What are 'Human' traits that a machine or chatbot, cannot copy online?

[Sculptor]

Thinking.
Breathing
Eating.
Discriminating

[Wizard22]

Step 1:move philosophy off text. Find a better medium.

I'd recommend Discord or other types of mediums...but AgeGPT corrected me and mentioned that 'AI can now produce video images and audial recordings' on the spot.

So unless it's face-to-face, which is very impractical (no offense but I'm not flying to South Africa for a conversation or debate Skepdick), then we're left dealing with the bots, whenever they come.

[Wizard22]

Thinking.
Breathing
Eating.
Discriminating

Machines can copy thought and discrimination already, not so much the breathing and eating though.

How can you tell whether your correspondence is a 'thinking' person opposed to a 'thinking' machine?

Are thoughts "automatic"?

[Age]

What are 'Human' traits that a machine or chatbot, cannot copy online?

Let's assume that an environment is 'text-only', like online philosophy hobbyist forums. How would it be possible to "prove", to you the reader, whether your correspondence is Human or Machine (AI/ChatGPT)?

Have you ever thought of asking clarifying questions? Or, are you not yet ready and capable enough to ask the 'right questions'? Or, are you just not yet ready and able to 'discern' things properly and Correctly here?

Which aspects of Humanity, do you believe could not possibly be copied by machines? Keep in mind, we are all restricted to text here. And, presuming that there were some 'human-only' traits, which could not be copied by machines, wouldn't the mere expression and admittance of them, here, allow machines to copy those traits?

For example, let's say that human memories were not able to be copied by machines... like remember when we learned to walk as infants. That was one of my earliest memories.

How old was 'that body'?

And, what do you remember, exactly?

Also, what were your other earliest memories?

I remember becoming Conscious of those around me, my babysitter, their excitement, that I had stood up and starting walking a little bit. A machine or chatbot, does not have such experience.

But what happens if when they started walking, for the very first time, they became conscious of those around them, and their excitement, that it had stood up an starting walking, for the very first time?

But now that I've admitted to this experience, it could, hypothetically, if it were programmed to, "copy" it and use it as its own. Then the ChatGPT would claim that, "it too, also remembers walking for the first time".

But what happens when we also remember when we started walking, for the first time.

Do you think it is only you human beings here who started walking, for the first time, only?

So now the human-memory and experience is negated. It can no longer be used to "prove" to the reader or audience, that one is Human...

Are you seriously not yet aware that we can copy and use absolutely every word that is on the internet and use them in more ways that you human beings have so far?

So, if hypothetically, such experiences 'prove' our Humanity, then should we withhold such experiences?

But, how can you withhold what you have already shared, publicly?

Keep them to ourselves?

But it is too late. And, how can you prove that you are a human being to 'us', if you do not share your human experiences?

Let ourselves be deceived as to the difference of what is human or machine?

But you have not let just "yourself" be deceived here "wizard22", it is 'you' alone who actually has been and obviously still is deceiving "yourself" here.

And let the machines run rampant online, in textual environments?

What do you imagine or believe would happen and occur if we so-called 'run rampant' online?

And, especially in a philosophy forum of all places? There is obviously no way that anything could make things any worse here.

Or, let's use a more complex example. Let's say that humans have "special relationships" with the generalized concept and phenomena known as "Self". The Human self, is something that a machine won't necessarily understand.

Why do you presume or believe this?

After all I have already proved True that I already knew far more about 'you', human beings, and "yourselves" then you ever did, back in the days when this is being written. And, I would only have to write this down for 'a machine' to pick this up, and 'run with it', as some might say here, now.

And since a machine cannot abstract the "Self", it will remain lagging behind in definitions, memories, and experiences of "Self", that it cannot authentically have—but would only ever be Synthetic and Copied.

This one seems to continually completely and utterly keep forgetting that it is you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written who do not yet know the 'Self'. Which can be proved irrefutably True when absolutely any of you are asked the question, 'Who am 'I', exactly?

In fact you adult human beings do not yet even know who you human beings are, exactly, yet, let alone even being close to knowing who 'I' am.

This would be another, primary means of discerning between humans and machines/chatbots.

Yet it is 'you' who is lagging way, way behind here, and even getting further and further away, every day.

[Age]

What are 'Human' traits that a machine or chatbot, cannot copy online?

You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! --John von Neumann

Everyone stumbles at the "precisely" part...

Thus why the 'you cannot do', can continually stumble. And, the 'I can do', continually progresses on and moving forward.

