AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 167

New comment
 
Maxim Dmitrievsky chatgpt is ugly. Not only does it answer almost always incorrectly to complex topical questions, but you have to write and maintain dialogue. Google is faster.
At the current stage I want voice communication and that the chat itself talks quickly, but also answers shorter and on the merits.

Like a dog, which tries hard to understand what the owner wants and sometimes almost every breath understands the mood of the owner.

In the same way chat would be a good dog.
 
On the subject of computer simulation, the orc chieftain Thrall, son of Durotan, put it quite accurately in Warcraft 3:

- Ramblings of a Madman.
 
Andrey Dik #:

whether we live in a simulation or not is irrelevant, our knowledge of this world we live in and therefore no longer a fake to us.

In addition, the assumption that we live in a simulation gives an advantage over the assumption that we live in the real world, because in a simulation bugs and all sorts of glitches are more likely to occur, which can be used for practical purposes if they are discovered. even a targeted search for clues is possible. thus, the worldview that we live in the real world does not give any advantage, because for us it does not matter where we live, what matters is how we can benefit from it.

If we live in a simulation, then almost all unidentified unexplained phenomena can be easily explained and practically useful chains of logic can be constructed. if it is the real world, then the very fact of this statement makes it impossible to construct interesting theories.

axiom -> theory -> proof. at the axiom stage the foundations for theories are laid.

so which world is more real for us, the one that is more understandable and explainable, or the one that is not understandable and has a lot of unexplainable phenomena?))))))
The main conclusion of my reasoning is that simulation theory, by default, implies the reality in which the simulation works. The question is, where are we? In reality or simulation?

On the assumption that simulation can start with the simplest particles - quarks, we cannot verify the authenticity of matter and being, but we can choose. And each chooses for himself. To live with the conviction of the truth of the world, or its falsity.

What is the significance of this choice for scientists and scientific research? - Most importantly, because it affects the sacred, scientific approach, which is based on open-mindedness and objectivity. The theory of simulation overturns the notion of objective facts and the evidence built on them, and then, undermines in the human mind the belief in authority - recognised scientists and researchers, throwing their findings and conclusions in the trash. What if the evidence they have collected is built on a glitch in the matrix? - You can't be 100% sure of anything. You get a little bit of second-guessing.

Thus, a scientist who accepts the theory of our world as a simulation automatically loses the ability to follow a scientific approach. He discredits it with this theory and, um. - he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philistine for whom it does not matter whether facts exist or not.
 
Реter Konow #:
The main conclusion of my reasoning is that simulation theory, by default, implies the reality in which the simulator operates. The question is, where are we? In reality or simulation?

Wherever the "real reality" is, we still can't understand it. Hence the emergence of various fairy tales about who created the world and how. Simulation theory is one such fairy tale. Another thing is that this fairy tale clearly shows the fact that we cannot distinguish between "real matter" and "synthetic" matter simulated by coded information about, for example, quarks.

The practical sense in identifying one's reality as simulated can only be in trying to connect with the entity(s) that brewed this simulation, if that is possible at all.

Retag Konow #:
On the assumption that the simulation can start with the simplest particles, quarks, we cannot verify the authenticity of matter and being, but we can choose. And each chooses for himself. To live with the conviction of the truth of the world, or its falsity.

For man, a social being, the more real world is the one that most affects him. And so our "real" social human world is essentially even more false than the possible simulation of our matter. It is far more beneficial to the life of the individual to open our eyes to this fact, and not to mess around with something that we essentially never have anything to do with (we don't communicate with quarks, even though we are made up of them).

Retag Konow #:
The theory of simulation crosses out the concept of objective facts and the evidence built on them, and then, undermines in the human mind the belief in authority - recognised scientists and researchers, throwing their discoveries and conclusions in the trash.

Do facts within a simulation cease to be facts if their simulated nature is revealed? For the real (relatively simulated) world yes, but inside the simulation no. This is where the observer principle is important. And it is high time to bury "faith in authorities", especially for those who try to classify themselves as fans of the scientific approach with "objectivity and unbiasedness".

 
Ilya Filatov #:

...The principle of the observer is important here. And it is high time to bury "faith in authorities", especially for those who try to classify themselves as fans of the scientific approach with "objectivity and unbiasedness".

And where to put faith in the scientific approach?

 
Dmitry Fedoseev #:

Where does one put one's faith in the scientific approach?

The same place. Everything has to be double-checked, nothing can be taken on faith.

 
Andrey Dik #:


In addition, the assumption that we live in a simulation gives an advantage over the assumption that we live in the real world, because in a simulation bugs and all sorts of glitches are more likely to occur, which can be used for practical purposes if they are discovered. even a targeted search for clues is possible. thus, the worldview that we live in the real world does not give any advantage, because for us it does not matter where we live, what matters is how we can benefit from it.


You can go crazy looking for "bugs" and "glitches".
 
If it's a simulation, someone created it. I think it was in the film "13th Floor"?
 
Andrey Dik #:


if we live in a simulation, then almost all unidentified unexplained phenomena can be easily explained and practically useful logical chains can be constructed. if this is the real world, then the very fact of this statement does not allow to build interesting theories.



Is it like in religion everything unexplained is explained by God's will?
 
Sergey Gridnev #:

Is it like in religion everything that is not understood is explained by God's will?

in physics, as well as in religion, faith is everywhere - "dark matter" is one such example of faith, without proof, nobody is confused by it, right?
The world created by God is a simulation, what is not a theory? Belief in God is worse than belief in strings? You can believe in anything, but from the scientific point of view the question is only about practical usefulness of belief.
disclamer - no offence intended.
1...160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174...216
New comment