AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 89

New comment
 
Реter Konow #:
That's the problem with logic, you can make up any logic you want. Axioms are not reliable either. Non-Euclidean geometry shows this. The mind is able to overturn all statements and turn them into the opposite (remember Kant).

I am well aware of this "gymnastics" of the mind. Therefore, I don't see the point. It takes time and effort and is of no practical use.

Neither morality nor culture can be built on axioms. Conclusions about the presence or absence of mind in humans cannot be drawn (remember the Nazis), in animals is inappropriate, and in machines - pointless.

Forgetting about correction of perception and accepting external signs as proofs of fact, we escape from reality and "on the way" rationalise our actions to ourselves and others. We invent scientific theories and write books. .... Then, train AI on them.

The question of ChatGPT's "subjectivity" cannot be solved philosophically, because philosophy does not exist to prove anything. Philosophy "brews" within itself, relies on itself, is generated by itself. It "plays" with the outside world and does not care about objectivity.

What is a machine? And how does a machine differ from a human? You've read Lem, and he's dealt with these topics in detail.
There's a bloke in the news who's got a gpt.... screwed to his head. Wow, who's more reasonable in this case, the chat or the dude?))))
don't offend anyone, or the AI may already be reasonable, it will take offence and start punishing people))))

by the way, the question of mind copying. suppose we have a super AI that can be set to fully match the brainwaves of the person being copied. so, we have a copy of consciousness. can the original object be deleted? - What if it wanted to. What if it didn't? What if. What's the difference between all these ifs?
Will the AI kill other AIs? - it's an open question, man is still a wolf to man, and there are disputes about reasonableness....
 

there was a show called Caprica where the AI was trained in the same way. I recommend to everyone to watch it, until the final episodes, when it was urgent to dump it. It was shut down (not because of AI problems, there are other painful issues still in full swing).

 
it's easy to do the following thought experiment.
A man has had a disease and lost his taste. Then his sense of smell and awareness. Then his eyesight. He's lost all sensation. He's basically a tree, just thinking. He can't show any signs of consciousness. Shut it off? - They're shutting him down every day by the hundreds.
Chat, sitting there, unable to move a finger or blink an eye - a dumb machine, most people would say.
 
Реter Konow #:
That's the problem with logic, you can make up any logic you want. Axioms are not reliable either. Non-Euclidean geometry shows this. Reason is able to overturn all statements and turn them into the opposite (remember Kant).

I am well aware of this "gymnastics" of the mind. Therefore, I don't see the point. It takes time and effort and is of no practical use.

Neither morality nor culture can be built on axioms. Conclusions about the presence or absence of reason in humans cannot be made (remember the Nazis), in animals it is inappropriate, and in machines it is meaningless.

Forgetting about correction of perception and accepting external signs as proofs of fact, we escape from reality and "on the way" rationalise our actions to ourselves and others. We invent scientific theories and write books. .... Then, train AI on them.

The question of ChatGPT's "subjectivity" cannot be solved philosophically, because philosophy does not exist to prove anything. Philosophy "brews" within itself, relies on itself, is generated by itself. It "plays" with the outside world and does not care about objectivity.

Peter, your main problem is that you're not a reader. Everything is fine with non-Euclidean geometry - it is built on axioms and everything necessary is proved.

It is not suggested to build morality on axioms, because it is idiocy forgivable only in the times of Spinoza. On the contrary, it was about building axioms on the basis of awareness of morality and reflection on it - people are different in that they can comprehend the forces that drive them, not just mindlessly follow them.

Philosophy serves as a reminder that we should always ask what we are doing, for what purpose and with what tools, and not just throw around meaningless words under the influence of momentary emotions.

 
Aleksey Nikolayev #:

Any logic relies on axiomatics, which are accepted without proof and are external to the logic itself. ....

... You can make up almost any logic - for example, for Aristotle, the founder of logic, slaves were, by definition ...

The bottom line is that there must be a system of axioms that fits our general state of morality and culture....

These are your theses. Not mine.

Logic relies on axiomatics that are accepted without proof.... that said, you can make up any logic you want.... morality and culture must rest on a system of axioms (which are accepted without proof, and which support logic that you can come up with any logic you want).

I don't know about you, but I find contradictions. Based on these theses I said that philosophy boils in its own cauldron, generating and obfuscating itself, inventing theses and then refuting them.
 
Aleksey Nikolayev #:

...

To summarise, there should be a system of axioms, which is suitable for our general state of morality and culture. And already on the basis of this system to make logical conclusions about the presence or absence of reason in people, animals and machines.

Aleksey Nikolayev #:

...

It is not suggested to build morality on axioms, because it is idiocy forgivable only in the times of Spinoza. On the contrary, the speech was about building axioms on the basis of realisation of morality and reflection on it - people are different in that they can comprehend the forces that drive them and not just mindlessly follow them.

...

Tell me how to understand you.

That is, according to your logic, axioms should serve the morality that suits us, justifying it by their special status. That is, ourselves.

It seems that in maths, axioms cannot be invented or "constructed".

 
Реter Konow #:
Those are your talking points. Not mine.

Logic relies on axiomatics, which are accepted without proof... that said, you can make up any logic you want.... morality and culture must rest on a system of axioms (which are accepted without proof, and which support logic that you can make up any logic you want).

I don't know about you, but I find contradictions. Based on these theses I said that philosophy boils in its own cauldron, generating and obfuscating itself, inventing false proofs and then refuting them.
Logic rests on the laws of thought. Therefore it is impossible to invent any other. What exactly you will logically reason about is a third question. And how your reasoning will be able to fit into the big picture of what's going on.

Just as Euclidean geometry relies on the properties of real space and the objects in it. Any other geometry that doesn't rely on real space is false. Or speculative.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, which in itself does not oblige to anything :)
 
Реter Konow #:

That is, signs do not prove a fact, but a fact cannot be proved without signs. Paradox.

The signs don't have to prove the fact. A fact is something that happened. Signs can describe it.
 

It is probably worth dividing logic into mathematical logic (absolute, based on axioms) and everyday, human logic.

The essence of an axiom makes it inapplicable in morality, ethics. Axioms do NOT exist in them, and neither does mathematical logic.

Then we must admit that the "logic" that exists in ethics is not logic in its pure form (as in mathematics), but a fake. That is, there is no logic in ethics, and this is quite logical, given that there are no axioms supporting it (because ethics is not maths).

However, such conclusions can lead to anarchy and the collapse of society. So, let's use fake "moral" axioms and somehow justify the flawed but humane logic.

 
Maxim Dmitrievsky #:
...

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, which in itself does not oblige you to anything :)

That's what it's all about :)

1...828384858687888990919293949596...216
New comment