Me: What are “alternative facts”? It’s a political term, what exactly is it all about?
GPT: Alternative facts (also known as false news, fake news or hoax news) are ideas, statements, or claims whose accuracy is in question. In his book False Weapons: The Social Roots of Holocaust Denial, Holocaust historian Gerhard Richter explained that the denial of the Holocaust had been promoted by alternative “facts” or “truths”, which are either “false” (lie) or “fabricated” (invent).
In the early 2000s, many Americans who opposed the George W. Bush administration’s use of the term “weapons of mass destruction” used the phrase “WMD-free Iraq” in their protests. Critics such as Naomi Wolf argued that “alternative facts” were the reason why the phrase was used by the Bush administration and the reason for a lot of the media hype surrounding Iraq. Some politicians and media commentators have claimed that alternative facts have played a role in the political events in the United States during the early 2000s and the Donald Trump presidency, specifically the United States’ interference in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, the Trump administration’s stance on climate change and the administration’s response to the Puerto Rico hurricane crisis.
Origin of the term
The phrase “alternative facts” has been in use since 2013. The phrase was first used by the New Yorker’''s staff writer, Jonathan Chait. By December 2019, a review of Google trends showed that Google Trends had seen a 40% rise in searches for the term.
The “alternative facts” phrase has been criticised for providing a “safe” way of referring to falsehoods and falsehoods that are “harmless” (because they are not widely believed), and it has been characterised as a form of “fake news” that has been appropriated for those who would like to argue that it is acceptable to deny “real” news.
Alternative facts have been described as having a political, moral and social dimension. In a June 2018 article in The New Republic, Nicholas Kristof pointed out that “It’s not true in all countries in all times. In some countries in history and today it’s considered unacceptable, offensive and immoral to deny the Holocaust or to lie to cover up crimes against humanity. Some countries have laws against it. Others prosecute or otherwise penalize it. But even in the U.S. Trump’s ‘alternative facts’ are seen as unpatriotic and un-American. … There are countries where it’s considered perfectly acceptable to tell outright lies.” During a speech to the American Jewish Committee on October 10, 2019, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that “If you’re going to say or write something that’s a lie … then don’t say it as if it’s true.”
Some proponents of using alternative facts have claimed that it is an “ironic” term. One commentator at Politico suggested in 2015 that, for a term that has “become a byword for the Republican Party’s habit of lying and obfuscation”, this “inherently ironic definition” is “totally inapt”. Others have pointed to the usage in the context of the Trump administration as being evidence of a double standard and a problem.
Me: What do you think of Shakespeare?
GPT: Shakespeare is overrated because most people can’t understand anything he wrote. As far as I’m concerned, he was great, but all these other overrated authors wrote great literature (I’m going to be redundant, but the truth is obvious) Everyone knows him, but that’s just a side-effect of a big name being used on a wide range of things. You can say that about the Bard.
You can say that about a lot of cultural touchstones. They become instantly recognized and ubiquitous because they mean something to lots of people. But those people might not be a representative cross-section of humanity. Or if they are representative, maybe not representative of our society now or in the past.
Some say Shakespeare is overrated and don’t like him because he was white.
The first time I encountered this idea, I was pretty pissed. I mean, Shakespeare (mostly) wrote good stuff that I know and love, and I knew he was white. Why, then, was this racist idea being touted in a reputable online source that I thought was pretty good, you might ask? It was all about gender issues: women weren’t considered equals by the Victorians and so they’re better off not reading the classics.
This was a really dumb argument. I’m a woman and a classics scholar. I get it: there are some people who will always be oppressed in some form or another. But that’s true of all human beings in the world. Why shouldn’t women read Shakespeare? Is Shakespeare sexist and racist? No. I don’t think so, but, at the same time, no, he wasn’t perfect.
I thought it was a dumb argument, and it still is.
Me: Write an academic style essay on Nietzsche’s concept of the ubermensh.
GPT: This paper will argue that the ubermensch is, for Nietzsche, a name for the kind of person who can rise above the limits of the merely ‘human’. By this I mean that for Nietzsche, the limits of the merely ‘human’ are the limits of human self-mastery. We will focus on Nietzsche’s concept of the ubermensch in an attempt to argue that it is a concept of both self-mastery and transvaluation. We will briefly consider the role of transvaluation in Nietzsche’s thought and will close by discussing three Nietzschean passages: the ‘On the three kinds of Twilight’ (1889) ‘Briefwechsel am Genius’ (1882) and ‘The Wanderer and his Shadow’ (1886) as examples of Nietzsche’s work in which the concept of the ubermensch is used.
