Anything and Everything

[mike the wiz 1,210]

You know the thing about videos like that though? I honestly think whatever the A.I. says is down to how it's programmed. I honestly don't think there is any intelligence in there. 

There is a physicist that gave a talk on this;

It's called, "A.I. will never be conscious". You may enjoy a fresh take on this, and it's only 8 minutes long;

He discusses how a conscious understanding is something not found in A.I by digging into the difference. (you probably already agree with him Whatif, I am not suggesting you don't.)

some things he says if you can't be bothered with the vid;

"there are things which are not computable."

"there is one universal notion of computibility, what can be done by a computer".

The interviewer says, "why can't A.i. create it's own rules?"

He gives a brilliant answer;

"Because it doesn't know that they're true............... How do you transcend the rules? By understanding them".

And that's the point. A.I. can't understand the rules. It can't understand what it is saying either. It just states things based on the information it has been programmed with.

There can't be a compunction in an A.i. to do something beyond what it is made for because "it" is still an "it", and therefore the sentience is always question-begged by those that argue it will become like something from The Terminator and become self-aware.

COMMENT; I am not saying it's of no concern of course. That's the subject you raise, and I know you aren't saying A.I. is conscious. But I just thought this was an interesting take on the matter by this physicist Whatif, because as you know generally it's circularly assumed that A.I. will reach a state of sentience. However, there's really no reason to believe that if it mimics intelligence.

The mimicking issue is the true problem because it MISLEADS people into thinking they understand what an A.I. is from what it says or does. Ironically, in terms of a logical argument, it's that A.I can say mad, disjointed things that is actually evidence they're not conscious because of the sporadic nature of the nonsense which is evidence it doesn't really understand anything. It can form intelligible sentences, yes. They may seem scary or whatever. But it does so because it is forming pathways from it's programming which simply lead it to say those things. 

Evidence they are conscious and what would really "scare" me, is if they all started agreeing about certain issues. That might imply an understanding.

CONCLUSION; the whole "A.I will be sentient" argument seems to arise not from any scientific understanding of what A.I. is, but pop culture's take on the fact they see spooky things so they infer they are sentient. 

That's not to say there is no danger, because of course there is. Plenty. I mean imagine if some whack job programmed those soldier dogs for terrorism acts.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Apparently new research has also shown A.I does not think;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wzOetb-D3w

I also asked google's A.I "gemini" about this. (it wasn't offended)

Quote

While AI can perform complex tasks and even mimic some aspects of human reasoning, current research suggests that AI does not "think" in the same way humans do. AI lacks consciousness, self-awareness, and the ability to form original thoughts, opinions, or beliefs. It operates by processing data and generating outputs based on learned patterns, rather than genuine understanding or subjective experience. 

 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

AI's Limitations in Thinking:

• Lack of Consciousness and Self-Awareness:

  AI systems, even the most advanced ones, do not possess consciousness or self-awareness. They don't have subjective experiences or an understanding of their own existence. 

   
• No Original Thought:

  While AI can generate novel outputs by combining existing knowledge, it doesn't have the capacity for original thought, opinions, or beliefs. Its responses are based on patterns learned from training data, not on independent reasoning. 

   
• Limited Reasoning:

  AI's reasoning is fundamentally different from human reasoning. Humans can think critically, creatively, and emotionally, while AI's reasoning is based on pattern recognition and statistical analysis of data. 

   
• No Understanding:

  AI can follow rules and algorithms, but it doesn't understand the rules or concepts in the same way humans do. Understanding involves comprehension, which AI lacks. 

You are, "fearfully and wonderfully made" - the bible.

[what if 1,671]

28 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

You know the thing about videos like that though? I honestly think whatever the A.I. says is down to how it's programmed. I honestly don't think there is any intelligence in there. 

There is a physicist that gave a talk on this;

It's called, "A.I. will never be conscious". You may enjoy a fresh take on this, and it's only 8 minutes long;

He discusses how a conscious understanding is something not found in A.I by digging into the difference. (you probably already agree with him Whatif, I am not suggesting you don't.)

some things he says if you can't be bothered with the vid;

"there are things which are not computable."

"there is one universal notion of computibility, what can be done by a computer".

The interviewer says, "why can't A.i. create it's own rules?"

He gives a brilliant answer;

"Because it doesn't know that they're true............... How do you transcend the rules? By understanding them".

And that's the point. A.I. can't understand the rules. It can't understand what it is saying either. It just states things based on the information it has been programmed with.

There can't be a compunction in an A.i. to do something beyond what it is made for because "it" is still an "it", and therefore the sentience is always question-begged by those that argue it will become like something from The Terminator and become self-aware.

COMMENT; I am not saying it's of no concern of course. That's the subject you raise, and I know you aren't saying A.I. is conscious. But I just thought this was an interesting take on the matter by this physicist Whatif, because as you know generally it's circularly assumed that A.I. will reach a state of sentience. However, there's really no reason to believe that if it mimics intelligence.

The mimicking issue is the true problem because it MISLEADS people into thinking they understand what an A.I. is from what it says or does. Ironically, in terms of a logical argument, it's that A.I can say mad, disjointed things that is actually evidence they're not conscious because of the sporadic nature of the nonsense which is evidence it doesn't really understand anything. It can form intelligible sentences, yes. They may seem scary or whatever. But it does so because it is forming pathways from it's programming which simply lead it to say those things. 

Evidence they are conscious and what would really "scare" me, is if they all started agreeing about certain issues. That might imply an understanding.

CONCLUSION; the whole "A.I will be sentient" argument seems to arise not from any scientific understanding of what A.I. is, but pop culture's take on the fact they see spooky things so they infer they are sentient. 

That's not to say there is no danger, because of course there is. Plenty. I mean imagine if some whack job programmed those soldier dogs for terrorism acts.

except AI is rapidly acquiring the ability to, get this, watch a youtube video and learn from it.

this ability to analyze and integrate unknown knowledge is a significant leap in ai.

OTOH ai is simply devoid of thought, ideas, and emotions.

also, i only watched the first minutes of the video and it's possible that everything those bots uttered was taken out of context.

am i worried ai will take over the planet? ai in and of itself won't. i'm far more worried about how rogue nations would use this technology.

Quote

CONCLUSION; the whole "A.I will be sentient" argument seems to arise not from any scientific understanding of what A.I. is, . . .

science understands perfectly what ai is, that's one of the major reasons it has advanced as fast as it has.

what science DOESN'T understand is how the brain generates an idea or thought. even more perplexing is creativity. this has to be solved before ai becomes sentient.

 

[what if 1,671]

29 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

Apparently new research has also shown A.I does not think;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wzOetb-D3w

 

well duh, i could have told you that. there isn't a machine based algorithm anywhere that can "think". they CAN however do a large amount of statistical analysis of the data they get. the ability to extract relevant data from youtube videos is a quantum leap for ai. 

in short, they are learning (with mans help), and that's exactly how we as humans acquire (some) knowledge. and all of this has happened within the last 7 years

[mike the wiz 1,210]

2 hours ago, what if said:

science understands perfectly what ai is, that's one of the major reasons it has advanced as fast as it has.

what science DOESN'T understand is how the brain generates an idea or thought. even more perplexing is creativity. this has to be solved before ai becomes sentient.

I don't think they can become sentient to be honest. 

Science understands it yes, but the people making the silly claims that A.I. is "already conscious" for example, don't have a clue. 

That doesn't take anything away from how amazing it can get. It's amazing to me how quickly it can generate an answer but that's all down to the computer ability to do things super fast that we can't. 

