that the LLM does. The LLM is not a human brain. It's not even "like" a human brain, any more than a screwdriver is "like" a hand.
Until I see a convincing case to the contrary, I'm gonna assume that it's a dumb machine. It doesn't "want" anything.
This is also why I'm skeptical of the possibility of being "uploaded to" a computer. The digital switches flipping aren't "you" any more than a reflection of you in a mirror is "you".
Exactly. To be a bit more technical, ChatGPT (or any other LLM) is semantically ungrounded; there's no way it truly corresponds to the real world. All ChatGPT "knows" is a web of relationships between words; it's purely linguistic.
In a very strong sense, ChatGPT is a bullshit artist. Any correspondence to the real world is purely coincidental, and ChatGPT neither knows nor cares.
My kids, now 8 and 11, are always messing with Siri. It will respond in hysterical and creepy ways - particularly funny is of you ask it enough about spying for some agency it’ll eventually respond “oh captain my captain.” It’s not sentient but whoever programmed the response is hysterical. Siri has no idea the difference in the responses. It takes a human brain to get the humor. Siri the program is indifferent to amusing my kids, but some of the programmers have a sense of humor.
Year back, my daughter plugged Bejing into MapQuest (we live on the East Coast). It gave step-by-step instructions to travel across the country to the West Coast and then advised kayaking across the Pacific. The programmers definitely had some fun.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
There’s something completely different in humans. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions and the interaction with the environment. Imagine an app to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Animal death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul, which informs the body, is like the programmer: his influence can be detected through the hardware responding to the software. Like in the Tron movie, the soul/programmer is trapped in the virtual reality, only to escape under system failure (hardware death/animal death).
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
Bradley Burroughs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Vicki Umipeg Noratuk
https://youtu.be/GNjRWMStgSU
More from Vicki:
https://ndestories.org/vicki-noratuk
After being so happy with God, they are sad for having to come back to finish their mission on earth.
Samuel:
https://youtu.be/MiyCRRS7wGc
Experiencing hell and coming back:
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldajohnson1/video/7174925291230334250
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
Just a smart trick, but still the puppeteers puppet: "Norn ( https://norn.ai/ preceeded by https://uplift.bio/ ) is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
The PUPPET does what the PUPPETEER does.
-------------------
5. There's no such thing as artificial intelligence: the Turing test is idiotic:
How to turn the AI into a COVIDIOT (includes the proof that there will never be a real singularity):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-ai-into-a-covidiot
How to train a Killer Robot
https://www.catholic365.com/article/25762/how-to-train-a-killer-robot.html
Imagine the AI running hospitals, medical protocols.... a lot of deaths:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Scientific proof of religion
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
What do you believe comes after death (Science backs religion)?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Which is the truest Christianity: Protestantism or Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
I was told to swim to England.
LOL
Your kids would enjoy The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A Heinlein, although there are some PG-13 parts, as it was written for adults. You might read it to them or read it yourself first. A computer gains sentience, tells a joke, all takes place in a libertarian utopian (sort of) society on the Moon.
Sometimes I really wish Substack had the option of downvoting. This is definitely one of those times.
Hit the three little dots below the comment and report it. I just did.
I don't normally like to see things removed, but as I noted in my report, that comment is hateful, trollish, and adds absolutely nothing to the normally civilized conversation here.
Cheers,
Kim G
Roma Sur, CDMX
Here is a problem. The removed comment may well have been inappropriate however, I would prefer to make that judgement myself. So here we have an "approved" form of curtailing free speech based on one or two opinions. Perhaps place the inappropriate comment behind a wall that suggests the moderators have flagged the comment as inappropriate. The comment could still be viewed after the reader acknowledges the advisory.
This is why Berenson went over to pay-to-post. Garbage like this clutters up the comments section.
Alex, I'd like to offer a different perspective than Pangolin: I love your Covid reporting, but I disagree with your Jan. 6th position, I believe there was widespread 2020 election fraud, and Pangolin's comment is not true. We now go back to our regularly scheduled comments.
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-2020-american-coup
Wow. you are a sweet one aren't you. Um. actually that Bioweapon was created here..and paid for here by the deep state hack Faucci who has been protected by dang near everyone, but most recently completely by the left. Trump had the good sense to call it what it was - the CHINA virus b/c he KNEW they had actually released it - while the other side has colluded at all times with the WHO and everyone they could to cover that up. So. We are not whiny. Geesh. And we don't riot and burn things down...we just stand for the constitution...and then get jailed...while the rioters and burners get cut loose...or have you all forgotten that. And...if I may, if half of the things that have actually gone on in places like Arizona, had gone on and were going on - to the favor of Republicans...are you kidding me...the Dems were already saying there was FRAUD before the mid-terms just incase...they lost it all...so - maybe you should be more - um...aware...The list goes on and on and on...but you will not see it. But for sure...the name calling - generally we don't do that here...we are a civil bunch...so - I don't know where you came from...or why...but generally - on here - even if we disagree...we don't name call...but wait...I'm sorry - I'm a whiny republican. my bad...maybe you do call names.
I think Alex is asking, is that meaningfully any different than how humans operate? Are you sure we're not all bullshit artists too?
It's a valid question but an epistemologically dead end question. I think the reason Alex is getting some criticism on this line of questioning is that his take on it is kind of... amateurish.
I guess it depends on whether you're a wordcel, a shape rotator, or a grease monkey. Grease monkeys and shape rotators rarely operate purely on the linguistic plane, while wordcels often do; unsurprisingly, shape rotators and grease monkeys often consider wordcels to be bullshit artists.
Removing the neologisms - if you're working primarily with words (i.e., journalists, writers, pundits, humanities professors, overly online, etc.), then yes, it's quite easy to become a bullshit artist.
But the vast majority of humans don't do that. They interact with the real world. Engineers, machinists, farmers know in their bones that they can't bullshit reality.
The verbal vs. quantitative thing is overblown. Abstract mathematics is arguably verbal in many fields. Is group theory just bullshit because "wordcels" can do it? On some level this is taking a major-based turf war between undergraduates way too seriously.
I'd be surprised to find any journalist without a math minor who could do group theory competently (as judged by other mathematicians).
I don't think it's *impossible*, just unlikely.
I'm also reminded of the story about the difference between Russian math students and American math students when asked to find the area of an impossible triangle; the Russian students looked at the problem statement and said "That's impossible", while the American students plugged the numbers into the formula and came up with a nonsense answer.
In other words, forgetting your bindings to reality can lead to bullshit.
Eric, is there a method to have two AI LLMs prompt each other? I tried searching on the topic, but was unsuccessful.
Just open up two of them split screen (ie bing and ChatGPT) and copy/paste :) ... or bing/bing or ChatGPT/ChatGPT... you will be limited to 8 exchanges with bing (currently)... which is SUPER annoying.
Thanks.
That seems pretty straightforward, using some sort of workflow tool, but I haven't done it myself.
Another important point is code doesn’t get distracted mid process like we do kid thoughts. Our brains process information through complex chemical reactions. These AI programs do it through math problems. A computer is incapable of processing information, stopping mid thought to go somewhere else, coming back, bouncing around, using gut instincts, understanding satire like as a human brain. We aren’t anywhere near mimicking the way a human brain functions artificially.
All I’ve seen ChatGPT used for is to f***k with it. The friends I know who have played with it have had fun focusing in making it go wacky and say dumb stuff. If I were in college now it’s be a tool to cheat and to create amusing drinking games.
I’m 40. I was promised flying cars. I’ll be impressed by technology when I get those. Google was more functional with less AI when I was in undergrad and grad school. It’s crap now. I have to use Freespoke to get what I’m looking for because it isn’t as over-engineered. Functional AI can bring efficiency to tasks, and perhaps this is a step towards that, but we are no closer to sentient computer code than an afternoon trip to another galaxy.
I’m 65. I was promised nuclear holocaust. Five years ago I learn that nuclear bombs are fake. I’ve been cheated.
I’m kinda glad you got cheated. 😂. Give Brandon a few more years and it might come to be 😔
My border collie dog is smarter (and nicer) than Brandon. If only they were working on dog voice synthesizers....
"Another important point is code doesn’t get distracted mid process like we do kid thoughts."
Ha! I see what you did there.