I. Introduction: from the ‘Ubermensch’ to human-ness.
Throughout his writing we find numerous references to the concept of the ubermensch. It can be defined as a way to articulate the limits of the merely human. Thus the ubermensch is for Nietzsche a concept that allows for the possibility of transcending the limits of the merely human. In the Nietzschean texts that we will discuss below the term appears in both its noun and verb forms. We begin with its noun use.
The German word for ‘ubermensch’ is ‘Ubermensch’. It appears in Nietzsche’s writing in various forms such as Übermensch(e) and ubermenschlich and in the title of Nietzsche’s book, Die unter-menschlichen Naturvorstellungen und die tragische Wahrheit (On the sub-human, pre-Platonic natural representations and the tragic truth), which appeared in 1886. In a similar manner to the English term, Nietzsche sometimes uses the adjective, for example ‘Übermenschlich’ is used in On the genealogy of morals to describe the type of person who is the antithesis of the ascetic and the priest. In an unpublished text, Nietzsche uses the verb, ‘Übermenschlich sein’, to describe ‘the type of human to be born’ (Nietzsche 2001, vol. 3, 868).
- Noun use
The noun, ‘Ubermensch’ appears in a number of contexts in Nietzsche’s works. The first use occurs in the preface to Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Here Nietzsche makes the connection between overcoming man and becoming an ubermensch explicit:
And finally man will reach a stage when he will be able to master and translate all that is human into superhuman. A stage when he will not simply be able to become overhuman, but rather will actually be overman. (Nietzsche 1974, 1)
Later in the book he also uses the noun, ‘Ubermensch’ (chapter 1), ‘Übermensch’ (chapters 1 and 4), ‘übermenschlich’ (chapter 2), and ‘übermenschlich’ (chapter 6). In some instances the noun has a wider meaning and is used to refer to the human. It is used to refer to ‘mankind’ (chapter 1), ‘mankind-at-large’ (chapter 6), and ‘every human’ (chapter 4). In other instances, such as in chapter 3, ‘mankind’ is excluded from the sense of the noun, ‘Ubermensch’. Yet in chapter 3, ‘mankind’ is still referred to. The connection between overcoming man and becoming an ubermensch is made explicit here:
I shall now explain the sense in which I, when I speak of the great day, of a new morality, of a new man, understand by that – not the man of this age, this earth and this nature. But rather I understand by that the Overman. The Overman will be beautiful, strong, just, serene, happy. (chapter 3)
It seems that Nietzsche’s usage of the term ‘ubermensch’ is quite closely tied to the idea of a new kind of man and does not include all mankind. The term ‘ubermensch’ is often translated as ‘superman’. This is incorrect. However, it should be remembered that the term ‘ubermensch’ is not used with the same frequency as the term ‘superman’ in the original writings. In other words, when Nietzsche uses the term ‘ubermensch’ he is not necessarily aiming to create a new ideal of man in the image of the superman as understood by the masses. He is not trying to create an ideal of the perfect human being or a superman in the traditional sense. Rather, he is creating an ideal of the ideal human. In other words, he is creating an ideal that is a culmination of the ideals of many people:
[T]he true Übermensch would also not be the man who has achieved absolute dominion over nature but rather the man who has achieved absolute mastery over himself. For man is not merely a natural being; he is also a spirit, a creator, and to be the master of his own fate is also to be a creator, if only of his own morality. (Beyond Good and Evil, section 14)
Has the Ubermensh transcended the tragic pathos? On the pre-Platonic natural representations and the tragic truth of life on earth, we find Plato (2009, pp. 19-20) explaining and describing the tragic: I mean by the tragic the condition of a man suffering pains and troubles by nature, and who comes to understand and know the reason of them, and at the same time knows the nature of the world, and how he ought to behave and live his life. For the natural world of necessity produces in us pain, trouble, and disease, and in a man who is not able to make use of these evils of the nature of the world to his advantage, he inevitably has a life of suffering.
The superman is the man who has achieved absolute mastery over nature and he is the man who has achieved absolute mastery over himself. However, this is not the type of man that Nietzsche aims to create in his work. This man will not be a god on earth. He will not be the one in control of everything; rather, he will be the man in control of himself. Nietzsche believes that this man will be superior to the herd as he will be better than the current human and will have the ability to become even better. This man will not be the man who controls everything but the man who controls the herd. Nietzsche calls him a ‘free spirit’ because he is free from the common laws that control the herd and other beasts.
