Artificial Intelligence

Darn! You beat me to it! I was just wondering the same thing.

quote:

---

(From my nearly-half-century-old memory of it, ) George Gobel on the Dean Martin Show reacting to Dean using George's punchline before George could (AKA "stepping on his lines"):

​

"You cut me to the quick! Now I have to walk around the rest of my life with a cut quick."

---

Part of my pondering is what ChatGPT's response would be to the necessary follow up question, the one that every creationist I've asked during the past four decades has run away from: "What are you talking about?"A second topic to discuss with ChatGPT would be for it to discuss what a "kind" is.And of course the problem with trying to get it to simulate creationist intelligence is that there's nothing in nature to model it on.

As a link for others, ChatGPT's creationist response is in Message 889 and is typical content-free creationist empty assertions. Admin's response is in Message 890: Just further evidence that creationists do not engage in any form of thought, but rather just mindlessly regurgitate the same old BS that they've been fed. They cannot respond to questions about what they post because they don't understand any of it themselves.I'd be curious to know what the question was that you had posed it.More direct questions would ask for it to describe what it thinks that evolution is, what it teaches, how it's supposed to work.Part of my uninformed understanding of what such an AI can do would be to gather various ideas about a subject. As such, it could be a valuable research tool in that it can make one aware of things one hadn't been aware of before (eg, an anti-abortion researcher learning of medically necessary abortions, a pro-metric advocate learning of several valid objections to and problems with switching to metric (my own personal case) ). And if there were valid objections to actual evolution (ie, not the utterly false made-up creationist bogeyman), then what those would be.

I'm a retired Intelligent Designer (embedded software concentration) with 35 years of practical professional experience, so I knew a thing or two about design (including common design) because I've seen (and done) a thing or two.An intelligent designer can make wholesale changes arbitrarily (eg, replace entire modules (eg, completely different CPU, entire sections of code (object-oriented programming (OOP) is explicitly designed to do that), switching to an entirely different language, replace a car engine with an entirely different engine from a different manufacturer (eg, our Plymouth Voyager minivan which had its American Dodge engine replaced with a Japanese Mitsubishi engine)), port totally new technology from another "designed hierarchy" (eg, replacing hard drives with solid state drives, replacing serial ports and parallel ports with USB, wifi, and Bluetooth, replacing proprietary iPhone port with USB-C, etc). Evolution cannot do any of that, but rather is stuck with having to modify existing parts (eg, once you start with a CPU, you're stuck with it and can only improve and expand on it; once you start with a hard drive, you're stuck with it and can only improve and expand on it, etc). Also, any design mistake would be corrected by an intelligent designer, whereas evolution is stuck with it and must make the best of it (eg, the recurrent laryngeal nerve that doesn't take the obvious direct route from the brain to the larynx but rather goes down to the heart and around the aorta, which is even worse for the long-necked like giraffes).Common design can only account for the gross features produced, not with how those features are designed. Instead of the same design having been implemented the same way in all products (as an intelligent designer would have done to implement common designs), all "common designs" are implemented differently because evolution is constrained to using and modifying what already exists -- a possible analogy would be that scene in Apollo 13 where the engineers must design a repair action for the astronauts but they can only use what's in the spacecraft.Of course, an intelligent designer can arbitrarily make whatever design decision he wants so long as he satisfies all constraints. Every single design project has constraints, requirements of what the design must do and use.The weird part of the creationist argument for "common design" and "intelligent design" is that what we do find with life is that it bears none of the marks of intelligent design, but rather all the marks of having evolved. So if it were "intelligently designed", why was that Intelligent Designer constrained at all levels of the design to make it look for all the world like evolution?I have to hit the road very shortly now, so quickly one more thing.Those "car nested hierarchies" aren't the same as what evolution has produced because of the ability to arbitrarily change whole sections and introduced entirely new tech as described above. The ability to take very different branches and create hybrids is another; intelligent design can hybridize radically different products into something new, whereas evolution can only hybridize species that are closely related to each other, therefore no radically different products.An example is the boom box, or the entertainment center. Phonographs, tape recorders, CD players, radios are all very different product lines with very different design histories. And yet we can hybridize them into entirely new products simply by slapping them together. Evolution could never do anything like that. It would just do what creationists do: mindlessly parrot what they've heard other creationists mindlessly parrot.