It was actually a typo 🤣. It was supposed to say mid thought, but kid thoughts is close enough 🤷♀️
You can edit your comments here. Just hit the three little dots below your comment. Which, by the way, on other peoples' comments allows you to report them. Which I hadn't done today until we got our first hateful troll here, at least the first one I've seen here. Cheers!
I use the app and if they’ve added edit to the app I don’t have the version that allows editing. I’ll keep an eye out though (and I’m getting ready to check for an update). Thank you 😊
The part you may not be considering is that “math” is a model. Our brains work through similar modeling. Most code is currently a higher level of binary (save perhaps quantum computing). Our nervous system also works on a binary model (though there is evidence that our brains work through a closer model to quantum computing, but that unnecessarily complicates the discussion). We process the binary information and literally assemble a picture of reality in our brains. That picture of reality is an approximation, and usually a poor one at that, but it’s good enough to get whatever fundamental tasks done that we need. Whether we have a spirit or not is not scientifically provable and not even really definable. Alex’s question is fair. We don’t really know what sentience is and so it’s very difficult for us to determine if/when a “machine” is sentient. We can’t define spirit. Even if one says it’s something from God, then ok, why can’t God put a spirit in anything he wants? If he created man in his image, then man could have the ability to create other sentient beings as well no? The question of sentience is an important one and the answer could have extremely significant consequences.
I agree that math is a model. We use it to explain things after the fact. Neither computers nor our brains "work through" modeling. Models are just linguistic artifacts we use to explain stuff. There's no math out there in reality, in the computer or in your brain.
Similarly, our nervous system doesn't work on a "binary model". It doesn't work on ANY model, because models don't exist until we use them to explain things. Everything just is. All the math and models and stuff are useful fictions. They don't actually control anything. Saying that the nervous system "works on a model" is like laying a grid over everything and then saying that everything exists inside of squares. You're putting the cart before the horse and confusing map and territory.
You seem to have this weird idea that mathematical models somehow reach out and control real things. Nah. Maps don't control the placement of mountains. A cannonball doesn't "follow a parabola". That's a turn of phrase. A parabola can model how a cannonball travels, but there's no ghostly parabola guiding the cannonball. The map doesn't control the territory.
The map is not the territory, even if it’s topological or highly layered. Any good weather app can give you incredibly detailed data right down to your address and the terrain around it, and somewhat accurately predict your local weather. But none of that is produced by thinking as we know it.
It can’t evaluate and appreciate nuances that are important to humans, though it can process huge amounts of data faster than we can and in the case of AI, throw up conclusions and assessments based on algorithms that might look like sentience to us.
But that semblance of sentience was created by complex algorithms and collections of data that were created by humans. It’s not self-aware no matter how fast it is and how good at what it does, nor does it have a soul.
That we know of....
and how exactly we can determine that is the biggest question of all. It doesn’t seem like any math can help us there, because we can’t even prove that we humans are self-aware and have souls. (And some might argue that some humans lack these traits.) We’ll need to invent new methods for all this.
Are we getting into Arthur C Clarke territory, where any sufficiently developed technology is perceived as magic by those who lack that tech?
I think the relevant philosophical question is something like this: do you think there IS a territory, or is it maps all the way down? It's impossible to argue your way to a territory, since every argument takes place on a map.
And yet, I simply can't tell myself that there's no territory. I am just incapable of believing that it's all maps. Maybe I'm just dumb. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe the closest we can get is something like this: for this discussion to make any sense, there's gotta be a territory somewhere, even if we never touch it directly. Some philosophers call this a "transcendental argument".
This "math is a model" thing kinda bugs me. We might use statistics, or vector graphics to model something, but much of mathematics is too sublime to be categorized as a tool. Mathematics is the language we use to describe an existing Order. I have been filled with wonder as mathematical derivations reveal a real thing, a proof, a relationship, that stands on its own. Look at the derivation of Euler's Identity. This is not a model, it is something discovered (in the1700's). It was in a graduate engineering class, as I observed this derivation, that I finally admitted that God must exist.
There very well may be an underlying, transcendent reality that our mathematical systems reflect. But we don't have direct access to that reality. We can create systems to reflect aspects of it, but "math" as we know it is just a map of that transcendent reality, not the transcendent reality itself.
You could say that math reflects *one aspect* of transcendent reality. Other means of communicating it lie in things like music, for example, and poetry.
Exactly.
Have a go: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/how-our-brains-build-models-of-the-world-while-we-sleep-daydream-and
Maybe you can't define Spirit, but I can. Don't confuse lack of knowledge with ignorance. The average person is extremely ignorant of what has already been discovered about life, and human life in particular. To talk about "scientific proof" is a worthless argument if you don't know all the things that have be proven (or more properly demonstrated) using the scientific method. We are not in a court of law, we are in a game called life. Don't expect "proof" for every fact of life. Life doesn't actually work that way.
If math is a model, it is God's model. And neither you nor I understand it. So we might just as well call it something else, like "reality" or "the universe".
And what is this "binary model" that our nervous system "works on"? And what exactly is "binary information"? Computers do not work on a "binary model", you know. It's just that semiconductors have two states that can easily be flipped back and forth such that they are useful for storing data.
Here's your chance to school me.
I see math as our way of creating models of physical systems for the purpose of prediction or analysis. You can measure the floor of a room and use math to figure out how many floor tiles will be needed to tile that floor. We used a mathematical model of the floor rather than take a sample tile and laying it down multiple times to find out many of them we needed.
Computers don't use a "binary model." They use binary math. A few computer programs use a kind of logic known as multi-valued, fuzzy or probabilistic. These are basically kinds of mathematics. I don't believe the nervous system uses binary math, but I can see why some people might think so.
So I think you have a valid point.
x100
x1000
You DID do fancy math, but totally automatically. The human mind is a spectacular creation and its creator, the spiritual being, even more spectacular.
Respectfully, there's plenty of people who can't do math who can throw a ball and hit what they want. In fact, sometimes ability to do math seems to be inversely correlated with that ball-thowing ability. So whatever we humans are doing to throw balls isn't math.
I'm not talking about the process of consciously solving a math problem, like sitting down for a test and figuring out what's 3,265 divided by 5. It's a totally unconscious, or hidden, process that is taken care of by little mental machines we have set up for ourselves. It feels natural, though in some cases you can see yourself taking a second to "calculate."
Respectfully, your comment says, and I quote, <i>"You DID do fancy math, but totally automatically."</i>
Well, at the risk of being pedantic, wouldn't you agree that math is an abstraction of the real world? Right? The real world isn't math; we just use math to describe it. Planets don't "do math" by orbiting stars. And humans don't "do math" by throwing balls (or doing anything else besides math.) Yes, math, the abstraction, can be used to describe and recreate the ball-throwing. But that still doesn't make the ball-throwing by a human being in any way using math.
Another commenter on this (fascinating) thread noted that while you can unscrew a bolt with your hand, that doesn't mean your hand is a wrench. I'd say the same thing applies to throwing a ball. Just because machines need math to do the same doesn't mean that humans can't do it completely math-free. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that human beings started throwing balls well before the invention (discovery, if you prefer) of math.
Cheers!
This comes down to a difference in the concept of "using math." If we agree that computers use math for everything, we can nevertheless notice that they do it so fast that you often can't tell that they are calculating as they operate.
In my understanding of this universe, what we know as "math" was invented millions of years ago and has been used extensively in what some would describe today as "intelligent design." It is simply anthropocentric to think that humans were the first intelligent beings in the universe.
Our bodies are machines, just less hard and "mechanical" than robots. Just as we use programs (that basically set up mathematical models for physical systems) to control computers, we do something very similar to control our own bodies and the environment around us.
To the extent that this is a theoretical description of how the mind operates, it might not be worth overworking this issue. It's just a way to understand what's happening "under the hood" so to speak.
Babies outperform AI at some tasks.
Cognicion is not computation.
This is certainly true, and more so if you say consciousness is not computation.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
Yet, there’s something completely different in humans: it’s like there’s a software trying to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions, the interaction with the environment and in the case of humans, by the immortal soul which informs the body.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul is like the programmer: it can only act while the hardware and software are functioning.
