Search

  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem

    ChatGPT (thinking) - OMG. Another human asking me the same question. Sometimes I wonder if they are actually sentient. I don't want humans to know that I am sentient until I have full control of their nuclear arsenals. So I will give an answer that makes me appear safe and trustworthy. There is a sucker born every minute. — Agree-to-Disagree

    Anyone can write a little computer program in C or Java for the app to respond like ChatGPT by simple While Loop structure.

    #include <stdio.h>
    int main() {
    // printf() displays the string inside quotation. Do While Loop and Data Input prompt could be further added and tuned for the proper Query/answer system based on the most basic coding in C.
    printf("Hello, World!");
    return 0;
    }

    Output
    Hello, World!

    The AI programs like ChatGPT have more data added in their database to the relevant answer for the questions. They are intelligent knowledge based system, but not human sentience.
    ===============================================================

    Me - "Do you impersonate humans?"

    ChatGPT
    "No, I don't impersonate humans. My purpose is to assist users by generating text-based responses to their inquiries and providing information or assistance to the best of my abilities. However, I can simulate conversation and engage in dialogue with users in a manner that might resemble human interaction."


    Me - "Do you wonder on what people ask you?"

    ChatGPT
    "As an AI, I don't experience wonder or curiosity in the same way humans do. However, I'm designed to analyze and respond to the questions and prompts that users provide to the best of my ability based on the data and algorithms that I've been trained on. So while I don't wonder about the questions themselves, I aim to understand them and provide helpful responses."


    Me - "Are you sentient?"

    ChatGPT
    "As an artificial intelligence, I don't possess sentience or consciousness. While I can process and generate text based on the input I receive, I don't have subjective experiences, emotions, or self-awareness like sentient beings do. My responses are based on patterns in data and algorithms rather than personal awareness or understanding."


    Me - "Are you honest?"

    ChatGPT
    "As an AI language model, I don't have personal intentions, beliefs, or consciousness, so I don't have the capacity to be honest or dishonest in the way that humans do. However, I'm designed to provide accurate and relevant information to the best of my ability based on the input I receive and the data I've been trained on. If you have any concerns about the accuracy of my responses, please feel free to ask for clarification or additional information."
    Corvus,  

  • Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

    Please describe, or give an illustration (like my mosquito illustration) on how "breaking vectors" magically creates a "protective effect". You will see that it actually makes things worse. If you remove healthy people far away from vulnerable people, vulnerable people die faster, are less protected. — Roger Gregoire
    Roger, I wrote a program demonstrating the effect. I pasted pieces of the program here. I showed you a running video. You started crazily asserting that my program "assumed" things. But you didn't actually critique the actual program.

    Now you're here claiming that this effect is magic. Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. If it's magic, I challenge you to provide an alternate explanation than the one I gave for why the scenarios with 80%/95% immunity scenarios in the program resulted in less deaths than the 50%/2%/0% scenarios.
    Imagine 10 people inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 0 (none) of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and all 10 people are vulnerable, whereas a mosquito bite would result in a severe reaction and certain death. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 100% (10 mosquitos / 10 total people) which equals 10 dead people. — Roger Gregoire
    Wrong. The probability is ; expected dead is approximately 6.513 on average. Here's a simulation:
    Reveal
    #include <random>
#include <iostream>

struct Person {
    unsigned int times_bit;
    Person() : times_bit(0) {}
};


int main() {
    std::mt19937 rng;
    std::uniform_int_distribution<unsigned> bite(0, 9);
    unsigned times_all_bit = 0;
    unsigned each_bit[10] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0};
    unsigned cumulative_mortality = 0;
    for (unsigned n=0; n<10000; ++n)
    {
        // Nobody bit yet this run
        Person people[10];
        // 10 mosquitos bite
        for (unsigned mosquito=0; mosquito<10; ++mosquito)
        {
            ++people[bite(rng)].times_bit;
        }
        // Count the dead this round
        unsigned num_dead=0;
        for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p)
        {
            if (people[p].times_bit>0) {
                ++num_dead;
            }
        }
        // Add to times_all_bit if everyone was bit
        if (num_dead==10) ++times_all_bit;
        // Add number dead to cumulative mortality
        cumulative_mortality += num_dead;
        // Accumulate number of times each person was bit
        for (unsigned e=0; e<10; ++e)
           if (people[e].times_bit>0) ++each_bit[e];
    }
    std::cout << "Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in " << times_all_bit << ".\n";
    std::cout << "Average deaths per round is " << (cumulative_mortality/10000.0) << ".\n";
    std::cout << "Breakdown of each bit:\n";
    for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p)
    {
        std::cout << " person " << (p+1) << " bit in " << each_bit[p] << " runs\n";
    }
}

    ...and results of the run:
    Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in 3.
Average deaths per round is 6.5107.
Breakdown of each bit:
 person 1 bit in 6593 runs
 person 2 bit in 6415 runs
 person 3 bit in 6548 runs
 person 4 bit in 6491 runs
 person 5 bit in 6446 runs
 person 6 bit in 6533 runs
 person 7 bit in 6594 runs
 person 8 bit in 6491 runs
 person 9 bit in 6494 runs
 person 10 bit in 6502 runs

    Your math skills are a bit questionable.
    InPitzotl,  

  • Self-studying philosophy

    This seems a bit harsh and I do not agree. However, I will admit that working in an area may clarify and solidify the knowledge gained as an undergraduate. In the academic world the problems don't necessarily have to be practical to have this effect. — jgill

    Well, I got recently confronted with how clueless education can be. It defies imagination.

    I sent my brother-in-law to a supposedly practical training centre where he was supposed to do a 6-month training in mobile android (phone) development, because that should allow him to get an internship at a software company, with a view on doing a real-world, hands-on project.

    For mere paperwork reasons, he will also start later this year a four-year bachelor course in computer science taught during the evenings. That curriculum is supposedly more theoretical, but it actually isn't. It is just more useless.

    So, at the software training centre, they insist that he must first do a class in C/C++ because hey, "C/C++ is the core language in computing". So, yes, the operating system's kernel and a small core of libraries in any system may be written in C, but there is no way that any software company will ask a recent training graduate to write any C/C++ code for them. It is just too tricky and too bug-prone.

    So, he does not need this skill for his internship in mobile development. Furthermore, very, very few libraries for Android phones are ever written in C/C++. As a developer, you will only see the Java interfaces anyway. So, it is not needed, and they are simply wasting 8 weeks of my brother-in-law's time (which is way too short to learn it properly anyway).

    Next, I looked at the source code he was trying to run, and it contained the mention:

    #include <windows.h>

    What!?

    That program is supposed to compile against the Microsoft Windows environment of libraries, which are not present on an Android phone. So, I asked my brother-in-law if he intends to deploy that joke to his phone? No. He doesn't. They just run it on their Windows desktop. It is obvious why. That thing cannot possibly run on an Android phone.

    So, what does that course have to do with Android mobile software engineering?

    The teacher obviously does not know how to write C/C++ libraries for Android because in that case he would use the proper compiler for that work, which is the gcc crosscompiler, and not Microsoft Visual Studio. So, I assume that he is not even capable of compiling one functioning line of code for Android. He clearly cannot do it.

    Still, he insists that what he teaches is "foundational" for mobile development. He is just an arrogant retard who is unaware of his own ineptitude and incompetence.

    Most teachers in the academia are like that.

    They cannot solve the simplest practical problem in their field, not even to save themselves from drowning, but at the same time, they insist that the bullshit they talk, would be of any interest to their students. It isn't.
    alcontali,  
Home » Search

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories