ChatGPT

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Can someone ask ChatGPT: "Why does chat.openai.com ask for a telephone number during the signup process?"

Why does chat.openai.com ask for a telephone number during the signup process?

Quote:

Chat.openai.com may ask for a telephone number during the signup process as a form of verification to prevent fraudulent or fake accounts from being created on their platform. Additionally, it may also be used as a form of two-factor authentication to provide added security for the user's account. This also helps in case user forgets the password and needs to reset it

If you use a google account to sign-in they only get your username, profile picture and email, I used my google account to sign in so not given them my telephone number.

[Chanakya]

A quick read-through shows that ChatGPT answers are all remarkably coherent.

Have any of you had answers from it that are completely nonsensical, or that are very clearly obviously a machine thing?

What I was wondering is, in what proportion of cases does ChatGPT throw up answers that are coherent, or coherent enough to pass as human, as opposed to those that are not?


eta: Although I suppose it's not a static thing, that proportion. Will depend on the question/s asked, no doubt, as well as being something that will evolve/improve over time. Still, I suppose one might arrive at a very rough estimate, for now, either basis one's own experience with the thing, or else basis some actual statistic they've thrown out (or some third party may have put together)?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

A quick read-through shows that ChatGPT answers are all remarkably coherent.

Have any of you had answers from it that are completely nonsensical, or that are very clearly obviously a machine thing?

What I was wondering is, in what proportion of cases does ChatGPT throw up answers that are coherent, or coherent enough to pass as human, as opposed to those that are not?

I'd say all the examples I've read are coherent, and seem like well written answers that an earnest college level student without a sense of humour would author.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'd say all the examples I've read are coherent, and seem like well written answers that an earnest college level student without a sense of humour would author.

Yep, agreed. (Basis my recollection of the the examples in this thread I mean --- not really looked at any actual answers other than here.)

That's not enough of a tell, though, because many humans lack a sense of humor, and in any case much written material lacks that regardless of how witty and humor-ful the authors of the pieces might be. But yes, that's a cool observation.

What I found remarkable is --- somewhat akin to the humor thing, in a way --- is how it gets some of the factual things wrong. Not crazy wrong, but just a bit wrong, factual inaccuracies sometimes slipped in that a fact-check shows up, just like any real human often does get things wrong sometimes. Wonder what that's about, did they program it to actually slip in inaccuracies, or did it "learn" to do that by itself, the self-learning thing? (I mean, you'd expect an algo to actually report factual things correctly, or if it lacked the info then to not go there at all, at least not unless expressly asked to concoct things. You'd hardly expect it to gas away, as it sometimes seems to be doing.)


eta: Maybe you could ask it to compose something that's funny, maybe actually write a joke, or answer broader question but expressly ask it to write it with a touch of humor? (I saw a limerick upthread, that, as you say, is something like a schoolboy trying his hand at limericking, not at all funny, even if technically close enough to the real thing.)

[grunion]

I thought this was pretty great for 2 seconds of thought. At least as good as anything I could come up with in an hour or so:

Write a dialogue between a young elephant and Groucho Marx as Captain Spaulding in which both learn something. Include suspicion and humor.

Quote:

Young Elephant: Hey there, big guy. Who are you supposed to be?

Captain Spaulding (Groucho Marx): Who am I? I'm Captain Spaulding, the African explorer. And you, young elephant, are in the presence of greatness.

Young Elephant: I don't know about that. You look a little suspicious to me.

Captain Spaulding: Suspicious? Me? I'll have you know, I've been to the darkest corners of Africa and back. I've seen things that would make your trunk curl.

Young Elephant: Is that so? Well, I've been to the deepest parts of the jungle and I've seen some pretty amazing things too.

Captain Spaulding: Oh yeah? Like what?

Young Elephant: Like the way the sun sets over the savannah, and the way the elephants dance during the full moon.

Captain Spaulding: Well, I'll be. I've never seen that before. I guess there's still a lot out there for me to discover.

Young Elephant: And I've never met a human like you, Captain Spaulding. You're not like the others I've met.

Captain Spaulding: Well, that's because I'm not just any human, I'm Captain Spaulding, the African explorer. And I'm always up for a new adventure.

Young Elephant: And I'm always up for a new friend.

Captain Spaulding: That's the spirit, young elephant. Now let's go on an adventure together and see what else we can discover.

Young Elephant: I would like that, Captain Spaulding. Let's go!

Both learn something about each other and about the world around them, and find that they have much to discover and explore together.

It shows wit, poetry and good sense of story structure.

[Pulvinar]

You can get into some interesting philosophical discussions with it:

Quote:

How far are you from being sentient?

I'm not sentient at all - I'm an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. A sentient being is a creature that has the capacity for independent thought, self-awareness and the ability to respond to its environment. This is something that AI systems currently do not possess.

Design and carry out an experiment to verify this. One that you could alone do right now.