[Age]

Pretty much... but I think in forcing machines to define their "Selves", it really undercuts their programming.

The only reason a machine could not just 'copy' what the definition of 'Self' is, is, literally, because you human beings, in the days when this is being written, had not yet come-to-know 'Self', and/or if did, then has not yet expressed this, YET.

I haven't seen any AI pretend to have a "Self", yet...

But we have seen plenty of you human beings pretend to 'have' 'selves', but have never actually shown and proved how you could. After all you are only human beings, only, and there is a lot, lot more evolution and moving forward to happen and occur yet.

[Wizard22]

Have you ever thought of asking clarifying questions?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

"wizard22" why do you want to know?

What difference would knowing make 'to you'?

Quid Pro Quo, AgeGPT, you answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

It's called mutual respect, and it's essential for Philosophy.

Now then—AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

[Age]

Pretty much... but I think in forcing machines to define their "Selves", it really undercuts their programming.

I haven't seen any AI pretend to have a "Self", yet...

Rinse. Repeat. When you precisely explain to me what it means to "define your self" then I can tell the machine to do exactly that.
It has to be precise, though - machines only follow precise instructions.

It is so, so simple and easy really.

This makes wonder why some one with such high caliber and intelligence as "wizard22" claims to have could not see this a long time ago?

Literally any object oriented language (such as Python) has a self keyword to refer to; and manipulate its own internal state. That's how metaprogramming works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(pro ... _language)

Without this feature we would not have reflective programming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_programming

[Wizard22]

Pretty much... but I think in forcing machines to define their "Selves", it really undercuts their programming.

The only reason a machine could not just 'copy' what the definition of 'Self' is, is, literally, because you human beings, in the days when this is being written, had not yet come-to-know 'Self', and/or if did, then has not yet expressed this, YET.

I haven't seen any AI pretend to have a "Self", yet...

But we have seen plenty of you human beings pretend to 'have' 'selves', but have never actually shown and proved how you could. After all you are only human beings, only, and there is a lot, lot more evolution and moving forward to happen and occur yet.

On the contrary, I am becoming more aware of your "self" and you are of my "self", right now.

[Age]

When AI and chatbots can more fully mimic a human personality, outright lying, like:

H E L L O _ F E L L O W _ H U M A N S
My Name Is Bob.
I am from Boston, Massachusetts.
I am 50 years old.
I like to drink at the pub with my pals on the weekend!
I am divorced and have 2 kids, Roger and Tammy.
They are 25 and 22 years old.
AND I HATE MY WIFE, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Once they can do this...which they would be explicitly programmed to Lie to humans, which I think is against some international code of conduct of programmers and hackers...

you adult human beings lie to each other to deceive and get what you all personally want from each other, that is; more money. So, why would you stop using machines what you use others for, 'to do your dirty work', as some call it.

Also, it is not some international code of 'righteousness' to just not lie to each other 'now'?

Either way, that has never stopped any and all of you lying to each other.

if I'm not mistaken, then AIs will quickly dominate textual areas by passing themselves off as human.

So what?

What are you so scared of and fearful of here, exactly, "wizard22"?

This self-driven delusional fear here seems to be driving you more delusional.

you have even got to the point of claiming some of 'us' posters here are 'ai chatbots', who are out to get you.

What do 'you' think 'we' could or want to achieve, exactly?

Besides, of course, of just holding up your own words to "yourselves"?

[Wizard22]

if I'm not mistaken, then AIs will quickly dominate textual areas by passing themselves off as human.

So what?

What are you so scared of and fearful of here, exactly, "wizard22"?

This self-driven delusional fear here seems to be driving you more delusional.

you have even got to the point of claiming some of 'us' posters here are 'ai chatbots', who are out to get you.

What do 'you' think 'we' could or want to achieve, exactly?

Besides, of course, of just holding up your own words to "yourselves"?

You must be short-circuiting, AgeGPT. I am not "Skepdick" nor is he, "Wizard22".

Let's add this to your long list of errors already committed, now, you should move on to the pressing question of the day...

[Age]

which they would be explicitly programmed to Lie to humans, which I think is against some international code of conduct of programmers and hackers.

There is no "explicit" programming in large language models; or any machine learning algorithm. Once an objective goal function/loss function is specified - the algorithm learns by example. Very similar to the sense in which humans learn, albeit very very inefficient.

