AI Just a Copy Machine

[yetineti]

@AION

How are you actually managing its agreeableness, though?

Ironically, telling something to be less agreeable and having it do that is still it agreeing with you, even if it technically disagrees with each individual notion.

It is never actually deciding what is good for you.

I’m not sure you’re demonstrating an understanding of the danger of engaging with it on such topics.

Why would you engage with it on spiritual topics, with the least of amount of data, congruency, agreement, etc.?

It may be able to mimic those people, but it is not itself enlightened.

When I send it a model number, have it talk through a specific emotional issue, look something up, there is a starting point and an end point.

There is no room for confusion.

I understand how your ways are helpful, still. I’m just not understanding how you’re ensuring they’re helpful, opposed to just ruminating in thoughts of thoughts.

Edited Wednesday at 09:34 PM by yetineti

[Human Mint]

It is fairly simple. AI just makes use of the collective imagination. It does not posses imagination of its own. When you write a prompt you are the one doing the imagining, despite it being able to actualize it or not. Where does AI leaches from??? Our imagination. We can imagine new things, AI not. But it is more deceptive because it actually feels like it imagines new things, because maybe it does create things we've never seen, using its immense database. But the database is the limit, once it exhaust that then is over and dumb and we have to feed it again to make it useful.

Does AI have potential? Yes, it has quite a tremendous ammount of potential. Useful businesses will be created with it, new cool services will be invented. 

[Human Mint]

3 hours ago, AION said:

And to be honest, I'm disappointed in most humans

Most humans are not hyper talented, that's a fact.

[Human Mint]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

Ironically, telling something to be less agreeable and having it do that is still it agreeing with you, even if it technically disagrees with each individual notion.

There is no irony in that, just a pun.

Quote

It is never actually deciding what is good for you.

It decides based on what the programmers/ceos decide it's good for you. Which is way too problematic since they're negligents (with the ChatGPT, Claude type of AIs). Otherwise you would understand that showing me my own flaws would be the best thing to do.

Edited Wednesday at 11:03 PM by Human Mint

[yetineti]

2 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Most humans are not hyper talented, that's a fact.

That’s not a reason to be disappointed.

 

[Human Mint]

11 hours ago, yetineti said:

That’s not a reason to be disappointed.

It's not a reason to hate humans, but being disappointed sure. How would you feel if you are paired with the lazy group and you see next group hard-working and ambitious? Pretty dissapointed probably, unless you're lazy yourself.

[yetineti]

2 hours ago, Human Mint said:

It's not a reason to hate humans, but being disappointed sure. How would you feel if you are paired with the lazy group and you see next group hard-working and ambitious? Pretty disappointed probably, unless you're lazy yourself.

@Human Mint

Someone said they were disappointed in most humans, and you responded that most humans aren’t hyper-talented. I said that wasn’t a reason to be disappointed—exceptional talent is rare by definition.

Now you’ve introduced hatred, which nobody mentioned, and switched to an example about lazy teammates. But lacking exceptional talent isn’t laziness. Someone can work hard and still not be hyper-talented.

And if I wouldn’t feel the way you expect, I’m lazy myself? That might be the laziest argument I’ve ever heard.

sidenote: You must not know what a pun is. I was going to leave that alone but your audacity has me disappointed.

 

Edited 13 hours ago by yetineti

[Human Mint]

@yetineti That's fine, be dissapointed.

33 minutes ago, yetineti said:

But lacking exceptional talent isn’t laziness.

Are you absolutely sure? I don't think you can acquire talent with laziness.

AI agreeing to desagree is more like an unintetional pun to me. When you write the words are agreeing with you, even if you suck at writing. It is more like a slave-mastrer relationship. But whatever, it never actually "agreed" to begin with since it has no will.

39 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Now you’ve introduced hatred, which nobody mentioned

Well I did, because I wanted. How about that.

[yetineti]

@Human Mint 

You’re questioning my certainty without addressing my reasoning, repeating “pun” without explaining it, and answering a question about relevance with “because I wanted.”

That’s a lot of confidence for how little you’ve actually addressed. The pattern is getting tiresome: you introduce a different claim, then act like my objection has been answered.

You implied I might be lazy, yet I’m doing the work of keeping track of both sides of this exchange. I shouldn’t have to reconstruct your argument and explain why it doesn’t answer mine.

[yetineti]

For anyone interested in the reasoning here: even if developing exceptional ability requires effort, lacking exceptional ability doesn’t prove a lack of effort. Hard work doesn’t guarantee exceptional results.

The AI point concerns behavior, not free will. If you request disagreement and receive it, that alone doesn’t establish that the system is independently challenging you. It may be accommodating your preference for being challenged. That’s the irony.

The useful question is whether its criticism holds up when examined—not simply whether it agrees or disagrees.

[Joseph Maynor]

19 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Most humans are not hyper talented, that's a fact.

I think everyone is talented in at least one way but they have to locate that!

[yetineti]

@AION

In our earlier exchange, you said you engage with good questions but withdraw when you see hostility or mere naysaying. Here, you said my assumptions made the discussion tiring. I acknowledged where I’d overstated things and clarified the question.

You described using multiple perspectives. I’m asking how you evaluate whether those perspectives actually challenge your assumptions accurately.

The delay itself isn’t my concern. It’s that we were actively exchanging replies, and the question remains open after that clarification. It leaves me wondering whether we’re repeating the earlier pattern of discussing my approach without resolving the substantive issue.

If you think the question is unfair or rests on a mistaken premise, explain which part. I’m willing to examine that too.

Edited 9 hours ago by yetineti

[Human Mint]

@yetineti Man, let's agree on something! ..  meta-pun

2 hours ago, yetineti said:

You implied I might be lazy

Not. At. All.

Very important: be aware that through text we can't actually sense each other accurately. You can't sense my state precisely.

I do not take for granted your participation here. And I care for the best understanding. If I am mixing those words then sorry, let's move on.

And also, I am not just trolling. I sat through what you wrote and think what you meant and examined it carefully.

Edited 7 hours ago by Human Mint

[yetineti]

 

6 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Very important: be aware that through text we can't actually sense each other accurately. You can't sense my state precisely.

Then stop playing word games and trolling.

6 hours ago, Human Mint said:

I do not take for granted your participation here.

You actively are.

6 hours ago, Human Mint said:

And I care for the best understanding.

Prove it.

6 hours ago, Human Mint said:

If I am mixing those words then sorry, let's move on.

If you don’t know the difference between puns and irony don’t lecture me about forum etiquette.

6 hours ago, Human Mint said:

And also, I am not just trolling. I sat through what you wrote and think what you meant and examined it carefully.

Just stop trolling.