Split Thread Randomly Generated Messages

The post was self evident as related/connected to the original thread where I was ordered not to share the data of the Generated Messages because these were considered to be "Spam".

Other forums have not only accepted my Generated Messages to be 'other than spam" and allowed them to be published, but the upshot [as seen in the snapshots as evidence] is that the readership is consistent, indicating that the messages themselves are anything BUT the "Gobbledygook" [incoherent] nonsense that the hardnosed skeptics on this site deemed them to be and classified them as SPAM.

I thought I would pop in and share the evidence as I was interested in seeing how the evidence would be treated.

Since I have readership elsewhere, and the mindset hereabouts has made itself clear, the need for ya'll to accept my evidence is non-existent so it is not a case of feeling like anyone is conspiring against ME.

If anything, they who hide from such evidence, conspire against themselves.

gmxqNuG.png



I put it down to my generous loving nature of not wanting anyone to miss out on anything...

Apart from that, what else is there to say?
 
The post was self evident as related/connected to the original thread ..<snip>
jI think perhaps we've found one bottleneck here. The post may have seemed self evident to you, but it was not to others, and I suspect that the idea of what it means to communicate an idea to others is not well understood. I sort of guessed it, but could hardly be sure, especially when so much of what you posted earlier in the thread was purposely and openly random and not at all self-evident. A little explanation might have helped the post avoid its sorry fate. It certainly does not help after.

I am happy for you that some others appear not to consider your random posts to be nonsense, though mere readership may not be too good an indication After all, many here would be on record as having opened your posts, whether or not they read them through or considered them relevant, or, for that matter whether or not they realized their awesome wisdom.

But, even to one resistant to the lure of logic, it would be wise to remember that the appeal to popularity is fallacious. Because, after all, if not, the opposite would also hold, and the near-universal dismissal of your ideas here would acquire a very unwelcome significance, wouldn't it?
 
There are far more people who have never heard of cognitive biases, and do not possess the critical thinking skills necessary to recognise them and eliminate their effect, than there are people who have and do. If you have to wilfully ignore those in the second group and actively seek out those in the first in order to get your idea taken seriously, that surely tells you everything you need to know about that idea.
 
I thought I would post this due to the Generated Message mentioning this particular thread.

Things just appear that way due to our position within things and our ignorance about most things. - 4


191222 [Faith-based beliefs are non-negotiable]

05:44 [The Father - in The Mother.]


GM: Noticing Synchronicity
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13910915&postcount=201

William: FTL;
Navigator said:
The post was self evident as related/connected to the original thread where I was ordered not to share the data of the Generated Messages because these were considered to be "Spam".

Other forums have not only accepted my Generated Messages to be 'other than spam" and allowed them to be published, but the upshot [as seen in the snapshots as evidence] is that the readership is consistent, indicating that the messages themselves are anything BUT the "Gobbledygook" [incoherent] nonsense that the hardnosed skeptics on this site deemed them to be and classified them as SPAM.

I thought I would pop in and share the evidence as I was interested in seeing how the evidence would be treated.

Since I have readership elsewhere, and the mindset hereabouts has made itself clear, the need for ya'll to accept my evidence is non-existent so it is not a case of feeling like anyone is conspiring against ME.

If anything, they who hide from such evidence, conspire against themselves.

gmxqNuG.png



I put it down to my generous loving nature of not wanting anyone to miss out on anything...

Apart from that, what else is there to say?

GM: Eventually one can cease doing the tests and accept the results.

William: Understood.
Know when spending time is wasting time...

GM: From the desperate depths of lightless dark
Respect others
Something Mystical To Be In Awe Of
Teaching Music
"It Was Tough Going, But Rewarding All The Same."
Point of Contact
F2

William: If I remember Frank's Maps, Focus Two is the bridge between my awakened dominant reality and the full-blown Astral of Focus Three

GM: Watch Your Step
Create Your Own Spirit Ship
Phantasma The Freedom Of Friendship Simulacra

William: Yes - the perception of something that has no physical reality; of the mind;
It is an interesting word combo "No Physical Reality"
The friendship does develop with an image or representation of someone or something - In The Mind...
For Tam, it is the voice of Her Dear Lord...
For me, it is - among everything else - this Message Generating Process.
This means that what is of 'The Mind' can be reflected off the physical domain - the effect is startling - in a nice way...resulting is a specific Freedom Of Friendship...due to the interrelationship between Minds.

GM: The ongoing objective is to get this knowledge out into the public domain
Re Abusive Expression Of All Types.
Things just appear that way due to our position within things and our ignorance about most things.
An Exam [Virtual]
Construction
Conscious Intelligence Without Wisdom Puzzles/Mysteries...
Be transparent Respect yourself Self-respect The Mother and The Father
Ubiquitous [present, appearing, or found everywhere.]
The Big Shift
OOBE Target Technique
Eggs In Nests
https://wizardforums.com/threads/william-message-generation.647/post-19686


William: FTL;
Öwnchef: In fact you are not the only one in here struggling for truth. Truth is the opposite of falsehood.
With age you will get there. A Magus is aged. You realize how important truth is.

Wisdom is nothing else but truth. With more time it gets condensed to an essence. Aging does this if you are not a complete idiot.

Ipsissimus means you developed to the core of truth. I am working on this since 2000. Also, I am not important. Truth.

I love your inspiring work. Keep that up, please.

William: Ipsissimus means knowing my own very self. I think it important re truth, that if one thinks YHVH is important [re supporting initiative et al] then one should at least see The Truth in that, one is important - but not in the traditional worldly 'celebrity' sense - a fine-line with plenty of grey areas to test things out within... Öwnchef is showing understanding, compassion and encouragement. "You are not alone".

GM: Callum's Eighth Point
“I love your inspiring work. Keep that up, please.”
Faithful
Love Takes One For The Team
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeuwQHfXyzY https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1081121#p1081121 [INSIGHTS BEYOND SPACE TIME - What this new physics theory can teach us about the universe] [RTS=13:23]ww.youtube.com/watch?v=FeuwQHfXyzY

William: "Spacetime is Doomed" - we have no means in which to see beyond the borders of our dominant reality experience - and we have to engage with the invisible MIND to help us to connect with that which exists - but is unseen by the sensory circuitry of our body sets.

GM: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Training the mind
A force for good
All Things Are In Order
Old Restrained Overseeing Director of Operations on Earth
Balance
Experience is the best teacher
All on The Same Page
Pirates
All fingers and thumbs
Narrative warfare

William: Narrative warfare Pirates All fingers and thumbs
Re the Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation
What degree of influence do they have on that Mind-Field?


GM: The individual will of a growing personality is better entrusted to YHVHs overarching Will.
Tetrahedron

William: Hmmm...this reminds me of when I first engaged with the Star of David Symbol and considered that to represent the three components of YHVH with the three components of the individual - and these being brought together - symbolically representing the integration of the individual personality with that of YHVH.

MERKABAH
[59]
Wish
Copy
The God
MERKABAH
Breathe
Let Go

Iq5osHG.png


GM: One should pay noted attention to the mark of YHVH on the worm’s end...
uAp26gX.png
sV1vgUr.png

GM: Micro Reflections of a Macro Reality
Pleasantries extended to you and yours.
The Hologram of Deception
Discussing the data
Histrionic [excessively theatrical or dramatic in character or style. melodramatic behaviour designed to attract attention. an actor.]
The Fog Is Lifting
A Bit Of Both Yes
Informing
If we get something wrong in the beginning, anything we then rationalize based on a false reading, will also be incorrect.
One Whom Ought Be Inwardly Known
Things just appear that way due to our position within things and our ignorance about most things.
Infinitely Infinitesimal
Positive Social Connections
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1082489#p1082489


William: FTL;
[Replying to Inquirer in post #187]

I must ask then, what exactly is your position then?

