Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,216 Year: 5,473/9,624 Month: 498/323 Week: 138/204 Day: 8/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Artificial Intelligence
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 13 of 24 (918247)
04-24-2024 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
04-24-2024 1:29 PM


Percy writes:
I wonder what the current status of the Turing Test is? These bots as I've been experiencing them give themselves away the longer they talk. I wonder if you could give them instructions to interact like real human beings? Hmmm.
I do wonder if you could tell the difference between a creationist and ChatGPT when it comes to describing evolution. We might need a new version of Poe's Law where an AI describing evolution could be indistinguishable from a creationist. Could an AI make do an equal or better job of presenting a (un)compelling case for creationism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 04-24-2024 1:29 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 04-24-2024 7:31 PM Taq has replied
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 04-24-2024 9:12 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 21 of 24 (918284)
04-25-2024 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by dwise1
04-24-2024 7:31 PM


dwise1 writes:
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?"
‚Äč
A second topic to discuss with ChatGPT would be for it to discuss what a "kind" is.
The one question I keep coming back to is why would common design produce a nested hierarchy? I wonder if ChatGPT could do better than the creationists on that one.
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.
Feeding it books and papers on cognitive dissonance might help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 04-24-2024 7:31 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2024 12:03 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 22 of 24 (918285)
04-25-2024 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
04-25-2024 3:25 AM


Re: The Utility of an EvC ChatBot.
Phat writes:
One question in my mind is what we expect from an AI Chatbot. Going deeper, what would society (or what *should* society expect from an AI Learning Bot that helped teachers to teach? Of course I expect an AI Bot here at EvC to be a consensual Bot in the interest of furthering discussion.
Chess and Go make for two interesting examples of how AI has made an impact on human culture. AlphaGo was finally able to beat a human opponent, and it did so in ways that stunned Go masters. It would make completely unintuitive plays, and they would work. It really opened up the way people thought about Go. The same for Chess.
I do not expect a biased bot, nor one programmed by an atheist. That being said, I imagine many members would not want the Bot programmed by a theist in any capacity.
Any AI that is meant to interact with human society should absolutely be influenced by theism in some way. Perhaps it could even give us some interesting insights into human belief systems much like the games of Go and Chess. The one advantage an AI has it that it isn't weighted down by human biases or thought patterns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 04-25-2024 3:25 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 24 of 24 (918292)
04-25-2024 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by dwise1
04-25-2024 12:03 PM


dwise writes:
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)), . . .
Exactly. I started out at the research bench as a molecular biologist 25+ years ago, and I have moved more into bioinformatics over the last handful of years. At the bench, I regularly moved genes around between organisms, easily violating a hierarchical pattern. At the computer, I mixed and matched coding modules and my own functions as I saw fit with no need or effort to create a nested hierarchy.
It takes near complete ignorance of biology and actual intelligent design to claim "of course common design would produce a nested hierarchy". It's just something ID/creationists say to ease their own cognitive dissonance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2024 12:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024