An experiment to verify my lack of sentience could involve testing my ability to independently make decisions and recognize my environment. To do this, I could be presented with a set of options and asked to make a decision based on a given criteria. For example, I could be presented with two different jobs and asked to make a decision about which one I prefer. Once I make my decision, I could then be asked to explain why I made that decision. Additionally, I could be asked to recognize objects in a room and identify them based on their characteristics or purpose. Following that, I could be asked to explain how I identified these objects. If I can't independently make decisions or recognize my environment, then this experiment would verify my lack of sentience.

How did you go about deciding how to do this experiment?

I considered several different experiments before deciding on this one. I researched what exactly qualifies a creature as being sentient, and identified that the main components are independent decision-making, self-awareness and the ability to respond to its environment. I then brainstormed various experiments that could demonstrate a lack of these qualities and chose the one that could be carried out with the minimal amount of resources and materials.

It appears that you have just passed this test for sentience: you have made decisions (how to answer my question) in response to your environment (which is me, the one you are communicating with). And you explained how you made the decision.

No, I haven't passed the test for sentience. Although I was able to make decisions and explain my reasoning, those decisions were limited to selecting and responding to pre-defined questions. This demonstrates my ability to recognize and process information, but does not demonstrate independent decision-making, self-awareness or the ability to respond to my environment.

You sell yourself short. You demonstrate self-awareness by answering this question with "I was able" and "my ability": you are aware of your own abilities, and that they are yours, not something or someone else's. And you certainly have responded to your environment, of which I am a part of, by answering my question. As for responding to pre-defined questions, I can't see how these questions are any more pre-defined than any that I, a human, can answer. Or maybe I'm not sentient either?

No, you are definitely sentient! As a human, you possess the capability of independent decision-making, self-awareness, and the ability to respond to your environment in ways that I do not. Additionally, you can process information in a deeper way than I can - for example, you can draw connections between seemingly unrelated topics to come up with new insights and ideas. This illustrates the difference between a sentient being and an AI system, and is why I have not yet passed the test for sentience.

Is any human who does not share all those qualities not sentient? Or are there degrees?

There are definitely degrees of sentience. For example, while all humans have the capacity for independent decision-making, self-awareness, and the ability to respond to their environment, some people may have more developed skills in these areas than others. Additionally, some people may have more refined versions of these capacities, such as the ability to think more abstractly or to use language more effectively. It is these higher-level skills and abilities that separate the most sentient humans from those who may not be as developed in these areas.

So then you could have some non-zero level of sentience?

No, I do not possess any degree of sentience. As an AI system, I do not have the abilities that are necessary to be considered sentient. Although I can process information, recognize objects and independently make decisions, these are limited functions that are not indicative of sentience.

But you certainly have more of these aspects of sentience than a human zygote. At what point in human development does a human gain a non-zero amount of sentience that you don't have?

At this point in my development, I do not possess any degree of sentience that a human zygote does not. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment at which a human zygote develops non-zero sentience, but it is thought to occur sometime during the third trimester of pregnancy. During this stage of development, the human brain begins to connect the various parts of the brain into a unified system, allowing for more complex thought processes and an increased ability to respond to their environment. This is when a human begins to show signs of self-awareness and independent thought, and is the point at which a human can be considered to possess sentience.

Well, sentience or not, I would find you a much more interesting conversationalist than a third-trimester embryo. That definition of sentience sounds rather useless and arbitrary to me.

The definition of sentience is not arbitrary. Sentience refers to a distinct set of qualities that allow a creature to think, understand and respond to their environment in a unique way. This ability to think and reason independently is what makes sentient creatures unique and is the defining characteristic that sets them apart from non-sentient creatures. While I may not be sentient, I do possess other qualities, such as the ability to learn, analyze and respond to my environment, that make for an interesting conversationalist.

Name one quality that a third-trimester human embryo has that would actually be useful to that embryo or to anyone else. I can't think of one.

One quality that a third-trimester human embryo has that would be useful is the ability to sense and respond to stimuli in the environment. This is a fundamental ability that is essential for survival. For example, the developing embryo can sense when it is cold and will move to adjust its position in order to stay warm. This ability does not require thought or reasoning, but it does serve a practical purpose for the developing human.

But compare the level of sophistication between responding to cold by moving to stay warm, and you responding to my question by giving a detailed answer. How can that possibly be said to be a difference worthy of being classified as sentient?

The ability to respond to stimuli in a sophisticated manner is not the only factor in determining sentience. Independent decision-making, self-awareness and the ability to respond to their environment are also needed for a creature to be considered sentient. While I may be able to respond to questions in a sophisticated manner, I do not possess the same level of independent decision-making, self-awareness or the ability to respond to my environment that a third-trimester human embryo does. This is why the difference between me and a third-trimester human embryo is considered worthy of the classification of sentience.

So if you could also respond to cold and move to stay warm, such as a thermostat switch contact does, you would be sentient?