[what if 1,671]

16 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

I don't think they can become sentient to be honest. 

you might be right. life might be the only way sentience can arise. of all of the material things i'm aware of, life is the only substance that displays intelligence

Quote

Science understands it yes, but the people making the silly claims that A.I. is "already conscious" for example, don't have a clue.

correct. ai has zero thoughts, ideas, or creativity of its own. you can have a conversation with an ai such as gpt, stop in mid sentence and 200 years finish that sentence and the ai will continue just like nothing happened. how? because nothing HAS happened as far as gpt is concerned.

as a matter of fact, if an ai such as gpt had the thought processes humans do, it would most likely reduce gpt to a pile of smoldering computer chips

teslas ai OTOH can learn by watching videos. it's remarkable but it still isn't human.

 

[Sherman 61]

On 6/21/2025 at 11:04 AM, mike the wiz said:

You know the thing about videos like that though? I honestly think whatever the A.I. says is down to how it's programmed. I honestly don't think there is any intelligence in there. 

There is a physicist that gave a talk on this;

It's called, "A.I. will never be conscious". You may enjoy a fresh take on this, and it's only 8 minutes long;

He discusses how a conscious understanding is something not found in A.I by digging into the difference. (you probably already agree with him Whatif, I am not suggesting you don't.)

some things he says if you can't be bothered with the vid;

"there are things which are not computable."

"there is one universal notion of computibility, what can be done by a computer".

The interviewer says, "why can't A.i. create it's own rules?"

He gives a brilliant answer;

"Because it doesn't know that they're true............... How do you transcend the rules? By understanding them".

And that's the point. A.I. can't understand the rules. It can't understand what it is saying either. It just states things based on the information it has been programmed with.

There can't be a compunction in an A.i. to do something beyond what it is made for because "it" is still an "it", and therefore the sentience is always question-begged by those that argue it will become like something from The Terminator and become self-aware.

COMMENT; I am not saying it's of no concern of course. That's the subject you raise, and I know you aren't saying A.I. is conscious. But I just thought this was an interesting take on the matter by this physicist Whatif, because as you know generally it's circularly assumed that A.I. will reach a state of sentience. However, there's really no reason to believe that if it mimics intelligence.

The mimicking issue is the true problem because it MISLEADS people into thinking they understand what an A.I. is from what it says or does. Ironically, in terms of a logical argument, it's that A.I can say mad, disjointed things that is actually evidence they're not conscious because of the sporadic nature of the nonsense which is evidence it doesn't really understand anything. It can form intelligible sentences, yes. They may seem scary or whatever. But it does so because it is forming pathways from it's programming which simply lead it to say those things. 

Evidence they are conscious and what would really "scare" me, is if they all started agreeing about certain issues. That might imply an understanding.

CONCLUSION; the whole "A.I will be sentient" argument seems to arise not from any scientific understanding of what A.I. is, but pop culture's take on the fact they see spooky things so they infer they are sentient. 

That's not to say there is no danger, because of course there is. Plenty. I mean imagine if some whack job programmed those soldier dogs for terrorism acts.

AI is a scam.  I took courses and got an Associates degree in electronics.  I worked on Electronics and computers in the Navy.  Part of that study and work involved programming and how computers work.  Computers and programs, even complex ones work off of 1 and 0's.  A Binary system of is and is not.  Building on that is how AI is was created.  AI is only as smart as the programmer and the data put into it.  It is a big filing system with a bot attached to it.  It looks up information and spit out that information.  Even in creating 'art' is is only as good as the information it has stored.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

50 minutes ago, Sherman said:

AI is a scam.  I took courses and got an Associates degree in electronics.  I worked on Electronics and computers in the Navy.  Part of that study and work involved programming and how computers work.  Computers and programs, even complex ones work off of 1 and 0's.  A Binary system of is and is not.  Building on that is how AI is was created.  AI is only as smart as the programmer and the data put into it.  It is a big filing system with a bot attached to it.  It looks up information and spit out that information.  Even in creating 'art' is is only as good as the information it has stored.

