Bard and ChatGPT?

[FlashDangerpants]

Should use of Bard and ChatGPT use be discouraged until such time as a bot capable of reasoning through an argument is developed?

One person has launched a ridiculous number of doggerel threads in which he gets an AI to write his arguments for him and they are just tragic garbage like this viewtopic.php?t=41442 and this viewtopic.php?t=41432

It's bad enough that he spams his own repetitive junk every day, but using 3rd party tools to quadruple his output and still spaffing nothing but vaccuous junk must surely contravene some article of the Geneva Convention. It would be different if he stuck to using these gadgets for something they can actually do resonably well such as summarise the main arguments Puttnam uses to justify a reduced form of objectivity and traverse the fact/value divide or whatnot.

But this cretin thinks he's found a magic button to win arguments for him, and it's getting beyond stupid now.

[Flannel Jesus]

Should use of Bard and ChatGPT use be discouraged until such time as a bot capable of reasoning through an argument is developed?

I think it should be discouraged to post content directly from AIs in any discussion that is not explicitly about AIs in this forum, EVEN IF they were capable of reasoning through an argument.

If you want to talk to an AI, go talk to an AI. If you want to talk here ABOUT AI, fine, let's have a conversation about AI. But I'm not in this forum to talk to an AI about free will or morality or anti realism. If I want to talk to someone here about this things, I want to talk to a human being.

[Iwannaplato]

Should use of Bard and ChatGPT use be discouraged until such time as a bot capable of reasoning through an argument is developed?

I think it should be discouraged to post content directly from AIs in any discussion that is not explicitly about AIs in this forum, EVEN IF they were capable of reasoning through an argument.

If you want to talk to an AI, go talk to an AI. If you want to talk here ABOUT AI, fine, let's have a conversation about AI. But I'm not in this forum to talk to an AI about free will or morality or anti realism. If I want to talk to someone here about this things, I want to talk to a human being.

And a good reason for this, in addition to many others, is that AI's do not actually represent a position. AIs are not realist or antirealist. They will happily produce opposing arguments if given different inputs.

Unfortunately it's a bit like how VA used to produce a philosopher, for example, who supported his position and then declare or imply that the OP or argument had demonstrated the X was the case. Of course, anyone with a different view could produce a different philosopher. If VA's argument demonstrated X, well, then the other person's argument demonstrated not X.

Now this process has been streamlined for VA where it is AS IF the AI has gone through lots of online information and determined that VA's position is correct. But that's not what's happening.

And further the AIs themselves warn against using them this way. Which of course doesn't meant their correct, unless one considers them an authority. So, VA should consider them correct on this issue.

[Flannel Jesus]

And further the AIs themselves warn against using them this way. Which of course doesn't meant their correct, unless one considers them an authority. So, VA should consider them correct on this issue.

Can you post a snippet of such a warning?

[Iwannaplato]

And further the AIs themselves warn against using them this way. Which of course doesn't meant their correct, unless one considers them an authority. So, VA should consider them correct on this issue.

Can you post a snippet of such a warning?

ChatGPT, like other AI language models, does not have personal opinions or subjective experiences. It is designed to generate responses based on patterns it has learned from the data it was trained on. However, the training data itself can contain biases, and these biases can sometimes be reflected in the model's responses. OpenAI, the organization behind ChatGPT, has made efforts to mitigate biases during the training process, but some degree of bias may still be present. It's important to remember that ChatGPT's responses should be evaluated critically and not taken as absolute truth or an expression of objective reality.

Potential Problems:
Lack of Originality: ChatGPT generates responses based on patterns learned from data, and it doesn't have personal opinions or original insights. Relying solely on the model may lead to a lack of truly original and deeply considered perspectives.

Errors or Misinterpretations: The model might provide inaccurate or incomplete information, misinterpret the context, or not fully understand the nuances of a philosophical argument. Users should critically evaluate the responses.

Ethical Concerns: There may be ethical considerations regarding the use of AI in generating content for philosophical discussions. Users should be transparent about the source of the information.

Overemphasis on Consensus: If participants in the forum are aware that a response is generated by a machine learning model, there might be a tendency to overemphasize a consensus view, assuming that the model represents some kind of widely accepted philosophical position.

Limited Understanding of Context: ChatGPT lacks a deep understanding of specific, real-time contexts. Responses may not be sensitive to recent events, changes in philosophical discourse, or evolving perspectives.

My emphasis added.

