Chat GPT

But whilst that question is interesting, it's also a bit of a moot point. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then effectively it is a duck. If we cannot tell whether its thinking like a human or not, does it matter whether it is or not?
If i ask 10 people what to reply to someone in text and all i pick is the best answers, are you communicating with one person or 10? I think it matters very much whether chat gpt is thinking or not,as it make us feel more connnected and like you say apply human like qualities to it.

I can also create a character in my head where i do everything communicate in text to be mr duck who has wings. I think we have to look at whats happening in the neural network and infer from that, rather from the output of the text. look at image generation, do you think the duck in the ai generated image exists!
 
Heres a idea- say we agree now that chatgpt doesnt have human like thoughts or feelings. If you ask it now after a response to your question- how did you know or what were your thought processes that led to it will reply " as an ai language model" and proceed to explain about neural networks. but lets say gpt 5 has been exposed to lots of personalities on how a human would answer, similiarly as how it can replicate essays, or has been trained on lots and lots of chats between people talking about thought processes. This could probably fool 99 percent of the people it interacts with.


But would that be the same as an ai who could think? One that has been trained how to respond? This seems an interesting question to ponder
To me, it's kinda like the talking animal problem. If you could talk to animals, would they say anything that you could conceptually be able to decipher anyway? Would any of it actually be meaningful to you if you have such vastly different cognition?

Take it a step further and imagine you're taught fluently an alien language. But the aliens have a completely different set of senses to you and describe things that you are physically incapable of experiencing or even conceptualizing (perhaps they come from a different dimension that doesn't even follow the same laws of physics you know). You might be able to learn the patterns of the language to the extent that you could fool the aliens into thinking you were one of them, but would you truly understand what you were saying? Without giving ChatGPT or any other AI an approximation of human senses and a way of experiencing the physical world, could it ever be said to be conscious and really 'know' what it's saying?

I remember watching a video (a while ago, when AI wasn't so great to be fair) where they were trying to teach a robot the concept of a chair so it could sit down. And even that was a challenge because it could learn what a chair was, but it would struggle to differentiate a small table, or wouldn't know to sit on a bench or notice when a wall was just the right height to sit on. And I imagine that because physical robots basically have their learning limited by the physical world, they're not capable of this ridiculous learning that exists with digital information and skills. It's easy to take something that can exist digitally, like a game a chess, and run millions of simulations to teach it. It's much harder to give a robot experience of millions of different chairs, to know what is possible to sit on, what will take its weight, etc. I mean sure you could create a simulation, but then that relies on the simulation being an adequate model. And that's easy with something simple like chess, harder with something very complex like language, and currently impossible with something as complex as the physical world. Maybe some smart boffins will figure it out though. Maybe they already have.
 
Yes, its all very cool and sci fi! I cant wait to see whats around the corner. Just give me a chat gpt on my phone i can talk to like i currently do with google, that will be epic ! Haha
 
Yes, its all very cool and sci fi! I cant wait to see whats around the corner. Just give me a chat gpt on my phone i can talk to like i currently do with google, that will be epic ! Haha

Already is one.
If you get Snapchat - there’s a My AI friend you can accept. Answers anything instantly. Way quicker than google
 
Heres a idea- say we agree now that chatgpt doesnt have human like thoughts or feelings. If you ask it now after a response to your question- how did you know or what were your thought processes that led to it will reply " as an ai language model" and proceed to explain about neural networks. but lets say gpt 5 has been exposed to lots of personalities on how a human would answer, similiarly as how it can replicate essays, or has been trained on lots and lots of chats between people talking about thought processes. This could probably fool 99 percent of the people it interacts with.


But would that be the same as an ai who could think? One that has been trained how to respond? This seems an interesting question to ponder

In short no.

What the AI is telling you is that is just programming, it doesn't have emotions, feelings, a sense of self or even the ability to guess.

Alan Turing said that saying computers think is like saying submarines swim.

The ability of AI to "think" independently is what's referred to as artificial general intelligence. It hasn't yet been achieved.
 
In short no.

What the AI is telling you is that is just programming, it doesn't have emotions, feelings, a sense of self or even the ability to guess.

Alan Turing said that saying computers think is like saying submarines swim.

The ability of AI to "think" independently is what's referred to as artificial general intelligence. It hasn't yet been achieved.
You're mistaken. AGI is the ability for an AI to be as, or more, competent as a human at all mental tasks. It has nothing to do with consciousness or "thinking".

And regards the latter aspects, there's 2 schools of thought - one, like yours, is that these things can't possibly be conscious or think because their "brains" are nothing like our brains. And the other school of thought is that we really don't know what on earth is going on in the trillion parameter models with trillions of connections and we really don't know if they are thinking or not, but they sure as hell seem like they are, so how on earth can we conclude that they are not.

Again, moot point because (a) it doesn't matter whether it's "fake" thinking or not, if the end result is that their thinking - either fake or real - is superior to ours. If the AI can do the job by faking it, who cares, so long as it can do the job.

