ChatGPT

[Darat]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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?”

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]

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:

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]

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]

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?"

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.

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.

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.