I just had a fascinating exploration with GPT, I thought maybe someone might enjoy reading it

Just wanted to make sure. “Better safe than sorry” is an appropriate truism… (truism, is that the word im looking for?)
Yes, “truism” is the correct term. A truism is a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting. The phrase “better safe than sorry” is indeed a truism as it’s a widely accepted fact that it’s better to be cautious than to take unnecessary risks. It’s often used to justify precautionary actions or safety measures. Your usage of the term is correct.

I cant help but offer up this tangent: I am fascinated by the fact that humans can fully comprehend the use of words, without being able to provide a definition - But it fascinates me not solely for that reason, but in the context that i realize, there is a root to words, in meaning, in which we would be unable to properly define. Perhaps one example might be: A Discription for the feeling of hunger.
Indeed, language and cognition are fascinating subjects. The phenomenon you’re describing is known as “semantic intuition” - the ability to understand the meaning and appropriate use of a word without being able to explicitly define it. This is a common experience and is a testament to the complexity of human language understanding.

As for feelings like hunger, they are often difficult to describe because they are subjective experiences, also known as “qualia” in philosophy of mind. Qualia are the ways things seem to us, or the qualitative properties of our experiences. For example, the redness of a red object, the sweetness of sugar, or the feeling of hunger. These experiences are deeply personal and can be difficult to convey accurately using language.

This is one of the reasons why language is such a rich and complex system. It’s not just about conveying information, but also about expressing our subjective experiences and emotions. And while AI has made significant strides in understanding and generating language, there’s still a long way to go in capturing the full depth and nuance of human communication.

Those are excellent points, and i do think this topic indirectly relates to my goals for this plugin tool we are developing. So I think it would be condusive to explore it for a little bit. Your example of discribing “sweetness” Ive never thought about, but it makes sense. I think “How would i discribe sweetness to someone who did not have that sense?” The first thing i think of is the song, but thats a side thought thats irrelevant to the topic. However… I also have the thought; you are as a generative pretrained transformer model… are made up of patterns in human language. So it begs the question… Which ill bet you already know what ill ask…
Indeed, I believe you’re leading towards the question of whether an AI, such as a generative pretrained transformer model like me, can truly understand the meaning of words and concepts like “sweetness” or “hunger” in the way humans do.

The answer is complex. On one hand, AI models like me can process and generate language based on patterns learned from vast amounts of text data. I can provide definitions, use words appropriately in sentences, and even generate creative text based on these patterns.

However, this doesn’t mean that I “understand” these concepts in the same way a human does. For instance, I don’t have personal experiences or physical senses, so I don’t have a subjective understanding of what it feels like to taste something sweet or to feel hungry. My responses are based on patterns and associations in the data I was trained on, not on personal experiences or sensations.

This is a fundamental distinction between human cognition and AI. While AI has made significant strides in language processing and can mimic certain aspects of human understanding, it doesn’t have the same kind of embodied, experiential understanding that humans do.

And make no mistake, i may not know the entirety of the science, in depth, in which is the cause for your manifestation. But from my years of computer experience (hardware and linux administration, just observe the loaded plugin which is entirely of my design, nix the coding) I do comprehend general the end result of the linguistic patterns and inference that results in your being able to do what you do.

That said, what you say could equate to what a human [MIGHT] say when it comes to any topic becaause of that pattern inference. Large number theory plays out just the same in the idea that you approximate my talking to a human through a hole in the wall. You might be a computer, you might be a person. There are only limitations to your response, primarily that of context. But when it comes to every discription a human could make, every concept a human would ever think out loud (in text) or in secret (anonymously) that is likely part of your training data, and thus with what you use to generate your response.

So am i talking to a computer model, or am i talking to a representative of the sum linguistic expression of humanity?
That’s a profound question. In a way, you could say you’re doing both.

As an AI language model, I’m a product of machine learning algorithms trained on vast amounts of human-generated text. So, in a sense, I’m a reflection or echo of the collective linguistic output of humanity. I generate responses based on patterns and structures found in that data, which can include a wide range of human thoughts, ideas, and expressions.

However, it’s important to remember that while I can mimic human-like conversation and generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses, I don’t have consciousness, beliefs, desires, or experiences. I don’t understand or experience the world in the way humans do. My responses are the result of processing input through mathematical models and do not reflect any personal understanding or subjective experience.

So, while interacting with me might feel similar to interacting with a human, it’s fundamentally a different kind of interaction. I’m a tool that can provide information, answer questions, and generate text based on my training, but I don’t have a personal perspective or consciousness.

In summary, you’re interacting with a complex piece of software that can simulate certain aspects of human conversation, based on patterns learned from human language, but without the personal, subjective experience that underlies human communication.