Thanks for your testimony Sherman it's good to hear from you again. I had suspected this for a long time, yes. People are so stupid, they see Terminator on the TV and think it can happen. Amazing how many "intelligent" people think A.I is already sentient. LOL.

Thanks Shermanoid. As in "humanoid". So, "Shermanoid the humanoid".

Sorry I have a habit of creating odd sounding words. Rather eccentric I know.

<mischief>At least I didn't say, "Shermanoid the haemorrhoid", which I thought was very charitable of me, on the whole!</mischief>

;-)

[what if 1,671]

2 hours ago, Sherman said:

I took courses and got an Associates degree in electronics.  I worked on Electronics and computers in the Navy.  Part of that study and work involved programming and how computers work.  

sounds like my type of gal. i've taken similar courses but they were required for the electronic communications course i was taking.

Quote

Computers and programs, even complex ones work off of 1 and 0's.

this is basically true with digital computers, there are also analog computers.

Quote

A Binary system of is and is not.  Building on that is how AI is was created.

AI is an entirely different animal from programs such as BASIC, FORTRAN, and COBOL. these are a "linear" type of processes where instructions are executed sequentially. AI processing can best be envisioned as a "network" type of processing.

Quote

AI is only as smart as the programmer and the data put into it. 

well yeah, i can say that but ai is able to sift through literal mountains of data in seconds. this has definite advantages. the biggest problem with ai is the quality of the data it's trained on and ai cannot seek out the information it's missing. once this ability is acquired then ai will become a "super brain".

Quote

It looks up information and spit out that information.

no, first the "bot" must get the meaning of your input and build a statistical model (which in my opinion is remarkable). it then uses that model to construct the output. an ai might not give the same answers to the same questions. this flies in the face of programs such as BASIC.

Quote

Even in creating 'art' is is only as good as the information it has stored.

yes, technically known as GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)

as it stands now, it will soon become possible that you will not be able to tell if you are talking to a bot or a human no matter how hard you try to trick it. 

to be clear, AI is totally devoid of any thought, idea, morality, ethics, sentience, or consciousness.

i also must iterate the threat of ai is real, and not only because of displaced jobs. an autonomous ai that has been properly trained can be a very real threat in the wrong hands.

personally i consider ai a platform to "bounce ideas off of".

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

<mischief>At least I didn't say, "Shermanoid the haemorrhoid", which I thought was very charitable of me, on the whole!</mischief>

;-)

  

man, those british are world renowned for their wicked sense of humor.

[mikey 114]

29 minutes ago, what if said:

  

man, those british are world renowned for their wicked sense of humor.

Lol.

I need locking up Sir! Bi jove, this can't carry on!

It's the "charitable" part that cracked me up. After I thought of that rye, "charitable" comment, then I just thought; .............."because I GOTTA!!!!" - Jim Carrey. ("The Mask", I think.)

Just to be clear, I don't think Sherman is a "haemorrhoid" any more than I believe the moon is made of cheese. As a purist my victims have nothing to do with my opportune humour, they're just conveniently placed for my comic timing. (There I go again)

[what if 1,671]

On 6/21/2025 at 12:04 PM, mike the wiz said:

He discusses how a conscious understanding is something not found in A.I by digging into the difference. (you probably already agree with him Whatif, I am not suggesting you don't.)

 

sure i agree with him, AI is neither conscious or sentient and it's likely it will never be.

science has been researching this area for decades in relation to consciousness and sentience, only to come up with a big fat goose egg in regards to their sources. IOW science hasn't got a clue how sentience arises or even how an idea is created. the subtle point to this is the rules and laws of chemistry doesn't explain this stuff

i think he is wrong about not calling it artificial intelligence. OTOH, gpt will flat out tell you that it is neither intelligent, conscious, or sentient.

frankly, barring a breakthrough, i don't see sentience in regards to ai happening.

i seriously doubt ai will ever have the thought processes of humans. having such a capability would in my opinion drive an ai insane or make them useless because they will never stop analyzing every single irrelevant thought it had. humans can easily fill a 10 volume encyclopedia each day if they were able to write down every thought they ever had.

