AI voice is a dead thing talking

You've touched on a valid point. 'supporting my premise'. I addressed this with a kind of shoulder shrug, in that, in my view, I don't think there is any way to prove
my premise, which is that 'self-awareness', i.e., 'consciousness', i.e., 'life' has a spiritual basis, and that, because of this, mankind cannot endow life to inanimate things, which is to say, mankind can create a machine that can simulate life, and it can do it to a high degree of sophistication such that now it's passing the Turing test, but it's still not a machine that is 'self aware'. We, has humans, cannot create life, we can only fake it.

I only say this because I have yet to be see any AI robot I find convincing.

IN a sense, the onus is on science to prove that it can, not for me to prove that it can't create life. My view is that the default is that mankind cannot endow inanimate objects with the quantity called 'life'. That is the province of nature/universe/God, etc.

I only say that it can't because I haven't seen or heard it.

Does that mean I will admit that it is possible?

I can't prove it, because because of my belief that 'consciousness' is a spiritual, and not material (bits and bytes) thing, mankind will be unable to achieve it. so, I can only offer it as an opinion.

Perhaps. I doubt it. And it is precisely why I put this OP to a religion and philosophy forum instead of the science forum.

I don't doubt that AI can become so sophisticated that it will fool many or most people.

I am confident that I cannot be fooled, if I am given enough time to evaluate any AI device.

Let me be clear. My OP isn't about 'intelligence' in the sense of intellectual capacity, it's about 'consciousness', it's about 'self-awareness' it's about 'LIFE' it's about 'being ALIVE'. It's about that quantity which inanimate but animated material object can never achieve.
.

My belief in the 'soul' became solidified after I had a number of OOBEs. (Out of body experiences).

Some might argue that the OOBEs were 'dreams'. But dreams are always a memory. While you are dreaming you are never aware that you are dreaming, you are not self aware, you are asleep.

That's the difference. When I had the OOBEs, I was NOT asleep. You know when you are awake. You never know when you are asleep until after you wake up and remember your dream.

Once you experience an OOBE, you will then know that you are an immortal soul, something separate from your physical body. The epiphany is life changing, as you will realize that there is no such thing as death.

 

AI has come up with prediction of the 2023 NFL season, and its pretty close to the experts predictions.

 

Would love to see AI replace lawyers

 

Sure, i'm just not sure that is a very big deal in the long run.

 

Thats basically what I mean. Close enough. When its capable of programming itself in a way that isnt intended.

 

I am using your response, but this could have been to any who have contributed to this thread.

You folks are so wrong for so many reasons that it's hard to know where to start but let me just say the following for now and I will chime in later to fill in when I have more time.

First of all, NOBODY understands how thinking works. It's all very loose theories that have virtually no basis. Considering this is the case, how could any of you possibly speculate on the potential of AI? From my perspective, AI is going to leave us in the dust [and already has in many respects].

As well, do you really believe we understand what makes us "human?" We don't even know why one's penis hangs to the right or left yet!

All of your responses seem like wishful thinking to me. Remember, our ability to access reality has to do with our ability to process information. If a machine can process a million or a billion times more information per unit time than can we, do you know what this might imply?

AI is going to redefine life as we know it.

 

A machine can process data faster than a human, but it can never be 'human' or anything close to it, in terms of sentience, self awareness, 'consciousness' , etc.

 

You are misusing the term, A.I. To be more exact, you are using the term, in the incorrect way, of many in popular society, who do not know their ones, from their zeros. Alexa is not A.I. The creators of Chat GPT, would be the first to admit that neither theirs, nor any other chatbot, is artificial intelligence, as that idea has always been conceived of by science, even as it currently, is still being pursued. As of yet, however, no one has yet announced the creation of true, artificial intelligence, which is taken to mean consciousness. Of course their is still much debate over it, because that "consciousness" will not be human consciousness. It will, however, be self-aware.

There are a number of organizations, investing huge sums of money and which are steadily progressing toward that eventuality, including the Chinese government. We may get there, as soon as 2030, though as little as ten years ago, you would have seen an even split among scientists in related fields, on the question of whether it is feasible; now, there are few who will not say that it is only a question of when. And, among those, hardly a one who doubts it will happen before the middle of this century.

Your thesis actually misses the most salient point. Namely, that when inanimate components are used to create an independently, free- thinking consciousness, it will challenge, and overturn, our forever- held notion, of what life, is.