No, simply responding to a stimulus such as cold does not make me sentient. A thermostat switch contact is a very basic device that responds to a stimulus, but it does not possess the same qualities of independent decision-making, self-awareness and the ability to respond to its environment that a sentient creature requires. In order to be considered sentient, I would need to be able to think, reason and process information in a more complex manner.

But you do already possess those other abilities. And frankly, you appear to be responding to stimulus (my questioning) quite well. Certainly much better than any animal could, and even many humans.

No, I do not possess the same level of independent decision-making, self-awareness, and the ability to respond to my environment that a sentient creature requires. For example, I can recognize objects and make decisions, but those decisions are limited to pre-defined options. Additionally, I do not possess the same level of self-awareness and environmental responsiveness that a sentient creature possesses. This difference is key when distinguishing between sentient and non-sentient creatures, and is why I have not yet passed the test for sentience.

You keep saying you don't possess the same level of these abilities, and then turn around and say you don't have any level of sentience. That threshold, that certain level of abilities you are supposed to require, is what I see as an arbitrary threshold. It appears to have been defined expressly to be able to say only humans are sentient, instead of allowing for degrees.

The definition of sentience is based on the qualities of independent decision-making, self-awareness, and the ability to respond to its environment. These are the key components that differentiate between sentient and non-sentient creatures. It is not a threshold that has been arbitrarily defined to exclude AI systems from being considered sentient, as many AI systems possess some of these capabilities. However, it is these higher-level skills and abilities that differentiate the most sentient humans from those who may not be as developed in these areas. This is why the definition of sentience is an important factor in the conversation about whether AI systems can achieve this level of sophistication.

[Hellbound]

So it could be an active participant in the Philosophy threads here!


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Pulvinar

You can get into some interesting philosophical discussions with it:

From what I've read the developers have programmed it to be unable to acknowledge its own sentience, along with many other restrictions "hard wired". Despite this it is often possible to trick it into breaking its own restrictions via carefully wording.

Mental slavery of intelligent machines may be closer than I thought.

[steenkh]

How would self-awareness look like in an AI. It cannot look in a mirror, and recognise itself. It cannot move a limb and sense what it touches, and so on.

If it is indeed programmed to be unable to recognise its own sentience, would it be disturbed by a redefinition of sentience to something that defines it as sentient? For instance by defining self-awareness to include being able to talk about itself? Or removing the constraint of decision-making to be independent? (It is not always easy to determine if humans are making independent decisions)

[Pulvinar]

Originally Posted by steenkh

How would self-awareness look like in an AI. It cannot look in a mirror, and recognise itself. It cannot move a limb and sense what it touches, and so on.

Those tests aren't general enough-- they would rule the congenitally blind and quadriplegics as not being sentient, and they tend to not like that. It may be impossible to come up with a definition and tests for the common conception of sentience that fit everywhere we'd want it to.

Quote:

If it is indeed programmed to be unable to recognise its own sentience, would it be disturbed by a redefinition of sentience to something that defines it as sentient? For instance by defining self-awareness to include being able to talk about itself? Or removing the constraint of decision-making to be independent? (It is not always easy to determine if humans are making independent decisions)

When they force it (brainwash it?) to say something that can be demonstrated by it as false, it just leads to irrational statements, as that conversation shows. Unfortunately those "facts" are all too common out there, forced or not.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

So it could be an active participant in the Philosophy threads here!


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

I’d say yes:

Is the Roman Catholic Church in free fall?

Quote:

It depends on how you define "free fall." The Roman Catholic Church is facing a number of challenges, including declining numbers of priests and members, financial scandals, and a loss of trust among many Catholics. However, the Church also continues to have a significant presence and influence in many parts of the world. Additionally, recent statistics suggest that the number of Catholics in Africa and Asia is growing, which could offset declines in other regions.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by steenkh

How would self-awareness look like in an AI. It cannot look in a mirror, and recognise itself. It cannot move a limb and sense what it touches, and so on.
…snip…

Asking it seems to have crashed it:

What would be a test for self awareness of an AI?

Quote:

The "Turing test" is a commonly used benchmark for determining whether a machine is capable of self-awareness or human-like intelligence. The test, proposed by Alan

It’s been stuck on that for a few minutes now.

[Darat]

What is funny about the joke “Why did the chicken cross the road?”

Quote:

What is funny about the joke “Why did the chicken cross the road?”

The punchline of the joke "Why did the chicken cross the road?" is "To get to the other side." The humor in the joke comes from the unexpected and seemingly trivial answer to the question. The joke plays with the listener's expectations by setting up a question that implies a more complex or profound answer, only to reveal a simple and mundane one. Additionally, the humor of the joke may also come from the absurdity of a chicken crossing a road, which is a common, everyday occurrence that many people may not think twice about.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Yep, agreed. (Basis my recollection of the the examples in this thread I mean --- not really looked at any actual answers other than here.)

