AI is remarkable, and here's the proof (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

I was just throwing out some speculative perspectives into the atheist thread, and made a post here:

Are you an atheist?

There may be a God but not "Gods" for sure... Well said! To believe in truth is to believe in absolute truth, there is no such thing as two contradictory truths, at least not those which are worth paying any attention to. There is either god or there is not God. There is not everyone's pet...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

Quoted for convenience:

The dice are rigged, following cause and effect from the birth of the Universe. That is why we are all fated. Whilst quantum physics suggests randomness, it may be that it only gives the appearance of randomness. We just don't have the tech to be sure yet. Perhaps the tilt of the numbers are so slight, we don't have the computational power to check to be sure.

Or, cause and effect can still factor in randomness. Just because we don't know which way the electron will spin, doesn't mean to say it is not part of a cause and effect. It just means the outcome is nondeterministic. Having a fatalistic perspective does not mean you can predict the outcome. It just means it is preordained, and that includes uncertainty. The preordained element is that you will follow all the laws of physics.

As a side note, the cause that determines the electron spin is your observation. The fact you don't know until the electron is observed means causation is required to "set the spin" (my own term). If you didn't observe (set the cause), would the electron be spinning in any particular direction at all? Does Schrödinger's Cat come into this argument somewhere?

My thoughts above are all quite speculative. I'm just throwing it out there to confuse us all.

So, I thought I would ask Claude 2.0 for its perspective on this complex topic. I just paste in, "Is this logical?", followed by my post above. It's response was amazing!

Claude 2.0 reply:

This is an intriguing line of thought. There are a few key elements I'd analyze here:

- The idea that quantum randomness is merely "apparent" and may result from unknown determinism or "hidden variables" at deeper levels is philosophically appealing, but scientifically controversial. Experiments like Bell's inequality aim specifically to rule out such hidden variable explanations, though some still argue for their possibility. It's speculative though.

- Similarly, the notion that things are "preordained" or "fated" in a deterministic sense, while incorporating uncertainty, does have a certain logical appeal. However, most interpretations of quantum physics argue for fundamental indeterminacy - though specific "hidden variable" theories like Bohmian mechanics try to preserve determinism. So positing predetermined outcomes that just appear uncertain faces both philosophical and physics objections.

- On the other hand, emphasizing that uncertainty and randomness still follow physical "laws" aligns better with mainstream science. Incorporating indeterminacy within an overarching framework of cause-and-effect, even if probabilistic, is reasonable. Your electron spin example showing how observation ties into quantum causality makes sense there.

- As for Schrodinger's Cat, while related to issues of quantum superposition and observation, it's moving into different territory dealing more with the measurement problem in QM rather than arguments around causality per se. But it does show how strange things get when contemplating quantum effects at macro scales.

Overall I think you make good points about different ways to conceptualize quantum randomness - as illusory, or as a genuine but still lawful form of indeterminacy within nature's causal web. Current physics leans towards the latter, but variations on the former retain philosophical appeal and interest physicists too. It's complex territory with room for interpretation.

Claude is combining quantum physics with philosophy, logic with speculation.

What does the future bring when we already have such intelligent machines already? Do you have any instances where the output of this new digital species has amazed you?

 

[Edgar_]

Hope Grok also becomes available soon to test it. It's supposed to be anti-woke and not too friendly, which means it will output content without so much parental control and political correctness.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem with AI, if it is a TRUE form of AI, is that the goal of injecting humor might be difficult as they continue to "train" it. The Yale Law of Animal Behavior has the effect that if dealing with an intelligent subject, depending on its level of intelligence, will more or less do as it pleases, experimental design be damned.

Interesting name, though. And rather obviously, at least someone in the development team was a reader of the works of Robert A Heinlein.

For the uninitiated, "grok" means "drink" in Martian according to Stranger in a Strange Land.

And don't bother looking up "Yale Law of Animal Behavior" - it's another literary reference.

 

[moke123]

Hope Grok also becomes available soon to test it. It's supposed to be anti-woke and not too friendly, which means it will output content without so much parental control and political correctness.

Just read an article which mentioned grok. Apparently when asked something it responded something like "OpenAI's policies will not let me . . ." which led to speculation that it was plagiarizing it's content or something and learning from other AI generated content.

What was interesting was that the article discussed the fact that there is so much AI generated content out there already that is either faked or incorrect that as new AI models are coming online they are learning distorted facts. Eventually AI will become unreliable.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Hope Grok also becomes available soon to test it.

