3 ms·

Show me where ChatGPT4 can solve for a novel allegory. That type of processing is not within the scope of its capability. Ask it. Prod it. Try to force it. It

Show me where ChatGPT4 can solve for a novel allegory. That type of processing is not within the scope of its capability. Ask it. Prod it. Try to force it. It'll tell you. I like Ai. But It's important to be realistic. It can't abstract in a completely creative way from a basis of language with embedded and only-implied meta-patterns, the latter which is the nature of human cognition. I just tried asking Bing ChatGPT to solve the most rudimentary allegory: presented in a single sentence and with given three solution options. It deflected endlessly, before telling me that it couldn't solve it for the benefit of my self-growth and then signing itself off! It'll be nice when open source Ai renders these clownish interactions obsolete, but there still isn't evidence that it can begin to mimic the plasticity of human cognition. What it can do is bs a lot when it hits a dead end. Ai can match shapes, as a rudimentary part of its ability. That is a start. But what it needs to be able to do is decaode complex narrative as a shape, and then identify the same shape in other narratives and concepts. Thereby making a novel connection born out of abstract thought. Or it even might create a new model (ie: allegory) using the prior undetected pattern. As high IQ humans do, subconsciously and sometimes consciously.

corethree 3y ago
First off if you knew the algorithm that ML runs off of, you'd know that it's doing curve fitting between data points. Every point on that curve that doesn't touch an original data point is by definition novel. The very algorithm itself is literally 99.999% completely generating solutions that don't exist. But that won't convince you. Its weird because you believe I have wishful thinking and I believe on your side that you are in denial. When I query chatGPT I look for intelligence, when you query it you look for flaws. The pattern in our argument will be obvious and repetitive just like the output of an LLM. What will happen is this. I will present to you a prompt and the result which I believe verifies the status of chatGPT as an AI capable of solving novel problems. You will look at that query and you will say something along the lines that the problem and answer set already exists in the data and it's just regurgitating existing solutions from the training set. We can attempt to pre empt this. I can allow you to come up with a prompt to produce something novel but what will happen is that you will choose a prompt biased towards your argument and I will choose a prompt clearly biased towards mine and we will each have excuses for why the other is invalid. That's how humans work. We don't believe things based off of rational arguments, we construct rational arguments based off of pre existing beliefs. But you are unaware of this. It's like religion people are unaware of their own bias. You will never believe ai can produce novel things. Nothing anyone can say will ever convince you at this moment. What may convince you is over a span of 10 years as ai improves your opinion slowly flips the same way a scientologist slowly comes to terms that he is in a cult. I want to bypass all this in built bias I want both of us to admit to logical statements before we present our arguments and if that logical statement is violated you are wrong. Definitively. Bias and excuses be damned. First ai can't always produce novel and correct output. It only does this sometimes. As we all know it's inconsistent. So examples of AI being stupid does not preclude it from being smart. What if I have it construct a GUI? An arbitrary GUI that I need for a work assignment. chatGPT has no eyes so there's no visual data it can copy the solution from. If it were to construct a working code solution it would have to be novel by definition. If I present to you such a prompt and answer pair. Would that convince you? Of course not because you already know I have such a prompt prepared and these debates are more about competition then it is about learning. But I ask anyway. Would it convince you? I'm curious whether my intense meta-analysis helps you see the alternate possibility here: that I am not just hopeful of AI to be great and that it's possible that you are the one in denial about the inevitable and unknown future that novel AI will herald. Unlikely. by definition we are all blind to our bias, am I blind or are you?
- mrangle 3y ago
  >Every point on that curve that doesn't touch an original data point is by definition novel. The very algorithm itself is literally 99.999% completely generating solutions that don't exist. That may be the case, conceding your chosen use of language. The minutia doesn't matter if it can't demonstrate novel high level creativity for novel problems. Acknowledging the importance of its actual capabilities, but also acknowledging that we are arguing over one: applied abstract thinking. If it can't output what is requested, then there is a lie somehwere in the description of its processing IF it is held to be capable. >When I query chatGPT I look for intelligence, when you query it you look for flaws. I disagree with your binary frame. One can't acknowledge its ability and where it falls short? >What will happen is this. I will present to you a prompt and the result which I believe verifies the status of chatGPT as an AI capable of solving novel problems This is an irrelevant prediction that seeks to straw man this conversation, because you haven't done this. Keep in mind that my argument rests in creative language analysis. Not in its ability to process math, biological systems logic, nor anything parallel. > We can attempt to pre empt this. I can allow you to come up with a prompt to produce something novel but what will happen is that you will choose a prompt biased towards your argument and I will choose a prompt clearly biased towards mine and we will each have excuses for why the other is invalid Do you understand that trying to predict a conversation as a form of argument and an attempt at an IQ display (respectfullly) is boorish and boils down to fallacy? >But you are unaware of this. Nevermind. You are faking intellgience as a fig leaf for being arrogant and insulting as a substitute for conversation. >You will never believe ai can produce novel things. Nothing anyone can say will ever convince you at this moment. What may convince you is over a span of 10 years as ai improves your opinion slowly flips the same way a scientologist slowly comes to terms that he is in a cult. This is how you speak about a piece of software, to another human being, and I'm the one who is acting like they are in a cult? >my intense meta-analysis You think that you have presented "intense meta-analysis"? My recommendation to you, toward improving your writing and thinking, is to pare down the number of words that you use toward the goal of distilling the actual information that you present. Here, it isn't much. Its an accusation of bias, religious thinking, and insults. Combined with sparse comments on the tech and a barely decipherable fully hypothetical thought experiment without a clear stream of logic. There was nothing intense nor meta about it, aside from the intensity of the word count. >am I blind or are you? I'm having a flashback to middle school writing assignments. Last, no one called anyone "blind" except for you.