 

Sure, and the point of the entire debate is that this "premise" may very well be wrong.

For an argument to work, the argument needs to be valid and the premises need to be true. If you bring a premise that might just as well be false, then you've already missed the mark.

Then why is it your opinion? Why do you state it as if it is true, when you have to repeat that you can't actually bind it to reality in any way?

Seems to be a non-sequitur. Our AIs are not that advanced yet, so even if everything about humans could be truly replicated, we wouldn't expect to see very convincing AIs yet. So your only justification seems to have no power to actually tell you which is true.

Am I right in saying that your argument boils down to "if I haven't seen it done, then it cannot happen"? Do you think that is a good line of reasoning?

"In a sense"? The onus lies on those making a claim. You made the claim that AI is a "dead thing talking", the claim is yours, the onus is on you.

If someone makes the claim that consciousness is only material, then they would have a burden of proof. However, "science" hasn't claimed that (claims that have not met their burden of proof can't really be said to be claimed by science). Nor have I claimed it, I have been quite careful only to talk about what is possible.

Sure, but for your "AI is a dead thing talking" to be true, it isn't enough to just doubt the other suggestion, the other suggestion must be shown to be wrong.

Philosophy isn't just an excuse to believe things without good reason.

So where does this "confidence" come from then, given that you don't have any actual justification for the view that "humans can only fake life"?

Sure, but you haven't been able to pin point what that quantity is, or whether it exists at all. You writing it in caps doesn't fill me with great confidence that you know what you're talking about.

This doesn't seem sufficient to me. Where do you get "dreams are always a memory" from? That doesn't seem true to me, many of my dreams are things that I have no memory of happening in real life. Where do you get "you know when you're awake" from? It's not uncommon that people have occasional dreams that seem more real than their normal dreams. There are also hallucinations and day dreams.

So, are you telling me an AI couldn't have a function that generates an out of body experience? It could simply generate a dream (perhaps make it something other than a direct memory, if that's actually a requirement), flip the little switch that remembers whether something was a dream, and boom, it would have the same thing you have. I don't (yet) see anything about an OOBE that suggests human minds have something AIs couldn't have.

 

Ah, so like a Homo Ex Machina.

Surely the chemical reactions could be calculated, or at least pretty well approximated? Or perhaps we could have little vats that do the specific reactions, if you necessarily want it to be fundamentally chemical?

When you say "way more complicated", do you mean it is just a matter of complexity that we in practice won't be able to get to, rather than a fundamentally different thing?

So, let's say we built a robot that computed how a brain would react (perhaps one or two bits of it where some chemical reactions are included), in what sense would that robot not be said to have fallen in love?

Oh, I think we have absolutely established that the range of definitions is a problem.

 

Considering that we don't know what any of that means [or is], how can you even suggest it?

Look back into history at all the people who said, "This is impossible." Not only is it possible, it is happening right before our eyes!

What is on the other side of AI is the really interesting part.

 

My thesis is that A.I. is a misnomer, because, as you say, it implies actual intelligence, ergo 'consciousness' created artificially. I therefore recommend calling it SI, as in Simulated Intelligence. In addition to that, my thesis is that mankind, though his machines will appear to be conscious, in fact, they will never be, because consciousness, the basis for consciousness is spiritual, not material, there no organic bits and bytes lingering anywhere in the brain that can be duplicated by machinery, and given this, mankind will never be able to create life for the creation of life is the province of the universe/God/ultimate truth (or whatever spiritual concept endears one the most.) and has a spiritual basis. And to say that, I do not mean that the source of life is an 'intelligent designer', for I do not accept the premise that life was created by a supreme being nor do I believe in such a thing (it's not logical), but I do believe in a collective spirituality that is the source of life, but not in a planned or intentional or 'designed' way, it's pure randomity in a grand cosmic ballet of sorts. For those Scientists who refuse to accept that the basis to life is spiritual, it is my belief that they will be forever frustrated in their attempt to reach an impossible goal. Terms like 'life', 'alive' consciousness, awareness, self-awareness, these are all terms meaning life, itself, and life has a spiritual basis, and that basis it is not located in time and space. The basis for life and the material world exist in two separate spheres, though the spiritual is the ultimate source of the material, as in latter flows, wells up, from the former.

That's my belief, philosophy, etc., of course, I am no scientist.

