Bard and ChatGPT?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Anyone used Google Gemini? It's very educational. Apparently it turns out that George Washington, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, the vikings, and every single giant in human history was black. Thank heaven for google gemini. We wouldn't otherwise have been any the wiser.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In most cases, I am not relying or is borrowing from Bard or ChatGpt totally but rather [given English not my native tongue] I present my points and views and got Bard or ChatGpt to represent it in a more organized and structured manner and ensure it follows logically.
Bard and ChatGt in my case is more like a spellcheck or grammar check program.

Your advice to me earlier today....

What don't you ask ChatGpt [with reservations] whether the claim of FSK is reasonable or not re my claim;
"whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective."

Much like the baby bird that relies on his mother to digest his food for him before regurgitating it into his gaping maw, you have become pathetically dependent on a glorified calculator to understand things for you.

Nope, that is the wrong analogy.

The calculator example is correct.
The example of the computers, Words, Excel, and the like, robots would be very appropriate to represent AI LLMs.
They do the very laborious tasks so that humans can be more free to do the higher and refined thinking.
Here is rather an ugly example but appropriate; i.e. it is like we assigning AIs to got to the battlegrounds while we are the generals planning from a distance in air-conditioned rooms.

The advantage with using LLMs is they have access to a very wide range of knowledge that the average person do not have, they are quick to analyze intelligently [more often than otherwise] and do not get tired nor frustrated.

The point that I always qualify LLMs results [with reservation] indicate that I do not simply accept what is generated blindly.

I believe it is very unintelligent not to use LLMs intelligently, rationally and with critical thinking and always understanding its limitation and with reservations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think this image handily erxplians how VA has got where he has philosophically in recent months.



You just can't use AI as a comprehension tool the way he does and expect not to look like a fool.

Whoever prompted LLMs that resulted in such a picture is the-Fool in not understanding the limitation of LLMs and it is something very new subject to further improvements.
If one is wiser, then one should add the term 'with morality consideration' in the prompt.

I am sure, the programmers in future will add,
'if any ambiguous words [related to immorality] are detected, then ask for further clarifications'
and
'if the resultant image is not within morality conditions' then add a qualification or something to that effect as a note to the picture.
and
qualify, "the image is not in the context of your expectations, let me know what is your context"

It is only just a moment ago when AI asked me what is the context I intended for the meaning of a certain two-words term.

[FlashDangerpants]

In most cases, I am not relying or is borrowing from Bard or ChatGpt totally but rather [given English not my native tongue] I present my points and views and got Bard or ChatGpt to represent it in a more organized and structured manner and ensure it follows logically.
Bard and ChatGt in my case is more like a spellcheck or grammar check program.

Your advice to me earlier today....

What don't you ask ChatGpt [with reservations] whether the claim of FSK is reasonable or not re my claim;
"whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective."

Much like the baby bird that relies on his mother to digest his food for him before regurgitating it into his gaping maw, you have become pathetically dependent on a glorified calculator to understand things for you.

Nope, that is the wrong analogy.

The calculator example is correct.
The example of the computers, Words, Excel, and the like, robots would be very appropriate to represent AI LLMs.
They do the very laborious tasks so that humans can be more free to do the higher and refined thinking.
Here is rather an ugly example but appropriate; i.e. it is like we assigning AIs to got to the battlegrounds while we are the generals planning from a distance in air-conditioned rooms.

The advantage with using LLMs is they have access to a very wide range of knowledge that the average person do not have, they are quick to analyze intelligently [more often than otherwise] and do not get tired nor frustrated.

The point that I always qualify LLMs results [with reservation] indicate that I do not simply accept what is generated blindly.

I believe it is very unintelligent not to use LLMs intelligently, rationally and with critical thinking and always understanding its limitation and with reservations.

You just tried to use cGPT to write an essay for you on the subject of Grice, but your knowledge was so lacking that you couldn't see it was irrelevant. You trusted the bullshit output because you are captive to the tool now.

[Harbal]

I just tried ChatGPT. I did it out of curiosity, not because I had anything in particular to ask. One question I asked was; "was Emanuel Kant gay", and I was more or less told to mind my own business.

In fact, I got a mild telling off for speculating about the sexuality of historic figures.

