4 ms·

>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 generatin

>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
>This is an irrelevant prediction that seeks to straw man this conversation, because you haven't done this. I can do this. The problem is you're NOT going to accept it. It's 100% predictable. I have a query where I asked chatGPT to come up with a custom GUI I wanted. It gave me WORKING code. and it has no eyes to even visually understand what a GUI is and how code translates to it. You hear that? "no visual knowledge." Vision is essentially the fourth dimension for LLMs... they have no concept of it directly. Yet chatGPT is able to infer what a GUI would look like from training text and generate working code for it. This wasn't even a GUI with your typical html widgets for checkboxes and buttons and that sort of stuff. In fact it didn't use anything from your typical set of traditional UI elements. So I want to pre-empt this before I show you what it did. Is your reaction going to be generic just like I predicted? Or not? >I'm having a flashback to middle school writing assignments. Last, no one called anyone "blind" except for you. I never said you were blind. I simply asked a question, are you blind or am I? You didn't answer. Instead you had a flashback. Good for you. >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? Put it this way. Is what I said not 100% true? Like literally there is NOTHING on the face of the earth that will convince you. I have evidence locked and loaded and ready to give to you but you're going to react to it in a highly human and highly predictable way. It's a generic pattern. >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? It's not an IQ display. It's from experience. You ever try to convert a religious person off of religion or onto another religion? Logic and rationality plays zero role in his decision. The religious person is NO different than any other human. It's not an IQ thing at all. It's a human thing. All people are this way, there's very little exception. Think about how many times someone convinced you to completely flip your stance in a single conversation and think about how many times you've flipped someone elses stance in a single conversation. Extremely rare, and when you do the other party is likely not very happy about it. Is anything I'm saying unrealistic? It's pretty much true all the way through and you can't deny it. It pretty much will play out the way I said it will and you would agree with me if you stop being pissed for 1 second. You will not be convinced. There is no amount of evidence that will do it. >Nevermind. You are faking intellgience as a fig leaf for being arrogant and insulting as a substitute for conversation. Yeah I can see how it can come off as arrogant and insulting. That's not the intent but yeah I expected it. But here's the thing, I'd rather come off this way then have a pointless "conversation" where I waste my time on something that I already know wont' change the outcome. I'd rather dig deep into the nature of bias and make you aware of the bias so I have a chance of convincing you for WHEN I do actually present you the evidence. Obviously that failed. You're so offended and pissed that you're basically not going to accept anything I present you. This is done. I'll do another "intense meta analysis": If we continue the "discussion" it will be full of hate and exchanges of subtle insults that go around the HN rules. I'd rather not. Do you or do you want me to present to you the evidence? Or should we end it? Up to you. I'll leave it at that, go back to your flashback.

corethree 3y ago

>This is an irrelevant prediction that seeks to straw man this conversation, because you haven't done this. I can do this. The problem is you're NOT going to accept it. It's 100% predictable. I have a query where I asked chatGPT to come up with a custom GUI I wanted. It gave me WORKING code. and it has no eyes to even visually understand what a GUI is and how code translates to it. You hear that? "no visual knowledge." Vision is essentially the fourth dimension for LLMs... they have no concept of it directly. Yet chatGPT is able to infer what a GUI would look like from training text and generate working code for it. This wasn't even a GUI with your typical html widgets for checkboxes and buttons and that sort of stuff. In fact it didn't use anything from your typical set of traditional UI elements. So I want to pre-empt this before I show you what it did. Is your reaction going to be generic just like I predicted? Or not? >I'm having a flashback to middle school writing assignments. Last, no one called anyone "blind" except for you. I never said you were blind. I simply asked a question, are you blind or am I? You didn't answer. Instead you had a flashback. Good for you. >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? Put it this way. Is what I said not 100% true? Like literally there is NOTHING on the face of the earth that will convince you. I have evidence locked and loaded and ready to give to you but you're going to react to it in a highly human and highly predictable way. It's a generic pattern. >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? It's not an IQ display. It's from experience. You ever try to convert a religious person off of religion or onto another religion? Logic and rationality plays zero role in his decision. The religious person is NO different than any other human. It's not an IQ thing at all. It's a human thing. All people are this way, there's very little exception. Think about how many times someone convinced you to completely flip your stance in a single conversation and think about how many times you've flipped someone elses stance in a single conversation. Extremely rare, and when you do the other party is likely not very happy about it. Is anything I'm saying unrealistic? It's pretty much true all the way through and you can't deny it. It pretty much will play out the way I said it will and you would agree with me if you stop being pissed for 1 second. You will not be convinced. There is no amount of evidence that will do it. >Nevermind. You are faking intellgience as a fig leaf for being arrogant and insulting as a substitute for conversation. Yeah I can see how it can come off as arrogant and insulting. That's not the intent but yeah I expected it. But here's the thing, I'd rather come off this way then have a pointless "conversation" where I waste my time on something that I already know wont' change the outcome. I'd rather dig deep into the nature of bias and make you aware of the bias so I have a chance of convincing you for WHEN I do actually present you the evidence. Obviously that failed. You're so offended and pissed that you're basically not going to accept anything I present you. This is done. I'll do another "intense meta analysis": If we continue the "discussion" it will be full of hate and exchanges of subtle insults that go around the HN rules. I'd rather not. Do you or do you want me to present to you the evidence? Or should we end it? Up to you. I'll leave it at that, go back to your flashback.