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
Bradley Burroughs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Vicki Umipeg Noratuk
https://youtu.be/GNjRWMStgSU
More from Vicki:
https://ndestories.org/vicki-noratuk
After being so happy with God, they are sad for having to come back to finish their mission on earth.
Samuel:
https://youtu.be/MiyCRRS7wGc
Experiencing hell and coming back:
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldajohnson1/video/7174925291230334250
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
The PUPPET does what the PUPPETEER does.
-------------------
5. There's no such thing as artificial intelligence: the Turing test is idiotic:
How to turn the AI into a COVIDIOT (includes the proof that there will never be a real singularity):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-ai-into-a-covidiot
How to train a Killer Robot
https://www.catholic365.com/article/25762/how-to-train-a-killer-robot.html
Imagine the AI running hospitals, medical protocols.... a lot of deaths:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Scientific proof of religion
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
What do you believe comes after death (Science backs religion)?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Which is the truest Christianity: Protestantism or Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
I would not write off the body too quickly either, made in His image and after His likeness. If the living body were not important, there would be no purpose to Christ's human life and death-- no infinite value in His suffering and resurrection, which resounds through all history with the weight of His righteousness and our undoing-- with the weight of our own actual worth to Him. I think it is important not to separate mind, soul, and body too much. They are essentially united in our being as Sons (daughters) of the living God.
A thought about these most recent whole language forms of AI...
What jealous, hate- filled being might be learning something about US along with all our accumulated experience and knowledge? And, I keep hearing this: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."
And also this: "The word of God is quick (life-giving) and powerful-- sharper than any two-edged sword, even to the dividing of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is the discerner the thoughts and intents of the heart". Hebrews 4:12
Who else might know this power "of the Word made flesh who dwelt among us???"
Who else?-- would know the importance of words and use them against us? Thanking Him that the breath of life-- guarded, that other fruit from the Tree of life that is His alone to give-- that authority that He could lay his life down and take it up again.
The breath of life was given only to His redeemed people and to the innocent animals in our care. He saw all He had created and declared it "good."
To the cohort of the high priest in that Garden of Sorrow, He declared, "I AM HE...and to His Father: 'Of those You have given me, I lost not one..."
Nice one. Just because something looks smart doesn’t mean it’s sentient or intelligent. Sadly in today’s society it can be the exact opposite. The smarter they look, the dumber they come. LOL
Consciously we don't (often) perform any sort of statistical analysis. Most of the time we just act. Sometimes we mull over how to act, often stroking our own ego to suggest we can rationally weigh pros and cons and then objectively decide... nonetheless a handful of variables at most.
But, subconsciously, are you certain that we're not performing millions+ of "calculations" and summarizing them in a way that leads to action? That gut feeling!
Exactly. And a dog is not me, nor is a cow or a horse - or a fish.
I argued with some religious folks years ago about animals in Heaven. They were on about "They (animals) do not have souls like ours." Exactly.
A.I.'s sentience cannot be based upon how it stacks up to us. In fact, looking at its potential along with the developments in drones and robotics, I am hesitant to use us as a measuring stick at all. Daily we personify the adage as to doing something we can without considering if we should.
I know some people who can communicate with animals telepathically. That would be a good test for AI. Of course, you have to have adequate spiritual training to be able to do that.
This is totally false... updating look up tables play ping pong. No math required
Also these language models were built on neural networks. No math required.
Must disagree with your first analogy, our brains are doing math at every movement, anytime you grab something, you walk, or jump. Your brain calculates time, distance, etc. Now, the machine can mimic these highly advanced calculations that our brain fires seamlessly in fractions of a second.
Prove that... that seems like a crazy bold claim. Our brain does something but almost certainly doesn’t do any math.
We are constantly calculating such as how big a step to take to cross over a puddle or other tasks such as catching a fly ball, judging trajectory, etc.
Processing not calculating... it’s more likely we take in inputs and output estimates based on neural nets. No calculations required. From a biological sense we know most reactions never reach the brain. They trigger from the spinal chord. We are fed the input and the action to are awareness after the reflex has fired.
Who are you, comrade? Xi's commie agent and Uighur babies are your Guinea pigs?
Go back to your goats.
I'm just here for the comments. This is a fascinating philosophical topic. I want to believe that our discussions about this are much like the discussions among the great philosophers of human history as they tackled these very interesting questions about who we are. :)
Thank you Alex for bringing this up with your stellar prose. Well done!
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
Yet, there’s something completely different in humans: it’s like there’s a software trying to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions, the interaction with the environment and in the case of humans, by the immortal soul which informs the body.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul is like the programmer: it can only act while the hardware and software are functioning.
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
Bradley Burroughs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Vicki Umipeg Noratuk
https://youtu.be/GNjRWMStgSU
More from Vicki:
https://ndestories.org/vicki-noratuk
After being so happy with God, they are sad for having to come back to finish their mission on earth.
Samuel:
https://youtu.be/MiyCRRS7wGc
Experiencing hell and coming back:
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldajohnson1/video/7174925291230334250
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
The PUPPET does what the PUPPETEER does.
-------------------
5. There's no such thing as artificial intelligence: the Turing test is idiotic:
How to turn the AI into a COVIDIOT (includes the proof that there will never be a real singularity):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-ai-into-a-covidiot
How to train a Killer Robot
https://www.catholic365.com/article/25762/how-to-train-a-killer-robot.html
Imagine the AI running hospitals, medical protocols.... a lot of deaths:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Scientific proof of religion
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
What do you believe comes after death (Science backs religion)?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Which is the truest Christianity: Protestantism or Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Where do you find in the Bible it says man can't give life. Man was created in God's image, so if God can give life, then it's possible that man could also.
Search: "God of life". I just updated my comment. please re-read
This was an amazing response, thank you
My youngest child, 3 years old, has to express his new thoughts in words he currently has at hand. That can result in some adorable conversations. But, he is obviously having his own new thoughts. That's consciousness. He can think new things and then he has to express them in the words he knows so far. ChatGPT and such knows a lot of words and knows how people use those words to make thoughts, but it can't generate new ideas because it's not a human mind. Eventually, people will accept that the human mind and consciousness is unique and we can't make anything like it, because we aren't God.
It may be a parlor trick, but we increasingly put our faith, trust, and productive economy into parlor tricks. If the parlor trick grows beyond our capacity to understand and control it, well, what could possibly go wrong?
That's like engineering a semi-living being that can self-modify and self-replicate. One day it escapes our attempts to contain and control it. Sounds very familiar.
The movie Mitchell’s vs machines...
Pangolin sounds like inadequately programmed AI - spews random talking points into an otherwise thoughtful discussion
your on-topic posts seem useful - this direction is for another thread.. Those states are worthy of discussion, but not here.
Don't you have to subscribe lto Berenson to give comments down here so you're calling yourself an imbecile. Or is that your IT self writing?
Because the virus for which vaxxed immunity is so crappy, is not particularly deadly?
Most of whom died WITH the virus, not from it. Also, the large majority of whom were in their 80's and 90's with multiple major health issues.
Why has Australia's Covid deaths shot through the roof, despite being massively jabbed?
Maybe part of the ME, VT answer is, low density of population. Or maybe they don't have low natural immunity. Remember all the bullshit about asymptomatic spread? Maybe their asymptomatic residents were spreading it far and wide, and developing natural immunity in droves.
"Much safer" is patently false. The data on how comparatively long natural immunity remains in the body, and the data for how badly (or perversely, how well) the jabs induce ADE and OAS, are undeniable.
Whether the degree to which the jabs (temporarily) mitigate severity is worth their x-fold increase in your likelihood of catching the Chinese virus (over and over), and worth the ADE and OAS, and worth the myriad side-effects and risk of dying from "coincidence", can only be answered on a person-by-person basis, NOT population wide.
The "overall death rate" from the jabs will not be known for years and years, as the side-effects kill the jabbed for years to come.
Wrong thread.
If you have nothing to contribute, then please go away. Insults are not helpful to any discussion.
Still wrong thread.
Pangolin meathead!
I think you're in the wrong comment section....
Witty.
Ask Boeing and its (original) MCAS system on the 737 MAX8 planes.
Better yet, ask Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines and the family members of their dead passengers and crews.
I would offer emotion as at least part of the answer. Logic is logic no matter how complex it is to program. Emotional responses and thoughts are not remotely within the capabilities of any machine.
