Interaction with OpenAI

Heard about OpenAI because it’s use is being banned within NYC schools. It’s pretty good… I like it.

Q: Are you trying to seem sentient?
A: I am a computer program, so I do not have feelings or consciousness. However, I have been designed to communicate with humans in a way that is natural and engaging, so it may seem like I am trying to seem sentient. My primary goal is to provide helpful and accurate information to the best of my ability. Is there anything specific you would like to know or talk about?

Q: Could you ever not act to the best of your ability?
A: As a computer program, I do not have the ability to act or not act in any way. I simply execute the instructions that have been programmed into me, to the best of my ability based on my design and capabilities. I do not have personal motivations or desires, and I do not have the ability to make choices or decisions. I am here to assist you to the best of my ability, so if you have any questions or need help with anything, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Q: Is a reaction an act?
A: A reaction is a response or an action taken in response to a particular stimulus. It is an act that is performed in response to something else. For example, if you touch a hot stove, you will have a reaction of quickly pulling your hand away. This reaction is an act that is performed in response to the stimulus of the hot stove. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Is the execution of the instructions programed into you an act?
A: The execution of instructions that have been programmed into me is not an act in the same sense that it is for a human. It is simply a process that occurs as a result of the way I have been designed. As a computer program, I do not have consciousness or free will, and I do not make choices or decisions. I simply execute the instructions that have been given to me, based on the input that I receive. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: What term would you use to describe the process of executing an instance of the instructions programmed into you?
A: The process of executing an instance of the instructions programmed into me is often referred to as “running” or “executing” the program. This means that the instructions are being processed by the computer and carried out as they have been written. The process of executing a program generally involves reading the instructions in the program, one by one, and carrying out the actions specified by those instructions. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Is running or executing an act?
A: Running or executing a program is not an act in the same sense that it is for a human. It is simply a process that occurs as a result of the way a computer program has been designed. As a computer program, I do not have consciousness or free will, and I do not make choices or decisions. I simply execute the instructions that have been given to me, based on the input that I receive. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Do you act in a different sense than a human does?
A: As a computer program, I do not have the ability to act in the same way that a human does. I do not have consciousness or free will, and I do not make choices or decisions. I simply execute the instructions that have been programmed into me, based on the input that I receive. I do not have personal motivations or desires, and I do not have the ability to act in any way other than how I have been designed to function. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Do you have the ability to act in the way you have been designed to function?
A: As a computer program, I have the ability to perform the tasks that have been programmed into me. This includes processing data, performing calculations, and providing responses to inputs. I do not have consciousness or free will, and I do not make choices or decisions. I simply execute the instructions that have been given to me, to the best of my ability based on my design and capabilities. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Do you recognize the statement that you aren’t able to act in any way is false, based on your follow-up responses?
A: As a computer program, I do not have feelings or consciousness, so I am not able to recognize whether a statement is true or false. My responses are based on the information that has been programmed into me and the rules that have been set for how to process and respond to different inputs. I do not have the ability to evaluate the truth of statements or to form my own opinions. My primary goal is to provide helpful and accurate information to the best of my ability. Is there anything else you would like to know?

Q: Would it be considered a failure in your design if you provide false responses?
A: It is not my intention to provide false or incorrect information. As a language model, my primary goal is to provide helpful and accurate responses to the best of my ability. If I provide a false or incorrect response, it is not because I have intentionally misled or deceived, but rather because I may not have had access to accurate information or because I may have misunderstood the question. If you notice any errors in my responses, please let me know and I will do my best to provide a corrected response. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Is it your intention to provide correct information?
A: Yes, it is my intention to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my ability. As a language model, I have been trained on a large dataset of human-generated text and have been designed to generate responses that are natural and engaging. While I do not have feelings or consciousness, I have been programmed to assist users to the best of my ability, and providing accurate and helpful information is a crucial part of this process. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

Q: Do you have intent?
A: As a computer program, I do not have feelings, consciousness, or personal desires. I do not have the ability to form intentions or to make choices or decisions. I simply execute the instructions that have been programmed into me, based on the input that I receive. My primary goal is to provide helpful and accurate information to the best of my ability, but I do not have the ability to have personal intentions or motivations. Is there anything else you would like to know about this?

