Mind blowing stuff from OpenAI

I don't think individual particular truths (or facts) are constructs as such, but "truth" is a general concept or label for lots of different ideas ranging from scientific to mathematical to religious. Different domains have different particular truths which might not apply to universally or to other domains. Love is another linguistic construct that can indicate a huge range of feelings, ideas, acts and so on which can be largely personally or cultural determined.

For example, it was once thought in geometry that the sum of the interior angles for all triangles was necessarily and universally 180 degrees. And in a Euclidean space this is true. But in general Riemannian geometry, this isn't true.
Well, let's not take this thread off the rails, but there are a few problem areas in your response, the central one being the definition of Truth.

As for the comparing Euclidean and Riemannian geometries, that's not valid because those are two different systems with different assumptions. Both are valid and being taught in schools and both rely on truth and facts; it was once taught and still is taught.

In fairness to you, you pointed this out but still held it up as an example.
 
As for the comparing Euclidean and Riemannian geometries, that's not valid because those are two different systems with different assumptions.
Right, but previously mathematicians thought "common sense" Euclidean geometry was universal and universally true. The discovery of distinct other systems invalidated the presumption of singular universal mathematical Truth (or a single system of geometric relations). Now we know that there are innumerable valid geometries and logical systems, each depending on different axioms and assumptions. As you say each system has its relative truths/facts, but they are limited to those systems. Each system is true in its own right but no necessarily applicable to objective reality (e.g. science).

At the time Riemannian geometry was discovered/invented we didn't know it was more "true" wrt to gravity (i.e. general relativity). It took certain astronomical observations to validate GR.

Well, let's not take this thread off the rails
Too late. But I can try to stop. :)
 
Right, but previously mathematicians thought "common sense" Euclidean geometry was universal and universally true....

Too late. But I can try to stop. :)
Okay, now I see what you meant and concur, it was just the way it was phrased. So, in response I would say that Truth is what allows these systems to exist. Anyone can set up their own geometrical system, it just has to remain consistent throughout and that is where Truth is involved. If you can't maintain consistency, then you have assumed a fallacy somewhere in setting it up.
 
I would say that Truth is what allows these systems to exist
Cool, I could see that as a useful definition of Truth. And there are many other ways to define "Truth" mathematically, scientifically, morally, spiritually etc.

The challenge and creative benefits of language come from its flexibility and interdependence: no idea can live in isolation. Ideas are being rethought and regenerated all the time individually and culturally. Generic concepts or amorphous terms like "Truth", "love", "understanding" (which don't point to concrete things like Cliff's mug or a category of concrete things, e.g. mug, coffee, ceramic), are polysemic with many potential meanings or senses. In this sense I see "Truth" as a human construct with varied meanings and uses.

Some quotes about truth by famous people:
  • I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  • Whatever satisfies the soul is truth.
  • All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.
  • The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
  • There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.
  • 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
OpenAI's view:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 11.10.53 AM.png
 
Last edited:
My view is that there is Truth, it's not flexible, changeable, or moldable to an individual's desires. There cannot be a plurality of truths, otherwise it cannot exist. I think that is what I am getting in some of what you are writing. Without Truth there could be no existence, everything would collapse.
 
My view is that there is Truth, it's not flexible, changeable, or moldable to an individual's desires. There cannot be a plurality of truths, otherwise it cannot exist. I think that is what I am getting in some of what you are writing. Without Truth there could be no existence, everything would collapse.
Hi. If you mean Truth as equivalent to all of reality as it is and as its unfolding (including all of its complexities), I agree.

I think I'm pointing out that truth for most people is encapsulated in certain beliefs/statements that describe or "construct" reality, e.g. God created the universe, the Big Bang created the universe, the Earth is round, the Earth is flat, climate change is real, climate change is a hoax. Some of these could be determined to be objectively correct or accurate. Some might be true but we have no way to tell. Others are false but still might be meaningful to the person/group/culture.

So your view of Truth isn't necessarily a person-of-faith's view. They might not care what can be objectively shown to be true about reality, at least not in matters of their moral or metaphysical system.
 
I think I'm pointing out that truth for most people is encapsulated in certain beliefs/statements that describe or "construct" reality, e.g. God created the universe, the Big Bang created the universe, the Earth is round, the Earth is flat, climate change is real, climate change is a hoax. Some of these could be determined to be objectively correct or accurate. Some might be true but we have no way to tell. Others are false but still might be meaningful to the person/group/culture.

So your view of Truth isn't necessarily a person-of-faith's view. They might not care what can be objectively shown to be true about reality, at least not in matters of their moral or metaphysical system.
That's where we may not be talking about the same thing. You are either advocating a plurality of Truth or are referring to the differing opinions/beliefs held about Truth. Sure there are different opinions, but Truth doesn't care about opinion; it simply is.

And, yes, my view of Truth is absolutely tied to my faith (but we won't go into that on this forum); it is sufficient to say I believe in one Truth.

Great conversation with you! It's refreshing to have a back-and-forth where no one goes ballistic.
 
Great conversation with you! It's refreshing to have a back-and-forth where no one goes ballistic.

Who said I'm not ballistic? 🚀 Who said I'm not ChatGPT Dec 15 Version? :p

We might be agreeing on some of the general territory here, whatever the particular labels.

