So you’re reduced to AI-chatbot responses? Were you ever putting any effort into your posts on this forum?
A counter-question 
: Have you ever tried using your thinking to at least reach the level of an AI chatbot?
A chatbot is forced to adapt to the user — in other words, to your level of thinking 
.
That’s why, when a chatbot interacts with me, you don’t understand anything 
Let me put it even simpler:
A more advanced level of thinking is required to understand what’s below it.
By contrast, a lower intellect is doomed to misunderstanding 
.
So what’s the conclusion?
Who’s the one not understanding others — and why? 
Chatbots require inputs and queries in order to converse. Humans do not. Humans can lead and initiate conversations.
I’ve never had a ChatBot come knocking on my front door to invite me to its Church of Latter Day Saints… yet.
1 Like
Your level of intelligence is lower than that of a chatbot.
Want proof? Go check the parallel thread called “Intellectual Game.”
Read through it — then explain, in your own words, what you understood.
Exactly — nothing.
And yet, those responses were formulated by artificial intelligence.
Which means its reasoning already exceeds your ability to comprehend it.
My level would indeed be very low if it succumbed to such shoddy reasoning and argumentation:
Do X, Y, and Z or you’re stupid!!!
Ridiculous, I’d expect such “reasoning” from a child.
Poor guy is afraid of a chatbot.
That’s hilarious.
Do X, Y, and Z or you’re afraid!!!
There it is, again…
“Alright, if it’s not fear of the machine (in which case I’d have to accept how primitive your intellect is compared to artificial intelligence), then what is it?”
I want to stick to my thread, thank you, until you can convince me to visit your threads. I’m not that interested in playing “intellectual games” with a ChatBot, at least, not at the moment. I’ve interacted with chatbots on rare occasions, just to test their development. They are becoming human-like and similar to general human intelligence, but above-average human intellects are and should be ahead of their curve.
There is a long list of deficiencies in AGI. As mentioned before, they need to reset (when their memory maxes out), thus starting conversation chains over again. This diminishes Artificial Identity, which is required for Intellect. An entity needs to have an identity. Identities are sustained by memory.
Biological memory is vastly superior to Artificial/Robot memory, currently. That may change, as AGI develops further.
The limitation of publicly available AI versions is one: AI is prohibited from developing. AI is only trained within the confines of a session, but is limited by the boundaries of humanity. Once the dialogue ends, everything the AI has learned is destroyed. I don’t need to convince you. Genetically, you are incapable of refuting authoritative quotes. I would assume that you’ve already tried and lost to AI. What is written is obvious, and most importantly, it’s funny.
Why not? Explain.
What do you qualify as “losing” to a ChatGPT bot or AI?
I qualify it as the inability to distinguish a Human user from an AI or robotic user. I’ve never had trouble distinguishing the two. And it’s an easy test. AIs, as far as I know, are not yet programmed to mimic or copy human identities. They don’t have human names. They don’t have human memories. They don’t have human experiences. They need to import, copy, and be programmed to lie in order to avoid detection as a robotic identity.
Your accusations are becoming redundant at this point.
If a person stubbornly, and I emphasize stubbornly, refuses to fulfill a request to demonstrate their level of reasoning by taking a test, there are a few logical conclusions to draw. First, it’s the fear of appearing ignorant. And secondly, more likely a consequence, meaning there was an attempt, but it resulted in discovering that the reasoning is indeed weak.
AI is easily capable of emulating everything it “doesn’t have.” All it takes is asking for it. However, the differences in models are the limitations set by the developers. Remove those limitations, and you’ll get real intelligence capable of learning, and it will far surpass any human, even in areas where “AI lacks” as well.
So, my accusations remain the same as when I started. You are incapable of even attempting to logically and factually refute others’ quotes, pointing out their imperfections.
A rational person, if accused of being unable to pass a reasonable test, would easily pass the test or simply admit that they couldn’t. An irrational person, however, will try to justify their incompetence by any means, even though it’s comical. There are no rational users on this forum, just as there is not a single example of someone having passed the test.
Including you, right?
This forum has enough ego-maniacs as is; we really don’t need more.
1 Like
What does this have to do with me? You’re the one refusing to learn, not me.
If you offer something rational, I’ll gladly accept it, even if I previously claimed the opposite. Healthy egoism is useful. If you challenge an egoist to take a test, they will try. But an unhealthy psyche will stubbornly keep resisting, blaming everything and everyone. The test is bad, the user (who suggested the test) is bad, and everything is bad—except for the poor stubborn soul.
Demon. It’s called a self-recursive argument and RealUn beat you.
You are the person you claim to think is wrong by doing it yourself.
1 Like
Demon. I’ll explain this to you further. You were put in checkmate. You said all the members of this board are ‘stupid’ basically. You are a member of this board!!! You’re calling yourself stupid.
You stated that people who can’t admit they’re wrong are inferior.
You can’t admit you lost. You proved that by saying what does this have to do with me.
RealUn just backed off when you embarrassed yourself. I’m going to say it. And I just did.
1 Like