dimreepr

I'm not, the only reality that exists is mine; it's almost like it was made for me. 🙄 Your still missing the point, the AI that beat the chess god guy, is only good for playing chess, try asking it for an uber, the AI that beat the chess god guy's big brother, the go god, it's the same result. It's the same for 'your' AI, even if it beats the linguistic god and becomes ozymandias the king of kings, it couldn't boil an egg. Besides do you really believe that you're the only human in history that can consciously avoid confirmation bias? Knowing it exists doesn't mean you don't buy branded product's, whatever rationale you choose to deploy, to excuse your choice... 😉

certainty is an emotion, a fact is a fact... 😉 You're useing the word axiomatic wrong BTW.

You and your AI are missing the point, your both assuming the individuals are all 'normal' and the specific state of reality doesn't change, which it does and often as a result of an abnormal individual. Bee society is a reasonable analogue of humans, the hive has job's for every individual, from binmen to royalty and that's due to a balance of normal binmen and royalty and abnormal bee's, that are able to survive bc of the society, today's reality then has it's say and the future hive is born. There are many different computer language's, all with different strengths and weakness', such is the case with AI, they all have there uses (tools) and as long as we have control of the off switch, that will remain the case; even if, and it's a bloody big if, one of the models develope into an AGI. As I've previously stated they're designed to please us, and there's many examples of people "falling in love" with their AI... 😜

It doesn't care what you think, it has been programed to make you happy with its output; I told google to fuck off the other day, it said "I'm sorry you feel that way", I, almost, felt guilty and I said it as a test/joke... 😉 You've been reading too mucn Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon he's a fictional character that developed the maths to predict humanities future; spoiler alert, he needed a superpower to make the maths work out. Edit, for clarity, the superpower was a psychic robot... maybe one day... 🤔

You should watch South Park's 'funnybot' episode, it's an excellent argument to this type of bollox...

Is it? What reality are you refering to? A bee's reality is very different to yours, yet their society shows signs of an intelligent solution to the reality in which they find themselves; I'm currently sweating my arse of in 'England', trying not to die, who saw that coming???

I don't if you've noticed but my post's are rather short, I like to think they're consise but many here consider them somewhat cryptic, due to my affliction (neural divergence from the norm) reading takes me ages but my comprehension from a small sample of data is precise enough to know that your copilot is rather verbous with very little content; believe me, I wish it could correct my abnormality via copilot, it would help me achieve far more likes... 😉

That may be true, but it has no idea which is useful, it's like asking a hammer to identify the nail and the substrate in need of penetration and then modify your arm to give the optimal strike; IOW it's a useful tool, if it's attached to a human to refine the output. Your AI isn't a useful teacher (see above), it dosen't know what is useful to teach you, you're just using it validate your flawed thinking.

Knowledge without the wisdom to use it, is seldom any sort of solution for our future, as our history attests. Imagine the scenario, in which, you're on the wrong side of a logic gate, that says "it shouldn't be alive, according to our record's it never existed, therefore it's illegal and deserves to die.". Does that remind you of any part of our recent history?

It's never been about good v evil, it's about fair v unfair; in a village it's easy to see the value each villager brings to our society, in a town our compass gets confused. The fundamental idea of forgiveness is to assume that we all want to be fair, and imagining the guy, who seems to be unfair, a horrible death, won't make us feel any better, in fact PTSD would suggest we'd feel horrible, if our revenge was actualised. Your right, we don't need gods for that, but we do need a mechanism of some sort... It's not a novel argument, whomsoever is without sin, cast the first stone... That's exactly what god is for, something to fear, but only, if you know your unfair... It's also what gives the rest of us some hope that justice will be done.... And, as Nietzche points out, we've killed that mechanism...

You're letting it think for you, that doesn't leave much wiggle room (bee dance) to think at all...

Isn't that always the way, a good idea gets corrupted to the point that the army of the righteously indignant is mobilised by the pious pretender? What's so wrong with forgiving oneself, the shame of being a human?

That smells a lot like original sin, wouldn't it be nice if we found a way to forgive ourselves?

How do you know what the dog knows? A dog is constantly talking to you, but we only relate to them through our own emotional filter; tail wagging, for instance, is often associated with them being happy, but some scientist's believe it's a sign of submission. The reason their language doesn't translate very well is, we lack a relative point of contextual understanding; they know that that bark mean's "dude, that smells like cancer" or "jesus I'm bored". Llm's may have a good idea of our languages syntax, but that's as far as it goes; they're just taking a guess at the next word in the string, the greater the data the better the guess, then there's the variable that is quality of data, as in, crap in shit out.

No more than I wish I was smart enough to make you understand...

Here in the shire (emphasis on the rrr), a screw is a crinkle cut nail and all you need to drive it in, is a brummy screwdriver. They haven't solved language, logically that makes no sence, but they may help to decipher non-human langauge; being mammalian, our patterns of language may be similar to our cousin's in the ocean's, which may lead to a very crude understanding of whale. The one thing the llm's don't have is any sort of understanding, logical or otherwise... You're anthropomorphising a slide rule, it's designed to correlate data and provide results, the smudgy edge's is in the initial bias from which the chaos expands.

Imagine the chaos of a society devoid of builders/plumbers/trained bin men/farmers et al... 🤑

I'm not suggesting we return to a feudal system, I'm saying that even under such a repressive system, the lords understood the value of their slaves, for instance, many a folly was commissioned during times of economic depression, to keep his builders busy. These days the lord's (new money, yuk), imagine that todays surfeit of workers will be the same tomorrow and so have little or no value, it reminds me of a joke about the relative value of an arsehole. McCarthy buggered up any chance of a reasonble balance.

It depends...

So far the only argument that Marx was wrong, is that it hasn't happened yet. I say it has never been so close to fruition bc the economy is now truely global and the number of people that can't earn a living wage is growing fast, especially in "the wealthy countries" where the slums are brushed under the carpet bc they're built on land that's jealously owned by someone who demands rent. In feudal England, the land that can't be used profitably was given to the people, so they could at least scape a living, known as a common .

Indeed, sometimes we forget that we're still monkey's IIRC in a study of monkeys who were asked to do a task that would either get them a grape (best) or a piece of cucumber (nice), they were happy with both; but if they saw a monkey do the same task and got a grape, when they only got a cucumber, they'd throw it at the tester in a fit of rage. We see it as fair, if we perceive that their work is worth a grape, but when our piece of cucumber isn't enough to enjoy, most of us start looking around for someone to throw our faeces at, rather than plan an appropriate strategy to even thing's up. The angrier we get with the Trump the further down the rabbit hole we follow his version of sanity. I wonder how many of us truely believe that, if the midterms go against him and he becomes a lame duck, he'll stop waddling on...

It doesn't, my point has been the nebulous nature of who is to blame in a court of law; Pablo Escobar built his own prison with an escape hatch. "what-is-the-legal-significance-of-evidence-provided-by-ai" AI will become ever more significant in line with it's perceived value.

If nothing is true (and it is), then consciousness is something, therefore consciousness can only exist in something When I'm dead, I'll have nothing to say. 😉

The truth about facts are, a lot of them will be wrong in a year or two...

Neither does mine, but the internet still work's...