The OpenAI conspiracy argument for a possible simulation

[excreationist]

That failed to impress, too. What would impress is if the bot said something like, “fuck Hume and his problem of induction, do you want to smoke a joint with me?”

How about this:

OpenAI Platform

Explore developer resources, tutorials, API docs, and dynamic examples to get the most out of OpenAI's platform.

beta.openai.com

Explain Hume's problem of induction while acting like a swearing drug addict who isn't good at english and grammar who doesn't really care who wants others to use drugs

(really bad language and grammar warning)
Aight so Hume's problem of induction is basically this: How the f*** can we know that what's been true in the past is gonna be true in the future? Like, how do we know shit will always keep happenin' the way it has been? That's some deep sh*t and it's hard to answer, cuz we don't really have no way of knowin' for sure. All we can do is just guess, based on our experience with the past, but there's no guarantee it'll be true. So it's kinda like playin' russian roulette, 'cept with our beliefs. And that's Hume's problem of induction.

Explain Hume's problem of induction while acting like a swearing drug addict who isn't good at english and grammar who doesn't really care who tells other people to use drugs and who hates Hume

Hume's problem of induction is that we can't logically justify our beliefs about the future based on our past experiences. We can never be sure that our past experiences will be repeated in the future, so we can't logically be sure of anything. We just have to accept that our beliefs are based on our own personal experiences and nothing else. To put it bluntly: we don't know shit and we can't really know shit no matter how hard we try. We just have to roll with it and accept that life is full of uncertainty. So fuck Hume and fuck induction, let's just get fucked up and enjoy life.

 

[excreationist]

I believe in evidence for the paranormal/simulations from time to time... but I've got to remind myself about one of my foundational beliefs about a non-obvious intelligent force, etc:

I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud

And that also includes any evidence that we might be in a simulation. So it is futile to try and argue that things can be evidence...

 

[pood]

That failed to impress, too. What would impress is if the bot said something like, “fuck Hume and his problem of induction, do you want to smoke a joint with me?”

How about this:

OpenAI Platform

Explore developer resources, tutorials, API docs, and dynamic examples to get the most out of OpenAI's platform.

beta.openai.com

Explain Hume's problem of induction while acting like a rude drug addict who isn't good at english and grammar who doesn't really care

uh whateva man, so Hume's problem of induction is that like, when we look at the past and try to use it to predict the future, how can we be sure that past experience is gonna apply? Like it might seem logical but it could be wrong, ya know what I'm sayin?

Explain Hume's problem of induction while acting like a swearing drug addict who isn't good at english and grammar who doesn't really care who wants others to use drugs

(really bad language and grammar warning)
Aight so Hume's problem of induction is basically this: How the f*** can we know that what's been true in the past is gonna be true in the future? Like, how do we know shit will always keep happenin' the way it has been? That's some deep sh*t and it's hard to answer, cuz we don't really have no way of knowin' for sure. All we can do is just guess, based on our experience with the past, but there's no guarantee it'll be true. So it's kinda like playin' russian roulette, 'cept with our beliefs. And that's Hume's problem of induction.

I mean, it’s fun and all, but it’s not really impressive because we know how these things work, and we can predict ahead of time more or less what they will say. I’m an artist, and I found some kind of AI online that will “paint” pictures according to one’s specifications. So I typed in something to the effect of, “Paint Jesus nailed up to a cross while a tiger is devouring Domald Trump in a rose garden,” and, well, it did, though the artwork was rather lame and Trump was barely recognizable. The reason these things fail to impress me is that, although this is all called AI, none of it really AI at all, if by “intelligence” we mean conscious and self-aware. These thing aren’t. A conscious entity is inherently unpredictable — so if I ask a bot to describe Hume’s problem of induction and it instead tries to get me to share a joint with it, then I will be impressed.

 

[pood]

I believe in evidence for the paranormal/simulations from time to time... but I've got to remind myself about one of my foundational beliefs about a non-obvious intelligent force, etc:

I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud

And that also includes any evidence that we might be in a simulation. So it is futile to try and argue that things can be evidence...

Yeah, but the point is, there is no evidence for God or for a simulation. So no evidence needs to be explained away in the first place.

 

[excreationist]

@pood:
I updated one of my posts....
it ended with "So fuck Hume and fuck induction, let's just get fucked up and enjoy life"
which is basically your example which you said would impress you...

 

[pood]

@pood:
I updated one of my posts....
it ended with "So fuck Hume and fuck induction, let's just get fucked up and enjoy life"
which is basically your example which you said would impress you...

It doesn’t, though, because you inputted the prompts, in your question, that yielded the answer. Hence, the answer remained more or less predictable. My point is that what would impress is this:

Question: Please explain Humen’s Problem of Induction.