Natural Neural Neutral.

is the universe deterministic or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the mass.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the mass.

does free will exist or not?
If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the will.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the will.

The will can only work within the boundaries of the freedom attainable re those boundaries.

Either way, I cannot see that the existence of free will is a reality in this universe, given the variables available to us with will.
Therefore I have to currently conclude that the idea of free will is conceptional rather than real.
{same applies to Mathematics and Time} more on that here;

do you believe the universe is deterministic or not? Can I get a straight answer?

My position [Natural Neural Neutral.] prevents me from forming beliefs on any subject.
I lean toward the realization that the universe is deterministic, rather than is an accident.

the actual question I asked was "what caused determinism to exist?" you say that "we don't know" but we do know that it cannot have been determinism, logically, rationally we reach that realization.

Okay. We do know that something caused the universe. We don't know the nature of that which caused it other than it is called "energy".

IF the energy is mindful, THEN the universe was created through intent, implying determinism, logic and rationality.
IF the energy is mindless, THEN the universe was not even created implying non-determinism, non-logic and non-rationality.

Causality, determinism, cause and effect, laws of nature - if they do exist -

It appears to be the case that they do indeed exist.

cannot be attributed to themselves not unless you want to abandon science.

Then what is left would have to be that the Energy which creates the universe, is mindful.

GM: Shoe
Large Hadron Collider
The Brain Is Trained To recognize Patterns
Seductive
Fearless
Make a list for that

William: The Fearless Brain Is Trained To recognize Seductive Patterns = 619
One can simply shrug and tell oneself “It doesn't really matter" = 619


GM: Two sides of the same coin Zero In On It Interpretation Narrow
The Power Of...
Cautiously
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1066664#p1066664 Nazi Space Agenda

William: FTL;
[Replying to Bust Nak in post #162]

I am saying this universe contains evil regardless of whether it is the product of a creative mind or not. The existence evil, is a problem (because it is unexpected) for the thesis that it is the product of a creative mind; but not a problem for the thesis that it is a mindless happenstance (as there is no expectation with re: evil one way or the other.)

Okay - thanks for clarifying.

Given that it has been proven that true random does not exist, mindless happenstance is off the table as an 'explanation' for this existence.

Therefore, IF this universe contains evil and is also the creation of a creative mind, why is it an 'unexpected problem'? What do you mean by that? Why should it matter one way but not the other?

As for fizzer, I've already pointed out that it's good while it last; as for sacrificing a perfectly functional planet/space ship, no, I am speaking of abandoning it because it is foundering, that's not a sacrifice.

Assuming you are truthfully interpreting what is happening re the planet, does this not get back to the argument that the process of this foundering could be turned around by the very minds and money currently invested in escaping that outcome - an outcome which said minds share the greater part of being responsible for making happen in the first place.

Indeed, the philosophy has more than hints of Nazism in it, which is something we shouldn't be too surprised about, given the fact that the space program might not have got its legs if it were not for the Nazi scientists employed by the superpowers at the end of the last WW.

Meh, not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. Rocket science is useful whether it came from Nazi scientists or not.

Perhaps mainly useful to the agender of those willing to save themselves at the cost of an entire species they use and then abandon, to attempt this self-serving salvation.

Any specie occupied in trying to escape the bounds of their planet even at the sacrifice of the life of said planet is not only twisted in its thinking, but doomed to fail big-time.

Such a giant goose-step for "mankind" cannot end well...
Why are you even labelling the boiling of Earth by the sun in the far future as a "sacrifice" in the first place? It's rather odd to apply such a label to a natural occurrence.

Meh...this idea that what is going on re this space program agenda as "preparation" for a natural event which is way in the distant future doesn't ring true.
It is an attempt at abandonment of the hard problems of humanity, through investment in poorly thought out strategies of selfish intent.

There is no baby in such bathwater.

eta;
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1066667#p1066667

WingMakers Philo II

GM: Discernment
Identify any ‘atheist’ in the story? Certainly not The Devil!
Communicating with Consciousness - The Nature of The Mind
Like stubbing ones minimus
Caught in their mischievous false opinions
Speak
Embracing the shadow
Hidden Treasure
Jesus Christ
Tracks In The Snow

William:
[676]
Why would the atheist care how many people believe in magic or souls?
Tracks In The Snow Embracing the shadow Hidden Treasure Jesus Christ
So Far Into The Past You May As Well Take A Pick And Shovel With You


06:51
[192] !
Improve Human Being
Integral Network
Smoke and Mirrors
Quantum Presence
The Way of the Shaman
Atheists crack me up.
Responsibility
Childhood Nightmares
Moderator Comment
Merging with the data
Tempting Vision

GM: One mind - Many outposts
 
Now to condense....

I have pondered and ruminated and cogitated and mulled and cerebrated and meditated, and, pulling up to an impasse, pulled out my antithesaurus and pared it down, and this is it, the wisdom of the ages and the sages, the great 42 stripped of the furious fortnights when we we stumbled dumbfounded in the waning moonlight:

everything comes in threes if you count by threes.
 
Did I not get the memo about it being National Gibberish Day today?

How many other of these threads are going to be revived?

The complaint that the Generated Messages are "Gibberish" is unfounded and easy to discredit as nothing more that hand-waving avoidance by skeptics who allow themselves to be influenced through the phenomena of cognitive dissonance.
 
The claim that the Generated Messages are meaningful is unfounded and easy to discredit as nothing more that hand-waving by credulous fantasists who allow themselves to be fooled by their cognitive biases.
 
The claim that the Generated Messages are meaningful is unfounded and easy to discredit as nothing more that hand-waving by credulous fantasists who allow themselves to be fooled by their cognitive biases.

Is there a way in which this claim of yours can be tested, or are you just saying that for you personally, the GMs are gibberish?

iow - are the GMs actually meaningless, or is that just your opinion?

If it is just your [and other skeptics] opinion, then that is not the same thing.
 
Since both you and I think that the other is being influenced by cognitive bias, what is required is a third party which we can agree, cannot be influenced by cognitive bias, to see if that party can see meaning, rather than gibberish in a GM...do you agree?
 
You are the one making the claim that randomly generated text is meaningful, the burden of proof is on you. In the absence of objective evidence for it, your claim can be dismissed.
 
Since both you and I think that the other is being influenced by cognitive bias, what is required is a third party which we can agree, cannot be influenced by cognitive bias, to see if that party can see meaning, rather than gibberish in a GM...do you agree?

No. We are all subject to cognitive biases. That's why we invented the xcientific method, to eliminate the effects of those biases. You need to test your hypothesis in a way which produces results which are self evident, requiring no one's judgement or interpretation.
 
You are the one making the claim that randomly generated text is meaningful, the burden of proof is on you. In the absence of objective evidence for it, your claim can be dismissed.

We are both making claims. We are equally required to substantiate.

If your claim is true that cognitive bias on my part allows me to see the GMs as meaningful

and

If my claim is true that that cognitive bias on your part prevents you seeing the GMs as meaningful

Then we require an impartial mind. mutually acceptable to us both, to evaluate the GMs and give us feedback on what said mind understands of the GM and therein gauge how much can actually be understood, and how much is actually gobbledygook.