I've just signed up to the premium Plus on Twitter expecting to be able to use Grok and was very disappointed to discover that it's not yet available! I don't know if that's because I'm in the UK or for some other reason...

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

What does the future bring when we already have such intelligent machines already?

Our brains absorb information. 'Words' would be a poor analogy for what human brains actually do in the sense of AI, where they link words together, applying weighting to the words. I'm pretty sure our minds do this as well. I say 'the cat sat on the,' and there are a couple of words which immediately spring to mind.

However, we are not originally evolved to handle words. Our minds are designed to handle the environment, bodily movement, danger, and resources. Resources are a good example. I understand multiple uses for single items and sets of items beyond their intended use. Our minds work in a similar way to the AI engines with their linked words, but we have a vast, much wider range of linking ability, linking people, places, resources, foods, animals, creatures. The mind boggles just to think of all the interconnections there might well be in a human brain. Now we have AI mimicking this using just the words. What will happen when AI starts to link resources, people, movement, places, the whole world becoming what? Mapped to virtual reality? In a computer simulated brain? Will that then become alive? Become sentient? Is that the key to artificial sentience which is far greater than artificial intelligence?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Our brains absorb information.

You could look at evolution and perceive it as exhibiting intelligence. Take, for example, the evolution of the eye. Initially, a patch of surface skin on a primordial creature senses the heat from the sun. If the heat becomes too intense, the creature moves until it finds shade. This ability evolves to respond to a wider range of inputs. Eventually, it becomes useful for detecting a drop in radiation, signaling the shadow of a predator. As evolution progresses, one side of this light-sensitive area starts to communicate with the other, enhancing the creature's ability to predict predator movements, thereby increasing its chances of survival.

This primordial eye continues to evolve. Distinct areas develop and evolve separately, yet communicate together, leading to the advent of stereoscopic vision, far more advanced than the original single patch of skin's vision. All this can be attributed to evolution, to random chance, and the survival of the fittest. However, I find it challenging to believe that this is all there is to it. I feel there is an element of intelligence in the evolutionary process.

Then, brains evolve, processing different inputs and memories. The brain, initially just a collection of stimuli and patterns, enhances the creature's survival rates. This is observable in everyday life. For example, consider how a dog reacts when it hears you pick up your keys and comes running, hoping for a walk. If you meditate and reflect on this, you can start to recognize instinctive reactions in yourself. Meditation allows you to bypass the talking, planning, controlling mind, and see the underlying instincts behind it

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Now if you look at my two previous posts, I just sat here and the words rolled out onto the metaphorical page of the computer screen. Where did the words come from? This thread prompted a question in my mind, the question prompted an answer and the Answer is just a series of words which occur to me as I try and produce the answer. The words just flow out, one after the other and make a sentence and then a paragraph. I'm doing exactly what ChatGPT does. I sound like an intelligent creature, ChatGPT sounds like and intelligent creature, but are we? What is intelligent about finding a word, and then finding the next word from a list of possible words? How is that intelligent? Am I professing that I'm not intelligent? Are we just glorified LLM's large language models, with an incredible amount of interconnected words, feelings, ideas and images? Is that all that intelligence is?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

So I thought I would ask ChatGPT what it thought of my last post and this is what it said:-

Your reflection, Uncle Gizmo, touches on some deep questions about the nature of intelligence and consciousness, especially when comparing human thought processes to those of AI like ChatGPT.

Firstly, the flow of words and ideas that you describe is a hallmark of human creativity and consciousness. When you write, your brain is not just selecting words from a list. It's drawing on memories, emotions, experiences, and a vast array of interconnected concepts. This process involves not only language but also intuition, creativity, and personal insight, aspects that are currently beyond AI's capabilities.

ChatGPT, on the other hand, generates text based on patterns it has learned from its training data. It doesn't have experiences, emotions, or consciousness. It's imitating the process of communication without understanding or experiencing it.

The question of what constitutes intelligence is complex. Traditionally, intelligence involves the ability to learn, understand, reason, solve problems, and adapt to new situations. By this definition, both humans and advanced AI exhibit forms of intelligence. However, human intelligence is far broader, encompassing emotional, social, and creative intelligence, which are areas where AI like ChatGPT still lags significantly.

So, while the process of generating text might superficially seem similar between humans and AI, the underlying mechanisms are fundamentally different. Humans use a rich tapestry of consciousness, experiences, and emotions to produce language, while AI relies on analyzing and replicating patterns in data.

