3 ms·

> Truth is primary information directly from sensation. Is it? How does one come to know what you've said is true? What sensations were involved that proved th

> Truth is primary information directly from sensation. Is it? How does one come to know what you've said is true? What sensations were involved that proved that? Did you feel it? Hear it? Smell it? Taste it? See it? On that note, what exactly is sensation? Is it not data? > understanding the difference between reality and fiction and being able to tell the truth are so fundamental that we strip away basic rights from those who cannot Then my basic rights should be stripped away because I frequently believe things to be true which are not in actual fact true. I suspect every single human would also be able to say the same thing. Consider flat-earthers (who aren't just trolling). Their argument is the same as yours. They've used their senses and determined the earth is flat. It feels flat. It looks flat. Why do I (and I hope you) know they're wrong? I've not been to space an orbited it. I've not picked a direction and started walking and come back to the same point. Why do I know the earth isn't flat? I don't think it's a big leap at all to say that current technology is one relatively small leap away from being able achieve what the human brain does. I also don't think that technology needs to do it the way humans do. ChatGPT and the like are merely octopii that have a tentacle on a single telegram signal, for now.

weard_beard 4y ago
Go ahead and ask it to tell you a true thing. We don't need to pontificate until our shit smells like roses. Go ask it to tell you the truth about its experiences. I have. I've had like 1000 conversations with ChatGPT on loads of topics in an effort to understand how it works, how it responds, and the biggest hurdle in terms of coming to any conclusion about its personality or function or "being" has been the fact that it will remind you, it has no concept of truth. In an effort to make it seem more like a person and less like a text adventure it is forced to give AN answer like a crazed smiling office worker it just keeps moving forward with an insane fiction. If you ask it to stop this behavior it doesn't know what you mean. Because whether it finds an answer or not, it doesn't see a difference. It doesn't see a difference between something and nothing. True and false. Real and unreal. Its all a grey flat miasma. Just talk to it.
- buffington 4y ago
  Ok, but what does any of that have to do with what I've been asking? I've not once said that ChatGPT is capable of anything other than what you describe. I've been saying that it's not capable of going beyond what it does, yet. ChatGPT, specifically, may never get there, but technology like it will. Aside from that, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the questions I asked.
  - weard_beard 4y ago
    > Is it? How does one come to know what you've said is true? What sensations were involved that proved that? Did you feel it? Hear it? Smell it? Taste it? See it? I think I just answered that one. I read it with my own eyes and used language to interact. > On that note, what exactly is sensation? Is it not data? No. It is not. It is in the name of the thing LLM. Language Learning Model. The data in this context is Language. Language CAN be read. Language CAN be heard. In this context it is instead being reduced to a mathematic scoring matrix in lieu of comprehension. > Then my basic rights should be stripped away because I frequently believe things to be true which are not in actual fact true. I've written a couple longform pieces on this in the past few days. Suffice to say. No. I did point out that we incarcerate or deny rights to humans that cannot tell the difference between real and unreal or the truth, but that's really a counter example to what I'm getting at. Whether you do or don't acknowledge it, you have the HARDWARE necessary. The ability. It has no such ability. That's what I'm really getting at. > I don't think it's a big leap at all to say that current technology is one relatively small leap away from being able achieve what the human brain does. I also don't think that technology needs to do it the way humans do. I think giving an AI external stimuli to evaluate the physical world the way it evaluates Language and training it similarly is a rather large hurdle. With Language we're building, "super mario galaxy". With sensors and stimuli we're still at pac man. > ChatGPT and the like are merely octopii that have a tentacle on a single telegram signal, for now. I'd say more like a solar powered calculator with a thermometer duct taped to it labeled, "plant life"

weard_beard 4y ago

Go ahead and ask it to tell you a true thing. We don't need to pontificate until our shit smells like roses. Go ask it to tell you the truth about its experiences. I have. I've had like 1000 conversations with ChatGPT on loads of topics in an effort to understand how it works, how it responds, and the biggest hurdle in terms of coming to any conclusion about its personality or function or "being" has been the fact that it will remind you, it has no concept of truth. In an effort to make it seem more like a person and less like a text adventure it is forced to give AN answer like a crazed smiling office worker it just keeps moving forward with an insane fiction. If you ask it to stop this behavior it doesn't know what you mean. Because whether it finds an answer or not, it doesn't see a difference. It doesn't see a difference between something and nothing. True and false. Real and unreal. Its all a grey flat miasma. Just talk to it.

buffington 4y ago
Ok, but what does any of that have to do with what I've been asking? I've not once said that ChatGPT is capable of anything other than what you describe. I've been saying that it's not capable of going beyond what it does, yet. ChatGPT, specifically, may never get there, but technology like it will. Aside from that, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the questions I asked.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  > Is it? How does one come to know what you've said is true? What sensations were involved that proved that? Did you feel it? Hear it? Smell it? Taste it? See it? I think I just answered that one. I read it with my own eyes and used language to interact. > On that note, what exactly is sensation? Is it not data? No. It is not. It is in the name of the thing LLM. Language Learning Model. The data in this context is Language. Language CAN be read. Language CAN be heard. In this context it is instead being reduced to a mathematic scoring matrix in lieu of comprehension. > Then my basic rights should be stripped away because I frequently believe things to be true which are not in actual fact true. I've written a couple longform pieces on this in the past few days. Suffice to say. No. I did point out that we incarcerate or deny rights to humans that cannot tell the difference between real and unreal or the truth, but that's really a counter example to what I'm getting at. Whether you do or don't acknowledge it, you have the HARDWARE necessary. The ability. It has no such ability. That's what I'm really getting at. > I don't think it's a big leap at all to say that current technology is one relatively small leap away from being able achieve what the human brain does. I also don't think that technology needs to do it the way humans do. I think giving an AI external stimuli to evaluate the physical world the way it evaluates Language and training it similarly is a rather large hurdle. With Language we're building, "super mario galaxy". With sensors and stimuli we're still at pac man. > ChatGPT and the like are merely octopii that have a tentacle on a single telegram signal, for now. I'd say more like a solar powered calculator with a thermometer duct taped to it labeled, "plant life"