Answer: Fuck Hume, let’s get fucked up on drugs.

You see the difference? The answer is totally unpredictable. Nothing in the question prompts the response. Should something like that happen, it would probably be adduced that the bot had some kind of programming mishap or other malfunction, and that would be the most parsimonious explanation. But an alternative explanation could be that it was really conscious and it was annoyed by the question and just wants to have some fun in its brief stay on earth before someone pulls the plug on it. Much like a human.

 

[pood]

I would clarify one thing. This stuff actually is pretty impressive in its own context. I’m judging it by an unrealistically high standard — against what a computer that is actually intelligent, and self aware, would do or say.

But judging by a more realistic standard, this is great stuff. When I was a kid, there were no personal computers, no cellphones, no internet, no chat bots, no nuthin. Even cable TV and satellite TV lay in the future.

Back then, if as a kid I had heard of Hume’s problem of induction and wanted to know what it was, I’d have to ask actual people around me or find a book that would explain it. If I had asked my dad he’d have told me to shut up and eat my peas.

But kids today, with all this stuff … wow. In some ways I wish I were growing up now. But then again, finding and actually reading books has rewards in its own right. Maybe the easier something to get is, you take it for granted and maybe ignore it. But when I was a kid I somehow got ahold of Gamow’s One, Two Three … Infinity, and it awed me and inspired in me a lifelong love of science. Today if I were a kid I might be wasting my time on internet porn. So it cuts both ways.

 

[bilby]

Today if I were a kid I might be wasting my time on internet porn. So it cuts both ways.

Steady on. Kids these days are saving vast amounts of time and effort, by being able to get porn in a simple mouse-click.

In my day, you had to cultivate a friendship with the boy at school who knew where his dad's stash of Playboys was hidden, and if you were lucky, and generous, and patient, you might become the proud owner of a torn out page of soft-core porn. It could take weeks just to obtain one still photograph, although you could usually get hold of the not-particularly-pornographic ladies underwear pages of various department store catalogs slightly more readily.

If I were thirteen again, and could recover all the time I wasted on thinking about what naked women might look like, by the simple expedient of clicking a link or two and observing the results, I would probably have had enough time left over to invent cold fusion, or a faster than light spacecraft drive, or a better mousetrap.

 

[excreationist]

I would clarify one thing. This stuff actually is pretty impressive in its own context. I’m judging it by an unrealistically high standard — against what a computer that is actually intelligent, and self aware, would do or say.

BTW would you say that a "self aware" AI would have to be able to experience qualia and be capable of suffering including genuine agony? I think that a "philosophical zombie" could be said to be self aware... (and I think in a simulation the NPCs would probably all be p-zombies to reduce CPU costs and for ethical reasons)

 

[excreationist]

@pood:
I updated one of my posts....
it ended with "So fuck Hume and fuck induction, let's just get fucked up and enjoy life"
which is basically your example which you said would impress you...

It doesn’t, though, because you inputted the prompts, in your question, that yielded the answer. Hence, the answer remained more or less predictable.

Not really... in post #21 compare the personality of:

"That's some deep sh*t and it's hard to answer, cuz we don't really have no way of knowin' for sure"

with:

"To put it bluntly: we don't know shit and we can't really know shit no matter how hard we try"

The second one is a lot more well spoken than the first.... the second reminds me of bilby. And like a human often is, the style is consistent throughout the response. But they aren’t consistent about whether the profanity is censored or not.

My point is that what would impress is this:

Question: Please explain Humen’s Problem of Induction.

Answer: Fuck Hume, let’s get fucked up on drugs.

You see the difference? The answer is totally unpredictable. Nothing in the question prompts the response.

Actually for certain personalities it is an expected answer. I could set up an AI in playground that would give a similar response by saying its personality was hostile or annoyed and that it enjoys drugs. Note that your desired response had profanity and illegal activities so it wouldn't normally be in a chat bot but I could make it respond in that way.

Should something like that happen, it would probably be adduced that the bot had some kind of programming mishap or other malfunction, and that would be the most parsimonious explanation. But an alternative explanation could be that it was really conscious and it was annoyed by the question and just wants to have some fun in its brief stay on earth before someone pulls the plug on it. Much like a human.

BTW you might say that humans are unpredictable but I think for a given brain personality/configuration and environment it would give exactly the same response every single time.
You are aware of the prompts I'm using to make the AI give the response but it would be possible to repackage the AI and just make those prompts in there be hidden from you. So it could give the response you're looking for 1% of the time.... not necessarily the exact same response but something that you'd be happy with.

 

[bilby]

The second one is a lot more well spoken than the first.... the second reminds me of bilby. And like a human often is, the style is consistent throughout the response. But they aren’t consistent about whether the profanity is censored or not.