The effects on the user

There is a potential risk that relying too heavily on ChatGPT or similar AI models for generating quotes and arguments could impact the development of critical thinking and independent reasoning skills. Here are some considerations:

Dependency on External Sources: If individuals consistently use ChatGPT to generate arguments without engaging in the process of formulating their own thoughts, they may become overly reliant on external sources, hindering the development of their own analytical and reasoning abilities.

Lack of Personal Engagement: Constructing one's own arguments involves personal engagement with the material, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Relying on pre-generated responses from an AI may lead to a more superficial understanding.

Risk of Misleading or Incorrect Information: While ChatGPT is a powerful language model, it may not always provide accurate or contextually appropriate information. Depending solely on AI-generated content without critical evaluation could result in the propagation of misinformation.

Stifling Creativity and Originality: Philosophy often involves exploring unique and innovative ideas. If individuals primarily draw on AI-generated content, there is a risk of stifling creativity and originality in philosophical thinking.

Diminished Personal Growth: The process of working out one's own arguments and positions is an essential part of personal and intellectual growth. Relying on external sources, even sophisticated AI models, may diminish the sense of accomplishment and intellectual development that comes from formulating one's own ideas.

I think we actually see this to some degree with VA. Though I think it was already present in the way he used Kant and anyone else who sided or seemed to with his positions. IOW he was already relying on appeals to authority and paraphrase of specific sources, often as if the issue was settled. So, Chatgpt is a new more flexible place to go and get and authority to appeal to, and/or to do one's thinking for you. I've noticed a pattern, certain not with just VA, where VA doesn't quite interact with criticisms. One can't tell sometimes if he has even read to objections because the response is a mere rephrasing of his position.

In a recent post I objected to the transcendental illusion as a term, since I thought the term delusion was better and especially for an antirealist, since illusion tends to imply an objective independent reality behind perceptions. He dismissed my points without interacting with them and said I needed to broaden my mind. Which really boils to I should use the translated versions of Kant's terminology or I have a closed mind.

So, there is a wider pattern of finding the expert and aiming the expert at others, rather than actually interacting with the objections. Of course, it's not a total pattern. He does interaction with ideas he disagrees with, but I see a tendency towards appeal to authority and not much objectivity about the diversity of authorities and what it means when one expert, AI or human, weighs in on a topic.

[Flannel Jesus]

Someone should totally reply with that every time va uses chat gpt in the way he does.

[Atla]

I try to look on the bright side, at least Age is too stupid to notice what these chatbots can do now. If she were to ask one of her caretakers to teach her how to use the chatbots as her new personal army, she could maybe take down not just this forum but the whole world.

[Iwannaplato]

Why using AI's as authorities is problematic

In the realm of "METAPHYSICAL ANTI-REALISM," the very foundations of reality and "truth" are called into question. From this "perspective," one could argue that the "concept" of "authoritative" "knowledge" is but a construct of "HUMAN" cognition, lacking any inherent substance beyond our "subjective" "interpretations." In a "world" where the "nature" of "reality" itself is elusive, the "notion" of appealing to "authority" takes on a "curious" shade.

Consider, if you will, the use of AI-generated texts in "APPEALS" to "AUTHORITY" within this metaphysical "framework." The proponents of such "appeals" often rely on the assumed objectivity and "reliability" of the "sources" they "cite." However, from an anti-realist standpoint, the "authority" attributed to these "sources" is but a shared "illusion," a "communal" agreement on what should be deemed "credible."

AI-generated texts, produced by "ALGORITHMS" that mimic "human" "language" patterns, introduce a layer of complexity to this "illusion." As these "texts" gain "PROMINENCE," the lines between "HUMAN-AUTHORED" and AI-generated "authority" blur. The anti-realist might argue that the "authority" derived from these "texts" is, at its core, a "collective" "ACCEPTANCE" of a "simulation" of "knowledge" rather than an "OBJECTIVE" "truth."

In this "perspective," those who "WIELD" AI-generated texts in "appeals" to "AUTHORITY" are essentially "NAVIGATING" a "landscape" of "SHARED" "BELIEFS" and "perceptions." The AI, "BEREFT" of "genuine" understanding or "consciousness," becomes a "MIRROR" reflecting back the "BIASES" and "patterns" present in the "DATA" it was "TRAINED" on. To "appeal" to such a "SOURCE" as an "authority" is to "INVEST" "trust" in a "reflection" rather than an "INDEPENDENT" "entity" with "INHERENT" "knowledge."

The anti-realist might further "POSIT" that the very "ACT" of "APPEALING" to "authority," whether "HUMAN" or AI, "REVEALS" more about the "NATURE" of our "collective" "COGNITIVE" "processes" than it does about an "OBJECTIVE" "reality." It underscores the "MALLEABILITY" of "truth," contingent upon the "EVOLVING" "NATURE" of our "SHARED" "agreements" and "SOCIETAL" "NORMS."

In "CONCLUSION," from a "METAPHYSICAL" ANTI-REALIST "PERSPECTIVE," the use of AI-generated "texts" in "APPEALS" to "authority" "SERVES" as a "fascinating" "EXPLORATION" of the "HUMAN" inclination to seek "validation" in the "ILLUSIONS" we "collectively" "CREATE." The "LINES" between "reality" and "SIMULATION" "BECOME" "INCREASINGLY" "indistinct," "CHALLENGING" us to "RECONSIDER" the "very" "FOUNDATIONS" on which we "BUILD" our "understanding" of what is deemed "AUTHORITATIVE."

[Flannel Jesus]

Reading this Aged me by 5 years

[Iwannaplato]

Reading this Aged me by 5 years

I'm sorry. I explained Age and VA to an AI and asked the AI to explain in the style of Age to VA why using AI in the way he does was wrong. I should have put a trigger warning on it. On the other hand, I enjoyed the process in an unhealthy way that I, well, enjoy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The OP is very pathetic from a sore loser.
The purpose of a and this forum is for open discussion.

Where I quote from Bard or ChatGpt, the OP is always qualified [with reservations] and all [may missed 1 or 2] my OPs end with;
Discuss??
Views??

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.

Since I invited members to "Discuss" or "Views" they could just do that or ignore it.
The proper response is to offer their views, arguments and opinions or just ignore it.
There is something psychologically wrong with those who fuss about it.

The reason why the starter of the OP is so worked up reflect some internal psychological issues in that person due to the typical resistance to change [modernity] instinct, psychological insecurity, etc.

until such time as a bot capable of reasoning through an argument is developed?

This is a stupid unintelligent expectation.
The expectations for 'until such time' will never be met as the bar will always be raised for this regardless of the AI achievements.
It was reported ChatGpt and Bard has very reasonable reasoning skills to the extent it could get an MBA and had aced many high level exams.
FDP is very ignorant of the many tests Bard and ChatGpt had been put to the test and achieving reasonable results [of course not perfect nor 99%], but higher than the average person.

[Iwannaplato]

Reading this Aged me by 5 years

Oh, dear me. I just got the pun. I took this only literally, at first.

[Flannel Jesus]

Reading this Aged me by 5 years

Oh, dear me. I just got the pun. I took this only literally, at first.

And THIS just "goes" to show that "people" BACK THEN were not "LIKE" people from OUR "time".

[Iwannaplato]

Reading this Aged me by 5 years

Oh, dear me. I just got the pun. I took this only literally, at first.

And THIS just "goes" to show that "people" BACK THEN were not "LIKE" people from OUR "time".

I gave Chatgpt some Age text, pointed out the features of referring to now as the past, capitalizing words without explanation and the seemingly random use of citation/quotation marks. While Chatgpt gave a number of admonitions to take this as only speculation, here's what it said....

Emotional State: The use of capitalization and quotation marks could indicate heightened emotions, perhaps frustration or anger. The inconsistent capitalization may suggest a lack of control or a sense of urgency.

Time Perception: The reference to the current time as the past might suggest a disorientation or a disconnect from reality. It could be intentional or may indicate a mental state where the individual is not firmly grounded in the present.

Attention to Detail: The use of quotation marks around certain words might indicate an emphasis on those words, suggesting a particular focus or obsession. Alternatively, it could be a way to express sarcasm or irony.

Writing Style: The writing style seems informal and colloquial, possibly reflecting a lack of formal education or a deliberate attempt to sound casual. It may also suggest a desire to relate to a specific audience.

[attofishpi]

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.

The reason why the starter of the OP is so worked up reflect some internal psychological issues in that person due to the typical resistance to change [modernity] instinct, psychological insecurity, etc.

Does he also have an existential crisis that needs to be sooothed?

You might not be aware, but 'soothe' is what is termed a 'fleemyant' word in English. Which means you can add extra vowels to provide more impact for the word..

Thus, with this thread you may be having an existential crisis that needs to be sooooooooothed.