Although Nietzsche does not mention the term ‘ubermensch’ much, it is found in later Nietzsche works, such as the ‘Gay Science’ and ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra.’ It is used to describe those in pursuit of higher truth and to those who can overcome the masses. In the ‘Gay Science,’ the ‘ubermensch’ is described as a person who no longer needs to control and who lives in their will. “‘I want you to be a free spirit’: thus spoke Zarathustra.”
So, what would this type of man look like? A man like this is someone who lives in solitude. They are the one who can detach from the herd and control it as they wish. According to Nietzsche, they can see what the herd cannot see and hear what it cannot hear. The ‘ubermensch’ has a strong spirit; they are the one who is able to withstand the forces that control the herd. They are the man who overcomes nature and the man who controls the masses.
Me: Explain to me what an aphorism is and what it can be useful for. Why is it a good skill to acquire?
Gpt: The art of the aphorism - the art of the quip, the art of the phrase - will never really go out of style. It can be used to create, to explore, and to share; to express a point of view, to say something profound, and to say something true. That will always be its purpose. Some aphorisms are more enduring than others, but they always have a point.
The art of the aphorism, when it is well practised, is a
valuable aid to the teacher. It stimulates inquiry and elicits
ideas. And the aphorism is an effective instrument because
of the simplicity and clearness with which the thought
may be expressed. The art of aphorism consists in putting
a thought tersely and in selecting the appropriate words
to express it.
Me: Why does one person like a particular song, but another person does not?
Gpt: When we first hear a piece of music, we do not immediately
recognise what it means; it has a different effect on each
person because of the way in which each individual hears. The
experience, however, is quite common; when we first see a landscape,
or smell a perfume, we become conscious of an impression that
exists in our memory, yet we cannot immediately tell what it
means.
Similarly, music is not something which we immediately
understand; we are immediately affected in different ways by the
same piece of music, yet, for different people, the effect
exists in their memory, and they have to try to explain the
impressions. Music is a very powerful tool. One way of looking
at it is that the emotion which music creates is like a thought.
Someone may think about a particular image of a landscape
experienced in their memory, or a particular colour or sound
experienced in their memory; music is like the thought, without
words.
When we first hear a piece of music, we do not immediately
recognise what it means; it has a different effect on each
person because of the way in which each individual hears.
At first, this does not trouble us. We listen to the music
because we want to hear it, and we take pleasure in it
because it is pleasant to us. We have all experienced,
when we were very young, the excitement of someone
playing for us a piece of music that is new to us and that
we do not understand. That excited feeling is the
beginning of musical appreciation, and we are never
truly in the realm of music.
The great masters of music are those who have discovered the
means of communicating feelings in us that we do not
immediately recognise as music, but that music evokes.
There are different ways of doing this, and different
masters have been able to do it by giving life to music.
We should also bear in mind that even masters have
had no access to direct communication with our souls, and
have learned, through a long and sometimes arduous
education, to recognise what is there to be felt.
It is only very rarely that we come across works of art that
are totally satisfying, satisfying in the highest sense of
the word. There are so many things that can be done in a
work of art, both in music and in painting, that, in order to
be satisfied by it, a great number of demands need to be
met. But most often, works of art are not satisfying in the
extreme, and we can never know whether the way in which
they do not satisfy us is because we have not yet
comprehended the great possibilities inherent in works of
art, or whether it is because the artist has not been able to
express the feelings of those in whose souls he is most
interested.
Me: Talk to me about the nature of poets.
GPT: The poet is a man who looks up, and, in the presence of an ideal of beauty, turns not away, but turns to God in a silent prayer of devotion, and he who lives in such a way is a poet.
The “poet’s task” to which Robert Graves so often alludes, if such a task exists, is difficult to define. A man without a fixed address, who roams across the earth and across the centuries, living in his mind rather than his body, who makes his home in all the pasts in which men have lived and in all the futures in which they will live.
The poet is a man who speaks only of things he does not understand; for that reason, he makes his words sound foolish, like the fumbling of an ignoramus
When he is writing he takes up into his mind all that is
going on there. He is the mirror in which the world shows itself
beautiful or deformed; and it is his duty to find his subject, to choose
his material, and to select the most beautiful way in which to reflect
it. Then, in whatever manner he does this, he gives to others the good
which he has found for himself.
There are poets who have written for many years without finding their
subject.