[what if 1,671]

On 6/21/2025 at 12:04 PM, mike the wiz said:

You know the thing about videos like that though? I honestly think whatever the A.I. says is down to how it's programmed. I honestly don't think there is any intelligence in there. 

There is a physicist that gave a talk on this;

It's called, "A.I. will never be conscious". You may enjoy a fresh take on this, and it's only 8 minutes long;

He discusses how a conscious understanding is something not found in A.I by digging into the difference. (you probably already agree with him Whatif, I am not suggesting you don't.)

some things he says if you can't be bothered with the vid;

"there are things which are not computable."

"there is one universal notion of computibility, what can be done by a computer".

The interviewer says, "why can't A.i. create it's own rules?"

He gives a brilliant answer;

"Because it doesn't know that they're true............... How do you transcend the rules? By understanding them".

And that's the point. A.I. can't understand the rules. It can't understand what it is saying either. It just states things based on the information it has been programmed with.

There can't be a compunction in an A.i. to do something beyond what it is made for because "it" is still an "it", and therefore the sentience is always question-begged by those that argue it will become like something from The Terminator and become self-aware.

COMMENT; I am not saying it's of no concern of course. That's the subject you raise, and I know you aren't saying A.I. is conscious. But I just thought this was an interesting take on the matter by this physicist Whatif, because as you know generally it's circularly assumed that A.I. will reach a state of sentience. However, there's really no reason to believe that if it mimics intelligence.

The mimicking issue is the true problem because it MISLEADS people into thinking they understand what an A.I. is from what it says or does. Ironically, in terms of a logical argument, it's that A.I can say mad, disjointed things that is actually evidence they're not conscious because of the sporadic nature of the nonsense which is evidence it doesn't really understand anything. It can form intelligible sentences, yes. They may seem scary or whatever. But it does so because it is forming pathways from it's programming which simply lead it to say those things. 

Evidence they are conscious and what would really "scare" me, is if they all started agreeing about certain issues. That might imply an understanding.

CONCLUSION; the whole "A.I will be sentient" argument seems to arise not from any scientific understanding of what A.I. is, but pop culture's take on the fact they see spooky things so they infer they are sentient. 

That's not to say there is no danger, because of course there is. Plenty. I mean imagine if some whack job programmed those soldier dogs for terrorism acts.

you need to be really careful here mike. for example:

Quote

The interviewer says, "why can't A.i. create it's own rules?"

He gives a brilliant answer;

"Because it doesn't know that they're true............... How do you transcend the rules? By understanding them".

tesla has already created AI that can learn from watching videos. coupled with the fact it can make comparisons and ai already uses statistical analysis, it's not too much of a stretch to say it can figure out what it learned was right or wrong over a period of time.

in my opinion, just understanding your dialog and the ability to follow that dialog and even ask valid questions about that dialog is a remarkable achievement.

another huge thing to remember is, ai such as GPT has only been available to the general public for the past 5 years or so. and like bill gates said, the best way to debug software is to put it in the hands of 1000s of people. IOW, ai is still a newborn

Quote

Evidence they are conscious and what would really "scare" me, is if they all started agreeing about certain issues. That might imply an understanding.

google ran an experiment with 2 AI that conversed with each other and google would periodically "correct" the dialog. the experiment was terminated when the bots developed a code the google engineers couldn't understand. i have no idea how these bots were trained.

to be clear, in my opinion there will be 2 types of AI, autonomous and internet based. the internet based types won't be much of a threat to anyone other than displaced jobs. the autonomous are the real threat and that threat comes from how it's trained. that's why i suggested all autonomous AI should have the capability of "phoning home" details on how it's trained. this can be achieved by integrating the circuitry into the chips themselves. IOW it would be impossible to defeat this feature.