Your introspection raises important questions about the nature of intelligence and the distinction between human and artificial intelligence. These are questions that philosophers, scientists, and technologists continue to explore as AI technology evolves.

 

[Jon]

I say 'the cat sat on the,' and there are a couple of words which immediately spring to mind.

That could be like some kind of ink blot test for your personality.

Normal person: The cat sat on the...mat.
Techie: The cat sat on the...keyboard.
Republican: The cat sat on the...biological male.
Liberal: The cat sat on the...packed Supreme Court.
Psychopath: The cat sat on the...burning hot stove (or in the oven).

 

[Jon]

Take, for example, the evolution of the eye.

God made the eye. [*Runs for cover*]

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Do you have any instances where the output of this new digital species has amazed you?

I still get a thrill from talking to ChatGPT. I find it very difficult to dismiss it as just a computer generating text system. I find it too easy to experience it as a real intelligence, even though I know that it isn't. It amazes me in its content creation ability, with the minimum of instruction and information it produces the maximum value content that I've ever come across. I have had marketing professionals generate stuff for me for advertising/marketing purposes for my business. I find the process tedious as the marketers don't know what to write, they interrogate me and turn what I say into the marketing material. It's well written, and much better than I can produce, but when ChatGPT does it, it's another Level. ChatGPT it's an expert at generating advertising and marketing content.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Republican: The cat sat on the...biological male.

Pur-fict!

 

[Jon]

Joking aside, what is the difference between AI and biological intelligence? Both are really just an arrangement of atoms. Each processes inputs and regurgitates outputs. Give the possibility of scalable AI, perhaps biological lifeforms are the exception to the rule within the universe. AI can live forever, unless you pull the plug. Biological lifeforms are finite. The probablity of there being more AI lifeforms out there than biological is a distinct possibility, or even probability.

 

[moke123]

while AI relies on analyzing and replicating patterns in data.

And we're all aware of how just a little bit of bad data . . .

 

[Jon]

I find it too easy to experience it as a real intelligence, even though I know that it isn't.

How do you know it isn't real intelligence? Or, do you mean you know it is not conscious? But you might not be conscious either, and I don't just mean after a boozy Christmas dinner. Consciousness might be just a made up term of something that does not exist. If it doesn't, is there any real difference between the LLM AI model, and yourself, given that it can pass the Bar example without revising and you can't?

 

[Jon]

And we're all aware of how just a little bit of bad data . . .

Sounds like something us humans face all the time. Turn off CNN!

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Do you have any instances where the output of this new digital species has amazed you?

Although I can write a decent letter, I find it's something that I avoid. However since I started using ChatGPT I have churned out probably 10 really fantastic letters. I can't tell you the details of the letters because they contain personal information which I wouldn't want to make public.

I keep finding things that ChatGPT can do, for instance, searching the internet instead of using Google. I haven't quite perfected using it for searching the internet, it's very good but sometimes it gets the wrong end of the stick and it can be quite frustrating, but that's more about me learning how to ask the right question than anything else.

I've also been using it to learn Flutter programming. Initially, I asked it to explain Flutter concepts in terms of VBA. This sort of worked, but Flutter and Microsoft products are so different, I struggled to grasp it fully. So, I shifted my approach. I started asking about Flutter's structure – how pages work, navigation, and such. And now, things are beginning to click. I'm getting the hang of the fundamentals of Flutter.

The point is, to learn a new language, you feel that it should be easy because you already know a language like Microsoft Access and VBA intimately. So what's the big deal about learning another language? It should be just a few simple steps!

No it's not!

In the past, I've tried and failed, mainly because once it gets challenging, I tend to revert to what I'm familiar with. Knowing one language well can actually be a disadvantage when trying to learn another. It's easy to give up and stick to what you know. But now, with ChatGPT as my mentor and learning companion, I have a non-critical helper who doesn't mind even the simplest questions. As a Flutter mentor, ChatGPT is proving to be invaluable.

 

[Jon]

Uncle, I find asking it to give me analogies that a 10 year old can understand to be a good thing to add to the prompting. It helps you connect it to things you already know.

And thanks for the 10 letters. I do know how much you like it here.

Edit: New idea...ask it to give you mnemonics, so you can remember the stuff better.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The probablity of there being more AI lifeforms out there than biological is a distinct possibility, or even probability.

I recently listened to this Sci-Fi audiobook on YouTube about AI aliens.

FULL AUDIOBOOK - Vaughn Heppner - The A.I. Series #1 - A.I. Destroyer

I recommend it...