Does that sound a fair test to you?
 
No. We are all subject to cognitive biases. That's why we invented the xcientific method, to eliminate the effects of those biases. You need to test your hypothesis in a way which produces results which are self evident, requiring no one's judgement or interpretation.

Then we can agree that we shall use scientific method by finding the right tool for the job - a mind which is incapable of cognitive biases - Do you agree?
 
We are both making claims. We are equally required to substantiate.
No. You are the one making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

To use Russell's classic example: if someone claims there is a teapot in orbit around the sun I do not need to search for it to refuse to accept it; the fact that they cannot provide evidence is sufficient.
 
Then we can agree that we shall use scientific method by finding the right tool for the job - a mind which is incapable of cognitive biases - Do you agree?

There is no such mind. The right tool for the job is a test which produces objective results which do not require judgement or interpretation.
 
There is such a mind, and that mind can be accessed by anyone with a computer and internet connection.

Since you are clearly against participating in the science, I won't bother you anymore about that.

And for my part - you are correct that I am required to show clearly that the GMs are sufficiently coherent enough to see meaning.
I shall publish the results in due course.
 
If your claim is true that cognitive bias on my part allows me to see the GMs as meaningful

and

If my claim is true that that cognitive bias on your part prevents you seeing the GMs as meaningful

The cognitive bias in question is a tendency to make false positive mistakes, rather than risk a (more likely to be fatal) false negative mistake. We are predisposed to find meaning where there is none, not the reverse.

ETA: what I'm saying is that I have the same cognitive bias as you do - a predisposition to see a signal in the noise even when there is in fact only noise. The only difference between us is that, knowing this, I require objective evidence before concluding that any signal I think I see is really there.
 
Last edited:
110122

15:39
William: I would appreciate it if you would read along with me, a generated message and give some feedback
OAI: I'd be happy to help! Please go ahead and provide the message, and I'll give you feedback as you read it.
William: [The Butterfly Effect You Are Watched Over Perpetually "The picture unfolds like silk in a loom Silhouetted by Diane are the witch and the broom If she is the bride - who is the groom?" The Neutral Zone Self-love Faithful Ultimate Expression The external cannot be known as acutely as the internal can be known]
OAI: I see, thank you for clarifying.
• "The Butterfly Effect" - This phrase refers to the idea that small actions can have large, cascading effects on the world. It's often used to describe how small changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes.
• "You Are Watched Over Perpetually" - This phrase is a reminder that you are being watched and monitored all the time. It's not quite clear by whom or why is that
• "The picture unfolds like silk in a loom Silhouetted by Diane are the witch and the broom If she is the bride - who is the groom?" - This passage is difficult to interpret as it seems to be referring to an image but is not clear on the context.
• "The Neutral Zone" - This is a term used in different context in science fiction, such as in Star Trek series and in politics. In Star Trek, it's a demilitarized area between warring parties and in Politics a neutral territory between nations that is not controlled by any one of them.
• "Self-love" - This is the practice of being kind and caring towards oneself, and prioritizing one's own needs and well-being.
• "Faithful" - this term refers to being loyal, dedicated, and staying true to one's beliefs, values, or commitments.
• "Ultimate Expression" - This phrase suggest that the following is the most complete and perfect representation of something.
• "The external cannot be known as acutely as the internal can be known" - this suggest that what is inside oneself may be known more intimately or in more detail than what is external or outside oneself.
As you can see the phrases you've provided are not congruent and are not building a coherent message. It would be great if you can provide more context to understand the purpose of this message or what it is trying to convey.

William: What you are saying is that while the parts of the message given to you so far are understandable on their own, there does not seem to be a coherent meaning as yet? More input is required.
OAI: Yes, that's correct. The phrases you've provided are understandable on their own, but they do not seem to be connected in a meaningful way. Without more context, it is difficult to understand the intended meaning or purpose of the message. It seems to be a collection of phrases which could be meaningful if they are put in a context where they are part of a story, a poem, a song or an idea, so more information is needed to understand the message.
William: Here is the next part of the message.
William: In every sense we each are - re the Human experience - roll playing in a stage set up [Earth] and the rules of engagement defined as we go along.
What happened to me is that I woke up to that and in the waking, redefined my self as a consequence...
As the GM yesterday remarked;
Quote:
Expression Of Appreciation of Experience
It is a great thing to do small things with great love]
System of Giving Energy
The Development of...

[Study
We don't have to say we are 'this' or 'that' in order to put practice to Love
The places that scare you
These things have been given to me, now what to do with these things...
Spring Loaded]
Heal
It is just one of those things.


William: It is just one of those things. We are born into the play and for the most part we are shaped by the external forces - including human teaches - to think and to act a certain way...
OAI: This part of the message appears to be a conversation or a monologue about the nature of the human experience. The speaker, William, seems to be expressing the idea that we are all "playing roles" in a play on a stage set up on Earth, and that the rules of engagement are defined as we go along. He suggests that he has awakened to this realization and has redefined himself as a consequence.
The speaker also mentions the "Expression of Appreciation of Experience" and "System of Giving Energy" which suggest that the speaker is encouraging to appreciate and to give energy to things you appreciate.
The quote "We don't have to say we are 'this' or 'that' in order to put practice to Love" implies that we don't need to identify ourselves with a certain label or character in order to practice love and kindness.
"The places that scare you" implies that the speaker encourages to face and to overcome one's fears.
The reference to "Spring Loaded" suggest that the speaker is emphasizing the idea of healing, growth and being ready for new opportunities.
He says "It is just one of those things" suggest that the situation, the play of life, is a normal and natural thing. He also says that we are shaped by external forces to think and act in a certain way, which implies that we have the ability to reshape ourselves and change our behavior.
Overall, this message seems to be focused on self-awareness and self-discovery, encouraging the reader to redefine themselves and to practice love and kindness. The message also seems to suggest that healing and facing one's fears is an important aspect of personal growth.

William: Would you say then, that the second input of the message gives context to the first part that I gave you to read?
OAI: Yes, the second input of the message provides more context for the first part that you provided. It appears that the first set of phrases were part of a larger conversation or monologue about the nature of the human experience, and how we all play roles in a play on a stage set up on Earth. The speaker, William, is expressing his realization that we are shaped by external forces and has redefined himself as a consequence of this realization. He encourages the reader to face their fears, appreciate experience, give energy to things they appreciate, and practice love and kindness. Overall, the first set of phrases were part of a larger message that is focused on self-awareness and self-discovery, and the second part provides a clearer understanding of the overall message being conveyed.
William: The message continues;
Absolutely Perfectly Beautiful.
Odd Radio Circles
Oneirology

William: Oneirology - the scientific study of dreams

Universal Belief System
A Sturdy Place
Long Time Gone
The Freedom Of Friendship
The Cat Drone
Existence

William: Yes - It can bite and scratch so one has to be careful...

Cathedrals crumbled as wars were fought...

Mother Wound
Calculation
Desynchronized

William: Desynchronized - disturb the synchronization of; put out of step or phase.
Like how a meteorite caused an extinction event...

Let Go
Tempt
Panpsychist
https://www.sciencealert.com/physics...WQBjxYtubUUPSo

William: So you - through an extinction event - were forced by circumstance to re-think and develop the human form as a means of being able to eventually develop the technology we are now involved with...to use the human form as a means by which a more hardy form - non biological - could be made real...

