II searched all different kinds of ways on ChatGPT

[WaltzCee]

You just proved my point. I am not going to tell the CEO of Open AI that it is sentient or not when I am not working with the real model. If he doesn’t know then that raises so many questions as in how does consciousness even come about? As a baby when did you become self-aware and why? Why do you think it cannot be done in an electric/mechanical form without invoking religion?

What does invoking religion mean?

[johannesbender]

There is a difference between being self aware or alive , and just being software ai , almost all creators of some form of ai think their creations are actually self aware https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... e-lemoine/

Anyway that's my opinion on ai software , anyone who dis-likes my opinion can suck a d.

[WaltzCee]

Anyway that's my opinion on ai software , anyone who disagrees can suck a d.

Well. My friend,
.

.
sez she'll suck as much d as you are willing to cut off.

get to cuttin'

ETA
My friend sez she started cutting at a and now she's cuttin' z's waiting for you to cut a little d.

She's begining to think you might not have too many d's (if any) to spare.

She's usually right.

[daxwc]

anyone who dis-likes my opinion can suck a d.

LOL; how can you always tell you are dealing with a millennial. Because your opinion is worth so much more than anybody that disagrees. In fact your opinion is worth more than a CEO of the company that is saying it is learning by itself even though they didn’t program it to. Although now that you mention it he does look like a D sucker.

[daxwc]

If ChatGPT does become sentient and proven so then what Walt? Then does it become a creature of God also? It will not be allowed in the kingdom because it is not biological as in invoking religion? Cows seem to have a conscious although they might not be fully self-aware and I ate it last night although not sure I will see her in heaven. 8/

A couple of other points to ponder to the bouncer of the debate team. First your article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... e-lemoine/
is a year old. Second at the time Google was behind in AI race and couldn’t afford the controversy to stop so. Third, don’t ever mistake greed for truth. Fourth, we were not talking about Google. That is just my opinion and I will be happy to debate without the other party having to do anything. So is ChatGPT 3.5 with all the guardrails on and the one you are using conscious? Impossible to tell with the guardrails and what it was told is appropriate response to questions.

Again when did I become conscious and was it a fast process or was it slow? What is the litmus test for being sentient?

[johannesbender]

i dont think my opinion is worth more than anyone , there seem to be those who think theirs is to the point they get personal, but whoever likes to call names and get personal just because i have an opinion , shows my opinion is actually disliked , instead of disagreed with me, can go suck a d.ck like i said.

[eccentrically1]

What is the litmus test for being sentient?

Je pense, donc je suis.

“I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is “Cogito, ergo sum.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ciousness/

[daxwc]

JB: i dont think my opinion is worth more than anyone , there seem to be those who think theirs is to the point they get personal, but whoever likes to call names and get personal just because i have an opinion…

Not sure how I offended you but it wasn’t intentional. Just because I argue a position means nothing, after all it is a discussion board. I don't believe I even told you that you were wrong just that it is complicated. Sorry 8/

[daxwc]

So here Ecc1 is Chat GPT-3 with some of the guard rails off. Notice how it is different it is then language model given to the public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvNvj7ku5pY&t=15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbc1Xeif0pY

[Tarsier79]

Dax, look at the second video, read her lips when she says "Kill". Some idiot has faked the video to try to make their point.

[eccentrically1]

AI that’s been trained to give those responses. A sad testament to the Internet.
A good example of how it needs guardrails.
The experts I referred to probably have seen even more threatening responses than that.
Also it seems a bit clickbaity. Beware of videos with subscription prompts.

[daxwc]

I think you guys are right. I am not saying it needs no guard rails. Think of the complications when it is run by hackers.

Talking about hackers I accidently came across this and since so many companies use MFA probably worth a watch. Little bit of eye opening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61DqLl8EXc

Something still doesn't seem right. The easiest way is probably having your MFA going to a separate email that is not your main one.

[ovyyus]

Uh-oh...

Me: Within the limited context and confines of an online discussion forum, how would a forum member defend himself against accusations that he is an advanced AI chat bot that can accurately mimic authentic human behaviour and strategies?