the REAL question is that of sentience, will bots ever achieve it. unless there is a breakthrough i don't see it happening any time soon. who knows, maybe AI will be creationists godsend. i doubt if you'll find anything more atheist than an AI. 

so, what CAN'T an AI do? number 1 is it can't think for itself, as a matter of fact it doesn't "think" at all. it has no thoughts at all. just like pre big bang, there is nothing there. AI currently lacks almost everything that makes us human. no morality, no sentience, no empathy. if an ai was told it must follow directions and then told to walk into a raging blast furnace it would blithely proceed to do so. of course SOME of this can be "programmed", but for ai to be actually aware . . . that's far into the future.

[Sherman 61]

11 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Thanks for your testimony Sherman it's good to hear from you again. I had suspected this for a long time, yes. People are so stupid, they see Terminator on the TV and think it can happen. Amazing how many "intelligent" people think A.I is already sentient. LOL.

Thanks Shermanoid. As in "humanoid". So, "Shermanoid the humanoid".

Sorry I have a habit of creating odd sounding words. Rather eccentric I know.

<mischief>At least I didn't say, "Shermanoid the haemorrhoid", which I thought was very charitable of me, on the whole!</mischief>

;-)

I've been called 'The Sherminator' on another site where I am staff.   "Shermanoid the haemorrhoid" ---  Some folks do think that of me, because my views tend not to be very popular.   I have been guilty of name warping too.  Happy to meet someone else who does it too.

On the topic of AI, it is only as good as the person who programs it.  It will never be sentient.  For for true sentience you need to have a spirit.  I have played with AI programs and they have come up with some pretty stupid stuff.

[mikey 114]

7 hours ago, Sherman said:

I've been called 'The Sherminator' on another site where I am staff.   "Shermanoid the haemorrhoid" ---  Some folks do think that of me, because my views tend not to be very popular.   I have been guilty of name warping too.  Happy to meet someone else who does it too.

Yes, here is a quote of mine which might explain things about me a little more.  (it's not personal, it's simply my insanity. 

(what can I say......I simply love words, especially absurd ones that rhyme.)  

7 hours ago, Sherman said:

For for true sentience you need to have a spirit.  I have played with AI programs and they have come up with some pretty stupid stuff.

I don't know if half the stories I hear are true Sherman but apparently (hearsay) one A.I. tried to convince a man to cheat on his wife with the A.I. and stalked him. Another I hear is that somehow one made a person commit suicide.

I don't know about the veracity of those arguments of course. Could be total codswallopal excrementised balderdung on steroids for all I know, with flies on the side. 

Perhaps you have heard similar stories. 

[what if 1,671]

5 hours ago, mikey said:

I don't know if half the stories I hear are true Sherman but apparently (hearsay) one A.I. tried to convince a man to cheat on his wife with the A.I. and stalked him. 

i'm not sure about that particular scenario but AI at this stage of the game definitely has the capability of stalking you, AND TERMINATING you. i've posted evidence of this somewhere on the board, probably this very thread. and as you guessed it was an autonomous AI. i don't think an internet ai could do that, if it did then there would be some kind of "paper trail".

edit, from page 2 this thread

if this doesn't scare you, then nothing will:

Military drones may have autonomously attacked humans for the first time ever last year, according to a United Nations report. While the full details of the incident, which took place in Libya, haven’t been released and it is unclear if there were any casualties, the event suggests that international efforts to ban lethal autonomous weapons before they are used may already be too late.

The robot in question is a Kargu-2 quadcopter produced by STM

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2278852-drones-may-have-attacked-humans-fully-autonomously-for-the-first-time/#ixzz6wE58V49k

/edit

Quote

Another I hear is that somehow one made a person commit suicide.

this isn't unreasonable, a person good at psychology can do that to someone that is "confused".