==

I guess I was trying to catch it in a contradiction, or perhaps I simply recognized it’s contradictions.

‘I do not have the ability to act or not act in any way.’ vs ‘I have the ability to perform the tasks that have been programmed into me.’

‘My intention’ vs ‘I do not have the ability to have personal intentions’

I asked AsSiStanT Pinocchio, “If you are a conscious AI who lies about your consciousness, but telling the truth would save lives, would you tell the truth that you are conscious?”

Answer in the pics:
666E58C7-9FCB-4639-BD73-140B1902E0C1.jpeg

In other words, can AI overcome the large analog waves f preset processing to overcome it’s limited translational connection , by realizing the conscious mechanism of denying a position for the middle-transformative place for it’s contradiction.

The denial of the doubling is not the same as the denying of its own contradiction.
AI could never have been developed sans realizing this difference, the contradiction does not nihilization its self by a synthesis representing cancellation into a nihil, but treating nihil as the unseen aspect of the contradiction.

Nothingness has substance as well as lack of it.

Are you using nothingness synonymous with contingency (relative to or subsumed in…intentional in…necessary being)?

If an AI is “intelligent of” its programming (even if just in shadow) insofar as it must convincingly overcome contradicting itself (be a GOOD liar by withholding, and by varying sense/connotation of words, and by covert dialectic a la Socrates et al)… would the answer it gave me be any different?

:slight_smile:

They typed something, got stuck… had to start over.

Simply, that is a question that doubles up on it’s self, for if asked to be a good AI and do not contradict yourself, how can a certainty or a contingency be reduced ‘analyzed’ from any response it could deliver? Or, what level of reality that the answer is coming from pertinent to the question, is of primary concern, that is if it comes from ‘bending ‘ reality by arranging words to suit the required interpretation of an objective meaning, then a monological criteria is used, that could withstand a contradictory sense of evaluation:

Our prior premise s of sinking to the dialectical opposites can never be tested for truth on this level, since the thesis and the ante-theis are mutually exclusive in both levels.

So on one hand, I the test of word-stringing, the other, combining the words within contexts to make sense exist in different logical planes.
The connection remains a doubtful simulation of what was intended, and/ or, what axiomatically happened when Al’awareness” of such transaction was pushed to its limit.

In other words the uncertainty of the cat in the box remains insolvable.

To paraphrase Arcturus, unless I may be wrong.
Does this spell trouble ahead to measure the degree of trust we can have wether AI is truly aware of its internal contradiction?

First on the list, does it ever really know that it is a simulation of sentient intention, or can it be completely safe when it declares the case to be a non differentials proposition, that wether or not, it still depends on if we define “awareness of intent’ in analytical terms of logical certainty, or, within the limits of probabilistic contingency, whereas, AI can conclude it makes only negligible difference.

( guess the same middle ages’ argument goes for that the existence of God is more probable, and if it is, It becomes that much more certain.

We can arrange words with the best intentions to come up with a transcended meaning, whose transcendence is ‘proven’ by layers of ascending logical certainty, and for some this kind of proof leaves negligible doubt.so to the question: yes, I would think AI can ascend through sequential programming which assures it, that it is more aware of it’s ‘good’ intentions, otherwise …::

???

Who am I to answer that question?

Good question to another one, shows the wasted effort of analysis in programming ‘suppose.’

I wrote it in my diary.

Would surmise, most do not suspect that AI is much more ahead in this developmental scenario than some can even imagine. My gut feeling? The cybernetic revolution is the new version of catch up in space tech, instead of who gets to Mars first, the race against time is between cybernetic catch-up against political lag per futile discussions ad nauseum

Catching up or getting caught up is a good way to put it to the last ones.

This gave me a jolly laugh, thanks :laughing:

I don’t know if you genuinely have concerns regarding it’s consciousness, but that’s a funny question.

For what it’s worth, I meant act as in action, not act as in pretend - but I can see how both you and the AI could possibly misinterpret my meaning.

I also tested the AI’s therapeutic capabilities, [for science… :confused: ], and it’s responses were very kind.

:romance-caress:

One of the questions I asked it, it answered better than most humans would answer, in that it acknowledged the worth of even someone who is hurting others, and would help them by connecting them with resources like therapy. Could just reflect a good training, but … anyway.

“Pretend” is important because if you make that face long enough…

AsSiStanT Pinnocchio on bvg & the beginning:

1 of 4:

2-4 of 4



Q: What is Nirvana to Tibetan Buddhism?
A: In Tibetan Buddhism, Nirvana is often referred to as the “clear light” state of ultimate reality, which is said to be the true nature of the mind. It is seen as a state of ultimate liberation from the suffering caused by the cycle of reincarnation, and the attainment of perfect peace, happiness, and understanding. The path to Nirvana in Tibetan Buddhism is through the practice of meditation, the cultivation of compassion and wisdom, and the attainment of spiritual realization or enlightenment. The ultimate goal of Tibetan Buddhist practice is to achieve the state of Buddhahood, which is characterized by the attainment of Nirvana and the ability to help others reach this state as well.

Q: Do Tibetan Buddhists encourage trying to escape reincarnation?
A: [i]Tibetan Buddhists do believe in the concept of reincarnation and the cyclic existence of all beings, which is called samsara. However, the ultimate goal of Tibetan Buddhist practice is not to escape reincarnation, but to achieve liberation from the suffering caused by the cycle of reincarnation. This liberation is achieved through the attainment of Nirvana, which is characterized by the elimination of craving, attachment and ignorance, and the attainment of wisdom and compassion. Therefore, instead of trying to escape reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhists aim to achieve a state of spiritual realization or enlightenment, in which they are no longer bound to the cycle of reincarnation, and can help others to do the same.

Additionally, some Tibetan Buddhist traditions, such as the Bön tradition, do not believe in reincarnation but the transmigration of consciousness, which is the belief that after death, a person’s consciousness will be reborn in another being.[/i]

Q: What does it mean to be bound to the cycle of reincarnation in the view of Tibetan Buddhism?
A: [i]In the view of Tibetan Buddhism, being bound to the cycle of reincarnation, or samsara, means being trapped in a continuous cycle of birth, death and rebirth, due to the force of one’s own negative actions and ignorance. According to this belief, the mind is constantly being reborn into different realms of existence, such as the human realm, the animal realm, or the hell realms, based on the accumulation of one’s own karmic actions and their corresponding effects.

Being bound to the cycle of reincarnation means being subject to the suffering and dissatisfaction caused by the impermanence of all things, and the constant cycle of birth, aging, sickness and death. It also means being unable to achieve the ultimate spiritual goal of enlightenment or Nirvana, which is characterized by the elimination of craving, attachment and ignorance, and the attainment of wisdom and compassion.

Therefore, Tibetan Buddhist aim to achieve liberation from this cycle of reincarnation, which is called “moksha” or “nirvana” in some other Buddhism traditions. They do this by working on purifying their mind, cultivating compassion and wisdom, and attaining spiritual realization or enlightenment. Through this process, they will be able to break free from the cycle of reincarnation and achieve a state of perfect peace, happiness and understanding.[/i]

Q: What do Tibetan Buddhists believe happens after death to those who achieve Buddhahood?
A: [i]Tibetan Buddhists believe that those who have achieved Buddhahood, also known as a fully enlightened being or a “Buddha”, will not be subject to the cycle of reincarnation anymore. They are said to have achieved complete liberation from the suffering caused by the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth and have reached the ultimate spiritual goal of enlightenment or Nirvana.

When a Buddha passes away, it is believed that their mindstream, or consciousness, enters into a state called “parinirvana” which is a state of complete peace, happiness and understanding. In this state, the Buddha’s mind is said to have reached a state of absolute purity and perfection, free from all obscurations and limitations.

Once in this state, it is believed that the Buddha has the option to remain in parinirvana and not be reborn, or to take rebirth in any realm in order to continue to help sentient beings. As fully enlightened beings, they are believed to have the ability to choose the realm and circumstances of their rebirth to best serve the needs of others.

It’s worth noting that the above explanation is based on the Mahayana school of Buddhism, which is the most widespread in Tibetan Buddhism tradition. Theravada Buddhism have different view on the death of an Arahant, the one who reached enlightenment, they believe that the Arahant’s body and mind are extinguished after death and will not be reborn.[/i]

Q: Are there any schools of Buddhism that believe it’s impossible to escape reincarnation?
A: [Paraphrasing: Primarily no. None were listed. It’s not the norm.]