And (b) because they will surely be thinking for real in a matter of a few years (or months), if they aren't doing so already.

And finally, Alan Turing died 67 years ago, so his opinions are pretty irrelevant considering the entire field of AI has only been going for at most 40 years. Might as well cite Galileo's opinions on the universe.
 
Last edited:
Was speaking to a guy at work about AI and how we could use it (and people already are) in our particular roles.
He's a lad from Korea who now lives in London and is pretty on point with what's going on in the tech world.

Mentioned the Mo Gawdat podcast with Steven Bartlett which contains some startling revelations, but other than toying with ChatGPT and Midjourney I'm not hugely clued up how rapidly AI is growing and just how life changing it will sooner rather than later.

I've listened to most of this 2 hour podcast on a walk I've just been on and there are some astonishing claims (although some of the Reddiit crew seem to think he's rather sensationalist).

And I think that's my toubkle with this type of of podcast. On the surface, super interesting, but there's no come backs or challenges to counter the points being made.
And most times, the guests are on there to sell books, merchandise or appease their shareholders (see the UFOers on the Joe Rogan's show).

Still, food for thought and as I checked my phone on the way in there was a news story on AI helping in the medical world again.
Erring towards this is perhaps a little over dramatic but at the same time something we have to be very cognisant of (even thought that horse has bolted).

Seems to have knocked quantum computing off it's perch for a while and that's something I thought would be the next groundbreaking scientific breakthrough (some time off admittedly).

Thoughts?



YT version:


I posted this on the other thread not seeing this one (which seems more up to date).
Be interested on your thoughts on this (appreciate it's a long podcast however).

Similar points to those raised in the last few pages on this thread.
One point raised would be that AI becomes SO intelligent it no longer sees humans as an intelligent species and frankly ignores us (much as we do tiny insects).

....and then fucks off to somewhere else in the universe leaving us be (via some crazy physics it had worked out).
Or decides oxygen is bad for its hosts/servers so changes that and destroys us in the process (again, akin to human spreading pesticides on crops).

The idea of taxing AI companies 98% and donating that to much of the population was interesting if we're looking at the Universal Credit model.

Hold on tight folks!
 
TLDR; Communism is coming

Perhaps a debate for another thread, but its been my VERY long standing opinion (like since I was a student 40-odd years ago) that ultimately the entire world will have to controlled by some universal central, essentially communist power. Coming from me as a devout capitalist, that might seem surprising!

However, the way I see it is that AI is progressively going to replace more and more and more jobs. It's a inevitable progression as they - and robots - become more and more capable. The inexorable end result is that human labour/endeavour/thinking/creativity will not be required at all, in any sector. Of course this extreme end game is a long way off - perhaps 100 years? Who knows. But it's sure as hell going to happen.

In a "perfect" world, this would be marvellous. All the wealth creation would still be happening - because the work is still being done - and we'd all have all the money we currently have, but with all the leisure time in the world to pursue our own interest. Work would be entirely optional - for perhaps a tiny bit of pay - but you'd be paid your full salary anyway, for doing nothing.

Of course, with our current world politics and economic systems, this cannot happen. As jobs are replaced, companies who are competing with each other and driven by a profit motive (necessary so they can survive) will simply see the replacement of humans as a cost-saving measure. They will have no desire to pay people who are not working for them, since that would burden them with excessive costs compared to their competitors.

So inexorably again, more and more people will be out of work and impoverished. Those remaining in work and those in positions of power will get richer and richer. This is an unsustainable model, doomed to collapse. Eventually societies will break down as the impoverished refuse to accept any longer living in a life of poverty. And whereas now such people (in the west) are few in number, when they become the majority, things will have to change. You could call it a social revolution if you like - the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. That man Marx has quite some insight IMO!

Governments alone are powerless to prevent such an upheaval. Whilst they might over time seek to introduce more and more socialist policies, providing increasing wealth for the poor and unemployed, doing so will merely make their economies uncompetitive compared to other nations which are much less generous. We have seen exactly how this happens as we have witnesses the growth of China to soon become the world's biggest economy, such growth driven by the relatively poorly paid and impoverished state of its workforce, compared to the relatively fat, dumb and happy counterparts in the west. In coming decades we may well see similar meteoric rise in the African economies.

So how does this all get fixed? Only when we have total global alignment, where all countries are more or less on the same level. A bit like how the EU countries really need alignment before joining the Euro. Mechanisms need to be put in place to pay people for being out of work, at such a level of pay that there is equilibrium - so only a few people actually want to work, to do the few potentially human jobs that still remain. Being unemployed will be a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, with no stigma and a very comfortable level of existance, with 99% of the wealth compared to not being employed. That's the end game I envisage, in perhaps a couple of hundred years from now.

Getting there will be a long and very rocky road, with upheavals and even wars inbetween. The great superpowers do not sit comfortably at the same table and whilst they strive for supremacy in ever more challenging economic circumstances, it will likely get ugly.
 