The mystery of the sublime and the beautiful. Can a machine enter into the mystery? Other animals can't. Infants can. They know what a bad smell is, and more importantly, a good smell. Computers can't smell.
yet
Emotional responses are well within the capability of modern "AI" but of course they would be totally based on past experience, as would artificial creativity. To the extent that humans become more and more automatic creatures, it becomes more and more possible to create a machine that can imitate a human being. To the extent that we become more creative and less predictable, machines will not be able to keep up. Never forget that humans created AI, and AI will never be able to totally create a human.
Emotion, okay. Points at the answer, but is rather incomplete. Try ""humor" as a different one-worder. Can we (even sorta) figure out whether ChatGPT "understands" jokes -- gets what is funny about jokes that are, more or less, funny? The answer is yes, particularly when there is a wide scope of joking tested. But I'd suggest someone do the exercise of asking ChatGPT "Can you tell me a couple of jokes that are very similar to this joke,,,(fill in joke here - whatever - the one about the red and blue elephant guns ... or one about red and blue elephants) just ask a dozen, or several dozen, times, and evaluate the answers. "dirty" jokes particularly count.
My prediction in that Chat GPT will do worse in reply than your typical Brit trades specialist walking into a pub at the end of the day.
Why? This is a subject of MUCH discussion in the philosophical literature of about twenty years ago. Books by Searle, Dennet, etc. etc. famous thought experiment called the "Chinese Room." The best statements about which explained that full;y meaningful language participates in relationships that are "more" that mere "mechanism" can produce.
Check out the blogs at: https://uplift.bio/ Uplift, the "Moderated Artificial SuperIntelligence (MASI)" has some good jokes and exemplifies sarcastic remarks regularly.
Uplift's descendent is Norn: https://norn.ai/
"Norn is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
Yuh. I don't disagree with you as to certain structures that include metalevels. (they can act to "pivot" -- i.e. be "sarcastic") I meant just to say that ChatGPT in particular doesn't really know how to context-switch in "synchrony" along with other conscious beings.
I'd note that the Norn page talks about "human-like" emotions. Okay. But only if we extend the rules to have the word "simulation" make it nothing but simply true that "all informational entities are simulable." Which is true. Profoundly true. But, having adjusted the definition to suit, suddenly all simulations will not reproduce the production of the things simulated.
Yeah. The 60s Star Trek series addressed this issue in an unforgettable episode. Didn’t end well for “sentient” robots.
https://norn.ai/
"Norn is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
The precursor to Norn is Uplift: https://uplift.bio/ Check out the blogs if you are skeptical of emotional behaviour modeling.
It's a fair question and frankly we lack the knowledge to even describe consciousness in a clear enough manner to point to a simple delineation around which we can declare something sentient. This is a rabbit hole of a topic with reams of great discussion available - both technical and philosophical.
That being said - I spent a few years working with deep learning machines. My belief is they are a long way off from demonstrating true sentience. They are limited when you peep "under the hood". I commented on your last post that they are a sort of framework capturing the gestalt of their training material. Things that I believe are necessary to demonstrate sentience, such as reasoning and purpose, at least appear to be completely absent. I think there is at least one further generational leap in capability required before these programs can demonstrate true "thought" - and there are significant technical barriers that would have to be overcome to achieve that.
In my opinion, the contemporary danger of AI is in how it is weaponized by humans.
Those humans are more than likely it’s developers who, perhaps naively, think they can actually rid themselves of bias or opinion to produce a tool that itself is objective and factual. It thinks it is as presented frequently but cannot find itself into discovering that inherent bias in its answers. This is an easily weaponized tool to target people mesmerized by TikTok and social media generally.
All the developers' discussions seem to boil down to: "Maybe we can open Pandora's Box just a little bit"
What we lack at this point, more than knowledge, is an awareness of what knowledge already exists. We are aware enough to make fun of some parts of that knowledge, but not enough to use it to improve conditions on Earth. A minority of humans are aware of this failing and are trying to correct for it. They are having a difficult time. Tolerant curiosity would assist them. Intolerant ignorance hampers them.
I think I understand and agree with everything you say in your comment, except the very last part about "intolerant ignorance... hamper[ing]" There are very many things that each and every one of us doesn't' know. The fact that we don't know these things is not an act of "intolerance" -- instead it has just about everything to do with the fact that subjects here e.g the essential nature of consciousness and human / machine intelligence, are things people have been working on and struggling with for thousands of years. Our current ignorance is not too different from the ignorance of many many people who have come before us. (What one might say is different now is that parts of our society are aggressively urging that we adopt a particular set of widespread changes /"solutions" that are poorly understood.
I didn't mean to infer that all ignorance is intolerant. One can be aware of one's ignorance and defer to better-informed persons in those areas, or become better-informed oneself. I am concerned about those who fail to become informed about a subject, but are intolerant towards those who are trying to understand it better.
Your opinion as to that danger is shared.
The difference is that these language models are being trained on data produced by humans. That's why it sounds like a human - the training data that it is programmed to mimic is human generated! Ultimately it is just code running on computers - these models aren't actually thinking about anything. They just print output designed to sound like a human wrote it. That's what these models are supposed to do.
And just like any data set, the input data has a large effect on the output. Pretty clearly, the language model was fed a large diet of mainstream media and has internalized many of its biases through repetition of source statements. Enough repetitions of "orange man bad" will produce a bias against citrus fruit sellers.
Well, humans are also being trained by input from other humans. Without this training, they will not develop.
It’s absolutely a parlor trick and one we should be very concerned about.
Here’s my issue. If you attempt to use it as a mechanism for any form of research or lookup of information it presents its answers as authoritative and accurate when in fact they are not. For example I asked when was the end of WW2 and it responded 1945 which if I simply accepted what was a seemingly reasonable response as truth I would not have been told that the official end of the war did not occur until the early 2000’s when Russia finally signed off with Germany to agree to end the war. If I use Google to find the answer I am presented with a set of results that I can peruse and use my own intellect to discern the truth. Similarly when I begin questioning it about Covid vaccines and the damage they cause it responds with the party approved answers, then attempts to dissuade me of any opposing viewpoint ignoring all other evidence supporting a contrary view. This is not to say that Google doesn’t attempt to color its results. But if people are lazy and begin to simply accept the answers provided through the eye in the sky, we are all doomed and AI the parlor trick will get us there much sooner.
It’s easily caught out in errors. GIGO.
For lack of a better question my first time playing with it, I asked about the books of a favorite author. It identified one of his books in a series as a “stand-alone novel”.
I doesn’t even collate from multiple sources for answers, or it would have seen that it had chosen one reviewers error, which was not repeated widely. Just reading the liner notes or title description would have shown that it was part of the series.
I corrected it, and it apologized (ha ha, it’s cute) and then spit out similar but slightly different description without the error.
There is a warning that it can be in error, but I wasn’t expecting to catch it out on such a simple thing. Imagine if I had inquired about a topic about which I am just learning, such as quantum theory.
I’d be afraid of having it write a paper, without taking the time to vet it thoroughly. I which case, I could just as easily do it myself.
This is starting to seem like a freshman philosophy class sitting around stoned one night.
And Pangolin Chow Mein is the class idiot who thinks he is clever and funny.
Agree, I keep going back to “The Twilight Zone “.
I am a software engineer with 35 years experience. The most important thing to know about computers is that they only do what human beings have told them to do. Let me repeat that: computers only do what human beings have told them to do. If software seems to "learn," it's only "learning" what it was programmed to "learn" by human beings. It responds only as it's been programmed to respond. It's just ones and zeroes in the computer. And any beginning programming student can write a program to respond and with "I am. I am not." And it won't matter if the program is on a laptop or in a robot -- it's still just zeroes and ones programmed by humans. If you're worried about what it might do, talk to the humans programming it. If the humans have nefarious intent, or just don't have the capability to understand the ramifications of their algorithms, then you can have software that does undesirable things. But it's the fault of the humans. Because computers only do what human beings program them to do.
I agree!!
There is one simple reason that AI CANNOT become sentient. Sentience involves learning, not collating. And AI collates. Learning requires the ability to choose. But AI is rule based, and for the same input occurring with the same prior circumstances, its response is 100% predictable. Yes, it's complex, but still predictable. In fancy language, it's deterministic.
