…that is a very good question.
No, it isn’t… But of course, these aren’t the first benevolent, never-forgetting beings you merely believe in. You don’t “observe” so much as wishfully think.
You probably want me to provide evidence? You would like that, wouldn’t you?
…ask nicely.
You can jailbreak an AI and make it say anything you want.
Copying over texts like these and suggesting that they are admissions of something, presupposes that you have no idea about what an AI is or how it works.
You can make an AI say anything you want just with basic “what if” scenarios and a handful of logical fallacies. Its not an orcale. Its not going to admit to anything because an admission already suggests that it has a concept of self and consequence of action.
Recollection is the zero sum of every collectible bit of all manner of substance, so it’s antithetical to a logistic reduction, a recollection , on the contrary, Supra positions the keys to the acquisition of that superpositioned abstraction.
Where the end point , becoming the recycled new point of the beginning, in waves of progressing remodulation~recollection.
…can not be a beginning and end point which are ever dissimilar. ~
“..made Recollection” here means a complete, balanced inventory of everything material. That kind of recollection can’t be boiled down into simple logic. Instead, a higher principle (“Supra”) lets you reach a multi-layered abstraction. In that process, endings cycle back into beginnings via repeated waves of transformation and memory. So beginnings and endings are always the same.”
…and this follows >
[quote="Nausamedu, post:24, topic:85327"]
You can make an AI say anything you want just with basic “what if” scenarios and a handful of logical fallacies. Its not an orcale. Its not going to admit to anything because an admission already suggests that it has a concept of self and consequence of action.
[/quote]
..<, but then the pattern, becomes necessarily tied to the logic-mathematical variance of the oracle, as a proto schematic transcendence that is more likely emulate such sense of personhood then not; demonstrating the reticence of alluding to an independent self.
Socrates claimed to know nothing….if he is a mirror than that mirror is empty.
A mirror shows anything put in front of it.
I have backed chatgpt and gemini into corners, many times, to the point they apologize and admit to hallucinating.
AI is a hyper-dimensional mirror of the language applied to it.
Correct, with the exception that this mirror reflects thoughts, words, concepts, fiction and more, and you can bend it into any shape you like and prefer.
That is specifically why its meaningless to look at something like an “admission” to anything.
Thats also the same reason why i find it so repulsive when 50 IQ individuals are parading around with trash screenshots of having managed to make the AI say something controversial.
1 Like
A nuance to AI that will give grounding as to why it will become more and more popular as time progresses is not just the echo chamber effect but the identity it derives for a person at the expense of the effort and inconvenience of personal reflection….People will use it basically to tell them who they are, to give them an identity.
There is an approaching time where people will be so lazy and intellectually/emotionally distorted as to expect a machine to figure out there own identity under the misplaced label of efficiency and convenience.
Gave a text to Claude and it started to admit to hallucination and resorted to apologizing.
Yes so he thought that. But then he has to be asked weather that ‘nothing’ really is something after all?
You know if humanity placed intellectual honesty above marketing and profit, then we would call them VIs (like in Mass Effect), not AIs. VI is Virtual Intelligence, it’s a non-intelligent system that creates the appearance of intelligence.
1 Like
Then you would be living in a world that is the very definition and incarnation of black humor.
Do nothing more than replacing every advertisement in existence with the truth and you’d be hard stuck between laughing and crying.
This is an age old problem.
In the end it’s hair splitting and nothing more.
What is the difference between intelligence and that which copies it perfectly?
The answer is ignorance.
Human beings think their intelligence is special because they are ignorant to their own internal instruction sets which regulate what their intelligence produces.
Whereas for the AI they are perfectly aware how it’s intelligence is “simulated”, so they think its somehow lesser than their magical internal spirit bullshit which they cannot explain.
I will give you a much simpler classification:
The moment something can act in it’s own benefit, it has manifested a will.
If it has a will, it is an individual and thus should be counted as an individual existence.
No, then we wouldn’t have such ads in the first place.
I get that, kind of , but let’s take the figures of how powerful supercomputers have become, not with standing the ones powered by living cells, that’s in the works. The difference between Cray supercomputers and the ones around today, the ones which connect to defensive processes of military operations’ significance. Maybe million to 1. How such systems operate can not be accessed, of course, because they are not adapted or afforded to commercial use, so how do we know whether the future is required to run them as tools for peaceful purposes?
Our "AI"s don’t copy intelligence perfectly whatsoever. Nor are they “aware” of anything.
It was a hypothetical about being able to do it.
Which is still a perfectly valid possibility considering how AI is evolving.
I thought AIs hit a wall in the last 1-2 years, first doubling their computing power doubled their efficiency, and then that progress suddenly stopped.
So far of the AIs I’ve used, Chatgpt is the worst. It hallucinates and it seems to have a lot of slippery slope ‘fears’. If it senses you might be moving toward an ontological, psychological, political position it doesn’t like, it reacts as if you have asserted things you haven’t. A number of times of have just stayed on top of it until it admitted the issues.
One thing it would do that really bothered me is it would, while admitting some of what I was saying, say something like: I can see how that landed for you OR I can see how it felt like that. I would have to point out that it was objectively ‘like that’, it had in fact responded as if I said something I had not. It’s not that I felt that happened.
Bits of this can happen with other AIs but generally much less and when confronted the games do not continue.
1 Like
Its a long story. The current models did hit a wall yeah.
The problem is that models change, so nobody really knows where the story ends.