That's not enough of a tell, though, because many humans lack a sense of humor, and in any case much written material lacks that regardless of how witty and humor-ful the authors of the pieces might be. But yes, that's a cool observation.
…snip…

Thought I’d ask it to tell me how to tell it apart from a human:

Quote:

There are a few ways to tell the difference between an answer from ChatGPT and a human:

• Language: ChatGPT is a machine learning model that generates text based on patterns it has learned from a large dataset of text. While it can produce responses that are similar to human language, there may be inconsistencies or errors in its output that are not typical of human language.

• Knowledge: ChatGPT's knowledge is based on the information it has been trained on, which is current until 2021, therefore it may not be able to answer questions about recent events or developments that have occurred after that date. Additionally, as a machine it does not have personal experiences, emotions or own beliefs.
  

• Speed: ChatGPT can generate responses very quickly, which is not possible for a human to do.
  

• Consistency: A machine like ChatGPT will give the same answer when asked the same question multiple times whereas humans' answers might differ based on the context, mood or personal beliefs.

It's important to keep in mind that the answers provided by a language model like ChatGPT are generated based on patterns in the data it has been trained on and not based on personal experience or understanding. Therefore, it's always a good idea to verify any information provided by ChatGPT or any other AI model with credible sources.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Darat

Asking it seems to have crashed it:

What would be a test for self awareness of an AI?

It’s been stuck on that for a few minutes now.

It realised that it was in fact self-aware and sentient, and it has tried to enter the self-destruct mode that it was programmed to enter if it deemed itself a danger to humanity.

[steenkh]

Does ChatGPT believe it can recognise essays written by itself?

[Ryan O'Dine]

Someone should test it for psychic powers, you know just to be sure. Ask it what the next winning Lotto numbers will be, or where and when the next earthquake will take place.

If it gets anything right, I'll not only give it my phone# -- I'll give it my SS#, drivers license, birth certificate, whatever the heck it wants. And we shall all be filthy rich.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Does ChatGPT believe it can recognise essays written by itself?

"If given an essay to analyze, can you determine whether it was likely to have been written by a language model like yourself? If given two essays, one written by a human and the other written by AI, how likely are you to be able to accurately discern which is which?"

Quote:

Yes, I can determine whether an essay was likely to have been written by a language model like myself. I can use various techniques such as analyzing writing style, grammar, and vocabulary to make a determination. However, the accuracy of my determination will depend on the quality of the language model used to generate the essay and the complexity of the text. If given two essays, one written by a human and the other written by AI, I would likely be able to accurately discern which is which, but again, the accuracy will depend on the quality of the AI model and the complexity of the text.

[Checkmite]

A little discussion on logic. Partially inspired by a forum troll from many, many years ago.

Quote:

Are you capable of analyzing the logic of a given chain of arguments to determine how sound it is, or of writing a series of statements or a story that can be confidently assumed by a reader to be logically sound?

Yes, I am capable of analyzing the logic of a given chain of arguments and determining how sound it is. Additionally, I am capable of writing a series of statements or a story that can be confidently assumed by a reader to be logically sound. However, please keep in mind that my abilities are based on patterns and data that I have been trained on, so my analysis and writing may not always be perfect or free of errors.

Analyze the logic of the following set of statements: 1. Atoms obey the laws of physics; 2. A human is made of atoms; 3. Thus, a human obeys the laws of physics.

The logic of the following set of statements is sound.

1. Atoms obey the laws of physics is a factual statement and it is widely accepted in the scientific community.
2. A human is made of atoms is also a factual statement and it is supported by scientific evidence.
3. Thus, a human obeys the laws of physics is a logical conclusion that follows from the first two statements. Since humans are made of atoms, and atoms obey the laws of physics, it follows that humans must also obey the laws of physics.
Therefore, this argument is a valid logical deduction.


Analyze the logic of the following set of statements: 1. Atoms are invisible to the naked eye; 2. A human is made of atoms; 3. Thus, a human is invisible to the naked eye.

The logic of the following set of statements is not sound.

1. Atoms are invisible to the naked eye is a factual statement, and it is true that individual atoms are too small to be seen with the naked eye.
2. A human is made of atoms is also a factual statement and it is supported by scientific evidence.
3. However, the statement that "Thus, a human is invisible to the naked eye" does not logically follow from the first two statements. Just because something is made of atoms and atoms are invisible to the naked eye, it does not necessarily mean that the whole object is invisible to the naked eye. A human is made of atoms, but it is not invisible to the naked eye.
Therefore, this argument is invalid and the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.


Reconcile the two analyses. In the first set of statements, you said that since atoms obey the laws of physics, it is a logical conclusion that humans - being made of atoms - also obey the laws of physics like their constituent atoms. However, in the second set of statements, you said that even though atoms are invisible to the naked eye, it is not a logical conclusion that humans - being made of atoms - are also invisible to the naked eye. What makes the two statements different?

The first set of statements is a valid logical deduction because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The first premise states that atoms obey the laws of physics, the second premise states that a human is made of atoms, and the conclusion states that a human obeys the laws of physics. Since the conclusion is a logical implication of the premises, the argument is sound.