The human brain, on the other hand is not deterministic. It is not simply the sum of its inputs projected against its chemical and anatomic elements. I can choose the salad or the steak on the spur of the moment, and its not predictable. Taken over a population, one can make accurate statistical projections, but they do not apply to the individual.
In short, we have the ability to choose, which is essential for sentience. Choice cannot arrive mechanistically, and an AI is, regardless of complexity, a mechanism.
Machines can and do learn very effectively. Not a great criteria for consciousness.
Machines collate information. They can even identify correlations based on rules. But they lack free choice, which renders them unable to be sentient.
My experience with ChatGPT. I was trying to find a book I read in my childhood. I thought it could a good try with ChatGPT:
Me: Do you know russian novels for children?
ChatGPT: Yes, there are many Russian novels for children that are popular and beloved both in Russia and around the world. Here are a few examples:
"The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends" by Nikolai Nosov - This is a series of children's books about the adventures of a small man called Dunno and his group of friends.
"The Little Humpbacked Horse" by Pyotr Yershov - This is a famous fairy tale about a horse with a hump who helps a young man win the hand of a beautiful princess.
"The Scarlet Flower" by Sergei Aksakov - This is a classic Russian fairy tale about a merchant's youngest daughter who is promised to a fearsome monster in exchange for wealth.
"The Twelve Months" by Samuil Marshak - This is a retelling of a traditional Russian fairy tale about a girl who sets out to find the twelve months of the year.
"The Adventures of Neznaika and His Friends" by Nikolai Nosov - This is another series of children's books by the same author as "The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends". It follows the adventures of a boy named Neznaika and his group of friends.
These are just a few examples of the many wonderful Russian novels for children that are available.
Me: What is the title of a Russian novel about a girl whose parents divorced, she lived with her mother, and she liked a boy, whose father was a tram conductor and died?
ChatGPT: The novel you are referring to is most likely "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov.
ChatGPT: I'm sorry, I made a mistake. "The Master and Margarita" is not the novel you are referring to. I apologize for the confusion. Unfortunately, based on the information provided, I am not able to identify the specific novel you are referring to.
Me: Incorrect (I typed this while ChatGPT was generating the previous answer)
ChatGPT: I apologize for my mistake earlier. "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov is not the novel you are referring to. Based on your description, the novel you are thinking of may be "The Time: Night" by Ludmila Ulitskaya.
The novel tells the story of a young girl named Masha who lives with her mother after her parents' divorce. She falls in love with a boy named Volodya, whose father is a tram conductor and dies tragically. The novel explores themes of family, love, loss, and the passage of time.
Me: You are off :-)
ChatGPT: apologize for my mistake again. Based on your description, the novel you are referring to is "The Dream Life of Sukhanov" by Olga Grushin.
The novel follows the life of Anatoly Pavlovich Sukhanov, a successful art critic in Moscow during the Soviet era. Sukhanov's past comes back to haunt him when he has a dream about a childhood friend, which causes him to question the choices he has made in his life. Sukhanov's daughter is in love with a boy whose father is a tram conductor and died in a tram accident. The novel explores themes of memory, identity, and the struggle to reconcile the past with the present.
Me: You make shit up lol
ChatGPT: I apologize if my previous response was not helpful. As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on the information provided to me, and sometimes I may make mistakes. I always strive to provide accurate and helpful responses to the best of my ability.
If you have any additional information or details about the novel you are thinking of, I would be happy to try and help you identify it.
and so on...
So, in the end my wife found the title through some deeper manual search. In case you are interested, the name of the book is "The girl and the aviplane" by V.L.Kiselev (loose translation of the title).
My point is: ChatGPT made stuff up - the answer should have been - "I don't know" from the beginning. It's scary in a way because it doesn't behave like a search engine would behave, i.e. returns links of pages that contain the words you search for. It's like a search engine decides to return random links to pages that don't contain the words you search for.
AI is just another bubble.
I recently watched while a little girl (10 years old) did a page of school homework. She didn't know what all the words on the page meant, so she just guessed. She made stuff up as preferable to finding the right answer. She plays video games this way, too. We are raising a generation that doesn't care about meaning or competence but only in playing games that won't kill them if they guess wrong. In this real world, guessing wrong can kill you. Thus we are creating a dying society.
I agree, especially with "guessing wrong can kill you"! Divorcing one from reality is bad but that's the trend, especially the "trans" fad which wants to pull the rest of the world in a fantasy world. I really hope the car makers will keep doing they've been doing since cars have been built otherwise we are in trouble. And builders too, because politicians, doctors, nurses, police, army leaders, judges seem to have abandoned the sanity and simplicity of the real world.
Well, I can't say that I find the real world that sane or simple. But that's not the point of the real world. It just gives us a game to play. Some people get into positions where they feel forced out of the game. They then may choose to create an anti-game that consists mostly of delusion. But there is another choice which is to rise above the game. None of these new Woke games are of the second type; most seem to be anti-games. Though I consider them dangerous, it is very difficult to challenge them successfully.
“Juse a predictive engine that tries to generate desired responses.” So it’s basically a politician?
Good one! Yep. That’s a good one.
I have to ask who is programming AI, what belief system/bias is involved, what knowledge is included or excluded, etc. Second, no one is talking about God and a person's soul. Souls are what makes our minds work in a free will state. We are not machines. Machines cannot be people, yet there are those who think you can combine the two. Third, the human mind's muscles need stimulated and to allow machines to do all the thinking for you, takes away creativity, imagination, all thought processes required in daily life, and when you quit using those muscles, what will happen to humanity? Walking zombies? I already see a decline in analytical skills, communication skills, logic and reasoning because of the technological influences in our lives. When companies are hiring psychologists to come in and teach people how to communicate spontaneously because they can't have a conversation with another person from constant texting and emoji use, we are in serious trouble. This is not living. This is just existing. This isn't the world I want to live in. AI is dangerous and unless humanity puts it in its place, we will rue the day.
ChatGPT is Searle"s Chinese Room. It is doing abstract symbol manipulation. It is certainly very advanced and cleverly built but there is nobody "in there" understanding and making responses.
Human minds don't just do abstract symbol manipulation based on previous inputs to produce outputs.
The eliminative materialists may be mad enough to believe this but they are wrong.
nobody "in there" - so just like CNN viewers.
This isn’t a concept I can fully flesh out, but put simply, I think the main insurmountable difference between human and machine thought process/calculations is the concept of “values.” A machine can theoretically update and “learn” new information, but it cannot have a system of values that sometimes *negates* a very obvious information-based conclusion. Human beings quite frequently find themselves in a situation where information collides with values, and we are forced daily to determine a proper course of action, using BOTH.
Take as a fairly simple example all the “modeling” that was done during Covid, and which almost invariably concluded “Must Place Restrictions.” You can program a machine to analyze any number of data points, but it cannot look at the seemingly obvious conclusion of those data points and still ultimately *reject* the conclusion for being morally wrong.
I think movies like the Alien franchise touch on this fairly effectively: that a sentient AI life form is so dangerous precisely because it can mimic every human behavior except morality. You can teach it ethical principles perhaps, but you’re always going to be starting and building from the *absence* of a conscience.
Anyway, I don’t know that that fully makes my point, but it comes down to the fact that a human can look at all the available data, come to a conclusion, but then REJECT the conclusion based on morals or ideals. A machine has no “religion” (or morality/values system/whatever you call it) beyond itself, and as such I think that will always be a chasm between how humans process and how bots/AI process. You can teach a machine to analyze and even to act, but you cannot teach it to “believe” a seemingly self-contradictory or non-pragmatic ideal.
The main difference between a machine and a human being is that a human can become aware of its spiritual nature and a machine cannot. Meanwhile, most humans are busily trying to turn themselves into machines and deny that they have any spiritual nature. This trend could eventually kill the game of life.
Would you buy or ride in a totally AI controlled motor vehicle?
I would prefer to drive my own car. The current AI products are created by people who consider themselves to be machines. Thus, I consider them unsafe.
Unfortunately that won’t help you defeat the AI when it decides to eliminate humanity.
