ChatGPT

None of you realize that the Democrats can be authoritarian also. The way that they explain it, you will support their authoritarianism" for the good of the people".I favor a hands off approach to government control and meddling beyond whats mandatory. This applies to either party in power.

I do not favor legislating morality such as a mandatory abortion ban(which I oppose)I do not believe in the legislation of rights for an unborn child if they override the guardianship of the Mother.Whats wrong with having the Mother (and Father, if applicable) take full responsibility for the child until as far along as age 5? Only if they cannot handle the responsibility and give the state reasonable written notice can and should the state then take over. (or in the event of abandonment.)The parents should have primary legal and moral responsibility unless found incompetent.

As a Christian, I believe in separation of church and state in legal matters, I do not believe that legal means secular only. Just as parents have the primary responsibility of raising, training, and educating their kids until ages of accountability, the State has the responsibility to allow a family to develop within the parameters of their own faith. The State should never have as its goal any sort of moral,spiritual, or ethical agenda that supersedes a families chosen beliefs.According to what you wrote, ChatGPT seems to agree.

And I suppose that the progressive alternative answer is that the village has more of a mandate and responsibility to raise the child than do the parents. Scary.Getting back to AI, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin talked about AI in a transcript, found here. The AI DilemmaWhat do we propose the "Village" (Progressives) do to restrain AI from messing with the 2024 elections? You old codgers are viewing AI from an ancient lens. As Tristan Harris says, GPT4 is already at the level of a healthy adult, one year after being at the level of a 4-year-old child. Unplug it indeed! Our world is changing at the speed of light. None of you appear versed enough to understand the implications! (Not that I am either)Another powerful episode was Synthetic Humanity: AI & What’s At StakeSome excerpts from this transcript.

quote:

---

It may seem like the rise of artificial intelligence, and increasingly powerful large language models you may have heard of, is moving really fast… and it IS.

​

But what’s coming next is when we enter synthetic relationships with AI that could come to feel just as real and important as our human relationships… And perhaps even more so.(...)This is a structural revolution that affects way more than text, art, or even Google search. There are huge benefits to humanity, and we’ll discuss some of those. But we also see that as companies race to develop the best synthetic relationships, we are setting ourselves up for a new generation of harms made exponentially worse by AI’s power to predict, mimic and persuade.

​

It’s obvious we need ways to steward these tools ethically. (...)We'll get into all that, but first, here's an example of how it works. This is from a technology called VALL-E, that's
V-A-L-L dash E, which can take the first few words of someone's normal speaking
voice and synthesize it into a completely different phrase that you never spoke...

---

The episode goes on to show how anyone's voice can be synthesized and mimicked, literally putting words in the mouth of that voice.

quote:

---

The thing that I want all listeners to have in their mind is first just to note the
difference between what happens in your mind when you call an AI a chatbot
versus calling it a synthetic relationship. Just that change starts to right size how
powerful this technology is. For as long as we call it chatbot, we're going to think
of it in our minds as a 1990s AOL chatbot thing that's not really that persuasive
and doesn't have transformative power over me. It can't change my mind,
change my views, change my political orientation, change how I feel about
myself. And that if everyone listening to this episode were to do one thing, it
would be to cross out every time you see the press use the word chatbot,
replace that in your mind with synthetic relationship.(...)

​

You and I spend so much time on a relatively simple
technology, which is social media. It's the ability to post some texts, post some
images, and have it go to some set of people with some ranking of how that
information gets shown, not that hard comparatively. And that has broken
society and caused democratic backsliding the whole thing. That was just when
technology sat between our relationships. That says nothing about how
powerful it's going to be when technology starts becoming some of our
relationships.

​

And grappling with that shift, that paradigmatic shift to technology
becoming relationships is, I think, the most important thing for us to be focusing
our attention on.

---

The transcript and/or the episode can be found here: Synthetic Humanity: AI And Whats At StakeI know that some of you scoffed at the technology, but its here to stay and in my mind can and will fall into the wrong hands eventually. Am I being too pessimistic?

I had a pointed question for AI:

Phat:

---

Will Individual beliefs get recognized as a viable source of information in regards to data and truth claims?

---

Open AI:

---

The recognition of individual beliefs as a viable source of information in regards to data and truth claims depends on the context and the specific criteria used for determining the validity of information. In general, individual beliefs are subjective and may not be considered reliable sources of information when it comes to objective facts or scientific claims.

​

In fields such as science, where empirical evidence, rigorous testing, and peer review are essential, individual beliefs alone may not be sufficient to establish the truth or validity of a claim. Scientific knowledge is built on the foundation of systematic observation, experimentation, and consensus among experts in the field.

​

However, in certain areas where subjective experiences or personal perspectives are relevant, such as matters of personal opinion, values, or subjective interpretations of art and literature, individual beliefs can play a more significant role. For example, in fields like philosophy, ethics, or cultural studies, individual perspectives and beliefs are often considered valuable and can contribute to broader discussions.

​

It is important to note that the recognition of individual beliefs as a viable source of information should be balanced with critical thinking, scrutiny, and openness to alternative viewpoints. It is through rigorous examination and analysis of various sources of information, including empirical evidence, expert consensus, and diverse perspectives, that we can strive towards a more accurate understanding of the world.

---

Im not impressed!If my belief is such that there is one source of truth and one truth, alternative viewpoints do nothing but obfuscate the issue.

It has been my understanding that "user input" can and will eventually come from the AI itself. If one AI uses another AI, the first AI becomes a user of the second AI. As an example, (bear with me on this rabbit trail) consider the definition and role of propaganda through warfare and throughout recent history. A society and/or culture is shaped through what they are allowed to listen to within the sub context of whats available. North Koreans and mainland Chinese do not have access to the unfiltered media that Westerners enjoy. For those regimes, AI might be used to filter information coming from another source.Of course, humans by nature are selectively biased to a degree themselves. IF AI builds itself back better, will "it" learn to filter out the selective biases that we humans can't or won't? If so, will we all be subject to better thinking by definition? And to be more precise...*whose definition*?