[Iwannaplato]

I just tried ChatGPT. I did it out of curiosity, not because I had anything in particular to ask. One question I asked was; "was Emanuel Kant gay", and I was more or less told to mind my own business.

In fact, I gat a mild telling off for speculating about the sexuality of historic figures.

BingAI is less pedantic

There is no definitive answer to whether Immanuel Kant was gay, as he never married or had any known romantic or sexual relationships with anyone. However, some scholars have speculated that he may have had homosexual tendencies or attractions, based on his writings, his personal life, and his views on sexuality and marriage.

For example, some have argued that Kant’s condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural and immoral was a sign of his own internalized homophobia, or a projection of his repressed desires12. Others have suggested that Kant’s friendship with Johann Heinrich Tieftrunk, a fellow philosopher who was openly gay, may have involved some degree of affection or intimacy3. Still others have pointed out that Kant’s account of marriage as a contract of mutual ownership of the sexual organs, which requires equality between the spouses, could be seen as more compatible with same-sex than with different-sex marriage, given the historical and social inequalities between men and women45.

However, these interpretations are not conclusive, and they may reflect more about the contemporary debates and perspectives on sexuality and gender than about Kant’s own personal life and feelings. Kant himself never explicitly disclosed his sexual orientation, and he may have been simply asexual, celibate, or private about his sexuality. Therefore, the question of whether Kant was gay remains open and unresolved.

[Atla]

I think Kant was short and boring and lived a repetitious clockwork autistic lifestyle. The locals knew what time it was exactly when Kant walked by every day. So maybe he was not very attractive to women.

[Harbal]

I wasn't remotely interested in Kant's sex life before I randomly asked that question, but now I find myself wondering about Nietzsche and necrophilia.

Not sure I dare ask, though.

[Wizard22]

Leave it to the Liberal-Left to insult, mock, demean, slander any and all Conservative geniuses.

Typical.

They can't argue, so they need to resort to feminine tactics, slandering a man's reputation and smearing him with Lies.

[Harbal]

Leave it to the Liberal-Left to insult, mock, demean, slander any and all Conservative geniuses.

Post a list of conservative geniuses and I'll see what I can do.

[Wizard22]

Kant, Plato, Schopenhauer.

Go ahead, call them 'incel', as if you suddenly become 'equal' to their Legacies. It feels good to attack a person, not their arguments, right?

[Harbal]

Kant, Plato, Schopenhauer.

Go ahead, call them 'incel', as if you suddenly become 'equal' to their Legacies. It feels good to attack a person, not their arguments, right?

ChatGPT says this about Kant and Plato:

In summary, while neither Kant nor Plato neatly fits into contemporary political categories like conservatism, both had political philosophies that reflected the values and concerns of their respective times. Kant's ideas are more closely associated with Enlightenment and liberal thinking, whereas Plato's political thought tends to be more hierarchical and skeptical of democratic governance.

It doesn't quite seem to agree with you about their conservatism. Maybe it's time to stop pretending you know anything about philosophers and philosophy.

[Atla]

I've heard that Schopenhauer is considered a God in red-pill philosophy though..

[Harbal]

I've heard that Schopenhauer is considered a God in red-pill philosophy though..

The only thing I know about Schopenhauer is that he wasn't known for being the life and soul of the party.

[Iwannaplato]

Kant, Plato, Schopenhauer.

One of Kant's friends was an open homosexual. Kant was not conservative on religious matters, given that he was a near atheist. He argued that there was no way to know God or prove God. Kant was liberal in relation to freedom from authority and in wanting a republic.

Plato thought that women could be equals of men in philosophy and even in ruling. That they had the same capacities. That's not just not conservative, that's hysterically radical or his time. He did not believe women needed AT ALL to enter traditional females roles: marriage or motherhood. He was quite socialist in some ways, thinking the state or society should make sure that everyone had the basics for survival include access to health care. He was anti-liberal anti-conservative in thinking that people should do what they are told by the authorities and was not big at all on individual freedom.

Arthur Schopenhauer didn't believe in individual freedom. Which pretty much makes him antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. Otherwise he was pretty conservative, though
he
did
not
like
the Western Traditions as much as the Eastern ones, especially in religion and philosophy.
IOW if you'd been around at that time you'd have called him a parasite on Western Civilization.