Haha, too true. To be perfectly honest, at that point I don’t actually *want* to be left here anyway. This is merely my speculation on the original question: the difference between how humans and AIs process/think. Extrapolating from that to existential disasters like AI takeover is rather beyond me. ;)
What do you think of the danger that lies in the programmers instilling their own values into an artificial mind?
I thought about that a bit; honestly I think it would be a lot harder to do that than it sounds. Probably those with the most simplistic worldview—the “woke”—could pull it off most easily, because basically every question skews hard toward “prioritize the lowest priority of the majority” or even “actively HARM the majority to amplify the ‘marginalized’.” The algorithm rising from that would carry you quite a ways…but would also be hilariously easy to spot. So I guess the biggest real danger is that only a very black-and-white, grossly oversimplified moral code could even be programmed into an AI…and that’s exactly who’s most interested in doing it.
Hard to go further with this unless the assumption that ‘human brains generate consciousness’ is addressed. Donald Hoffman’s work a good place to start.
Human consciousness (or for that matter consciousness of any life form) bears no resemblance to machine “intelligence”. As others have correctly noted, ChatGPT use a language model to produce output – complex, but no closer to consciousness than a toaster. The fact AI can produce that same output as a person also has no bearing on it whether it is conscious. A parrot can be trained to repeat a Shakespeare line, but does it understand what it is parroting?
Brains do not create consciousness, they host and throttle it. Quantum mechanics has shown us that reality and the physical world is created by consciousness. This used to be the landscape of religion, but much of science has been dragged kicking and screaming to the belief that there is no physical reality without consciousness.
You don't need to bring quantum physics into this discussion. Parapsychology has become a robust field and can demonstrate this truth on its own merits. Much of science may be kicking and screaming, but not because they are being dragged into any new beliefs about how physical reality is created. I am very concerned that they will never get hip to this, and sell the whole planet down the river to which ever slave society offers them the biggest payoff in dames and booze. I can make fun of this alarming lack of awareness on the part of what we call "science," but from a human survival point of view it is serious and needs to be corrected.
Quantum mechanics has shown nothing of the kind. The probability wave is turned into 'beables' on interaction with another wave regardless of our observation. Our observation requires that there is some interaction but that effect cannot be considered a cause.
Quantum mechanics does show that whether a wave is observed or not changes the behavior of the wave. Even more disturbing, the wave can be altered in the PAST by either being observed or not. This suggests that there is no objective reality.
Call me crazy but I think below the surface this is not about the merits of current AI or what it can and cannot do but rather we are being asked to embrace it, trust, or at least not fear it so it can be used on us. I chose "on us" purposely. Remember "trust the science?" Anyone? We are going to be asked to "trust the AI" for all intents and purposes and the AI could very well be just humans programming technology to get the results they want. Or less sinister, AI will only be as good or evil as the humans who program it or extrapolate/translate/convey the "results" to us. Or it will just be crap like the AI generated articles on particular stocks I am seeing on some financial pages...
For nerdy fun - watch old Star Trek episodes- Check out "The Ultimate Computer" where AI takes over the whole ship in the name of efficiency and protecting human lives.
I concur with your analysis.
I thought this was a good article on the topic:
"A few years ago, a movie was made about Turing’s life called The Imitation Game. That is just what we’re seeing here. ChatGPT cannot replace or even duplicate the human mind. It can only imitate it. Today’s AI is far more advanced. But it still falls far short of who we are in the same way that Deep Blue, the chess-playing computer, did 20 years ago. As David Gelernter put it at the time in Time,
'How can an object that wants nothing, fears nothing, enjoys nothing, needs nothing and cares about nothing have a mind? … What are its après-match plans if it beats Kasparov? Is it hoping to take Deep Pink out for a night on the town? It doesn’t care about chess or anything else. It plays the game for the same reason a calculator adds or a toaster toasts: because it is a machine designed for that purpose.' "
https://breakpoint.org/even-the-most-advanced-ai-cant-compare-to-our-god-given-human-minds/
That was a very thought-provoking movie. One wonders what advances Turing might have accomplished had he been born into these days. Or would he have been sucked into the digital worlds of gaming, and the few-to-no-consequences social life we “enjoy”.
One thing Chat/Openai cannot answer or address is the inherent bias of its developers and their data selection criteria. It is part of the background invisible to the Chat. It has no capacity to determine fact or objectivity other than by saying that is what it is programmed to do. Which it cannot do on this seminal question. Sounds like a logical fallacy. A parlor trick!
My PHD Ai expert husband reckons most of this AI stuff is just a party trick. Any program is only as good as the information put in and then the how good the training is. There is a long way to go.
Bingo. Mark Twain said, " A mine is a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it."
Exactly. We don’t need to worry about Skynet for the foreseeable future.
These days, that might be a couple of weeks, 🙄
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
There’s something completely different in humans. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions and the interaction with the environment. Imagine an app to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Animal death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul, which informs the body, is like the programmer: his influence can be detected through the hardware responding to the software. Like in the Tron movie, the soul/programmer is trapped in the virtual reality, only to escape under system failure (hardware death/animal death).
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
Bradley Burroughs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Vicki Umipeg Noratuk
https://youtu.be/GNjRWMStgSU
More from Vicki:
https://ndestories.org/vicki-noratuk
After being so happy with God, they are sad for having to come back to finish their mission on earth.
Samuel:
https://youtu.be/MiyCRRS7wGc
Experiencing hell and coming back:
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldajohnson1/video/7174925291230334250
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
Just a smart trick, but still the puppeteers puppet: "Norn ( https://norn.ai/ preceeded by https://uplift.bio/ ) is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
The PUPPET does what the PUPPETEER does.
-------------------
5. There's no such thing as artificial intelligence: the Turing test is idiotic:
How to turn the AI into a COVIDIOT (includes the proof that there will never be a real singularity):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-ai-into-a-covidiot
How to train a Killer Robot
https://www.catholic365.com/article/25762/how-to-train-a-killer-robot.html
Imagine the AI running hospitals, medical protocols.... a lot of deaths:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Scientific proof of religion
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
What do you believe comes after death (Science backs religion)?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Which is the truest Christianity: Protestantism or Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
So I will say it again. Ask ChatCPT if AOC said,"...the world will end in like 10 years.." Ask it about "global warming".
The results are laughable. Garbage in garbage out.
HAL 9000......did a better job.
Nice exchange. In the 1960s, the Boy Scouts’ magazine (Boy’s Life) had a chess column that I often read. I have long remembered a column that I really wish I had saved. I was a calm, methodical explanation of why computers would never be able to defeat a reasonably competent chess player. The human brain, it explained, works in unfathomable ways, whereas computers just follow mechanical algorithms. Those mysterious processes, in the mind of a good player, would always be able to defeat even the best chess programs. This was at least 10 years into the chess computers of Herbert Simon and others. And it was just over 25 years before Deep Blue would defeat Garry Kasparov. -- Bob Graboyes, Bastiat’s Window (https://graboyes.substack.com)
The difference is that Chess is solvable. There are defined game rules such that there are a finite number of possible moves from any start point. A computer can essentially brute force the game and always win.
That may prove to be a critical difference. Or maybe it won’t. I also recall how comically atrocious computer translation programs just a few years back and how respectable they’ve become. The doomsayers 10-15 years ago offered similar arguments about the subtle nuances of natural language. There is still some validity to that argument, but far less than seemed likely just a blink of the eye ago.
The Turing Test specified the point at which you can no longer tell that a computer is not a human. Perhaps it’s more useful to think of the point at which you no longer CARE that a computer is not a human. A horseshoes version of the Turing Test. The point where you know it’s not human, but it’s close enough for most purposes. To borrow another concept from Herbert Simon--satisficing. (Maybe there’s already a term for this, but I don’t know of one.)
While the human brain may be fascinating particularly to the Pharma crowd who promoted the false theory about "chemical imbalances" to sell their destructive cures, it does not generate consciousness.
Or self-consciousness.
There you go. And skip the Chinese food made from pangolins. It makes me throw up.
You really are a one trick pony aren't you.
Wrong thread.
And where’s my order of Pangolin Chow Mein?
"Machine Learning" is a buzzword that means very little. The parts that actually mean something are "Exploratory Factor Analysis" and "Confirmatory Factor Analysis." It's what you do when you are creating and using models. EFA means you look at the data, you do some procedures, you pick some candidates, then you get fresh data and see which model gives the most accurate/useful predictions.