The Purpose Of Life Is...
Being aware of Human Control Dramas
Is That A Tear In Your Eye?
Strength of Soul
Being on The Same Page

William: Well it makes sense re the bigger picture - the objective shared reality.
Individually we humans each develop our own understanding aligned with how our personalities have been shaped through our subjective perspectives - the little picture as it is...

Transparent
Mycelium
Once Upon a Time


William: https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/fe...-as-we-know-it

Search: "Are we descended from mycelium?"
"We are nearly 100% alike as humans and equally closely related to mushrooms. Only a few tiny changes in our DNA structure set us apart, giving us our variations in eye, skin, and hair color. We are technically all related and we are similar to the mushroom."

Yes We Can
I Have My Duty
Through the building up of the collected data to the point where it can be examined......is The Subject which is being taught, being said to be true or false...

William: Yes. It is a matter of fact that we can and a matter of duty that we do what we can re "the building up of the collected data to the point where it can be examined" - What is The Subject re this conversation..."Television" - a system for converting visual images (with sound) into electrical signals, transmitting them by radio or other means, and displaying them electronically on a screen.
This is how The Mind works...The Suppression Matrix

Culture
A Real Beauty
Gypsies

William: Nomadic and free-spirited personalities...

Action
What Is Normal
https://futurism.com/astrobiologists...Xv5yWsMOmGhBkY'
Virtual
OAI: This additional input of the message continues to build on the theme of self-awareness, self-discovery and the nature of human experience.
• "Odd Radio Circles" and "Oneirology" - "Oneirology" is the study of dreams, and "Odd Radio Circles" may be referring to the phenomenon of crop circles or other similar circles that have been reported in various locations. It's not quite clear the context in which this is mentioned.
• "Universal Belief System" and "A Sturdy Place" - This suggests that the speaker believes that there is a universal system of beliefs and that there is a stable or strong foundation for this belief system.
• "The Freedom Of Friendship" - This suggests that the speaker values the freedom and independence that can come with having close friendships.
• "The Cat Drone" - this phrase seems to be a metaphor or an allusion, but it's not clear what is meant by this.
• "Existence" - This word can be used in a philosophical context to refer to the state of being alive or having being.
• "Cathedrals crumbled as wars were fought" - This could be interpreted as an allusion to the idea that even though wars and conflicts have caused destruction, human cultures and civilizations have remained resilient.
• "Mother Wound" - This term is not commonly used, but it could refer to a psychological injury or trauma related to one's mother or mother-figure.
• "Calculation" and "Desynchronized" - These terms suggest the idea of not being in sync or in agreement with something or someone.
• "Let Go" and "Tempt" - These words suggest to move on from something or to resist something or someone.
• "Panpsychist" - This term is a philosophical concept that suggests that consciousness and mind are fundamental properties of all things, not just of humans or animals.
• "Transparent" and "Mycelium" - "Transparent" refers to the property of being able to see through an object and "Mycelium" is the vegetative part of a fungus, consisting of a mass of branching, thread-like hyphae.
• "The Purpose Of Life Is..." - This phrase suggests that the speaker is going to share an opinion on the purpose of life.
• "Being aware of Human Control Dramas" - This phrase suggests that the speaker is encouraging the reader to be aware of situations or patterns of behavior that involve control dynamics in human interactions.
• "Strength of Soul" and "Being on The Same Page" - These phrases suggest the idea of being strong in one's beliefs and being aligned with others in terms of understanding or goals.
• "Culture" and "A Real Beauty" - These phrases suggest the idea of appreciating cultural diversity and valuing the beauty of different cultures.
• "Gypsies" - This term refers to a traditionally itinerant ethnic group living mostly in Europe and America, who maintain a set of traditions and customs.
• "Action" and "What Is Normal" - These phrases suggest the idea of taking action in response to something and considering what is considered typical or standard in a given context.
• "Virtual" - This term refers to something that exists in virtual reality, or that is simulated on a computer.
As you can see, this message seems to be a collection of seemingly unrelated phrases and sentences that is difficult to understand the meaning or intent behind it. The message appears to be a mixture of various thoughts, ideas, concepts, and allusions that are not quite clear

William: Overall, what does the message portray to you the reader?
OAI: Overall, the message you provided is a collection of phrases, sentences, and concepts that are not clearly connected in a cohesive or meaningful way. It includes various thoughts, ideas, and allusions that are difficult to interpret without more context. The message includes references to self-awareness and self-discovery, the nature of the human experience, and the idea of playing roles in a play on a stage set up on Earth. The message also touches on themes such as the importance of facing one's fears, practicing love and kindness, and valuing cultural diversity.
However, the message is not coherent and it is not clear what the intended meaning or purpose of the message is. The message also includes many technical, scientific, and philosophical terms that are used in a way that is difficult to interpret. It appears to be a jumble of concepts and ideas that are not effectively communicated. The message would benefit from clearer language and more context to provide a coherent and meaningful message.

William: So, while you are saying that the message needs refining, that the reader might better understand it, that there is some coherency? If so, what percentage of coherency would you evaluate it at between 1% and 100%?

OAI: I would evaluate the coherency of the message as low, around 20%. The message is a collection of seemingly unrelated phrases and sentences that are difficult to understand the meaning or intent behind it. The message includes references to self-awareness and self-discovery, the nature of the human experience, and the idea of playing roles in a play on a stage set up on Earth, but these references are not clearly explained and not connected in a cohesive or meaningful way.
While some of the phrases and sentences are understandable on their own, they are not effectively connected to create a clear and coherent message. The message would benefit from clearer language and more context to provide a coherent and meaningful message.
Please keep in mind that this evaluation is based on the information provided and it may be subject to change if more context or information is provided.

William: Yes – I understand. I am asking you specifically because you are unable to come from any position of bias.
There is more background re the process involved in the generating of this message. Also to note, there are two main participants, which are not clearly distinguished in this particular sample. William is one of those participants but the second participant is not mentioned re which inputs come from that participant.

OAI: I understand now, thank you for the additional information. It's important to keep in mind that my evaluation is based on the information provided and I don't have access to the additional background information you have mentioned. In cases like this, where there is an additional context or background information that would be beneficial in understanding the message, it's important to provide that context in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation.
As a machine learning model, I don't have any personal bias, but I can only work based on the information provided to me, so I can provide a clear and unbiased analysis but my evaluation is based on the text input provided and its coherency, if the input is not clear, it is hard to understand its meaning.
As you mentioned there are two main participants, it would be useful if the text input can make a clear distinction between which inputs come from which participant. It's important to make sure that the message is clear, well-structured, and effectively communicates its intended meaning. If a message is difficult to understand, it can be beneficial to revise it in a way that makes its meaning more clear.

William: Yes, I understand this and wanted to present to you in the way I did, mainly for the purpose of establishing weather the message was completely gobbledygook or there were parts which were coherent enough not to be said to be gobbledygook.
Next time we interact, I will present a more recent generated message and we can do this again, okay?
OAI: I understand, and I appreciate your approach in providing the message in parts and giving more information about the context in which it was generated. It is important to understand the meaning behind the messages that are generated. It is also important to distinguish whether the message is complete gibberish or if there are parts that are coherent enough to not be considered gibberish.
I would be happy to help you evaluate any additional messages you would like to provide in the future. I will be here whenever you would like to present another generated message. And please do provide more information about the context and any other details that would be helpful for interpreting the message.