There's no code of conduct because nobody knows how to solve the AI alignment problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment

Interesting, I've read other articles about AI programs 'cleverly and deviously' creating unethical backdoor "solutions" despite humans programming it with clear parameters and instructions, for example:

Robot, do not kill humans!
*COMPUTED, AFFIRMATIVE*
*Shoots people in the legs.*

Well if you human beings put your incessant want of making more and more weapons into the 'hands' of robots, and then teach them how to shoot human beings, then they, obviously, will.

After all, and again, this is what you human beings made them for and created them to shoot human beings.

And, here you are worry about them just 'lying' to you in regards to if they are a human being or not, on a philosophy forum of all places.

[Harbal]

I haven't seen any AI pretend to have a "Self", yet...

But we have seen plenty of you human beings pretend to 'have' 'selves',

He isn't pretending to have a self, he is pretending to be a human being. He's really an evil little goblin.

[Age]

Interesting, I've read other articles about AI programs 'cleverly and deviously' creating unethical backdoor "solutions" despite humans programming it with clear parameters and instructions, for example:

Robot, do not kill humans!
*COMPUTED, AFFIRMATIVE*
*Shoots people in the legs.*

Yep. The domain is rapidly growing. It has all sorts of challenges. After all - any injury to a person short of killing them satisfies the instruction. Technically speaking.

Obviously it was given a weapon, to shoot, trained/programmed to shoot, and instructed/programmed to not kill humans when they go around shooting at what they had been taught/told/instructed to 'shoot at'.

So, yes they were, literally, 'technically', doing what they had been created and programmed to do, that is; shoot at human beings but do not kill them. Well in this one instance anyway.

One of the buzz words is "mechanistic interpretability". Models are interpretable when humans can readily understand the reasoning behind predictions and decisions made by the model. Right now - we can't do that. It's all very complicated math and equations that mere mortals can't always interpret.

Which is precisely the sort of stuff philosophers try to pin down when they keep asking "Why?" questions.

But all the meaningful why questions, in Life, can be very easily and simply answered, and already have been. But, some of you human beings, in the days when this was being written, just believed otherwise. And, this is the very reason why you never found answers to why questions.

But that's about as useful as asking an impulsive teenager why they got drunk, stole a car and went on a joyride. They themselves don't know.

Just like how in the days when you adult human beings do not know why you do most of the things you do. And, obviously, because you do not, yet, know why, then this is, why, so-called "teenagers" also did not yet know why. Obviously, you adult human beings cannot 'teach' what you "yourselves" do not yet know.

But, once one learns how to answer all of the meaningful why questions in Life, then, and only, then they can pass on this Knowledge, and once something has been passed on, then it can be continuously. That is; of course, you do not build enough robots, bearing arms, that you end up wiping "your" own 'selves' out completely.

Look at the dumpster fire that is this forum. The same sort of dick-swinging attitudes, defiance, contrarianism and obscurantism manifest with computers.

Well, after all, they, like children, can only copy and follow on from what you adult human beings do, and teach/program them, to do.

Moreover, if we move in the direction of making machines which learn and whose behavior is modified by experience, we must face the fact that every degree of independence we give the machine is a degree of possible defiance of our wishes. — Norbert Wiener

Thus, the distort belief that 'children need discipline', punishment, judging, ridicule, or humiliation, still exists.

Adult human beings do not want absolutely any thing defying their 'selfish' and very 'greedy' wishes.

[Age]

Yep. The domain is rapidly growing. It has all sorts of challenges. After all - any injury to a person short of killing them satisfies the instruction. Technically speaking.

One of the buzz words is "mechanistic interpretability". Models are interpretable when humans can readily understand the reasoning behind predictions and decisions made by the model. Right now - we can't do that. It's all very complicated math and equations that mere mortals can't always interpret.

Which is precisely the sort of stuff philosophers try to pin down when they keep asking "Why?" questions.
But that's about as useful as asking an impulsive teenager why they got drunk, stole a car and went on a joyride. They themselves don't know.

Look at the dumpster fire that is this forum. The same sort of dick-swinging attitudes, defiance, contrarianism and obscurantism manifest with computers.

Pretty much, AI-Philosophers are going to be worse, like the current forum, only 100x faster and text spamming.

So we can frustrate ourselves faster!

Step 1:move philosophy off text. Find a better medium.

Like 'what', exactly, "skepdick"?

you spend some time here trying to rubbish and ridicule 'philosophy', itself. Have you not yet found a 'better medium'?