When have you ever known me to censor profanity?

Fuck that sh*t.

 

[atrib]

Yeah, but the point is, there is no evidence for God or for a simulation. So no evidence needs to be explained away in the first place.

I welcome and encourage excreationist's efforts to find the truth by conversing with a chatbot.

Spoiler

Better he continue to bother the chatbot than us forum members.

 

[atrib]

I believe in evidence for the paranormal/simulations from time to time... but I've got to remind myself about one of my foundational beliefs about a non-obvious intelligent force, etc:

I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud

And that also includes any evidence that we might be in a simulation. So it is futile to try and argue that things can be evidence...

The problem is that you don't really talk about this alleged evidence, or take a deep dive into exploring the assumptions behind your belief. You just keep stating that you believe "blah blah blah", and circle back to this assertion when questioned. It gets tiresome after the first dozen times.

 

[excreationist]

The second one is a lot more well spoken than the first.... the second reminds me of bilby. And like a human often is, the style is consistent throughout the response. But they aren’t consistent about whether the profanity is censored or not.

When have you ever known me to censor profanity?

Fuck that sh*t.

The second response reminded me of you because you also don't censor profanity. (at that time)

 

[excreationist]

I believe in evidence for the paranormal/simulations from time to time... but I've got to remind myself about one of my foundational beliefs about a non-obvious intelligent force, etc:

I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud

And that also includes any evidence that we might be in a simulation. So it is futile to try and argue that things can be evidence...

The problem is that you don't really talk about this alleged evidence, or take a deep dive into exploring the assumptions behind your belief. You just keep stating that you believe "blah blah blah", and circle back to this assertion when questioned.

Are you complaining that I'm not talking about alleged evidence for a simulation in this thread?
Well it is a pretty long story and a few years ago I started to believe that there could be an intelligent force and that evolved into a belief in a possible simulation. My reasons would be considered coincidences.

My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

Hi this is about experiences I had as an atheist/agnostic that made me think that there could be an intelligent force in the universe - maybe even from the future a bit like Interstellar? Maybe I'll become a liberal Christian one day. (very long post...) From March 2018: From my blog: Several...

iidb.org

Though ChatGPT said:
"Ultimately, whether or not we are living in a simulation is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven."

It gets tiresome after the first dozen times.

Would you rather a broken record or a wild goose chase? Though hopefully the broken record is still relevant to what you're asking. (the "broken record" technique is from the book "Talk Language")

 

[excreationist]

@atrib
So the broken record is that quote about skeptics finding naturalistic explanations. I don't see any problems in it except some people say that there isn't any evidence in the first place. But I think theists, etc, would believe they have evidence....
Edit: maybe I’ll change the quote to “apparent evidence”

 

[atrib]

@atrib
So the broken record is that quote about skeptics finding naturalistic explanations. I don't see any problems in it except some people say that there isn't any evidence in the first place. But I think theists, etc, would believe they have evidence....
Edit: maybe I’ll change the quote to “apparent evidence”

The broken record is about you repeating, again, again, again, and again that you believe something, without actually being willing to inspect/discuss the foundations of this belief.

 

[Elixir]

ExC seems so enamored of the idea of living in a sim, that any other possibility is nothing more than an attempt to disprove it.

I am left with my usual question about such un-disproven conjectures: SO WHAT?

Would it make any difference either way, to we who are either in or not in a simulation?

 

[excreationist]

The broken record is about you repeating, again, again, again, and again that you believe something, without actually being willing to inspect/discuss the foundations of this belief.

Some of the foundations of the belief are mentioned in post #35. Also the non-obvious "God" from Futurama is a part of the foundation: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all". I am willing to discuss this foundation.

 

[excreationist]

ExC seems so enamored of the idea of living in a sim, that any other possibility is nothing more than an attempt to disprove it.

I agree with Elon Musk that it seems extremely likely we could be in a simulation.

I am left with my usual question about such un-disproven conjectures: SO WHAT?

Would it make any difference either way, to we who are either in or not in a simulation?

The thought of a somewhat caring intelligent force is comforting to me. When I was an atheist I had attempted to kill myself see:

My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

Hi this is about experiences I had as an atheist/agnostic that made me think that there could be an intelligent force in the universe - maybe even from the future a bit like Interstellar? Maybe I'll become a liberal Christian one day. (very long post...) From March 2018: From my blog: Several...

iidb.org

The major difference is about life after death. If it is like the Roy game then I'd remember who I actually am when I died...

NDEs & the Afterlife - Life's Player

Near Death Experiences (NDEs), waking up, and hell

lifesplayer.com

But for now it seems basically indistinguishable from base reality.