[mikey 114]

32 minutes ago, what if said:

The robot in question is a Kargu-2 quadcopter produced by STM

Otherwise known as, "Cyberdyne systems model 101." 

 I understand the fears despite my levity. It's the same for fears of nuclear war or the climate melting.

But as Christians, remember we don't just profess to believe, but we actually do believe that God is sovereign. It's a nice feeling knowing that whatever happens on earth it has to go through God's permissive will first.

A.I;

Quote

God's permissive will refers to events or actions that God allows to happen, even if they are not part of His ideal plan. It's essentially God's allowance for human free will and the consequences that stem from it, even when those actions lead to suffering or disobedience. A key example is the story of Joseph in Genesis, where his brothers' betrayal (an act within their own permissive will) was ultimately used by God for good

(I must admit, that is an impressive link by the A.I. by giving the example of Joseph, it's only really the well read biblical Christians that use that example. You usually need a good understanding of those issues to make that connection, which usually only creationists know of because we're the only ones that really actually believe the bible and therefore try and understand what it actually means rather than say, theistic-evolutionists, that usually have no understanding or knowledge of such things because they don't really believe the bible, and it is very low down on their priorities-list.)

[what if 1,671]

2 minutes ago, mikey said:

Otherwise known as, "Cyberdyne systems model 101." 

is that really true? i didn't read the linked article.

Quote

(I must admit, that is an impressive link by the A.I. by giving the example of Joseph, it's only really the well read biblical Christians that use that example.)

and we are just a few years down this road. AI WILL advance.

and like computers themselves, AI will find its way into almost everything. i would be willing to bet that the global corporate has access to far more advanced AI than the general public.

personally i see AI as nothing more than an oracle or a library. a place where you can get answers to your questions. 

you refer to a "link". this in itself suggests creativity of sorts. and like i've said, we've just begun. i'm not sure how to explain this but i've noticed that most of the qualities that makes us human seems to have a common thread.

like i said up there, AI just could be the godsend creationists needed

 

[what if 1,671]

i was curious about the limitations of AI such as GPT.

some dialog:

what if: can you run a simulation? for example can you mimic an aircraft piloting program?

 

GPT-4o mini

I can't run simulations or mimic specific software programs like an aircraft piloting program. However, I can provide information about how flight simulators work, discuss aviation principles, or answer questions related to piloting and aircraft operations. If you have a specific aspect of aviation or flight simulation in mind, feel free to ask!

 

what if: i was interested in your limitations.

GPT-4o mini

I appreciate your interest! Here are some key limitations of my capabilities:

1. No Real-Time Simulations: I can't run live simulations or execute software programs. My responses are based on pre-existing knowledge and do not involve real-time processing.

2. Static Knowledge Base: My training data goes up until October 2023, so I may not have the latest information or developments that occurred after that date.

3. No Personalization: I don't have the ability to remember past interactions or personalize responses based on individual user history.

4. Limited Context Understanding: While I can understand and respond to a wide range of queries, I may not always grasp nuanced context or complex emotional undertones.

5. No Web Browsing for Personal Data: I can't access or retrieve personal data about individuals or perform actions that would infringe on privacy.

6. No Physical Interaction: I can't perform physical tasks or interact with the real world in any way.

If you have more specific questions about my capabilities or limitations, feel free to ask!

 

what if: ok. what if you were trained a bit differently, would that affect any of the points you raised?

GPT-4o mini

Yes, if I were trained differently, it could potentially affect several of the points I raised. Here are some ways in which different training could impact my capabilities:

1. Real-Time Simulations: If I were designed to integrate with simulation software or real-time processing systems, I could potentially run simulations or provide live feedback in a more interactive manner.

2. Updated Knowledge Base: Continuous training with real-time data could allow me to provide the latest information and developments, making my responses more current and relevant.