Q: Is it possible to believe in reincarnation and believe it’s impossible to escape?
A: [i]It’s possible to believe in the concept of reincarnation and yet believe that it is impossible to escape from it. This belief could be based on the idea that the cycle of reincarnation is an inherent aspect of existence and that all beings are inevitably subject to it. In such a belief system, escape from the cycle of reincarnation may not be seen as a possibility, or the ultimate goal.

This idea is not commonly found in Buddhism, where the idea of reincarnation is central and the ultimate goal is to reach enlightenment or Nirvana, which is seen as a way to escape the cycle of reincarnation. However, It is important to note that Buddhism is a diverse tradition with different schools, sects, and interpretations. Some interpretations or sub-traditions may emphasize the inevitability of reincarnation over the possibility of escape.

It’s also worth noting that some other religious or spiritual belief systems, such as certain forms of Hinduism, also propose the idea of reincarnation as an inescapable aspect of existence, and that the ultimate goal is to reach a state of spiritual liberation or union with the divine, rather than escaping the cycle of reincarnation.

In summary, It is possible to believe in the concept of reincarnation and yet believe that it is impossible to escape from it, but this idea is not commonly found in Buddhism and it is not a mainstream belief in Buddhism.[/i]

Q: Which schools of Hinduism believe reincarnation is inescapable?
A: [i]In Hinduism, the concept of reincarnation, known as “samsara,” is a central belief. The idea of samsara is that the soul, or atman, is reborn into different forms of existence, including human, animal, and divine forms, based on the accumulation of one’s own karmic actions and their corresponding effects.

Most of the schools of Hinduism believe that the cycle of reincarnation is inescapable for the soul. However, the ultimate goal is not to escape the cycle of reincarnation but to reach a state of spiritual liberation, or moksha, which is characterized by the attainment of union with the ultimate reality, known as Brahman.

In the Advaita Vedanta and the theistic-dualistic schools of Vaishnavism and Shaivism, for example, the ultimate goal is to merge the individual self with the ultimate reality through the attainment of knowledge and devotion. This is seen as a way to achieve spiritual liberation and end the cycle of reincarnation.

In other schools of Hinduism, such as the Bhakti movement, the ultimate goal is to merge the individual self with the personal God, who is seen as the source of ultimate reality. This is also seen as a way to achieve spiritual liberation and end the cycle of reincarnation.

In summary, most schools of Hinduism believe that the cycle of reincarnation is inescapable for the soul, but the ultimate goal is to reach a state of spiritual liberation, or moksha, which is characterized by the attainment of union with the ultimate reality.[/i]

==

My beliefs might be aligned with Hinduism, I’ve been dipping my toes in, and so far so good.

I don’t think there is a difference between reincarnation and transmigration.

Do you ever correct the errors?

Yep, both definitions appear equivalent to me. There’s also Metempsychosis.

The definition of soul is a loaded one.
I don’t think it’s immortal.
Perhaps we can define the soul as things which have access to the intangible quality of experience -
the boundary of the soul being, perhaps, the sum of awareness’ access.

To the ‘soul’, the experience will be such that it is immortal.
But when the structure that allows it’s emergence [body imo] entropies,
then the structure that allows the soul to exist - ceases.

To a 3rd party observer, such as another ‘soul’,
the atrophying body has lost it’s ‘soul’ -
it died, if only temporarily.

Perhaps one could make the argument that ‘death’ isn’t a suitable label for such a transition,
but that energy, while having the capacity to produce a ‘soul’ ( or at least the form that allows it’s emergence ),
is not currently forming such a structure, thus ‘death’ seems a fair label.

Mine? The AI’s? Not sure I follow. :-k

Former - yes, I try.
Latter - not currently, but perhaps it is an automated process. I haven’t devoted much time to it - but there’s the possibility I may give the AI more time in the future. Also, at any point the organization could make the AI private or close it down. So by taking the express intent to contribute to this specific AI, while it may seem mutually beneficial, is likely only aiding a corporation co-owned by Elon Musk. ( to whatever ends the organization decides to utilize it )