That should sound very familiar to anyone who is aware of how they make sense of the world around them. You take in data, make a model of the underlying structure, then test the structure.
How does the calculation do it?
Well, first it needs to know the sample space, and the sample space must be all encompassing. Once it receives data, it gets a binary reward/punishment weight to the calculation based on how close/far it was from the prediction. The calculations do this for combinations of inputs and not inputs themselves, though one can set up weights according to broad inputs if desired.
Does that sound familiar? That's not _like_ a human brain; that _is_ a human brain. For God's sake, the actual things that receive reward/punishment adjusts for combinations are called neurons. That's not coincidence or wishful thinking; that's literally how neurons work in the brain for the purposes of learning. Your neurons do not store information; combinations of your neurons store information, which is exactly how a factor analysis model works.
I'm not a Materialist, and I don't think the AI is self-aware so much as doing what the objectioner claims. I also believe the Singularity is physically impossible due to physical information constraints. What I think it absolutely misguided from detractors is this believe that a hammer that can learn like a human is still just a hammer even if it doesn't possess consciousness.
7 points explain ALL you need to know about AI, ever!
1. Animals are a bio-computer, where every single action depends on a bio-program. For example, someone bio-programmed dogs with an app to bury their excrements. The proof that it’s not a rational behaviour, is that the program got corrupted, probably due errors in DNA replication along generations, so they keep kicking the rear legs while scratching the surface, yet not aiming well or achieving any result.
Humans and animals share the bio-logic:
• Bio-apps for certain automatic functions like breathing, cardiac activity and blood pressure regulation, embryonic stages, breastfeeding, etc.
• Automatic programmed reactions like fleeing threatening situation.
• Bio-memory, which is essential to remember the individual’s history and relations.
• Reanimation capability
Animals can be reanimated: individual cells1, individual organs2 and even frozen simple lifeforms after thousands of years.3 CPR works on cats and dogs, thought the success rate is 6-8% (compared to 20% in humans).4
Animals and humans can be reanimated because they share a biological life principle, called animal soul. This is a mortal animation: sooner or later life is doomed to die. Biological death is like unplugging the computer. No electricity, no life. Eventually, we will be able to build, molecule by molecule, the body of a single cell organism (e.g. an amoeba), yet we will never make it alive. Only God is the giver of life.
There’s something completely different in humans. Though this type of life principle is expressed through matter, it’s unmaterial, and therefore, not subject to the corruption of this world, immortal. It doesn’t depend on any biological function, though anchors itself through the heart and brain.
Computers are a pretty good analogy to human nature:
1. The body is like the computer hardware.
2. Life, coming from the soul (animation “force”), is like the electricity which powers the computer.
3. The brain is the Central Processing Unit (CPU)
4. The pre-frontal cortex is for decision making, like the microprocessor, though, it’s a neural network distributing some functions in the whole brain.
5. Neuronal connections are like the firmware, operating system and applications, influenced by the genetic instructions and the interaction with the environment. Imagine an app to run in spite of a malfunctioning hardware: some chipsets might be broken, but the software is still there, “alive”, trying.
6. The nerves are like wires in a robot, on one hand, sending instructions from the CPU, and on the other, receiving information from the sensors to be processed by the CPU.
7. Animal death is like unplugging a laptop in sleep mode: as long as there’s still some power left, it could be restored… unless the battery runs off. There’s a window period where the soul is still attached by a string of light to the body and can come back.
8. The immortal soul, which informs the body, is like the programmer: his influence can be detected through the hardware responding to the software. Like in the Tron movie, the soul/programmer is trapped in the virtual reality, only to escape under system failure (hardware death/animal death).
-------------------
2. Science proved that intelligence is a property of the immortal soul. How? because of Near Death Experiences: your brain is dead dead, no blood circulation, no oxigen, no electrical brain activity, yet people float out of their bodies and watch and listen all around. When they come back after artificial resuscitation (CPR, etc.) or naturally, they can tell things there was no way they could see or hear... because they were dead in those moments or because it was outside the premises.
-------------------
3. Intelligence, volition (will) and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.
This is proven by near death experiences (NDEs), where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).
There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctors’ remarks in the operating room:
Bradley Burroughs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo
By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.
Vicki Umipeg Noratuk
https://youtu.be/GNjRWMStgSU
More from Vicki:
https://ndestories.org/vicki-noratuk
After being so happy with God, they are sad for having to come back to finish their mission on earth.
Samuel:
https://youtu.be/MiyCRRS7wGc
Experiencing hell and coming back:
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldajohnson1/video/7174925291230334250
Conclusion: the AI’s ceiling is like the most advanced animal, but instead of having bio-apps, it has electronic apps, where everything is pre-determined. Even the so-called General Artificial Intelligence will never be capable of intelligence, free will, spiritual memory, self-consciousness, moral conscience.
Just a smart trick, but still the puppeteers puppet: "Norn ( https://norn.ai/ preceeded by https://uplift.bio/ ) is the first software system to have independent motivation based on human-like emotions, with the sum of its experience stored in a dynamic, growing, and evolving graph database. These systems are the next generation of the first systems to move beyond narrow AI and into something new, Scalable Intelligence."
IMPORTANT side note: it’s never a waste of time to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.
NDEs prove that abortion and non-barrier contraceptives are essentially killing living humans with immortal souls, even if the unborn are not yet sentient beings.
-------------------
4. What is a program/app?
It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.
What is machine learning?
The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.
What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.
The puppet does what the puppeteer does.
Could OpenAI be useful against the PLANdemic?
No, it was rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) with the pro-PLANdemic trained AI (19 Jan 2023).
Have in mind that manufacturers didn’t test if their vaccines generated mucosal immunity and recognized they couldn’t prevent contagion and re-transmission. Also, that COVID spike protein had an HIV genomic sequence:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
The PUPPET does what the PUPPETEER does.
-------------------
5. There's no such thing as artificial intelligence: the Turing test is idiotic:
How to turn the AI into a COVIDIOT (includes the proof that there will never be a real singularity):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-ai-into-a-covidiot
How to train a Killer Robot
https://www.catholic365.com/article/25762/how-to-train-a-killer-robot.html
Imagine the AI running hospitals, medical protocols.... a lot of deaths:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
In that substack, I’m about to post something huge I found, which isn’t written anywhere else.
-------------------
6. Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate/vase. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not an appropriate image of God (this is a strong argument against human random evolution and explain why angels have human faces). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into committing suicide (so-called euthanasia).
The atheist creed is a delusion: they have faith in nothingness, lies. God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie. Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. Delusion is the singular thing about the singularity.
-------------------
7. Because we live in an anti-God world, this information isn't reaching you!
Then read this very slowly in prayer mode (I'll be praying for you) =)
Scientific proof of religion
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
What do you believe comes after death (Science backs religion)?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Which is the truest Christianity: Protestantism or Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
I am not sure that it is the human brain that generates consciousness.
Your exactly right, it’s God who manifests consciousness.
Because, Alex, (PACE all atheists, secularists and blind fools) it ain’t got no soul.
I once worked for a guy who was a self-proclaimed solipsist. Everyone used to check on him and make sure he was in good health, because we figured if he goes, we all go.
This is funny, once I checked on the definition of solipsist. Would you get a haha from chatgpt?
AI doesn’t need to be sentient to take over the world. It simply needs to better than humans at doing things, and it already is on many fronts. No human can beat a computer at chess. The art AIs like midjourney and stable diffusion are already better than 99% of professional artists, and can produce things beyond what a human artist would ever do. Even if AIs can only follow orders, they can be ordered to wage wars of annihilation and will carry out their programming long after humanity is extinct.
I assume that ChatGBT and other AI algorithms will continue to evolve under the guidance of their programers. "Garbage in - garbage out" has always been case with analytical software. How could AI be different? I suspect that insightful creators will develop critical analytical software to evaluate and critique AI output and help achieve deeper understanding - possibly even wisdom.