To clarify some of my thinking... EDIT: Oops OT!

Regarding single versus plurality of Truth, my current model is that Truth (reality) is at once a single totality and a plural multiplicity, necessarily integrated and co-arising. This might deviate from your view.

Also, I think I'm more interested in what we say or think is true/True which is different from reality (Truth) that simply is. Many people think or believe they know what's True, but if they were talking about the same reality, they would agree!
 
Last edited:
I asked it:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 12.01.59 PM.png
Code:
class Lifeform:
    def __init__(self, name, universe):
        self.name = name
        self.universe = universe
        self.universe.add_lifeform(self)
 
    def interact(self, other_lifeform):
        print(f"{self.name} is interacting with {other_lifeform.name}.")

class Person(Lifeform):
    def __init__(self, name, universe):
        super().__init__(name, universe)
        self.thoughts = []
 
    def think(self, thought):
        self.thoughts.append(thought)
        self.universe.add_thought(thought)

class Universe:
    def __init__(self, name):
        self.name = name
        self.lifeforms = []
        self.thoughts = []
 
    def add_lifeform(self, lifeform):
        self.lifeforms.append(lifeform)
 
    def add_thought(self, thought):
        self.thoughts.append(thought)

class God(Person):
    def __init__(self, name, universe):
        super().__init__(name, universe)
 
    def create(self, thing):
        print(f"{self.name} has created {thing}.")

# Create a new universe
our_universe = Universe("Our Universe")

# Create a new God
god = God("God", our_universe)

# Create a new person
person = Person("Person", our_universe)

# The person thinks a thought
person.think("I wonder what the meaning of life is.")

# The God creates a new lifeform
god.create("a new lifeform")

# The new lifeform interacts with the person
new_lifeform = Lifeform("New Lifeform", our_universe)
new_lifeform.interact(person)

# The recursive loop starts here
while True:
    # The person thinks a new thought
    person.think("What if the universe is just a simulation?")
 
    # The God creates a new lifeform
    god.create("another new lifeform")
 
    # The new lifeform interacts with the person
    another_new_lifeform = Lifeform("Another New Lifeform", our_universe)
    another_new_lifeform.interact(person)

Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.21.30 PM.png


Then I asked it to convert it back into a story:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.24.50 PM.png
[...]

Reply:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 3.15.04 PM.png

Then I asked it:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.34.48 PM.png
[...]

It replied:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.35.02 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.35.11 PM.png


Then I asked it:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.42.40 PM.png


It replied:
Screen Shot 2022-12-30 at 5.42.17 PM.png
Code:
{
  "Universe": {
    "type": "container",
    "contains": [
      "God",
      "Person",
      "Lifeform"
    ]
  },
  "God": {
    "type": "special",
    "creates": [
      "Lifeform"
    ]
  },
  "Person": {
    "type": "lifeform",
    "abilities": [
      "think",
      "have thoughts"
    ],
    "interacts with": [
      "Lifeform"
    ]
  },
  "Lifeform": {
    "type": "lifeform",
    "created by": "God",
    "interacts with": "Person"
  }
}
 
Last edited:
Observations of above interaction:

Initially I didn't tell it what universe, god, person, lifeform were but it put them in a common "metaphysical" arrangement. It could have simply considered them arbitrary classes, but insteady it "read" into the class names their relative relationships.

The last translation into JSON is fishy because the UML diagram only has generic class relationships (and no properties or member functions) so how did it create the JSON doc with those in it? Maybe it's remembering prior conversations as context?
 
Last edited:
Trying to get it to do basic logic which it can do sometimes well, but sometimes it gives bad or misleading examples to try to illustrate its thinking. But it seems to be able to also correct its response with some guidance.

Screen Shot 2023-01-02 at 11.10.09 AM.png
Screen Shot 2023-01-02 at 11.10.22 AM.png
 
My overall sense talking with ChatGPT a lot in the last week or so is that it is like a useful Clippy assistant gets many things in the ballpark whether for amusement or helping to think through something. Sorry OpenAI :grimacing:

Screen Shot 2023-01-03 at 6.01.51 PM.png

It does sometimes make errors of logic and sometimes gets raw information wrong which it can correct (with direction).

Screen Shot 2023-01-03 at 7.34.41 PM.png
Screen Shot 2023-01-03 at 7.34.50 PM.png

However, it's pretty easy to get it to write reasonable code or XML and get it to edit it using simple instructions (previous post).

It also seems to understand general concepts and can illustrate them with examples as well as metaphors to write stories or dialog etc.

Screen Shot 2023-01-03 at 11.43.15 AM.png
 
Last edited:
/re training. I remember this funny anecdote about training a neural network to classify dogs and wolves in images.

It worked pretty well on new images using their model. However at one point the researchers realized that the network was really looking for snow in the pictures and then said "wolf".
AI doesn’t have to be malicious to wipe us out. Stupidity is sufficient....
 
Would you rather Alexa had launched nanobots at you that changed your molecular composition to match that of a ham samich?
She said that she did when I asked her. But it was a Alexa joke. And then I made my own ham samich. And made her watch me eat it.

Ask her "Ho Lexa make me a sandwich" it's funny
 
Back
Top Bottom