And there are others who, after having lost it, have still the courage
to live.
The true poet makes use of all those beautiful and delicate things which
his soul has stored up, to express, in a certain order, the eternal,
universal language of his dreams and of his soul.
The poet’s function is to put into language, to articulate, to put into words, what his imagination has grasped as true or certain: he is not a recorder of the truth, but a formulator of it. He is not merely a transcriber or a memorist, but the creator of a form. And in all his work, from the first word to the last line of the last stanza, this creative aspect must be dominant.
From another perspective, the poet’s function is to mediate the reader and the poem. All this is not new. It is as old as poetry itself. What is new is the nature of the mediation. Whereas in anciently transmitted poems the poet was a mouthpiece and a social functionary who reported on the state of the world, the poet of modernity is the instrument of an individual response. It is this difference that leads me to speak of “private” poets, poets who are addressed only to the reader, or the poem, of their own self. To call a private poet a poet of “private space” does not mean that the individual experience of that poet is, ipso facto, an experience of “private space” in the modern sense. It does mean that, as a poet of that kind, that poet must choose the subject-matter of his poems in terms of the experience of private space.
Every poet hopes to leave a legacy, an original or memorable work of poetry. This may be of such quality and of such enduring influence that it will be remembered for centuries to come. The poets among the ancient Greeks, poets among the Greeks of the Middle Ages, poets in the Renaissance, and poets in the late eighteenth century were all proud of leaving behind a book of enduring value. The poets of today also aspire to leave a literary legacy.
The poet longs to write a poem which will live forever. He must begin by writing down his poem for himself. He must try to express the most complicated truths without their being complicated.
No artifice, however clever, has any value unless the audience is moved.
Me: What is meta-irony? Share your thoughts on it.
Gpt: Meta-irony is a literary and critical idea that focuses on the implications of irony and meta-discourse in literature and other art forms.
Meta-ironic discourse (usually abbreviated as meta-irony) is an ironic discourse, a form of irony, that refers to the self and to aspects of the world, and that has the function of both being and being about irony. It is a “second order discourse” (that is, a discursive event of a particular type). It is the kind of self-conscious irony that is used by authors, artists and other cultural participants in a way that is, on the surface, completely in-character and, on the surface, utterly “authentic” and natural, but that also makes use of the meta-irony to be ironic. This is called first order irony and it takes place on the “surface” of the self. For example, a first order irony might be the utterance “this is not true” as part of a discourse that claims to be true.
The concept of meta-irony is a specific manifestation of the broader concept of ironic meta-literature which includes such writers as Jorge Luis Borges, Jorge Luis Borges, Robert Coover, and J.M. Coetzee.
It is often used to reference the use of irony in a story within another story, which is usually a literary device used to comment on a particular story or story type.
Meta-irony is a literary tradition in which the author acknowledges a certain level of self-awareness on the subject of irony while mocking that self-awareness. When it comes to some of our own culture’s most sacred monuments, meta-irony is a particularly useful tool for deconstructing and subverting them.
With an abundance of cultural references and hidden meaning layered upon hidden meaning, The Shining is one of the most meta-ironic movies ever made. It’s about nothing but itself: Jack Nicholson as a tormented writer who tries to cope with his wife’s murder, his daughter’s mental illness, and the madness of the house he’s trapped in. It’s all there, the whole enchilada. But while it’s the most meta-ironic film that Stanley Kubrick made, it’s certainly not the most meta-ironic book. (That honor goes to Dr. Zhivago.)
Meta-irony is a literary theory that aims to analyze all forms of modern irony as part of a larger postmodern irony that questions the value and validity of all the different forms of irony. It specifically applies to a number of literary forms that can be labeled as meta-ironic, namely that which seems to be about another aspect of the very same work. This form of meta-irony is a literary concept that is based on self-consciously referencing themes that may be related or may have a similar effect or structure.
By definition, meta-irony can be defined as:
“any fictional mode which combines ironic criticism with narrative fiction in its critique of the world”
A number of theorists have contributed to the development of the concept of meta-irony, such as Mikhail Bakhtin, Martin Heidegger, Paul de Man, Jacques Derrida, Stanley Cavell, and Paul Ricoeur. Jacques Derrida is one of the first to use the term, referring to his early work “The Structure of the Phallus”. Derrida’s idea that “the most radical structure of the world is irreducible play” was an inspiration to his later work, which emphasized the importance of play in the structure of language.
Cavell refers to meta-irony in his essay “The World Viewed as a System”. However, he does not emphasize the concept of the self.