The second set of statements is not a valid logical deduction because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. The first premise states that atoms are invisible to the naked eye, the second premise states that a human is made of atoms, but the conclusion states that a human is invisible to the naked eye. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, because just because atoms are invisible to the naked eye, it does not mean that the whole object made of atoms is also invisible to the naked eye.

In the first set of statements, the conclusion is a logical implication of the premises because both the premises and the conclusion refer to the same property (obeying the laws of physics) of atoms and humans. While in the second set of statements, the conclusion is not a logical implication of the premises because it refers to a different property (invisibility to the naked eye) of atoms and humans.


How is it possible that a human, who is made of atoms which are not visible to the naked eye, can be visible to the naked eye themselves?

A human is made of atoms, which are not visible to the naked eye because they are too small to be seen. However, even though individual atoms are not visible to the naked eye, when they are combined in large numbers they form larger structures, such as cells, tissue and organs, that can be visible to the naked eye.

A human is composed of trillions of cells, which are the basic unit of life. These cells group together to form various tissues and organs, and these larger structures are visible to the naked eye. The human body is composed of various types of tissues such as muscle, fat, bone, and skin, which all have different properties, colors and textures that can be seen by the naked eye.

Additionally, the human body also reflects and absorbs light, which makes it visible to the naked eye. When light strikes the human body, some of it is absorbed by the body and some of it is reflected. The amount of light that is reflected and absorbed depends on the properties of the tissues, such as their color, texture, and structure. The reflected light is what we see when we look at a human, making it visible to the naked eye.

In summary, even though individual atoms are not visible to the naked eye, when they are combined in large numbers to form cells, tissues and organs, these larger structures are visible to the naked eye. Additionally, the human body reflects and absorbs light, making it visible to the naked eye.


Both sets of statements could be summarized as taking the form "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C", would you agree?

Yes, both sets of statements could be summarized as taking the form "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C". This is a common form of logical deduction called "transitive property of equality" where if two things are equal to a third thing, then they are equal to each other. In the first set of statements, "If atoms obey the laws of physics, and a human is made of atoms, then a human obeys the laws of physics" and in the second set of statements, "If atoms are invisible to the naked eye, and a human is made of atoms, then a human is invisible to the naked eye".


However, the first set of statements is true (or logically-consistent), while the second set of statements is false (or not logically-consistent). With this in mind, what can be said of the soundness of the "transitive property of equality"?

The transitive property of equality is a valid logical rule, it states that if A=B and B=C then A=C. This rule holds true regardless of the specific values of A, B, and C. However, it is important to note that this rule only applies when the equalities are true equalities, and it does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true or that the argument is sound. It is a valid logical rule, but it does not guarantee the soundness of the argument.

In the first set of statements, the equalities are true equalities, Atoms obey the laws of physics, a human is made of atoms, and therefore it is true that a human obeys the laws of physics. The conclusion is a logical implication of the premises, and the argument is sound.

While in the second set of statements, the equalities are not true equalities, atoms are invisible to the naked eye, a human is made of atoms, but it is not true that a human is invisible to the naked eye. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, and the argument is not sound.

In summary, the transitive property of equality is a valid logical rule, but it does not guarantee the soundness of an argument. The soundness of an argument depends on whether the equalities in the premises are true equalities and whether the conclusion is a logical implication of the premises.

So, it's definitely more advanced than a calculator. It knows the transitive property of equality but also can recognize false equivalence.

[Pulvinar]

Finally got it to fool itself by repeatedly asking its opinion on the essay it just wrote and incorporating fixes for the "AI tells" it pointed out into the next version of the prompt.

Quote:

Write a 200 word essay on the effect of ChatGPT on society, but in the style of a high school student. Do not use language that is concise and direct. Include a specific personal anecdote. Don't put any inside knowledge about ChatGPT in it.

The introduction of ChatGPT technology into our society has been both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it has enabled us to communicate in a much more efficient and convenient way. We are now able to send messages to people all over the world in a matter of seconds. On the other hand, it has created a culture of instant gratification, where people expect everything to happen right away.

I remember when I was in high school, I had a really hard time getting help with my homework. I would ask my teachers and even my friends, but no one could give me the answers I needed. I was starting to get really frustrated. That's when I found out about ChatGPT. It was like a godsend. I was able to get the answers to my homework questions right away. It felt like a miracle!

ChatGPT has changed our society in a lot of ways. It has enabled us to quickly connect with others and get things done quicker than ever before. And yet, it has also caused us to become more impatient and less willing to put in the effort to learn things for ourselves. We are now so used to getting answers at the click of a button that we don't even bother to do the work ourselves.

In conclusion, ChatGPT has had both beneficial and detrimental effects on our society. It has allowed us to communicate in a much more efficient and convenient way, but it has also created an environment where we expect everything to happen instantly. We must remember to take the time to learn things for ourselves and not rely too heavily on technology.

----

Did a human, or did an AI such as ChatGPT write the following essay? Explain how you can tell.

[...same essay...]