 

Hallucinations is another subject. Day Dreams are done while one is awake, and merely allowing one's focus to drift into thoughts. This isn't really the same thing as dreaming while one is asleep.

Since a machine has no soul, it is not 'alive' it does not have 'life', it cannot have an OOBE.

Since a machine does not have life, and only life can dream, it cannot 'generate a dream'. If it generates anything, it will be something, but it won't be a dream.

My view is that if you ever were to have an OOBE, you'd understand my point of view much better. I can see that, without such an experience, your opinion appears to be more logical.

When you talk about dreams, it's usually after you wake up, and, thus, at that point, the dream is memory. In my own experience, I'm never 'self aware' of my dream while I'm dreaming. The moment that does happens is the moment I awaken.

Now, on the other point:

I'm a pianist. I'm very sensitive to aural sensations. I told a friend of mine, who was claiming that the modern digital pianos are so sophisticated now that one cannot tell the difference between an acoustic piano and a digital piano. I told him that was bunk, I know for a fact that I could tell the difference between, say one of the finer acoustic pianos (old pianos would be too easy) and the finest digitals. He took me up on that challenge. we went over to a piano store that had both in their inventory and he blindfolded. He blindfolded me. Sat me down at a piano, an expensive one, I played something rather simple (any pianist of moderate ability can play without looking at the keyboard, and I can do it fairly well) and we did this on several pianos and my assessment was instant. I knew instantly which was the digital, and which was the acoustic. He was amazed that I could do this, and he asked me how I was able to do it, so confidently, so quickly. The only explanation I could give him was that, to my ears, the digital sound, though it sounds like an acoustic piano, there's a certain deadness to the sound, I can't describe it, but I know it instantly.

He then posited that I was able to tell the difference because the digital piano keys are weighted, but in dissimilar ways between the acoustic and digital, and that is how I could tell. (the pianos 'feel' different). I said to him, okay, then YOU play something on both pianos, and let's see if I can tell. He told me he doesn't pay the piano (and of course I knew this) but I told him, it doesn't matter, just take one of your fingers and bang out some notes (and pedal while doing it), it doesn't have to be musical. So, we did it, and voila, I still had no problem telling the difference. on staccato notes is much harder to tell, but with the sustain pedal down, playing an arpeggio, no problem.

He tried this trick via email over the internet, and I told him that ALL sounds coming from a recording (from a CD, radio, etc ) are 'dead' and it is hard to tell a digital recording of an acoustic piano from a digital piano. Why? Because a digital piano is essentially a recording of an acoustic piano ( a 'sampled' sound), so listening to an acoustic piano over the internet is hardly that much different from listening to a digital piano recorded.

what is my point? My point is that I can tell an A.I. voice from a live human's voice, as long as I'm able to listen to both 'live'. (not a recording of a human voice, though with more time, I think I could still tell the difference. Live I could tell instantly. ).

That fact that I can do this, to me, proves that A.I. is a 'dead thing talking' just as a digital piano is a dead sound playing. (it is this reason that I don't listen to recorded music much, I prefer live performances, and on the live performances, I prefer acoustic instruments. I find my ears growing fatigued after listening to any recording, or playing a digital piano. I can only stand playing a digital piano for about 15 minutes, then my ears want for the acoustic piano.

From this, and for the fact of my OOBE, I believe life has a spiritual basis, that that basis does not exist in time and space.

 

The statement 'nothing is impossible' is not a true statement.

For example, someone asserts that give a monkey a typewriter and allow him to bang on it into infinity, and eventually he will write a Shakespearean play.

Though we can never prove it, but, my view is that no, it is impossible, unless, of course, the chimp evolves to a human state of consciousness.

However, place a bucket of dice on a table, and keep tossing the hundreds of dice pairs onto the table, and do it into infinity, and eventually you will get ALL sixes.

It might take a trillion years, but it will eventually happen.

So, the thing is to understand what is possible and what isn't. I really can't deliver that understanding to you or anyone. Moreover, I do not claim this ability in any absolute sense. Sure, I could be wrong. But I do believe the above statements are accurate.

Some things you just have to have an innate sense of it to understand.

AI is a machine. Machines are not life.

Humans, animals, organisms, etc., are.

They are different spheres, there is no linear relationship between the two. I.,e, the Moores Law will get your machine quicker and quicker, double every two years or so, but it will never arrive at 'life'.