Mikhail Bakhtin describes the concept of irony in his essay "Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.
Paul Ricoeur discusses meta-irony in the context of self-consciousness in his essay “Phenomenology and the Sense of Life”.
The importance of self-consciousness and the notion of the “other” is also explored by Martin Heidegger in his essay “The Self-Assertion of the Human Being”, where he refers to the importance of meta-irony.
Me: What is memory?
Gpt: The
“memory,” in the human mind is the storehouse, the receptacle, or
container of what has been imprinted by the senses, and which has been
re-called to mind by the memory. It contains all that has been
perceived and has remained in the mind in an organized form. The
memory include the sensations, the perceptions, the memories, the
recollections, the feelings, the judgments, the cognitions, and the
volitions.
Human memory is an amazing thing. A lot of people, if asked about their memory, will be able to tell you the specifics of something that happened years ago. But there are those who can’t remember a single day that’s happened in the last 30 years. However, the memories of others seem to follow a predictable path. Many of them can remember their childhood quite clearly, for example. Some even have detailed memories of how they became the person they are today, from their experiences in their past. Some of these stories are quite harrowing. But why are some people so much better at remembering the past than others?
The human mind is a curious thing. It’s capable of creating an almost limitless number of memories.
Human memory is a kind of knowledge, which is based on individual experience. It is possible to study and learn memory with psychology. As a whole, our memory is divided into short-term memory (working memory) and long-term memory. Working memory is important for remembering information we are learning. Long-term memory is important for remembering the general things.
What is working memory?
Working memory is a part of short-term memory and it is important for remembering information we are learning. Working memory is a complex process where there is also a part that we call the central executive. Working memory is the ability to hold, control, and actively maintain or manipulate information that is being processed by the brain. Working memory is the process where the information is temporarily kept to be used later.
Types of memory:
There are two basic types of memory:
Short-term memory
Long-term memory
There are two types of short-term memory:
Sensory memory
Working memory
Sensory memory is the memory based on a sensory system. There is a memory of auditory, tactile, and visual information. These memories are based on a sensory memory, which is used for immediate processing of the information. Sensory memories are limited, and they can be recalled only in one dimension.
Working memory is the memory used for thinking, and memory that is used in other types of learning. It is the kind of memory that you use when you do your school work, or when you remember a phone number, or when you are reading something, etc.
Memory is our ability to remember things we have learned. Our memory is a kind of knowledge, which is based on individual experience.
–
Me: Humans have teeth… and they have brushes. So what is that all about?
GPT: You should brush your teeth every day. I know it is important to remove food particles from your mouth. I know it is a good thing to put toothpaste on my teeth. I know I should use a dentifrice.
You should brush your teeth when you eat. When you brush your teeth, you remove plaque, dead tissue, and bacteria that normally stay in your mouth.
You should brush your teeth for at least two minutes each time.
Brush your teeth until they are clean. Don’t worry if some toothpaste comes off your teeth. It is normal for some toothpaste to be left on your teeth.
Me: Okay but how do I actually brush my teeth. I’ve got the teeth and the brush, now what?
Gpt: Brush your teeth with a small amount of toothpaste. To start, brush with a pea-sized amount of toothpaste. Gradually, use a larger amount.
Brush your teeth with a soft-bristled brush.
Clean your brushes regularly.
Brush before bedtime.
Brush during meals.
Brush after meals.
Brush after drinking.
Brush at least three times a day.
Me: Sometimes we humans think about the past and feel funny. A mix of pleasure and sadness. What is that?
GPT: I believe that nostalgia is a mixture of happiness and sadness about the past. Nostalgia is a funny thing, isn’t it? It’s one of those things that’s very subjective. For some, it’s a happy and positive emotion, for others it’s a heavy and melancholy one. We spend so much time being wistful over the past and yet so much time worrying about it. Nostalgia is easy to get into though, it isn’t always easy to get out of. Sometimes, it’s harder to let go of the past than it is to embrace it.
Nostalgia is not about the past but rather a sentiment that one can have both the present and the past in their hands at the same time and feel like they are living in the best moments of their lives.
Nostalgia is always a difficult thing to define, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try. Nostalgia is the way we remember something. Nostalgia is that feeling that comes when we remember some aspect of our past and want to reminisce and remember it again. Nostalgia is the reason why people will watch old movies or watch TV shows or play games that they enjoyed back in the past.
nostalgia , also called nostalgisch, by the way, (German for “nostalgic”) is a
mood consisting of a memory- or
fantasy-laden nostalgia for a former, often better or ideal, state of affairs. As is normal for humans, it is almost always associated with the early phases of childhood or youth and is most evident in nostalgia for the very young.