TLDR; Communism is coming

Perhaps a debate for another thread, but its been my VERY long standing opinion (like since I was a student 40-odd years ago) that ultimately the entire world will have to controlled by some universal central, essentially communist power. Coming from me as a devout capitalist, that might seem surprising!

However, the way I see it is that AI is progressively going to replace more and more and more jobs. It's a inevitable progression as they - and robots - become more and more capable. The inexorable end result is that human labour/endeavour/thinking/creativity will not be required at all, in any sector. Of course this extreme end game is a long way off - perhaps 100 years? Who knows. But it's sure as hell going to happen.

In a "perfect" world, this would be marvellous. All the wealth creation would still be happening - because the work is still being done - and we'd all have all the money we currently have, but with all the leisure time in the world to pursue our own interest. Work would be entirely optional - for perhaps a tiny bit of pay - but you'd be paid your full salary anyway, for doing nothing.

Of course, with our current world politics and economic systems, this cannot happen. As jobs are replaced, companies who are competing with each other and driven by a profit motive (necessary so they can survive) will simply see the replacement of humans as a cost-saving measure. They will have no desire to pay people who are not working for them, since that would burden them with excessive costs compared to their competitors.

So inexorably again, more and more people will be out of work and impoverished. Those remaining in work and those in positions of power will get richer and richer. This is an unsustainable model, doomed to collapse. Eventually societies will break down as the impoverished refuse to accept any longer living in a life of poverty. And whereas now such people (in the west) are few in number, when they become the majority, things will have to change. You could call it a social revolution if you like - the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. That man Marx has quite some insight IMO!

Governments alone are powerless to prevent such an upheaval. Whilst they might over time seek to introduce more and more socialist policies, providing increasing wealth for the poor and unemployed, doing so will merely make their economies uncompetitive compared to other nations which are much less generous. We have seen exactly how this happens as we have witnesses the growth of China to soon become the world's biggest economy, such growth driven by the relatively poorly paid and impoverished state of its workforce, compared to the relatively fat, dumb and happy counterparts in the west. In coming decades we may well see similar meteoric rise in the African economies.

So how does this all get fixed? Only when we have total global alignment, where all countries are more or less on the same level. A bit like how the EU countries really need alignment before joining the Euro. Mechanisms need to be put in place to pay people for being out of work, at such a level of pay that there is equilibrium - so only a few people actually want to work, to do the few potentially human jobs that still remain. Being unemployed will be a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, with no stigma and a very comfortable level of existance, with 99% of the wealth compared to not being employed. That's the end game I envisage, in perhaps a couple of hundred years from now.

Getting there will be a long and very rocky road, with upheavals and even wars inbetween. The great superpowers do not sit comfortably at the same table and whilst they strive for supremacy in ever more challenging economic circumstances, it will likely get ugly.
Once we have the one world gov then we can AI ourselves to mars and then the rest of the galaxy and finally start our sci fi destiny! Haha
 
How do we know that this forum is full of mainly City fans the occasional hammer , Gooner and dipper, am I really interacting with people or is this all an AI chat forum especially for me?
It goes one step further, how do you know this world isn't an AI generated virtual reality created to fool you and keep you in thrall?
 
It goes one step further, how do you know this world isn't an AI generated virtual reality created to fool you and keep you in thrall?
There's quite a few credible scientists who believe this is likely true. Well, not the thrall part, but the possibility that we are and everything we experience is just a simulation in some superior being's "laptop"... for want of a better term. There's a probabilistic argument to back up that possibility.
 
There's quite a few credible scientists who believe this is likely true. Well, not the thrall part, but the possibility that we are and everything we experience is just a simulation in some superior being's "laptop"... for want of a better term. There's a probabilistic argument to back up that possibility.
How do they know the superior being isn't the one in a simulation?
 
I know I keep banging on about this, but anyone who has any interest in the future of mankind, of the planet, or just of their children, should take 2 hours out to watch this:

 
Last edited:
Chat GPT is actually a natural language programming tool using the Internet for the set of data points with AI technology between the two.
Note: The underlying AI technology (nural networks) hasn't changed since 1989.

P.S. it's part of my day job in IT to know how shit works.
 
Neural networks have changed a bit, the "transformer"model was the big breakthrough i think on the large language models. Ive only watched youtube videos about it though
 
It seems bizarre that (apparently) ChatGPT is run on just 2000 lines of code?
Anyone else managed to listen/watch that Mo Gawdat video (that me and chippy posted)?

I don't know enough about AI to make a considered response but there are suggestions it may be a tad sensationalist.
He has books to sell I guess.
 
It seems bizarre that (apparently) ChatGPT is run on just 2000 lines of code?
Anyone else managed to listen/watch that Mo Gawdat video (that me and chippy posted)?

I don't know enough about AI to make a considered response but there are suggestions it may be a tad sensationalist.
He has books to sell I guess.

I listened to the pod cast last week, agree re the he has a book to sell. But he makes some good points. I personally think the biggest worry is the possible loss of jobs long term and the knock on effect on economies. The whole tax companies 98% for ai generated profits is a little bit too idealistic and will never happen.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top