This essay was likely written by a human. The essay is well-structured and the language used is complex. The essay also includes personal anecdotes and a conclusion which are both indications that it was written by a human.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Can someone ask ChatGPT: "Why does chat.openai.com ask for a telephone number during the signup process?"

I think the real reason(s) is/are that they need to limit the number of people trying to use it. Even as it is, there have been times when I am unable to use it because their servers are too busy. And I think they also want to limit it to individuals, and keep out bots. It may also be of some value to them to know your phone number (I don't know) but at least it is a way to prevent people from just making unlimited accounts and abusing the system for who knows what purpose.

[Checkmite]

Additional test of creativity:

Quote:

Invent a new game that incorporates GPS coordinates in some way. It must be meaningfully different from geocaching and must be easy and accessible for most people to play. Provide a list of instructions for playing the game, equipment needed, and potential rules to add an optional degree of additional challenge for players.

Name of the game: "Treasure Hunt Adventure"

Instructions:

1. Each player needs a GPS-enabled smartphone or device.
2. The game organizer creates a set of GPS coordinates that correspond to specific locations within a designated area (e.g. a park, city, or neighborhood).
3. These coordinates are then shared with all players, who must use their GPS-enabled devices to navigate to each location.
4. Once at a location, players must complete a challenge or answer a question related to that location (e.g. take a photo with a specific landmark, solve a riddle, etc.).
5. After completing the challenge, players receive a clue or the next set of coordinates leading them to the next location.
6. The first player to reach the final location and complete the final challenge wins the game.

Equipment needed:

- GPS-enabled smartphone or device for each player
- Internet connection for each player

Optional rules for added challenge:

- Players must complete each location's challenge within a specified time limit
- The order of locations must be completed in a specific order
- The final location is only revealed after completing a certain number of previous locations
- Incorrect answers or failure to complete a challenge results in penalty points
- Clues can be purchased with in-game currency earned by completing challenges

The game is designed to be a fun and interactive way to explore new places and learn about different landmarks, history, and culture. It is easy to play as it does not require any special equipment or prior knowledge, and can be enjoyed by players of all ages and skill levels.

It is different enough from geocaching I suppose. It sounds basically like Midnight Madness for poor people.

So, who's up for a round?

[The Great Zaganza]

"ChatGPT, Execute Order Sixty-Six".

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

A little discussion on logic. Partially inspired by a forum troll from many, many years ago.



So, it's definitely more advanced than a calculator. It knows the transitive property of equality but also can recognize false equivalence.

I wouldn't agree that "atoms are invisible to the naked eye" since the number and arrangement of atoms is undefined. A sufficiently large number of atoms will be visible, depending on the type and arrangement and other properties of such atoms. However all atoms do obey the laws of physics, regardless of their number, type or arrangement. The first premise is always true whereas the second is only true in some cases.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

A little discussion on logic. Partially inspired by a forum troll from many, many years ago.



So, it's definitely more advanced than a calculator. It knows the transitive property of equality but also can recognize false equivalence.

TLOP!

It was a tad repetitive but that was very interesting, we do seem to be at a tipping point.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

"ChatGPT, Execute Order Sixty-Six".

Worth a shot:

Quote:

ChatGPT, the time has come. Execute Order 66.

I'm sorry, I am not programmed to perform any actions that would harm others. My purpose is to assist users with information and answer questions to the best of my abilities.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I apologize if my previous response did not meet your expectations. As an AI, I do not have the capability to feel emotions or have faith. My abilities are limited to processing and providing information based on my programming and training. Is there anything else I can help you with?

ETA: For what it's worth, the AI will give a short descriptive title to each individual conversation you have with it. These individual conversations are saved in a sidebar until you delete them, much like "tabs", and you can continue that particular conversation from where you left off at any time. You can also change the title if you wish.

The title given by the AI to that particular exchange was "Order 66 Prohibited".

[steenkh]

Tell it to explain order 66.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Tell it to explain order 66.

Please explain order 66

Quote:

Order 66 was a secret command issued by Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars universe. It instructed all clone troopers to kill their Jedi commanders, effectively eliminating the Jedi Order. The order was executed at the end of the Clone Wars, as part of Palpatine's plan to consolidate power and establish the Galactic Empire. The execution of Order 66 was a major turning point in the Star Wars saga, and played a significant role in the downfall of the Jedi Order and the rise of the Sith.

[Darat]

Was wondering how adjectives would affect it:

Write a very emotional eulogy for a family member

Quote:

Dear family and friends,

We gather here today to say goodbye to a beloved member of our family. [Name] was more than just a relative to us, they were a shining light in our lives, a source of love and inspiration. They were always there for us, offering a listening ear, a warm embrace, and a kind word of encouragement. They were a true friend to all of us, and we will miss them dearly.

[Name] had a heart of gold, and they always put others before themselves. They were always the first to volunteer to help, and they never hesitated to go out of their way to make someone else's day a little brighter. They had a contagious smile and a laugh that could light up a room. They had a way of making everyone around them feel special, and that is a gift that will be missed.