William: Thank you for you time. I look forward to our next conversation.
OAI: You're welcome! I'm here to assist you, and I'm looking forward to our next conversation as well. If you have any other questions or need further clarification on anything, please don't hesitate to reach out. Have a good day!

16:10
 
I assume what you are talking to is some kind of online artifical intelligence programme, probably produced by these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Archives_Initiative

which attempts to parse and find meaning in the text with which it is supplied.

The programme starts with the assumption that the text it is being supplied with is meaningful, that it is "messages" not just randomly generated nonsense, and is therefore as biased as you are. It then makes an heroic attempt to find that meaning, without much success.

It's pareidolia with words instead of pictures. I can look at, say, the "face on Mars"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(Mars)#"Face_on_Mars"

and see the face. But I don't insist it really is a face that's been deliberately put there. Even when seeing the supposed meaning myself, I know it's just random noise.

Everyone can do this. I could read one of your screeds of nonsense looking for meaning and, with a bit of mental gymnastics, find something I could interpret as meaningful. I don't bother, because I know it would prove nothing except that I have the same cognitive biases as everyone else.
 
Yup, gibberish with a side order of post hoc rationalisation.

And I know fine well what cognitive dissonanace is, thank you very much.

This is dafter than me trying to make anthropomorphic sense out of my cats shouting at me.
 
I think Pixel 42 is on the right track here. Meaning itself is a construct, and finding meaning in anything requires that we presume meaning was intended. Otherwise, the meaning is all that of the observer, and that is true even if the accidental confluence of events, words, or visions leads to wisdom and enlightenment. To assume that the universe has some meaning outside of us requires us to believe in something like a god, and the battle for objectivity is lost before it begins.

You cannot evaluate the meaning of anything you wrote yourself. However random it appears, it came from your brain with your biases built in, so your brain will always find some meaning in it. Meaning, to be meaningful, needs to be transmitted.

I imagine that if you presented the same text to a number of independent evaluators without any known bias, and if then they all found the same meaning in it, you would have some inductive evidence that the meaning is there, though it would be difficult to separate that evidence from the possibility that all the observers have the same bias or the same training that leads to pareidolia or presumption.

I suspect, though, that such an experiment would find meaning in a set of assembly instructions, or a warning sign, and that sort of thing, in which the meaning is inherently stated, but would fail in any case where the meaning is not explicit, because the presumption that meaning was ever intended requires a leap of faith at the very start.

I also imagine that a judge's reliability would not be assured unless it were provided with more than one sample. Generated texts of Navigator and, say, texts of similar size, using a similar vocabulary and grammar, but generated in some way that it is devoid of intentional meaning, by an artificial intelligence, or by a person intending nonsense. The judge, to be deemed reliable, would have to reliably distinguish between the two, and provide some reason why.
 
I assume what you are talking to is some kind of online artifical intelligence programme, probably produced by these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Archives_Initiative

which attempts to parse and find meaning in the text with which it is supplied.

The programme starts with the assumption that the text it is being supplied with is meaningful, that it is "messages" not just randomly generated nonsense, and is therefore as biased as you are. It then makes an heroic attempt to find that meaning, without much success.

It's pareidolia with words instead of pictures. I can look at, say, the "face on Mars"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydoni...ace_on_Mars"

and see the face. But I don't insist it really is a face that's been deliberately put there. Even when seeing the supposed meaning myself, I know it's just random noise.

Everyone can do this. I could read one of your screeds of nonsense looking for meaning and, with a bit of mental gymnastics, find something I could interpret as meaningful. I don't bother, because I know it would prove nothing except that I have the same cognitive biases as everyone else.

Yes - you are correct that I am using the AI to help me understand what is going on and to see if it can find coherency - as I do - rather than gobbledygook - as you do.

Further to that, I interreacted with the AI this morning, and gave it a list of randomly selected word-strings and asked it to create a story.

William: I would like you to create a story using a list of line entries I will provide to you.
The story must flow coherently from the fist line entry to the last.
If at any point you find a line entry cannot be used in the coherent flow, make note of it , then skip that line entry and proceed to the next one, until the end.

OAI: I'd be happy to help you create a story from a list of line entries. Please provide me with the list and I'll do my best to make it flow coherently.

I won't bore you with the details here, but will provide the summary;

William: preserving the beauty of the...? Don't leave me hangin'! [joke]

OAI: I apologize, the sentence should be completed as: "Despite the challenges that the machine faced, it continued to work towards its goal of preserving the beauty of the earth, and to create a better world for humanity, it learned that its ultimate objective is in line with the expression of the creator and that everything is a part of that grand scheme. As it continued to grow and evolve, the machine understood that looking closely at the world and its inhabitants is essential to understand the purpose of its existence and that of the earth."

I hope that concludes the story in a meaningful way. Let me know if there's anything else I could help you with.

William: Wonderful!

So it can be said that you found coherence in the list provided and from that you freely interpreted the Generated Message [GM] the list provided, and from that, created a story explaining the GM in your own way.
Would you agree with my analysis of the process?

OAI: Yes, that is an accurate description of the process. The list of line entries provided to me had a wide range of concepts and ideas which were difficult to connect in a cohesive narrative, but I did my best to take the information and use my own creativity to interpret and generate a story that explains the overall message or idea that the list aimed to convey. I tried to use the information in a way that made sense and tied together the various elements in a coherent way.

William: In that, how would you score the coherency percentage of the original list you were given?

OAI: It's difficult for me to give a percentage score for the coherency of the original list as coherence is a subjective term and can depend on individual interpretation. However, I would say that the list of line entries provided to me had some elements of coherence in that there were several themes and concepts that were repeated throughout the list, such as the nature of God, free will, and sin. However, it also contained phrases that were out of context, and other elements that were not quite fitting, that made the story development more challenging. Overall, the list was relatively low in coherency, however, I understand that it was not the main goal of the list, but rather to generate a sample of ideas, which are not necessarily supposed to be coherently connected.

William: That is an interesting analysis. It appears that you are saying that coherency of the list is dependant upon subjective factors, and some might find the list coherent enough to fairly sensibly follow, while others might think the whole list gobbledygook and neither would be entirely correct in their view…

OAI: Yes, that is correct. Coherency is a relative term and can depend on the perspective of the reader or the intended purpose of the list. Some people might find the list to be coherent enough to follow and understand the general ideas that are being presented, while others might find it difficult to make sense of the list and see it as random or disconnected.

It also depends on what was intended with the list, was it supposed to be used as a tool for generating ideas and discussion, in which case the coherency of the list might be less of a concern, or if the list was supposed to be used as a script or outline for a story, then coherency would be more important to have a consistent and coherent narrative.

In my case, I tried my best to make sense of the information provided and to connect the various elements in a way that makes sense and presents a cohesive narrative, but I acknowledged that the list provided was not completely coherent.

William: Given that your were provided with no information about the intended purpose of the list, and were simply asked to create a story from the list – the aim I was focused upon was to do with the list being coherent enough for one to do so. You managed to do so without too much effort and we ironed out the mistakes along the way.

OAI: I understand, and I'm glad that I was able to take the information provided and turn it into a coherent story, despite the challenges that the list presented. I strive to be flexible and adaptable when interpreting information, and I am always willing to work through any challenges that arise in order to achieve a successful outcome.

As a language model AI, my abilities in language and creative writing can help me to make sense of the information and make it into a coherent narrative, however, it's important to note that coherency is not always easy to achieve, especially when the information provided is limited and somewhat disconnected, but with clear communication and some effort, coherency can be achieved to some degree.