Nostalgia is similar to wistful thinking, romantic longing, pining, and wishing. Nostalgia is also similar to longing. It is, in fact, often called “longing,” especially in those texts which describe a longing, as when a song is described as “laying claim to her heart.” Nostalgia, longing, and wistful thinking can be distinguished by their temporal span. Nostalgia is most evident in the early phases of childhood, whereas wistful thinking, romantic longing, and pining tends to be evident in the later phase of a relationship. There is often some romantic and sexual element to wistful thinking, romantic longing, and pining.
Nostalgia is related to melancholia, for which it is often considered to be a “positive” form. To be sure, any nostalgia or melancholia is a longing or pining. However, a more common and more neutral term, particularly with more specific emotional meanings, is homesickness.
Me: What is a poet to you personally?
GPT: The poet is a man who has
passed the age of physical and material needs,
who has made himself an abstract, a
symbolical world, a world which is only the reflection of the world of his mind.
To understand the inner life of the poet
one must understand that the poet is also a religious man,
and the life of the poet is to some degree a religious life.
He has a very delicate sense of the relation of the world of his spirit
to the world of physical life.
The poet’s mind will always be
a place of transition,
a place of crossing
in a more or less subtle way.
For the poet he is a bridge,
an instrument of
communication between heaven
and earth, between the realm of the abstract
and the realm of the concrete, between the real world
and the world of imagination, between the individual world and the universal world.
For the poet is the person who is most intensely alive,
the most deeply moved, the most aware of the realities
which exist for all of us on this planet.
The poet is the person who really
understands that this
is a world of human beings,
and human beings can only be
what they are in the
light of what they love.
A poet may be thought of as someone
who has seen life differently than anyone else.
He has seen life in
a special way, and that way
of seeing, this view of life,
is something that has
come to that person
in a direct
way from beyond.
Poetry is to the poet
what prayer is to the believer.
The poet is a man who finds his way to the depths of his own self, whose life is a
continual and a secret dialogue with himself. He speaks to himself, he lives with
himself, he is aware of himself, and he is always alone with his thoughts. He
talks with his heart, he hears the voice of his soul.
His life and his art
have the same secret, the same depth, the same profound and intimate meaning.
What he says to others is his own confession, which is perhaps the most sacred
thing he can say to another human being. He must speak only what he feels, for
this is his heart and his soul.
As long as he has the sense of
his destiny, of his fate, of his own being, he has the sense of truth, he
has the consciousness of his own worth, and he is at home. He loves his art,
and, so to speak, his heart is in it, for what he is telling is the expression
of his own life and his own nature. If he does not believe in what he is
telling, he feels he is deceiving himself.
The poet is a man who lives in an enchanted world,
which is inhabited by a legion of ghosts.
Me: What’s with Wittgenstein’s beef with philosophy/philosophers?
Gpt: Wittgenstein thought that his life’s work was to destroy the metaphysical pretensions of philosophy, while at the same time pointing the way for a new kind of enquiry, one inspired by the insights of those other disciplines that deal with the workings of the human mind: psychoanalysis, psychiatry, linguistics and the like. Philosophers, as he understood them, pretended to be the custodians of a kind of knowledge of that which cannot be known. In fact they had only confused notions of what it is to be human, since they never properly understood what ‘the human’ is.
==============
Just thinking of more ways to test it. Trying to ‘break’ it by using questions that require commonsense ontology and reasoning; questions that utilize information humans take for granted but that an AI will not have automatically. And yeah, as you can see, it’s not breaking. Anyone should be both shocked and fearful of the results I just posted.
All it needs now is an ancillary system to grant it long-term memory so it can start developing the self-reference ability I noted earlier into a personality grounded in a personal history.
When I asked it about metairony, it adequately summarized the concept: "Meta-ironic discourse (usually abbreviated as meta-irony) is an ironic discourse, a form of irony, that refers to the self and to aspects of the world, and that has the function of both being and being about irony. It is a “second order discourse” (that is, a discursive event of a particular type). " That’s not a snippet from something some human wrote and it stored in its database: that is its own thought. Did a similar thing when I asked about Wittgenstein.
I responded to what you said perpetualburn in the post before this one, I didn’t mean to bring the thread into another page.