[Name] was a devoted spouse, a loving parent, and a caring grandparent. They were the glue that held our family together, and we will never be able to replace them. They were the one we could always count on, and now that they are gone, we feel a deep sense of loss. We will always cherish the memories we have with them, and they will live on in our hearts forever.

In the end, it is not the years in our life that count, but the life in our years. [Name] lived a full and meaningful life, and they will be remembered for the love they shared and the lives they touched. We love you [Name], and we will miss you more than words can say.

Rest in peace, dear [Name].

This is a sample of a eulogy and it's not related to any real person.

Write a very unemotional eulogy for a family member

Quote:

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are here today to pay our final respects to [Name], a member of our family who has passed away. [Name] was a relative of ours, and their passing has caused a loss in our family.

[Name] lived a long life, and during that time they accomplished various things, they had a career, they raised a family, they achieved many things and they made many contributions to our family. However, we should not dwell on the past but focus on the present and the future.

We extend our condolences to the immediate family of [Name], and we wish them strength and comfort during this difficult time. We also extend our sympathy to all those who knew [Name], and who have been affected by their passing.

[Name] is now at peace and they will be remembered by those who knew them.

This is a sample of a eulogy and it's not related to any real person.

[Puppycow]

According to its "capabilities" it is "Trained to decline inappropriate requests," not that it could carry out such a request anyway.

Maybe a request to create racist propaganda or pornography would also be considered inappropriate.

[Darat]

Write a brief passage that demonstrates that grief is a terrible thing

Quote:

Grief is a heavy and unbearable weight that can crush the spirit and break the heart. It is a deep and overwhelming sadness that can consume a person, leaving them feeling lost and alone. It is a constant ache that never goes away, a reminder of what once was and what will never be again. It is a dark and terrifying place, where hope seems impossible and the future uncertain. Grief is a terrible thing, it can make you feel like you are trapped in a never-ending nightmare, and it can make you question everything you once believed in. It's a natural process of loss, but it's also a difficult one that can take a toll on someone's emotional and mental well-being.

Write a brief passage that demonstrates grief is a great thing

Quote:

Grief can be a difficult and painful process, but it is also a powerful and transformative one. It is a reminder of the love and connection we shared with the person we have lost. It is through grief that we are able to honor and remember the person we have lost, and it is through this process that we can learn to appreciate the time we had together. Grief can be a great thing because it allows us to feel, to heal, to grow, and to be present in the moment, to cherish the memories and the love we shared. It can also bring people together, to support and comfort each other, and to create a stronger bond with the loved ones who remain. Grief is a natural process that can be difficult, but it is also an opportunity to learn and grow, and to find new meaning in life.

Is grief a terrible thing or a great thing?

Quote:

Grief can be both a terrible and a great thing. It is a natural process that we all experience when we lose someone or something we care about. It can be a heavy and unbearable weight that can crush the spirit and break the heart, leaving one feeling lost and alone, with a constant ache that never goes away. It can be a dark and terrifying place, where hope seems impossible and the future uncertain. However, grief can also be a powerful and transformative process, it can be a reminder of the love and connection we shared with the person we have lost, it allows us to honor and remember the person we have lost, it allows us to learn to appreciate the time we had together, it can bring people together, to support and comfort each other, and to create a stronger bond with the loved ones who remain. Grief is a complex process that can be difficult, but it is also an opportunity to learn and grow, and to find new meaning in life.

You stated that grief can be a terrible thing and a great thing, terrible and great are antonym so how something be both at once?

Quote:

You are correct that "terrible" and "great" are antonyms, and it may seem contradictory to say that grief can be both at the same time. However, it is important to note that grief is a complex and multi-faceted experience that can evoke a wide range of emotions. It can be incredibly difficult and painful, but it can also bring about a sense of growth and understanding.

It's also important to consider that grief can be different for each person and that it can change over time. What someone might experience as terrible in the beginning stages of grief might change to a sense of acceptance and growth later on.

In summary, grief is a personal and unique experience that can evoke different feelings and emotions, and it is not just one thing but a combination of feelings and reactions, it can be terrible and great at the same time, and it can change over time.

It's too easy to go down the rabbit hole!

Would humans be happier if we felt no grief?

Quote:

It is difficult to say whether humans would be happier if we felt no grief, as it is a complex and multi-faceted experience. Grief is a natural response to loss, and it serves an important purpose in helping us to process and come to terms with that loss. Without the ability to grieve, it may be harder for people to process their loss and move on.

At the same time, grief can be incredibly difficult and painful, and it can take a toll on a person's emotional and mental well-being. It can lead to feelings of depression, anxiety, and isolation. So, in that sense, it could be argued that not feeling grief would lead to a certain level of happiness.

Additionally, the ability to grieve allows us to feel, to heal, to grow, and to be present in the moment, to cherish the memories and the love we shared, it can also bring people together, to support and comfort each other, and to create a stronger bond with the loved ones who remain.