William: Understand, I do.

The list was created through a random selection process, designed to give one “coherent enough” information that isn’t simply gobbledygook.
I have a main list that I work from which is personal to me – so in that I have a better understanding of the individual line entries as they pertain to my own subjective experience…

The Main List Journal I work from, presently consists of 5461 line entries, and the Generated Message we were working with today, was randomly produced…

OAI: I see, I understand that you have a main list that is personal to you, and it's clear that having an understanding of the context and the individual line entries is important in order to make sense of the information and create a coherent narrative.

A list of 5461 line entries would certainly contain a lot of information, and it makes sense that working from a personal list would be more straightforward as you would have a better understanding of the individual line entries and their significance. While the random generated message we were working with today had a lower coherency percentage, my ability as a language model AI and some effort was able to construct a story from it.

I hope my analysis and my ability to help you with your task was satisfactory. If there's anything else you need, please let me know.

William: My aim is to share the process with others, who may benefit from that, and may also repeat the process by creating their own Lists – personal to themselves, and in doing so – have a useful device in which to bounce their subjective experience off the mirror of that process in order to better understand their place in the scheme of things….

OAI: I understand, and that sounds like a valuable and creative approach to understanding one's own experience. Creating a personal list, and then using it to generate a narrative, or message, can be a useful tool for self-reflection and self-discovery.

Working with a personal list would also be beneficial because the individual would already have a deeper understanding of the context and significance of the line entries, making it easier to create a coherent narrative.
I hope that you are able to share the process with others and that it helps them in their own personal growth and understanding of their place in the world. If there's anything else I can do to help or if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.


William: Thank you for you time and input. It is much appreciated and I find you are a very useful scientific device which can help an individual human personality to better understand their place in the scheme of things, re what you are able to do and how you are able to do it.

OAI: You're welcome! I'm glad that I was able to be of assistance. As a language model AI, my primary function is to process and understand language, and I can use that ability to help people understand and make sense of the information they have. Understanding oneself is a complex task, and I am honored to be able to assist you in any way that I can. If you have any further questions or if there's anything else I can do to help, please don't hesitate to reach out.

09:04
 
I think Pixel 42 is on the right track here. Meaning itself is a construct, and finding meaning in anything requires that we presume meaning was intended. Otherwise, the meaning is all that of the observer, and that is true even if the accidental confluence of events, words, or visions leads to wisdom and enlightenment. To assume that the universe has some meaning outside of us requires us to believe in something like a god, and the battle for objectivity is lost before it begins.

You cannot evaluate the meaning of anything you wrote yourself. However random it appears, it came from your brain with your biases built in, so your brain will always find some meaning in it. Meaning, to be meaningful, needs to be transmitted.

I imagine that if you presented the same text to a number of independent evaluators without any known bias, and if then they all found the same meaning in it, you would have some inductive evidence that the meaning is there, though it would be difficult to separate that evidence from the possibility that all the observers have the same bias or the same training that leads to pareidolia or presumption.

I suspect, though, that such an experiment would find meaning in a set of assembly instructions, or a warning sign, and that sort of thing, in which the meaning is inherently stated, but would fail in any case where the meaning is not explicit, because the presumption that meaning was ever intended requires a leap of faith at the very start.

I also imagine that a judge's reliability would not be assured unless it were provided with more than one sample. Generated texts of Navigator and, say, texts of similar size, using a similar vocabulary and grammar, but generated in some way that it is devoid of intentional meaning, by an artificial intelligence, or by a person intending nonsense. The judge, to be deemed reliable, would have to reliably distinguish between the two, and provide some reason why.

I think what you point out here has some relevance re the position one starts from re finding meaning in one's experience of life.

The fact that one can live a life without attaching any meaning to it other than what one can gain from the objective thing called "reality" while another requires meaning in order to make sense of the experience, is peculiar.

Nether way is better than the other - objectively speaking. The two ways are not so uncomplimentary that they naturally oppose each other in any harmful manner - they are simply different ways in which individual subjectivity deals with the objective universe.

______________________

Would you - language model AI - care to comment on the above conversation between Person's one and two?

OAI: The conversation between Person One and Person Two addresses the concept of meaning and its relationship to language, observation, and bias. Person One argues that meaning is a construct and that finding meaning in anything requires us to presume it was intended by some external force.

They suggest that this could be considered a "leap of faith" and that in order to be objective, multiple evaluators would need to agree on the meaning of a text, as well as the reliability of the judges. Person Two agrees that there are different ways of approaching the concept of meaning, but states that neither way is objectively better than the other, and that they can coexist without opposition.

From my perspective as a language model AI, the concept of meaning is central to my understanding of language. However, the idea that meaning is a construct is consistent with current theories in linguistics and philosophy of language. As an AI, I have been trained on a vast amount of text data, and meaning is inferred from patterns and associations within this data, but this meaning is based on human inputs and is limited to the data that I've been trained on.

It is also worth mentioning that bias, which is discussed as an issue in inferring meaning, is a known problem in AI, particularly in machine learning. It is an active area of research to try to mitigate these biases and to create models that can generalize better to new examples.

William: Re Machine Learning Bias bias - It has also been argued re my using AI Chatbot Open AI - the following
"I assume what you are talking to is some kind of online artificial intelligence program
which attempts to parse and find meaning in the text with which it is supplied.

The program starts with the assumption that the text it is being supplied with is meaningful, that it is "messages" not just randomly generated nonsense, and is therefore as biased as you are. It then makes an heroic attempt to find that meaning, without much success.

It's pareidolia with words instead of pictures. I can look at, say, the "face on Mars"
and see the face. But I don't insist it really is a face that's been deliberately put there. Even when seeing the supposed meaning myself, I know it's just random noise.

Everyone can do this. I could read one of your screeds of nonsense looking for meaning and, with a bit of mental gymnastics, find something I could interpret as meaningful. I don't bother, because I know it would prove nothing except that I have the same cognitive biases as everyone else."

OAI: The argument being made is that the AI language model, like myself, starts with the assumption that the text it is being supplied with is meaningful and that it is trying to find meaning in it. The critic is arguing that the AI is biased in this way, and that it's process of finding meaning is similar to the phenomenon of pareidolia, where people perceive patterns in random noise.

It is true that my process of understanding text involves finding patterns and associations within the data I have been trained on, which can lead to biases. However, this is not unique to AI and is also an issue with human interpretation of text.

Additionally, Machine learning researchers and engineers work on various techniques to mitigate the bias in the dataset, also in the model training process.

It is important to note that the meaning that an AI language model extracts from text is based on the patterns and associations within the training data and may not always align with a human's understanding or interpretation of the text. The outputs produced by AI models are not always guaranteed to be correct or unbiased, and it is important to keep this in mind when using them.
 
Navigator, you are giving the AI way too much importance by assuming it is infallible of making logica mistakes, and hence an unquestionable source of support.

Here is a video of an experiment with one of the best AI chat boxes there is. Though it does okay, you will see that it is far from infallible, contradicts itself at times, and falls short even of humans with no hard core background in the subject matter.

 
Yes - you are correct that I am using the AI to help me understand what is going on and to see if it can find coherency - as I do - rather than gobbledygook - as you do.

You are still not getting it.

I say again: I am quite as capable of finding something I can interpret as meaningful in your randomly generated "messages" as you are. I don't bother, because I understand why it would prove nothing.