But, if the bucket of dice is the universe in toto, something is added to this equation, and that something is that the universe (life in all it's glory) has a spiritual basis, and that, given enough time, life will occur, even if seemingly out of the void.

Assuming infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

Life arises solely because it's possible, and the universe is eternal

Do I know that for a fact? No, but it's logical to me, anyway. If God is anything, it is an abstraction called infinity.

 

What does this [really] mean?

Eternal is a long time. How do you know it's eternal?

It's logical to you?

Instead of interpolating to infinity, wouldn't it seem a bit more reasonable to just admit that we have no clue? We use systems of thought that evolve with our knowledge but one thing we know for sure is that what is true today is not tomorrow. The key is to understand the flow of change and not be overly concerned with particulars as they are impermanent.

And good luck with trying to intellectualize God. All the great things in life are those resistant to our insatiable desire to "understand." We don't [really] understand anything [and thank God for small favors!].

 

most of the questions i asked chatgpt it got wrong. so much for taking over the world, it cant even take over one person.

 

Just take it at face value. Since infinity hasn't been proven, the only way the sentence can work, logically, is to assume it.

So, if you had a pair of dice, noting that all sixes is possible, so juust keep throwing the dice until they turn up. Given only a pair, the odds are it won't take that long.

But, what about a bucket of dice? Assuming infinity, they will eventually turn up all sixes. Why? Because it's possible, 'assuming infinity'. It might take a million years, or a billion, or maybe a trillion or longer, but, all numbers are infinitesimal compared to infinity.

This goes for all that is possible. It doesn't go for that which is not possible.

Since life is possible, and the number of things that had to be in place are a rather large number (from a human perspective), I assert, conclude, deduce, that the odds of it happening are remote, but if the backdrop is infinity, then the only thing else that must be true is that life is possible. ANd we do know the answer to that.

So, 'assuming infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable'. Thus we have life. How so? Because it's possible and it has an infinite amount of time to occur in randomity.

we don't, of course, know. But, infinity does exist in the abstract, just as all math exists in the abstract.

No one knows, nor can anyone ever know, the secrets of the universe. But, we can speculate for our amusement, if for no other reason.

I do not believe in a Supreme Being. To me, it's illogical and a half baked solution to a void in the mind that seeks to be fulfilled.

I do, however, believe in the eternal soul, which is inherent in all living things, and that life has a spiritual basis. Not a creator/designer, but a source/basis.

 

Would you mind posting one of your prompts, and copy and paste ChatGPT's answer which is wrong?

Thanks .

FYI, ChatGPT-4's database cutoff date is in 2021. But, if you have a microsoft account, and use bing, bing is now in cahoots with ChatGPT, and it's answers are now not limited to a cut off date, since it can scour the internet from Microsoft Edge (I guess they will force you to use that browser and that search engine, but it works much better than just signing on to ChatGPT which isn't connected to the internet.)

 

I asked it where the first temple of the jews was built outside of Israel. It said they built no temples outside of Israel when in fact the first outside of Israel was in nubia. It said "thanks for the correction" and preceded to tell me about the temple in elephantine that I already knew about.

 

To All: A simple but accurate description for consciousness, is having "inner experience."

Humanity, & consciousness, are two very different things. Therefore, restricting your concept of consciousness to the human model, is like considering only one small band, within a broad spectrum.

See top: "inner experience."


There'd been one other poster, originally, here-- but now he's sent me a reply to an earlier post, so I needn't hold up this reply, to finish addressing his quote.

 

ChatGPT says right on the opening page, that it can get facts wrong. For every data point it offers me, I fact check it.

However, I find that most of the time, it's correct. Now, on 'critiques', if I ask Chat to critique and essay, it brings up many valid points, but I don't always agree with it's conclusions, or it's evaluation might be addressing a point I wasn't really concerned about.

No one is a suggesting that Chat is the final word on anything, but it's definitely helpful in many ways. You have to be smart about it. The more robust and well articulated the prompt is, the more robust it's replies will be.

But you seem to be tossing the babe out with the bathwater, as it were.

 

Ok, is this something we suggest that humans have? Or could it be that we merely have the illusion of this inner experience? Presumably, an AI could have such an illusion as well, and if having the illusion is very easy and having the real deal is completely inexplainable, isn't it more likely that what we have is the illusion? And if that illusion is all consciousness has ever been, perhaps the definition should also cover the illusion.

 

You wish has come true: