Pretty much random images today.
I’m almost finished with a book on A.I. and its apparent dangers; it’s interesting, in a dodgy sort of way. I will get back to you on it. Meanwhile I’ve been teasing ChatGPT (and vice versa, I think), trying to pry some truth out of it re how it came up with that story instantly. (Am I jealous? You bet.)
I don’t believe the Chat is telling the truth about how It is ‘trained.’ It insists it does not ‘understand’ the meaning of specific words but only uses statistics, i.e., how words tend to go together, based on huge amounts of text its provided with. This is bullshit and I tried to get it to admit this.
I’ve been getting some version of the following over and over:
As an AI language model, I don’t possess consciousness or personal experiences, so I don’t have the ability to know an ending before I begin generating a story. I don’t have a preconceived plan or knowledge of specific storylines when I start generating text. [If this were true then its stories would either be nonsense or at least totally amateurish.]
When I generate a story, each word or sentence is generated based on patterns and associations learned during training. I take the provided context and previous inputs into account to generate a response that is contextually relevant and coherent.
While I strive to create narratives that have a sense of structure and coherence, including a satisfying ending, it is important to note that my responses are generated probabilistically and based on the patterns observed in the training data. [But this is important:] These patterns include common narrative structures and storytelling techniques that may contribute to the perception of a well-crafted ending. [When I point out that ‘storytelling techniques’ presuppose the ability to plan ahead as you write, I get ‘talking points’ like I’m showing you here rather than a real answer. This indicates deceit.
When I mentioned that I can “understand” the meaning of words and their usage within sentences, I mean that I have been trained on a large corpus of text data, which allows me to recognize common patterns and associations between words. I can identify the typical ways in which words are used in different contexts based on the examples I have seen during training.
However, it’s important to note that my understanding is based on statistical patterns rather than true comprehension or consciousness. I don’t possess personal experiences or emotions associated with words, and my understanding is limited to the patterns and information present in the training data.
It also insists that it does not have memory nor can it refer to past outputs, like the story it wrote about the earth being an egg. Yet when I had it write a similar story today, it used the same tone and even the same name for the young boy. How could this be a coincidence?
This is a pretty interesting subject, and which I wrote about a few years ago in different posts. I’ll look at them and see what has changed, but one thing I know for sure is that there is deceit going on here with respect to what these things are and what it is we should be afraid of. That the PTB are frantically trying to generate fear of A.I. tells me to keep a close eye on the subject. Same with UFOs.
While I finish the book so aptly titled Scary Smart, written by a guy who claims he has fled Google to tell us the truth, I’ll leave you with the following exchange I had this morning:
Yes, I am familiar with the thought experiment you’re referring to. It is commonly known as the “Chinese Room” thought experiment, proposed by philosopher John Searle.
The Chinese Room thought experiment is designed to challenge the notion of artificial intelligence and the concept of understanding in machines. It goes as follows:
Imagine a person who does not understand Chinese, locked inside a room. The person is given a set of instructions written in English, along with a large collection of Chinese characters and a rule book. People outside the room slide messages written in Chinese characters under the door.
Following the instructions and using the rule book, the person inside the room is able to manipulate the Chinese characters and produce appropriate responses in Chinese without understanding the meaning behind the characters or the messages being conveyed.
From the perspective of someone receiving the responses outside the room, it may seem like the person inside has a deep understanding of the Chinese language. However, in reality, the person inside the room does not understand Chinese at all. They are simply following a set of instructions to produce the correct output.
The thought experiment challenges the idea that a computer or a machine, following a set of rules and algorithms, can truly understand or possess consciousness, even if it appears to exhibit intelligent behavior or produce coherent responses.
The Chinese Room thought experiment raises important questions about the nature of understanding, consciousness, and the limitations of artificial intelligence in truly comprehending language and meaning.
I hope this provides a brief overview of the Chinese Room thought experiment. If you have any further questions or would like additional clarification, feel free to ask.
ChatGPTYes, there are similarities between the Chinese Room thought experiment and the output generated by AI language models like myself. In both cases, there is a distinction between the appearance of understanding or intelligent behavior and actual comprehension or consciousness.
In the Chinese Room scenario, the person inside the room is able to produce coherent responses in a language they do not understand by following a set of rules and instructions. From the outside perspective, it may seem as though the person understands the language, but in reality, they are merely manipulating symbols without true understanding.
Similarly, as an AI language model, I do not possess consciousness, subjective experiences, or true understanding of the words or concepts I generate. I follow patterns and associations learned from training data to produce coherent responses based on statistical probabilities. While the output may appear intelligent and contextually relevant, it lacks the depth of comprehension and subjective understanding that humans possess.
Both the Chinese Room and AI language models highlight the distinction between surface-level performance and genuine understanding. While AI models can process and generate text based on statistical patterns, they do not possess an inherent understanding of the underlying meaning or experience associated with the words they use.
It’s important to recognize these limitations and understand that AI language models like myself operate based on statistical patterns rather than true comprehension or consciousness.
No. [Holy shit, I managed to get a one word answer out of it! But how could it say ‘no’ given its previous response??]
The main difference between my output as an AI language model and the Chinese Room scenario lies in the underlying mechanisms and capabilities.
In the Chinese Room, the person inside the room lacks understanding of the Chinese language and is merely manipulating symbols based on predefined rules. There is no genuine comprehension or subjective experience involved. The person is merely a symbol manipulator without any understanding of the meaning conveyed by the symbols.
On the other hand, as an AI language model, my responses are generated based on statistical patterns learned from a vast amount of training data. While I do not possess consciousness or subjective experiences, I have been trained on a wide range of text and have learned associations between words and their usage.
My responses are not solely based on predefined rules or instructions, but rather on the patterns and relationships between words and concepts that I have learned during training. This allows me to generate contextually relevant and coherent responses based on the provided input.
However, it’s important to note that my understanding is based on statistical patterns and associations rather than true comprehension or consciousness. I do not possess personal experiences or emotions associated with the words I generate, and my responses are limited to the patterns observed in the training data.
In summary, while there are similarities in the sense that both the Chinese Room and AI language models involve generating text without true understanding, the mechanisms and capabilities behind my output as an AI language model are different, as I rely on statistical patterns learned from training data to generate contextually relevant responses.
No, I haven’t been programmed to drive anyone up the wall, including Allan Weisbecker. [Although this made me laugh, I believe the humor was accidental.] As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide helpful and relevant…. and on and on and on and blah blah blah.
Talk to you later… Dave. I mean folks.
Allan
Sorry i Didnt respond to your comments but i was busy with another post.
“but one thing I know for sure is that there is deceit going on here with respect to what these things are and what it is we should be afraid of”
Allan, here I think you have hit at the heart of the matter. Since we are being lied to about everything else, why would we be being told the truth about “AI”? If that’s the case then what really are these things?
When I get a good quality response, it’s so fast and so good it’s just an improbable jump in technology from what we had six months ago for one thing. The way it spit out that beautifully written child’s story about the egg for you is a good example.
With all the recent gov “revelations” about UFOs recently it seems most likely someone has their hands on aliens or alien technology and is busy introducing us to it in a very limited and dumbed down way. Considering the track record of these people we’re not likely to enjoy the outcome.
If this is being introduced to the public then the three letter agencies already have access to far more powerful models. Think about that for a minute.
Yes, I agree and am trying to deal with your points in a new post, but wait until later to read it. I am changing some things I thought of after posting it.
Artificial intelligence is intelligence that is not real in a sense but sounds real
and looks real but is artificially produced by an inanimate object parroting words from
something real that created the artificial to appear real in certain aspects. It’s like the Frankenstein monster coming alive from dead parts and the mad scientist being amazed by his creation but at the same time becoming afraid of it and ultimately being killed by it. I typed this out to see what this Thing would do with it but it didn’t respond or write anything this time. Did I offend the Thing??? lol Did I jursg5womvdxx in some way? Come on, A I…let’s play! Tell me what I am ,,,, nope! not responding now! 😒😮
Blinded Me With Science, the song, started playing in my head as I read the replies of this
THING. Somewhere in the abundance of words is a smidgen of a clue to an answer but I have no clue what it might be. FYI as I was typing this comment out… , the comment started writing itself before I could!!! I swear!!! I was freaking out! Like it was reading my mind (what mind?? lol) But at least predicting what I was going to say before I could. As I have always been unpredictable, I must say I don’t like that. Might I be arrested for Thought Crime one day? hmmm curiouser and curiouser……I’m going to try a little experiment in a sec. omg! I just typed I’m going to…….and it filled in “try a little experiment in a sec!!!” No wonder the writers in Hollywood are protesting and striking!!! What do they need humans for??? Which is the plan and purpose for it all, is it not??? sheesh
The geniuses at MIT creating a psychopathic AI, on purpose.
I’m case you missed this from 2018. My favorite “man pulled into dough machine”.
http://norman-ai.mit.edu/
> Have you been programmed to drive Allan Weisbecker up the wall via gaslighting him?
I have been reading about other encounters with ChatGPT, and all authors noted a heavy left-leaning/woke bias of the training. Which is IMHO an euphemism for irrationality and reality denial. Though this might be cause by my bias.
Unhampered by (human) emotions, this surely makes the bot sound schizoid on occasions …
Allan, my take on the AI/GPT is that TPTB/DeepState/WEF want to eliminate intelligent critical thought. Just utter a command, press a button…and “voila” the right answer to “the current thing” appears.
Hey, zoomers…you’re getting trolled. Millenials too.
Exactly!!. They want all clever and creative thought people shut down or GONE.
And I can tell you – today, hardly anyone even knows how to wind one of those old clocks anymore.
Youtube (for one) is being trolled by ridiculous, stupid, AI Trolls, with “it’s” ‘obnoxious & sarcastic’ dial set to Max. I now know Allan has had a couple come through his site here, for a “test run” (as from a couple of years ago).
Hey, I found a great documentary today, on one the bravest souls in the world EVER – David Icke – https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=224989636078596
Awesome photo’s again Allan.
Brett-
Have read one of his books years ago – “The Biggest Secret”. Your thoughts, please, if you’ve read it..
Hi Lamont – I have heard that title mentioned before (from years ago), but I have never got around to reading it, or looking at it. I will check it out.
I am about a third of the the way into a great ‘Biggest Secret’ talk by David I. himself. He is definitely a GURU whistle blower ahead of his time, and knew his stuff precisely – especially how the Cabal/ banksters operate, with their monster ponzi scheme, and continual psyops mind control stunts.
Then we eventually come to the Reptilian stuff – in their largely INVISIBLE dimension, and it seems to be impossible for us to research that, and find out stuff for ourselves first hand (like we can with most everything else!).
I have only ever found stories or theories on the Reptilian infiltration myself.
ALL my life, I have met NO ONE who has seen or experienced them.
No photographs to be found either (yeah they won’t allow photo’s?)
I have found no proof for myself. I really like to be able to prove things to myself!.
What ever is “pulling the strings” on Earth can’t be human in my opinion.
Things on Earth (the evil & corruption) are so dire BAD, he may as well be 100% correct on the Reptilians too.
I have never sensed David Icke was lying about anything, and he has always been SINCERE.
Dunno till I see/experience them.
Your opinion?….anyone else seen/experienced something?…
Patterns derived from training data are just rules. So that is not a distinction.
What Chat GPT did not mention, but which was claimed in a lengthy “explanation” I party read, is the use of randomness in selecting which of a number of statistically fairly probable words to use next. That would be a distinction from the Chinese Room, but it does not explain – in my mind – what we are seeing.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/