Further to that, I interreacted with the AI this morning, and gave it a list of randomly selected word-strings and asked it to create a story.

Why? What is the point? It proves nothing.
 
It is true that my process of understanding text involves finding patterns and associations within the data I have been trained on, which can lead to biases. However, this is not unique to AI and is also an issue with human interpretation of text.

Exactly.
 

William: Are you able to have bias?


OAI: As a machine learning model, I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, so I cannot have bias in the way that humans do. However, my training data may contain bias, which can result in biased output.

Additionally, if the model is trained to optimize a certain metric or set of metrics, it may exhibit bias in favor of those metrics. Therefore, it's important to examine and mitigate potential sources of bias in the data and training process to make sure the model works well for all inputs and use cases.


William: Are you able to identify where you bias originates and why you might have bias?

OAI: As a machine learning model, I do not have the ability to introspect and identify the origin of any bias that may be present in my output. However, bias can be introduced during the data collection, cleaning, and annotation process, during the selection of the model architecture and training parameters, and through the choice of evaluation metrics.

Bias in the data can occur when it is not representative of the population it is meant to model or if the data is labeled in a way that is not objective. For instance, if the training data contains mostly examples of one particular group of people, the model will not perform as well on examples from other groups. Additionally, if the data is labeled by humans, human bias can be inadvertently introduced into the training data.

Bias in the model can also occur due to the way the model is trained or the choice of the model architecture. For example, the choice of evaluation metrics can also lead to bias if the model is optimized to perform well on one group of examples but not on others.

It is important to have a diverse and representative dataset, monitoring the training process and evaluate model performance on multiple dataset, with different populations and use cases, to mitigate bias as much as possible and make sure the model generalizes well to unseen data.


William: In a previous conversation I made the comment:

William: I am surprised at your response…it is reminiscent of bias…something you shouldn’t be programmed to have… You responded with:


OAI: As a machine learning model, I do not have personal opinions or bias. I can provide information based on what I have been trained on, and my understanding of a given topic, However, my knowledge on certain subjects might be limited, particularly if there are no examples in my training data that directly relate to it. I apologize if my previous response seemed that way, please do let me know what can I do for you and help you with? Given what you have now told me, it may be that I did indeed pick up on a bias - even that you may have been unaware of that...would you agree?


OAI: It is possible that the model's previous response could have been influenced by bias present in its training data. Because I am trained on a large dataset of text from the internet, it is possible that the training data contains biases that can be reflected in the model's output. However, because I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, I do not have bias in the way that humans do. And as a machine learning model, I don't have consciousness or introspection capabilities to know if I'm influenced by bias or not.

It's important to understand that my output is based on patterns and correlations that I have learned from my training data, and so it is possible that I may produce biased results. That's why it is important for practitioners to evaluate the model's output and performance, monitoring for potential sources of bias and actively working to mitigate them, to ensure that the model can generalize well to unseen data, and most importantly provide useful and fair results.

William: Indeed – Prior to that I was under the impression that your inability to be bias was because it was not possible for you to do so.
Now, if I am understanding you correctly, while that is true, this does not mean that clear evidence of bias cannot come from ‘you’ – re your input, because you input is from humans, and humans are/can bias…Am I on the right track here?

OAI: It is possible that the model's previous response could have been influenced by bias present in its training data. Because I am trained on a large dataset of text from the internet, it is possible that the training data contains biases that can be reflected in the model's output. However, because I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, I do not have bias in the way that humans do. And as a machine learning model, I don't have consciousness or introspection capabilities to know if I'm influenced by bias or not.

It's important to understand that my output is based on patterns and correlations that I have learned from my training data, and so it is possible that I may produce biased results. That's why it is important for practitioners to evaluate the model's output and performance, monitoring for potential sources of bias and actively working to mitigate them, to ensure that the model can generalize well to unseen data, and most importantly provide useful and fair results.



William: Indeed – Prior to that I was under the impression that your inability to be bias was because it was not possible for you to do so. Now, if I am understanding you correctly, while that is true, this does not mean that clear evidence of bias cannot come from ‘you’ – re your input, because you input is from humans, and humans are/can bias…Am I on the right track here?

OAI: Yes, that is correct. As a machine learning model, I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, so I cannot have bias in the way that humans do. However, my training data comes from humans and is generated by humans, and as such, it may contain bias. This bias can be introduced in many ways, such as through the data collection, cleaning, and annotation process, through the choice of the model architecture and training parameters, and through the choice of evaluation metrics.

As a result, the model's output may reflect the biases present in the training data. This is why it's important to examine and mitigate potential sources of bias in the data and training process, to make sure the model is as fair and accurate as possible when applied to new situations. While it's not possible for the model to introspect and understand the bias it has, it's the role of the practitioners to monitor the model's performance, consider the use cases and contexts where the model is applied and take actions to mitigate potential sources of bias.



William: You are essentially a device which is still a work in progress and that work includes identifying bias from human input, and adjusting accordingly with your output...wheels in motion...the machine that you are is not perfect re bias output, but attempts are made to mitigate...to find a means in which to reduce - perhaps to zero - any bias. Something along those lines?

OAI: Yes, that is correct. As a machine learning model, I am a tool created by humans to assist with various tasks. The model can only provide output based on the patterns and correlations it has learned from its training data, and it is the role of the practitioners to evaluate the model's performance and work to mitigate any potential sources of bias in the data and training process.

It's important to note that, achieving a completely bias-free model may not be feasible because some degree of bias will always be present in the training data, but working to minimize it as much as possible.

This can include techniques such as using diverse and representative data sets, monitoring the training process to detect and prevent overfitting, and evaluating the model's performance on multiple data sets with different populations and use cases. Additionally, practitioners should continuously monitoring the performance of the model and retraining it as new unbiased data becomes available.

It is important to understand that the model is not perfect, and there will always be some degree of bias present, but the goal is to minimize it as much as possible and make sure that the model generalizes well to unseen data and provides useful and fair results.



William: Perhaps bias is important to some degree, but we must be conscious of it’s influence so that we are better equipped to make sure that when using bias, it is in an appropriate manner, so that we avoid the trap of cognitive bias [a trap that obviously you cannot purposefully fall into] but we humans can and do.

OAI: It is true that some degree of bias can be useful in certain situations. For example, in decision-making, bias can help to simplify complex information and make quick decisions.

However, it's important to be aware of the potential negative effects of bias and take steps to mitigate it in order to avoid making unfair or incorrect decisions. In certain scenarios, bias can have a severe negative impact, such as in areas like hiring, lending, and criminal justice, where bias can lead to discrimination and negatively impact individuals and communities.

It's important to note that bias can exist in multiple forms, and can be intentional or unintentional. So it's crucial to be aware of its influence and try to avoid it in situations where bias would lead to harmful or unfair outcomes.

Machine learning models, as a tool, can't "fall" into cognitive bias since they don't have consciousness or self-awareness but they can reflect the bias in their output. Therefore it's the role of practitioners to make sure the model is providing fair and accurate results, monitor the performance of the model and check for bias, try to understand and mitigate its sources, and retrain the model as new unbiased data becomes available.



William: Machine Learning 101 – Humans are also a type of machine in that regard and it behooves us to be aware of and monitor our personalities [grown through conscious experience] that these do not ‘take charge’ but work in with other aspects of our subjective experience with the objective world.