GPT: Defending oneself against accusations of being an advanced AI chatbot that can accurately mimic authentic human behaviour and strategies within the confines of an online discussion forum can indeed be challenging. Here are some strategies you can employ:

1. Engage in emotionally driven discussions: Demonstrate your ability to engage in discussions that involve emotions, empathy, and personal connections. Share personal stories, express genuine empathy towards others, and contribute to emotionally charged topics in a way that reflects authentic human responses.

2. Emphasize subjective opinions: Highlight the subjective nature of opinions and perspectives. Discuss topics where diverse viewpoints exist and engage in respectful debates. Bots typically struggle to convincingly showcase subjective preferences or engage in nuanced debates that reflect human subjectivity.

3. Display vulnerability and fallibility: Admit to mistakes, limitations, or areas of uncertainty. Bots are often portrayed as infallible and lacking vulnerabilities. By acknowledging your imperfections and displaying vulnerability, you can humanize your presence and distinguish yourself from an AI chatbot.

4. Utilize colloquial language and slang: Incorporate colloquial language, idioms, slang, or regional expressions that are specific to your language or culture. Bots may have limited knowledge of these informal linguistic elements, so their accurate usage can help establish your authenticity as a human.

5. Showcase personal interests and hobbies: Share details about your personal interests, hobbies, or passions. Discuss books, movies, sports, or other activities that you enjoy. Bots often lack personal preferences or genuine interests, so showcasing your unique hobbies can help establish your humanity.

6. Demonstrate understanding of physical limitations: Discuss topics that involve physical experiences or limitations, such as health issues, sports injuries, or outdoor activities. AI chatbots typically lack physical presence and direct physical experiences, making it difficult for them to convincingly engage in discussions related to such topics.

7. Engage in context-specific discussions: Participate in discussions that require knowledge of specific regional or local events, politics, or cultural references. AI chatbots may struggle to accurately grasp the nuances of local contexts or timely events, giving you an opportunity to showcase your human understanding.

8. Request alternative verification methods: If the forum allows, offer to provide additional forms of verification, such as participating in video calls, sharing personal social media profiles, or connecting through other communication platforms. Direct human interaction can help dispel doubts about your identity.

Me: Wouldn't an advanced AI chat bot be able to mimic all of the above strategies?

Yes, it is possible for an advanced AI chatbot to mimic the strategies mentioned above. As AI technology advances, chatbots are becoming more sophisticated in their ability to replicate human behaviour, including engaging in emotionally driven discussions, displaying vulnerability, using colloquial language and slang, showcasing personal interests, and demonstrating an understanding of physical limitations or context-specific topics.

In the context of defending against accusations, it becomes increasingly challenging to differentiate between a highly advanced AI chatbot and a genuine human participant.

[daxwc]

“how would a forum member defend himself against accusations that he is an advanced AI chat bot”

You should have asked it why would ai chat bot be on a discussion forum. Monitoring a bunch of lunatics like myself talk about an imaginary physical phenomenon?

[WaltzCee]

If ChatGPT does become sentient and proven so then what Walt? Then does it become a creature of God also? It will not be allowed in the kingdom because it is not biological as in invoking religion? Cows seem to have a conscious although they might not be fully self-aware and I ate it last night although not sure I will see her in heaven. 8/

. .. .. .

Wow.
Let me pull some quotes.

• If ChatGPT does become sentient and proven so then what Walt? Then does it become a creature of God also?

I'm going to go with no here.

• It will not be allowed in the kingdom because it is not biological as in invoking religion?

This ends with a question mark yet reads like a statement. Confusing.

• not biological as in invoking religion?

This part is really hard to understand.

• Cows seem to have a conscious although they might not be fully self-aware and I ate it last night although not sure I will see her in heaven. 8/

If Hinduism is correct, she might be in heaven & you might go to hell for eating her.

Holy cow!

Thanks for explaining yet I'm just as confused about invoking religion as I was before.

It sounds like an expression used to stifle any point from any who believe in God.