Another demonstration of chatGPT 4.0 capabilities

Well that makes sense as the null hypothesis, as per Valmar's point anything we claim to be nonphysical is apprehended through consciousness and then possibly measured by mathematics which is also mentally based.

Mathematics, while not a measurement apparatus, has its own set of open philosophical questions and debates, similar to those found in the mind-body relationship. Philosophers of mathematics grapple with differing views on the nature and reality of mathematical objects, such as Platonism, which posits that these objects exist independently of human thought.

Mathematics, while not a measurement apparatus, has its own set of open philosophical questions and debates, similar to those found in the mind-body relationship. Philosophers of mathematics grapple with differing views on the nature and reality of mathematical objects, such as Platonism, which posits that these objects exist independently of human thought.

So Platonism justifies how programs become conscious?

So Platonism justifies how programs become conscious?

ChatGPT is not conscious; however, it is highly likely to become capable of emulating an extensive array of intellectual tasks that humans can perform and many of them a lot better than humans.

ChatGPT is not conscious; however, it is highly likely to become capable of emulating an extensive array of intellectual tasks that humans can perform and many of them a lot better than humans.

Perhaps. I do think a lot of superfluous work - click bait articles and the like - are definitely on the chopping block. Perhaps some questionable tutoring services that thrive where education itself needs massive reform as well...

Ah, but we can. We're using consciousness to make these logical proofs about consciousness and its relationship or lack thereof to physical reality.

Everything is done via the medium of consciousness... even the denial of consciousness.

Matter isn't actually really "objective", anyways, because it perceived entirely through the subjective lens.

Any shared observations about matter must therefore be inter-subjective in nature. No-one has ever observed anything that is actually "objective", because nothing can ever be abstracted away from personal subjective observations, as much as they would like to.

I feel a strong need to address this. 

We all have strong and instinctive ideas about how things work, physically.  Physics and materials sciences have made math models that help define and sharpen our sensations of motion, size and function.  The instincts we have about communication and computation are thousands of years less evolved.  Further, the fundamental principles are not not widely taught.

Objective- is defined imho - as an abstract category of data, from multiple observations, confirming a logical model of what a thing, event or process is about.  Materials in time and space are objective -- methodologically.

In another sense, I do agree with you, Valmar that memes about "magic" properties of physicality are not objective.  We can't argue against the phantom they are.  These imagined effects are subsumed by informational processes in the pragmatic argument.  It is these information processes that exactly address the weak claim of epiphenomenalism by sbu.

Subjective: is defined in terms of matter/energy as external representation and is a measurable as mutual information received a result of communication.
The mutual information measure is objective data and repeatable.  So, in information science - subjective information can be objective as data.

as a Greek aside:  (if they only knew how many people are fucking with the data from the subjective opinions of the general public).

Ai is dangerous as all *)&^.  Machines can never do -- what mind does by directly changing real world probabilities.  But AI can capture and enforce malicious intent --- just perfectly.  And all it takes is to click - and evil intent is coldly poisoning the informational environment where we all live.

You’re Not Going to Like How Colleges Respond to ChatGPT

Chris Gilliard and Pete Rorabaugh

Teachers at many levels of our educational structure are going to be adapting to what A.I. text generation will do for, with, and to students in the coming years. Some of them will embrace the tool as a writing aid; others will bunker in and interrogate students whose papers feel auto-generated. ChatGPT has given us all interesting things to imagine and worry about. However, one thing we can be sure of is this: OpenAI is not thinking about educators very much. It has decided to “disrupt” and walk away, with no afterthought about what schools should do with the program.

Almost every article about this technology has resorted to an appealing, yet severely flawed argument: The tech is here and isn’t going anywhere, so we’d better learn to live with it. This is a genie out of the bottle, we are told—never mind that at the end of most genie stories, they return to the bottle, having inflicted some manner of damage. Writer and theorist L.M. Sacasas refers to this line of argument as the “Borg complex.” Telling us that resistance to a particular technology is futile is a favorite talking point for technologists who release systems with few if any guardrails out into the world and then put the onus on society to address most of the problems that arise.

This assertion, that A.I. might “free up human workers to focus on more thoughtful—and ideally profitable—work,” is wrongheaded at the outset. When it comes to writing (and everything that can be done with it), it’s all grunt work. Having an idea, composing it into language, and checking to see whether that language matches our original idea is a metacognitive process that changes us. It puts us in dialogue with ourselves and often with others as well. To outsource idea generation to an A.I. machine is to miss the constant revision that reflection causes in our thinking.

[Ninshub]

I talk to teachers at college level who are already dealing with a lot of students who are coming in with ChatGPT-assisted school work (papers, etc.). It definitely augments their workload.

A Texas professor failed more than half of his class after ChatGPT falsely claimed it wrote their papers

Sophia Ankel

• A professor at Texas A&M University-Commerce tried to fail some students, Rolling Stone reported.
  
• He said he used ChatGPT to test whether they'd used the software to write the papers. 
  
• However, ChatGPT is not designed to detect material that it has previously composed itself. 
  

https://twitter.com/LMSacasas/status/162...9697265665

Really hope Altman is joking when he thinks AI generated memes will make up for the lack of artists in the future as their industry is taken over by plagiarist hacks...already it's sad and tiresome to see the junk produced by parasites utilizing AI art generators...

“...the most ordinary things in the world, the most uninspiring things in the world, and what can one expect from people who have never been anything but ordinary and uninspired.”


― Michael Cisco, The Traitor

“It’s conceivable that within the next 10 years, AI systems will exceed expert skill level in most domains, and carry out as much productive activity as one of today’s largest corporations,” they write. “In terms of both potential upsides and downsides, superintelligence will be more powerful than other technologies humanity has had to contend with in the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...g-humanity