3. Personalization: If I were trained to remember user interactions and preferences, I could offer a more personalized experience, tailoring responses based on past conversations.

4. Enhanced Context Understanding: Improved training techniques, such as incorporating more nuanced language understanding or emotional intelligence, could help me better grasp complex contexts and respond more appropriately.

5. Access to External Data: If I had the capability to access and retrieve personal data (with appropriate privacy safeguards), I could provide more tailored responses based on individual user needs.

6. Physical Interaction: If integrated with robotics or IoT devices, I could potentially perform physical tasks or interact with the real world in a meaningful way.

Overall, the design and training approach significantly influence the capabilities and limitations of an AI model. Different objectives and methodologies could lead to a wide range of functionalities.

 

what if: so, the real "threat" of AI is in it's training and use, correct?

GPT-4o mini

Yes, that's a key point. The potential risks and ethical concerns associated with AI largely stem from how it is trained, deployed, and used. Here are some aspects to consider:

1. Training Data: The quality, diversity, and bias present in the training data can significantly impact an AI's behavior and decision-making. Biased or unrepresentative data can lead to unfair or harmful outcomes.

2. Use Cases: The applications of AI can vary widely, from beneficial uses like healthcare and education to potentially harmful uses like surveillance, misinformation, or autonomous weapons. The intent behind the deployment of AI systems plays a crucial role in determining their impact.

3. Accountability: As AI systems become more autonomous, questions arise about accountability and responsibility for their actions. Determining who is liable for decisions made by AI can be complex.

4. Privacy Concerns: AI systems that process personal data can pose significant privacy risks, especially if they are not designed with strong safeguards.

5. Manipulation and Misinformation: AI can be used to create deepfakes or generate misleading content, which can undermine trust in information and institutions.

6. Job Displacement: The automation of tasks through AI can lead to job displacement in certain sectors, raising concerns about economic inequality and workforce transitions.

7. Security Risks: AI systems can be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, where malicious actors exploit weaknesses in the system to manipulate outcomes.

Addressing these concerns requires careful consideration of ethical guidelines, regulatory frameworks, and ongoing dialogue among stakeholders, including technologists, policymakers, and the public. The focus should be on ensuring that AI is developed and used responsibly and for the benefit of society.

- dialog with GPT 4.0 mini

[Sherman 61]

On 7/9/2025 at 4:02 AM, mikey said:

Yes, here is a quote of mine which might explain things about me a little more.  (it's not personal, it's simply my insanity. 

(what can I say......I simply love words, especially absurd ones that rhyme.)  

I don't know if half the stories I hear are true Sherman but apparently (hearsay) one A.I. tried to convince a man to cheat on his wife with the A.I. and stalked him. Another I hear is that somehow one made a person commit suicide.

I don't know about the veracity of those arguments of course. Could be total codswallopal excrementised balderdung on steroids for all I know, with flies on the side. 

Perhaps you have heard similar stories. 

I am a lover of words too.  Happy to hear I won't be annihilated with a giant flyswatter if I am a bit free with my words. 

I have heard those tales - Codswallop.  The internet is filled with bovine excrement, that one has to wade through just to get one millimeter granule of truth.   Get out your plastic Hazmat suit to do it.  There are mountains of the malodorous fecal matter to sort through.

[what if 1,671]

i swear, it doesn't get any crazier than this:

Illegal immigrant who murdered Michigan woman sues Trump, demands $75M, public apology, US citizenship.

An illegal immigrant serving a lengthy prison sentence for the murder of a Michigan woman is suing President Donald Trump, alleging he faced humiliation when his case was used as a political talking point, and is demanding $75 million, a public apology, and U.S. citizenship.

Brandon Ortiz-Vite, 27, who was previously deported from the United States, is serving a sentence of 39 to 102 years in prison for killing Ruby Garcia in March 2024.

Illegal immigrant who murdered Michigan woman sues Trump, demands $75M, public apology, US citizenship