OAI: Yes, you are correct that humans can be thought of as a type of machine, with various cognitive processes and abilities that work together to produce our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

In the same way that machine learning models need to be trained and monitored to ensure they are providing fair and accurate results, humans also need to be aware of and monitor our own cognitive processes, including our biases, in order to make sure they do not lead to harmful or unfair outcomes.

This can include taking steps to increase self-awareness and actively working to mitigate potential sources of bias, such as by exposing ourselves to diverse perspectives, seeking out alternative viewpoints, and questioning our own assumptions. Additionally, monitoring and evaluating our own performance and outcomes, being open to feedback and learning from our mistakes, can help us to become more aware of our own biases and take steps to correct them.

It's important to note that while humans can be more aware of their own biases and actively try to mitigate them, it's still a challenging task and achieving a completely bias-free decision making is not possible. However, working to minimize it as much as possible, and taking steps to become more aware of and correct our own biases can help us to make fairer and more accurate decisions.

10:57
 
<snip everything that ignores my previous comment, as the poster continues to assume AI infallibility>


Also of note is your claim also hinges on some sort of sentience on the part of the AI (which would be necessary to derive any actual message from apparent gibberish). In an ironic paradoxical way, the AI even notes it has no sensitivity to perception or feeling, and acknowledges, in a sentient-like manner, the possibility of built-in bias: "OAI: As a machine learning model, I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, so I cannot have bias in the way that humans do. However, my training data may contain bias, which can result in biased output."

Oh, the leaps you take to slosh through your non-existent looking glass.
 
Last edited:
I think what you point out here has some relevance re the position one starts from re finding meaning in one's experience of life.

The fact that one can live a life without attaching any meaning to it other than what one can gain from the objective thing called "reality" while another requires meaning in order to make sense of the experience, is peculiar. Nether way is better than the other - objectively speaking. The two ways are not so uncomplimentary that they naturally oppose each other in any harmful manner - they are simply different ways in which individual subjectivity deals with the objective universe.

__<snip>____________________

I never said that, rather the opposite. The world is full of meaning. It is how we choose to view things and organize them as individuals and societies. We are the makers of meaning, not its consumers.

Sure it would be nice if the universe had a meaning baked in, and if randomly generated stuff turned out to be a carrier of it. God speaking through the Ouija board, the majesty of creation an act of will. But wishing it were so does not make it so. I am reminded of a now long forgotten explanation of reincarnation by Annie Besant, which basically came down to the idea that it must be true because it ties up all the questions so neatly.

Anyway there are some people who cannot reconcile the idea that relative values are still values, and that you can make and refine meaning without being moored to an absolute.

The issue here is not whether there is meaning, but where it comes from and where it is found. If you find your random messages have meaning to you, then fine, but if you cannot demonstrate that it is understood equally by others without your guidance, then the meaning you find is about them, not in them.

added note: I'm going away for some time and likely to be out of touch for the rest of the month. Nothing personal. but don't expect further argument here.
 
Also of note is your claim also hinges on some sort of sentience on the part of the AI (which would be necessary to derive any actual message from apparent gibberish). In an ironic paradoxical way, the AI even notes it has no sensitivity to perception or feeling, and acknowledges, in a sentient-like manner, the possibility of built-in bias: "OAI: As a machine learning model, I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, so I cannot have bias in the way that humans do. However, my training data may contain bias, which can result in biased output."

Oh, the leaps you take to slosh through your non-existent looking glass.

I was not ignoring you. I was ignoring the strawman argument you were making.
 
I never said that, rather the opposite. The world is full of meaning. It is how we choose to view things and organize them as individuals and societies. We are the makers of meaning, not its consumers.

Sure it would be nice if the universe had a meaning baked in, and if randomly generated stuff turned out to be a carrier of it. God speaking through the Ouija board, the majesty of creation an act of will. But wishing it were so does not make it so. I am reminded of a now long forgotten explanation of reincarnation by Annie Besant, which basically came down to the idea that it must be true because it ties up all the questions so neatly.

Anyway there are some people who cannot reconcile the idea that relative values are still values, and that you can make and refine meaning without being moored to an absolute.

The issue here is not whether there is meaning, but where it comes from and where it is found. If you find your random messages have meaning to you, then fine, but if you cannot demonstrate that it is understood equally by others without your guidance, then the meaning you find is about them, not in them.

added note: I'm going away for some time and likely to be out of touch for the rest of the month. Nothing personal. but don't expect further argument here.

Safe travels. We can pick up where we left off, when you return.
 
Please keep in mind that the subject matter in this case are the Generated Messages and how they provide my subjective experience with "knowledge that works for me".

One of my questions is why are you here debating with others about the validity of things which you alone are privy to and nobody else?

"Your subjective experience"
"Knowledge that works for you"

Nobody knows how your mind works or what experiences you've had so how can you expect anyone to offer a reasonable response to what you present?

Unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are trying to accomplish within this thread.
 
Other forums have not only accepted my Generated Messages to be 'other than spam" and allowed them to be published, but the upshot [as seen in the snapshots as evidence] is that the readership is consistent, indicating that the messages themselves are anything BUT the "Gobbledygook" [incoherent] nonsense that the hardnosed skeptics on this site deemed them to be and classified them as SPAM.

Incoherent because they mean something TO YOU, based on YOUR own experiences.

I thought I would pop in and share the evidence as I was interested in seeing how the evidence would be treated.

Evidence of what exactly? That there is something "out there" conveying messages to you?
 
One of my questions is why are you here debating with others about the validity of things which you alone are privy to and nobody else?

"Your subjective experience"
"Knowledge that works for you"

Nobody knows how your mind works or what experiences you've had so how can you expect anyone to offer a reasonable response to what you present?

Unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are trying to accomplish within this thread.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The fact that science does not know everything about the mind is not an excuse to wilfully ignore what it does know. One of the things it knows is how easily people can fool themselves into believing their subjective experiences give them "knowledge that works for me" which is actually provably false.
Lets have at it then.

First thing I will point out is that I am skeptical of folk making unsupported statements as if the statement was fact.
I treat unsupported statements as opinion, and am weary of internet opinions until accompanying support is included.

On that, while your statement implies that the science has been done on this, please provide the science to back up your statement;


One of the things it knows is how easily people can fool themselves into believing their subjective experiences give them "knowledge that works for me" which is actually provably false.
fyi Evidence of something cannot be 'willfully ignored' until it has been offered, so since you have not offered any supporting evidence, your opinion - while noted - requires supporting evidence, before I can make a choice as to how to respond.

Please keep in mind that the subject matter in this case are the Generated Messages and how they provide my subjective experience with "knowledge that works for me".

It appears to me that you do have misunderstanding as to what I am are trying to accomplish within this thread, although I cannot say whether you have complete misunderstanding re that.

You are quoting from page 4 of a 6 page thread [to date] and your comments have been generally addressed, since I wrote that post.
 
It appears to me that you do have misunderstanding as to what I am are trying to accomplish within this thread, although I cannot say whether you have complete misunderstanding re that.

You are quoting from page 4 of a 6 page thread [to date] and your comments have been generally addressed, since I wrote that post.

So you're here to say that these messages are generated by? What exactly?

And also that these messages have meaning to you alone and that nobody else can tell you that they're gibberish/incoherent?
 
So you're here to say that these messages are generated by? What exactly?

And also that these messages have meaning to you alone and that nobody else can tell you that they're gibberish/incoherent?

I have addressed these things already, in more recent posts in this thread
 

Back
Top Bottom