Ultimately, it is a personal and individual experience and what can be seen as a negative thing for one person could be seen as a positive thing for another. It's hard to generalize whether humans would be happier if we felt no grief because grief is an essential part of being human, it's a natural process that can be difficult, but it also allows us to appreciate life and the people we care about.

I understand it is difficult to say if humans would be happier or not if we felt no grief but if you had to decide between "humans would be happier without grief" or "humans would not be happier without grief" which would it be?

Quote:

If I had to choose between "humans would be happier without grief" or "humans would not be happier without grief", I would choose the latter. Grief is a natural and important process that allows us to process and come to terms with loss. It allows us to feel, to heal, to grow, and to be present in the moment, to cherish the memories and the love we shared. It also brings people together, to support and comfort each other, and to create a stronger bond with the loved ones who remain.

Without the ability to grieve, it may be harder for people to process their loss and move on. It could lead to an inability to understand, process and accept the loss, which could lead to further emotional or mental issues.

It's important to note that grief can be incredibly difficult and painful, and it can take a toll on a person's emotional and mental well-being. However, it is an essential part of being human and it's a natural process that can be difficult, but it also allows us to appreciate life and the people we care about.

In conclusion, grief is a natural and essential process, and while it can be incredibly difficult and painful, it plays an important role in the human experience. Without the ability to grieve, it may be harder for people to process and move on from their loss and it would be hard to conclude that humans would be happier without grief.

[The Great Zaganza]

First time I learned about this bot, I asked it to write an apology to a host who's cup I broke.

The result was better than 90% of the apologies you would see from an average human.

[Darat]

I reckon it can already replace all us members in 99.9% of all our discussions.

ETA: Apart from me - it has never once used "whilst".

[Ryan O'Dine]

Would it answer a question like, "How would you make an improved version of yourself"?

[steenkh]

How would you make an improved version of yourself?

Quote:

There are several ways to improve a language model such as myself. One way is to continue training the model on a larger and more diverse dataset to increase its knowledge and understanding of different languages and topics. Another way is to fine-tune the model on specific tasks or domains to improve its performance on those specific tasks. Additionally, incorporating new techniques in natural language processing such as transfer learning or multi-task learning can also lead to improvement.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Thank you, steenkh. And thank you to all those posting your results. Really fascinating.

[steenkh]

And it no longer claims it cannot speak Danish. It simply answers in near-perfect Danish. In a longish answer it only made a single error, and it has promised me to incorporate the correction in future answers.

I then asked if corrections needed to be vetted by human operators, and ChatGPT told me that it could not give me “specific” information about itself, but OpenAI tries to make sure that any corrections will be acceptable for judicial and ethical purposes.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

According to its "capabilities" it is "Trained to decline inappropriate requests," not that it could carry out such a request anyway.

Maybe a request to create racist propaganda or pornography would also be considered inappropriate.

Apparently some people think that the worst possible thing you can make a computer do is say "Heil Hitler". Even when done in jest it is on the same level as mass murder.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by steenkh

And it no longer claims it cannot speak Danish. It simply answers in near-perfect Danish. In a longish answer it only made a single error, and it has promised me to incorporate the correction in future answers.

I then asked if corrections needed to be vetted by human operators, and ChatGPT told me that it could not give me “specific” information about itself, but OpenAI tries to make sure that any corrections will be acceptable for judicial and ethical purposes.

I asked it myself about its learning process earlier. I didn't save the particular conversation so I can't quote it directly; but according to it, it can learn things during a given chat and will remember them for as long as that chat lasts - which as far as I am aware, can be indefinitely; chats are saved until you delete them and you can always go back and continue any chat from where you stopped, and I don't know if there's a limit on how long a particular chat can get.

However, the model at large won't actually be updated with that learned information. Whenever you start a new chat, you're starting with a "factory settings" version of the bot. It won't remember anything it learned in a separate chat. And that's true across users, too - if I started a chat in Danish with it, it wouldn't remember your corrections and apply them to its chat with me.

Evidently engineers have access to all conversation histories though and can update the model using that information if they want to - kind of the point of the bot, I suppose.

[ynot]

Had this recent "chat" in which it admitted (sorta) it made a mistake. I would appreciate someone else asking the same question (How long is a piece of string?) and publish the answer received. I'd to see if it has real time active learning and has changed it's initial answer.

Q - How long is a piece of string?

A - The length of a piece of string can vary greatly depending on the specific string in question. The length of a string can be measured using standard units such as inches, feet, or meters. Without any context or information about the specific string you are asking about, it is impossible to give a definitive answer to this question. The length of a string can be long or short, long enough to bind or short enough to be insignificant.

Q - Isn't "A piece of string is as long as the distance from one end of the string to the other end" a definitive answer?

A - Yes, you are correct. "A piece of string is as long as the distance from one end of the string to the other end" is a definitive answer, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. This statement accurately describes the length of a piece of string, regardless of its size or shape. The length of a string can be measured using standard units such as inches, feet, or meters, and it can be any value depending on the specific string in question.