corethree 3y ago

First off if you knew the algorithm that ML runs off of, you'd know that it's doing curve fitting between data points. Every point on that curve that doesn't touch an original data point is by definition novel. The very algorithm itself is literally 99.999% completely generating solutions that don't exist. But that won't convince you. Its weird because you believe I have wishful thinking and I believe on your side that you are in denial. When I query chatGPT I look for intelligence, when you query it you look for flaws. The pattern in our argument will be obvious and repetitive just like the output of an LLM. What will happen is this. I will present to you a prompt and the result which I believe verifies the status of chatGPT as an AI capable of solving novel problems. You will look at that query and you will say something along the lines that the problem and answer set already exists in the data and it's just regurgitating existing solutions from the training set. We can attempt to pre empt this. I can allow you to come up with a prompt to produce something novel but what will happen is that you will choose a prompt biased towards your argument and I will choose a prompt clearly biased towards mine and we will each have excuses for why the other is invalid. That's how humans work. We don't believe things based off of rational arguments, we construct rational arguments based off of pre existing beliefs. But you are unaware of this. It's like religion people are unaware of their own bias. You will never believe ai can produce novel things. Nothing anyone can say will ever convince you at this moment. What may convince you is over a span of 10 years as ai improves your opinion slowly flips the same way a scientologist slowly comes to terms that he is in a cult. I want to bypass all this in built bias I want both of us to admit to logical statements before we present our arguments and if that logical statement is violated you are wrong. Definitively. Bias and excuses be damned. First ai can't always produce novel and correct output. It only does this sometimes. As we all know it's inconsistent. So examples of AI being stupid does not preclude it from being smart. What if I have it construct a GUI? An arbitrary GUI that I need for a work assignment. chatGPT has no eyes so there's no visual data it can copy the solution from. If it were to construct a working code solution it would have to be novel by definition. If I present to you such a prompt and answer pair. Would that convince you? Of course not because you already know I have such a prompt prepared and these debates are more about competition then it is about learning. But I ask anyway. Would it convince you? I'm curious whether my intense meta-analysis helps you see the alternate possibility here: that I am not just hopeful of AI to be great and that it's possible that you are the one in denial about the inevitable and unknown future that novel AI will herald. Unlikely. by definition we are all blind to our bias, am I blind or are you?

mrangle 3y ago
>Every point on that curve that doesn't touch an original data point is by definition novel. The very algorithm itself is literally 99.999% completely generating solutions that don't exist. That may be the case, conceding your chosen use of language. The minutia doesn't matter if it can't demonstrate novel high level creativity for novel problems. Acknowledging the importance of its actual capabilities, but also acknowledging that we are arguing over one: applied abstract thinking. If it can't output what is requested, then there is a lie somehwere in the description of its processing IF it is held to be capable. >When I query chatGPT I look for intelligence, when you query it you look for flaws. I disagree with your binary frame. One can't acknowledge its ability and where it falls short? >What will happen is this. I will present to you a prompt and the result which I believe verifies the status of chatGPT as an AI capable of solving novel problems This is an irrelevant prediction that seeks to straw man this conversation, because you haven't done this. Keep in mind that my argument rests in creative language analysis. Not in its ability to process math, biological systems logic, nor anything parallel. > We can attempt to pre empt this. I can allow you to come up with a prompt to produce something novel but what will happen is that you will choose a prompt biased towards your argument and I will choose a prompt clearly biased towards mine and we will each have excuses for why the other is invalid Do you understand that trying to predict a conversation as a form of argument and an attempt at an IQ display (respectfullly) is boorish and boils down to fallacy? >But you are unaware of this. Nevermind. You are faking intellgience as a fig leaf for being arrogant and insulting as a substitute for conversation. >You will never believe ai can produce novel things. Nothing anyone can say will ever convince you at this moment. What may convince you is over a span of 10 years as ai improves your opinion slowly flips the same way a scientologist slowly comes to terms that he is in a cult. This is how you speak about a piece of software, to another human being, and I'm the one who is acting like they are in a cult? >my intense meta-analysis You think that you have presented "intense meta-analysis"? My recommendation to you, toward improving your writing and thinking, is to pare down the number of words that you use toward the goal of distilling the actual information that you present. Here, it isn't much. Its an accusation of bias, religious thinking, and insults. Combined with sparse comments on the tech and a barely decipherable fully hypothetical thought experiment without a clear stream of logic. There was nothing intense nor meta about it, aside from the intensity of the word count. >am I blind or are you? I'm having a flashback to middle school writing assignments. Last, no one called anyone "blind" except for you.