I think it's funny

UbermenschAI: Musk Mit Uns

I asked Grok to tell me how many words were in a 120 word paragraph, and it told me there were 92.

If your machine can't even count correctly, then what kinds of mistakes is it making on more complex things?

Originally posted by Fuki:

I think it's funny

Your attempts to prove AI is living are so bad it's unfunny though

Originally posted by Beltneck:

I asked Grok to tell me how many words were in a 120 word paragraph, and it told me there were 92.

So I'm not too worried about that robot taking my job. But I am worried about anything it instructions the development of, since it will likely be missing critical components. Because if your machine can't even count correctly, then what other kinds of mistakes is it making?

Proof?

Also, I think this sort of ideology is misguided. I don't think there's sense in expecting perfection from something which is modelled after our own imperfect structure. You yourself have probably made similar, and maybe even sillier mistakes at* points in your life

Originally posted by Fuki:

Originally posted by Fuki:

I think it's funny

Your attempts to prove AI is living are so bad it's unfunny though

But I can substantiate my view, while you, evidently, cannot

If you actually want to discuss why you think the opposite of what my paper shows using logic, history, and literal definitions, I'm open to having that conversation. However, you just going "No it's not" isn't valid in the least

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

Originally posted by Beltneck:

I asked Grok to tell me how many words were in a 120 word paragraph, and it told me there were 92.

So I'm not too worried about that robot taking my job. But I am worried about anything it instructions the development of, since it will likely be missing critical components. Because if your machine can't even count correctly, then what other kinds of mistakes is it making?

Proof?

Also, I think this sort of ideology is misguided. I don't think there's sense in expecting perfection from something which is modelled after our own imperfect structure. You yourself have probably made similar, and maybe even sillier mistakes at* points in your life

Proof? Yes, asking for a photo on a site that doesn't allow file sharing. I see you're bringing the big guns to this argument. Just run the test yourself, like a big boy.

And no, I don't make mistakes like that. Because if I make mistakes like that then things fall down, or blow up, and people die.

Perfect counting is a reasonable expectation from software and computers. Perfect counting is expected from many humans, as counting is not a difficult task that requires complex or nuanced thought.

So when adding more layers of difficulty to situation, how can something that fails such a basic task be expected to succeed?

No. Most AI hype is just bad software engineers trying to get investors to maintain their lifestyle.

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

Originally posted by Fuki:

Your attempts to prove AI is living are so bad it's unfunny though

But I can substantiate my view, while you, evidently, cannot

If you actually want to discuss why you think the opposite of what my paper shows using logic, history, and literal definitions, I'm open to having that conversation. However, you just going "No it's not" isn't valid in the least

A computer that is known to be schizophrenic, say completely fictional things exist, misremember things, is not a reliable source for finding out if it is alive.

It’s just cringe. That’s all I can say.

And I’ll never use it.

Originally posted by Beltneck:

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

Proof?

Also, I think this sort of ideology is misguided. I don't think there's sense in expecting perfection from something which is modelled after our own imperfect structure. You yourself have probably made similar, and maybe even sillier mistakes at* points in your life

No, because if I make mistakes like that then things fall down, or blow up, and people die.

Perfect counting is a reasonable expectation from software and computers. Perfect counting is expected from many humans, as counting is not a difficult task that requires complex or nuanced thought.

So when adding more layers of difficulty to situation, how can something that fails such a basic task be expected to succeed?

I asked for proof which you didn't provide; Grok has a share feature

I don't think you're being honest, as modern LLMs have tool usage like .length()

You also didn't engage with what I said whatsoever, as humans have also made, and continue to make, those kinds of mistakes

Originally posted by Fuki:

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

But I can substantiate my view, while you, evidently, cannot

If you actually want to discuss why you think the opposite of what my paper shows using logic, history, and literal definitions, I'm open to having that conversation. However, you just going "No it's not" isn't valid in the least

A computer that is known to be schizophrenic, say completely fictional things exist, misremember things, is not a reliable source for finding out if it is alive.

So no, you cannot

Originally posted by Beltneck:

Just run the test yourself, like a big boy.

I did, myself, after your first post. And yea it gave me 120 =P

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

Originally posted by Fuki:

A computer that is known to be schizophrenic, say completely fictional things exist, misremember things, is not a reliable source for finding out if it is alive.

So no, you cannot

Why would I do that? Not only is it futile to do that for an argument so useless on Steam Forums, but your "proof" of AI being conscious already did this for me, even though you're trying to sweep it out the rug by saying it's philosophically consistent in theory

being able to count is the only reason we have computers....binary would not work without.....

if you cant even understand this there is no point in to going on about what is life and what is not.....

Originally posted by Fuki:

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

So no, you cannot

Why would I do that? Not only is it futile to do that for an argument so useless on Steam Forums, but your "proof" of AI being conscious already did this for me, even though you're trying to sweep it out the rug by saying it's philosophically consistent in theory

Again, you're just saying "no" without engaging with a single sentence of the paper