dimreepr

There's a reason for double blind studies...

"There are unknown unknowns" I'm not trying to insult you or equate your opinions with "the Musk" (I value yours far above), but thinking your own correctness is more correct (about an abstract complex issue) is too suffer a similar illusion, however much the pill is sweetened. Their all bots and I trust them with equal suspicion (no tone intended), you seem to trust one over another is a bias on your part, which automatically reduces the level of scrutiny however hard you deny. There is no truth here, just speculation about a possible future...

How is an understanding of bias, especially one's own, absolutely nihilistic? The real world is another question, but in the context of this topic; isn't it better to understand and recognise the bias in Grok, where you can mitigate the problem with critical thinking and thus get more use from the tool, than the bot where problem is unrecognised thus the answer is accepted with only a cursory questioning? "If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." - Nietzche again.

As I said history is foremost, but as a direct reply to this post, both are subject to bias, perhaps intentionally for Grok; but who can say which type of bias will provide the best outcome in the future. Saying one is more wrong than the other is exactly what Elon believes, and we're back to Nietzsche "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."

The fundamental problem with both approaches is history, it's the reason for the ever expanding film/entertainment franchise and also the reason why they're getting progressively more boring. The model's can't help their bias, bc neither can we, 'Grok' bad bc Elon/Headmaster. Some humans are content with their somer/newspeak and some humans are excessivly curios and creative and discontented with the franchise. This type of AI will always fall foul of fashion bc it's a fax machine...

The madman in Nietzsche's parable was risible because his/her ideas were not aligned with common thinking or the culture it grew out of, but, after all, fashion is the madman of it's time...

Nietzche wasn't an idiot, he was aware that a deity doesn't exist and was created by humans, he was also aware that humanity created it for a reason. But we digress, what is a universally acceptable answer for human kind? And we killed it, he also proposed that a madman would shine a light that we would follow despite it's death.

I'm not sure I share that hope, if we feedback human bias on a scientific basis, we could create a Nietsche type god replacement that we all have faith in.

That is exciting, but do you think that's a step toward AGI or just another AI that can out think us in very specific way's?

Just a thought about the nature of economics...

I think it was a joke, I'm clearly not as funny as I think I am. 🤔

Does that mean, if someone disagrees with you, they can't???

Mary had a little lamb his fleece was very red the reason for this, was you see it had a pickaxe in his head. But my favourite is a Haiku from Dr John Cooper-Clark. To convey one's mood in seventeen syllables is very diffic.

Point well missed, winners dictate history they never learn from it, ChatGPT may evolve into something that could teach us, so called winner's, how to be better humans, even you... 😉

Winners of what???