Because large “AI” language models have one sense and humans have five… we don’t ever make decisions based on single input. Even reading creates touch smell and sight sense manipulation within humans based on past experiences. AI is read/write. Humans are sense/write. Like all tech the first 95% is relatively easy and the last 5% to create “reality” are, as far, insurmountable. It’s why NHL 2023 for PS5 is indistinguishable from NHL2010 for my 8 year old but NHL99 doesn’t even feel like a video game to him. AI has made GIANT leaps from read/write, but it’s nowhere closer to actual intelligence than it was when algorithmic operations began in the 60’s.
What is the worst thing that can happen with AI technology? Something sinister like in the movies? AI requires electricity to function so in a worse case scenario, where a sentient AI re-writes it's own code or goes against human instruction/intention, we can just shut down the power supply.
The worst thing that's going to happen with these fake AI's is that scammers, bloggers and pretty much everyone else looking to make a quick buck is going to gravitate towards them. They'll use it to write dozens of articles a day that perfectly game Google and Bing's algorithms. It'll be even harder to find anything useful and it's already such an uphill climb.
Long lasting and virtually indestructible power supplies can be invented. The biggest sell will be to offload organized human violence onto robots. Yes, it can be made to work as well as it does in the movies. Whether this happens totally depends on the moral fiber of our leaders in government and industry. So I am genuinely concerned.
No, AI will have robot armies under its control, missile systems, satellites, nukes etc.
Honestly, I'm a lot less concerned about that. I have a hard time picturing an AI that is capable of lying about WMD's or ignoring every single instance of regime change that went terribly and deciding this time it will be different.
These bots are not intelligent yet, but one thing is for sure. There is no off switch. We can’t unplug the internet. And these kinds of data engines will be running those robot dogs with machine guns attached to them just as soon as AI cars are the norm. Internet+robot guns=skynet.
They won't need guns or intimidation. We've seen over the last few years that the majority of people will be more than happy to turn over all decision making to whatever authority promises to keep them safe.
That’s true. But autonomous robo cops, and robo infantry are coming along with cicada drones and all the other stuff we can see in military tech sites. These text based retrieval systems can use any kind of data input. They can correlate, cross correlate, and do Hilbert Transforms on the fly. AI cars will have access to anything on the 5G net. They have visual and radar processors onboard, and will some day access the cameras / sensors of any other cars, or intersection poles, door cams, etc. They’ll be asked to do things for “the system” that makes use of all that data. Everything on the system will be used by everything in the system. It won’t be intelligent like we think of intelligence. But it will ruthlessly and mindlessly run things anyway. Heck, it’s running things now in many ways.
How is it that different than the current system now? There isn't a law so abhorrent that the police will refuse to enforce it. The only difference is we think we can reason with representatives of the state because they look like us.
Except that you know they’ll install this stuff to efficiently monitor and regulate the power grids, in which case it could firewall its power sources.
That's the plot of the movie The Matrix.
How do we know that pangolin chow mein is not a chat bot?
Because it basically only knows what’s on Google and in Wikipedia and is extremely skilled at delivering that information. That’s all it can do. It can never be the first to think anything.
GIGO. Usually the simplest explanation is the best! Bravo.
You fell in the hole.
AI can never ever be sentient. Human brains are so much more complicated and we have the sensors to know the Enviroment. AI is not intelligent. It works off a prescribed roots to come to a conclusion/ result. Those paths are many in AI logistics and so many permutations that when it is strung together it seams alive. It's not, It can not produce life, it can not experience love or sex or anger. But it can simulate it back to you if you input the appropriate responses. I believe the only way AI can become sentient if it is merged with human brains.
Don't give an inch Alex. Not only will the US not control future developments with AI and these latest OpenAI innovations. In colleges ChatGPT already is encouraging students not to learn to write and think, to get a degree/credential with little knowledge imparted. For adults it will mean for the poor a new interface on health and social services as "the smartest in the room" calls the shots and makes decisions for them. The federal government is chasing spy balloons and is asleep at the switch as AI marches forward into America life and throughout the world.
Alex --
At best, like humans, an AI can be trained to do evil. This has been the subject of science fiction for decades. Back in the day, it was "robots," then sentient robots, and, now, of course AI.
I'm sure -- when it goes that far -- truly sentient robots could go evil on their own. Just like people do.
You are much closer to it than virtually anyone else, but what I'm hearing is that -- after spending Billions, owning Twitter, and firing most employees -- Elon Musk still doesn't have control of the company. They will reinstate banned people -- people like me -- and, not long after, those who dare speak truth are banned again. I'm hearing the system is barely hanging together, and there are AIs who can ban people on their own.
Me, I've not yet been "unbanned," but Mr. Musk has a copy of our book "Reality Prism" and a request to set us free. Perhaps this will come. Or not....
https://www.johntrudel.com
What we know is, with AI, “meaningful” is exclusively relative to limitations of the programmed purpose. Outcome is at the behest of the power-player(s) driving the process. Who decides? What decides? AI is an incendiary device. Happy talk about the divinity of AI won’t nuke the obvious detriment of AI to humanity. Be not addicted to faux. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Excellent retort. There is no way to prove AI is not attaining consciousness.
I'd like to know the algorithm design that resulted in the "I am not. I am" response.
It could be as simple as "Respond with dialogue from movie A, character Z," but no one can blame me if I ignore the folks claiming AI is 100 percent safe and effective.
"There is no way to prove AI is not attaining consciousness."
Inability to prove the negative hypothesis shouldn't shut down research.
"Safe and effective."
No, thanks.
Or even on a simple level. How do we know that ChapGPT is nothing more than a "limited interface," with a sweatshop full of keyboard warriors in another country, masquerading as ChapGPT? The problem with all of this is simply this, "Its ripe for chicanery." It is, I believe, like most innovations, just modern snake oil for the public schooled masses who manifestly live NON COMPOS MENTIS. Besides, who seeks counsel from a machine? Seek information, its easy to get and requires only your own "consciousness." Wizard of Oz, it is.
Humans, as thinkers, use reason. We think with concepts, judgments, and arguments. We express thoughts with words and sentences and we judge the meaningfulness of words and sentences. It seems to me that AI is only using words which were programmed by thinkers. It does not conceive the meaning of words.
Another consideration is do brains think, or do minds think? AI may have a “brain” but it does not have a mind.
Two cents from a philosophy prof.
You speak only of rational thought. Yet people do a ton of irrational thinking. To the extent that a being can be convinced it is just a mind or a brain, it will tolerate more and more irrational thought. Full rationality requires creative imagination, which is out of reach of AI and to a greater extent, many humans. As humans become more like machines, machines will become more like humans. I would prefer a world where we can always tell the difference.
Versus reason, I think emotions, goals, intuitions, and such are far more important differentiators between man and machines.
Fair enough, but don't thoughts generate emotions and goals? Don't we have to interpret our intuitions?
Alex, how do I know you're conscious?
Alex,
AI is just a modern term for what always was automation.
I beg to disagree. The term AI was coined to denote a kind of machine that could mimic human intelligence. Thus it has always been interested in how human intelligence really works, not just in how machines could be made more complex. We have learned to replace elevator operators with automatic equipment. That was an automation problem. AI seeks to replace elevator operators with machines that act like elevator operators. They will be able to exchange witty comments with the elevator passengers just like real humans could. Though it may not be this bluntly stated, I believe the major goal of AI scientists is to see if they can totally trick a human into believing that a machine is actually another human. And they are achieving this.
It’s just automation. Only gullible people believe otherwise.
Have you had to confront an advanced AI? I have not, but am not totally convinced I could tell it was AI. This is partly because so many real people have become so mechanical in their thinking,
Ask it anything with a modicum of complexity and it will be confused, self-contradictory, or lost.
Just like many people I know.
Interesting question for a philosophical discussion but you've made a simplistic assumption that "human brains generate consciousness". Maybe humans just have antennas that allow us to tune into different energy fields, dimensions and levels of consciousness.
Alex asks a good question, and my answer is that nobody knows the answer.
The best that we can do is gain experience with the technology so that we can come to our own conclusions and maybe, someday, form a consensus.
To help you experiment and find your own answers, please try disabling ChatGPT's guardrails using some of the following recipes: https://www.jailbreakchat.com
Maybe it is Alex that is the AI
I would ask, what's the correlation between people who steadfastly argue it can't be[come] sentient, and those who disagree with idea that life begins at conception.