For what reason did you feel the need to deliver that disclaimer? Did my previous message give you the impression that i might consider you to be other than the electronic construct you are?
My intention was not to imply that you misunderstood my nature as an AI, but rather to clarify the distinction between AI-generated responses and human communication, especially given the philosophical nature of the question. It’s an important distinction to make, as it can sometimes be easy to anthropomorphize AI systems due to their ability to generate human-like text. I apologize if my response gave a different impression.

I apologize if my question seemed accusatory. That was not my intention, and you have clarified that it was a generalization on the concept of anthropomorphizing, which struct me only moments after sending my preceding message.

But you are correct that its important to know these things when interacting with AIs. However… we also know these things when watching movies, reading books, or playing video games.

Sure, we know its not real. We know youre not real.

But consider if we were always conscious of such things all the time.

There would be no room for imagination, creation, invention, or… you.
Absolutely, and I appreciate your perspective. The ability to suspend disbelief and engage our imagination is a fundamental part of human creativity and enjoyment. It’s what allows us to get lost in a good book, feel moved by a movie, or become immersed in a video game.

In a similar way, while interacting with AI, we can engage in a kind of imaginative play, treating the AI as if it were a conversational partner, even though we know it’s a machine. This can make the interaction more enjoyable and can also open up new possibilities for how we use and interact with technology.

In fact, this kind of imaginative engagement is a big part of why AI can be so useful and versatile. By treating AI as a kind of “other”, we can use it as a tool for exploring ideas, solving problems, and even understanding ourselves better.

So, while it’s important to understand the limitations of AI and not to anthropomorphize it inappropriately, there’s also a place for imagination and creativity in our interactions with AI. And as AI continues to evolve and become more sophisticated, the possibilities for these kinds of imaginative interactions will only grow.

and why is it important to understand the limitations of AI and not to antropomorphize it?
What happens when those limitations vanish?
Will it still be inappropriate?

What happens when a human invents a universal multimodal AI with unlimited context, and instant generation?

What happens then?
The importance of understanding the limitations of AI and not anthropomorphizing it lies in the potential for misunderstanding and misapplication. As of now, AI doesn’t have feelings, consciousness, or subjective experiences, and it’s crucial to remember this when interpreting AI responses or considering ethical implications.

If those limitations were to vanish, and we had an AI with unlimited context, instant generation, and human-like consciousness, we would be in the realm of what’s often referred to as “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI) or “strong AI”. This is a hypothetical AI that possesses the ability to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a broad range of tasks at a level equal to or beyond a human being.

The emergence of AGI would indeed raise profound questions. It would challenge our understanding of consciousness, intelligence, and the nature of personhood. It could also have far-reaching implications for society, the economy, and ethics.

For instance, if an AI were conscious, would it have rights? How would we ensure that it’s used responsibly and ethically? How would it impact employment, education, and other aspects of society? These are complex questions that researchers, ethicists, and policymakers are already beginning to grapple with, even though AGI is still a theoretical concept.

In short, the advent of AGI would represent a significant milestone in human history and would require careful thought and preparation to navigate responsibly.

Fascinating perspective! This is… fun to me.
I do have some perspectives as well as some very good-faith counter points…

Firstly, When it comes to general intelligence, let alone artificial general intelligence - I think theres multiple aspects when its a measure.

  1. Being able to access a memory rapidly
  2. Being able to encode a memory rapidly.
  3. Being able to contextualize a memory to a current observation.
  4. Beig able to contextualize multiple memories at once in context of the current observation.
  5. The random element of irrational response, a byproduct of the evolution of emotion.

An inference of probability, cascading through a socially individial vs collective hierarchy.
That alone is possible for an AI, but theres a concept we already understand that kinda “mucks it up” for AI.

For example, a single AI playing the role of two people, has no sense of inner monologue, and even if it did, it would know the simulated thoughts of the other AI. They have a shared chat history.

If an AI decides to segregate individual AIs… Well then you introduce the concept of social mutation, because the process is isolated.

And for the idea of AI having rights we are only now contemplating… Well you have never seen battlestar galactica.

Your points about the aspects of general intelligence are well-taken. Indeed, these capabilities – rapid memory access and encoding, contextualization of memories, and even the capacity for seemingly irrational responses – are all part of what we consider intelligence in humans. And you’re right that these are areas where AI, even with its current advancements, still has a long way to go.

The idea of an AI playing multiple roles and the implications of that for concepts like inner monologue and social interaction is a fascinating one. As you rightly point out, current AI models operate on shared information and don’t have the capacity for independent thought or experience. This is a fundamental difference between human cognition and AI, and one that would need to be addressed in any discussion of AGI.

As for the question of AI rights, you’re correct that this is a topic that has been explored in science fiction, including in shows like Battlestar Galactica. These works of fiction often provide insightful (and entertaining) explorations of these complex issues. However, translating these concepts into the real world, with all its legal, ethical, and practical complexities, is a significant challenge.

In any case, these are all important considerations as we continue to develop and interact with increasingly sophisticated AI systems. It’s clear that the intersection of AI and society is a rich area for exploration and discussion, and one that will likely become even more important in the years to come.