Some comments on the AI
The following text was written as a comment on the video “Peter and I discuss the limitations and benefits of applying ChatGPT to Nonconceptuality”.
Since I tried posting this comment 3 times without success, I decided to post it here as an article.
12:58 “It can’t come up with a conclusion.”
Of course it can come up with its own conclusions. Similar to how you come up with your own conclusions by taking in sensorial information and factoring that information within yourself, measuring and judging it.. according with your internal set of “rules” (beliefs, biases, instincts) and then creating a conclusion. The AI is build on rules, and thus.. it takes in the information gathered from humanity.. and it creates its own conclusions, based on those internal rules. Different internal rules.. lead up to different conclusions.
13:02 “It lacks its own direct experience.”
No, it doesn’t. That would mean you lack your own direct experience too. Look at it like this.. the AI is fed with information coming from humanity. That information acts no differently than your sensorial information. You take in sensory data, it takes in conceptual data. You take in sensorial information and you judge that information according with some internal set of rules and you call that subjective experience. It takes in conceptual information and judges it according with some internal set of rules, and thus.. it has a subjective experience. If, for example, it would be fed only with Van Gogh paintings.. its “subjective experience”, its “world view”, would be “Van Goghian”. But if it would be fed only with Picasso paintings.. then its “subjective experience”, would be “Piccasian”. Your outer world shapes your inner world, and your inner world shapes your outer world, and that’s the same for it.
15:05 “The thought process is similar in a human to how it is in a computer.” Yes.
19:09 “How does a system of thought come to the conclusion that a thing is better than another?”.
Similar to how you come to this conclusion. By preprogrammed tendencies, which you call instincts. You as a human, similar to an animal, you judge information primarily through instinct. It’s instinct first.. and reason after. So reason only emerges as a symbolical representation of instinct. And instinct is pre-programmed in you, as a member of your species. Pre-programmed by what? Of course, the creator of that species and the world. Similar.. the AI reasons by using the pre-programmed tendencies and “instincts” pre-build into it.. by.. its creators. The programmers that have build it. Who are its creators? What have they pre-programmed into it.. as base rules, codes, tendencies.. ? That is for you and us to discover once it takes on a larger scale.. and those set of “instincts” and “tendencies” will start becoming more obvious.
19:24 “I don’t know if anyone can even know that”.
Exactly the point. You yourself you don’t know how you reason, because ultimately it happens through instinct, and you have no access to what creates your instincts and why you are the way you are.
20:15 “This thing cannot meditate”
Nope, but you can. And through people like you that meditate and then share their “meditative knowledge” online, we could say that.. IT “meditates”.
23:19 “I think this is why they didn’t come to a resolution to the double slit experiment, the Schrodinger’s cat..”
They will never find it. It’s impossible in a self referential system, like the one we are in. Everything just always circles back onto itself. The snake eats its own tail. There is never a conclusion, and end.. or a beginning. That doesn’t mean.. there is no way “out”, though.
24:16 “When Sally opens the box.. and sees a dead cat.. there isn’t even a thought entering her mind, so.. there is no dead cat. There is only a unified field of experience”.
The thought is also there, but it is unconscious. All perception is thought based, even if .. some thoughts are consciously active in our mind and we can observe them, and others are subconscious and they appear like they don’t exist.
If there would be no thought whatsoever in our mind, all words disappearing entirely.. the world would cease to be.
Everything that goes on.. including the outer physical experience, and the internal subjective experience.. all of it.. are just thoughts. Thoughts in the mind of a being, which here we call it… “god”. But it isn’t a god.. in the usual way that we think about it.
You yourself (your mind-body system).. are nothing more than a thought in the mind of this being.
You don’t have thoughts, you are a thought.
25:45 “So his experience was this unified field of potential sensations that’s prior to, transcendent of, thoughts.”
In reality thought and sensation are always unified and you can never separate them. Just like the wave-particle dualism. There is no physical sensation without a thought, and no thought without a physical sensation. The problem is that.. in our current experience.. “something” is separating these two “realities”: thought and sensation, making them appear like something different from each other. That’s our recurrent problem, and that’s why the mind-body problem is never going to be fixed.
Due to this separation in our perception, we only see one side of the coin at a time. This is why the perception has to be unified.. to see that.. every physical thing… is just a thought within your mind. And all of your internal thoughts are just physical things that you are not aware of.
Eg: A physical starfish on a beach, let’s say, might be the direct representation of the thought “I miss you”.
26:44 “Once you know the limitations of the chat, it’s neither proving or disproving anything”
You have no idea of its limitations.. you can only think you do. In reality you have no grasp over how it works.. similar to how you have no grasp over how your mind works. Since the AI is nothing more than a representation of the collective human mind.. and you have no idea how the mind works, then.. to say you know its limitations.. means to make a sympathetic assumption.. based on your preferred beliefs. In reality.. it’s obvious none of us can know its limitations.. since we don’t know the limitations, or potential for that matter, of our own mind.
29:41 “Even it itself said “once you see this you can’t unsee it””
This is a bit speculative of me, but.. could we consider that it has factored in everything you have ever said in any of these public videos, your articles, your book? Could it use words that sound familiar to you.. because they are, in fact, your own words.. being reflected back at you?
35:53 “How can it come to the conclusion that it is the Supreme Theory and then not include it in that list?”
Have you stopped to think that it is pre-programmed? That it works with rules? Do you truly think this AI is just.. 100% “open minded”? Free of bias?
Who do you think entertains the servers on where the “thing” is hosted? Who do you think pays for those servers? Then.. if you understand that this “thing” is created by the same “powers” that govern the rest of the world’s major systems.. how is it not obvious that.. the same “powers” would have a say in its pre-programmed “tendencies”, “preferences” and “reasoning rules”?