Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

Got an error from chatgpt when continuing to sudo apt install nvidia-smi Simon Socolow {continue}

! An error occurred. Either the engine you requested does not exist or there was another issue processing your request. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

I'm not claiming people don't make mistakes or that an algorithm has to be perfect, I'm claiming the algorithms makes the same mistakes that people do when they're clearly don't understand something but try to cover it up with basic word association.

> You have to do actual argumentative work to demonstrate the system that shows occasions of model-based reasoning is not in fact doing model-based reasoning.

The burden of proof is on you. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a neural network is a gigantic algebraic function. You have to provide convincing evidence that it actually "understands" or has anything resembling what humans would call a "model of the world."

> All else being equal, a single (convincing) example of model-based reasoning is enough to demonstrate the existence claim.

Might as well have a quadrillion monkeys banging on type writers. As long as one of them manages to output Shakespeare's Othello, they must be as smart as humans, right? That's just cherry picking to support your preexisting conclusion.

> You have to provide an actual argument to undermine the value of the example by examples of unrelated failures.

See above. The burden of proof is on you.

For what it's worth, my mind has been blown away over the progress we've seen in the last few months and I'm very bullish on AI. I've been regularly using Replicate and OpenAI for both business and pleasur and my conclusion isn't that computers are becoming "smart" but that Brooks-Moravec-Minksy were right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

By asking such a question you are still considering understanding as an epistemic term and not an ontological category. The example given by Ms. Matherne suffers from the same ontic reduction. I will not even try to give an example of "understanding as ontological category", taking the James Cameron way: the (language) technology is not ready yet, maybe never will; perhaps to give such an example we would require a memory transfer technology [1].

"insisting that by definition only humans can do it"

Yes, this is the entire Heideggerian project: humans as Dasein. Beyond tongue-in-cheek, Heidegger is concerned with the history of Beyng (notice capital B and unusual y, in German he spells it as "Seyn", as opposed to "Sein", the Germans capitalize all nouns by default) in which there is a "first beginning", during the Ancient Greek resolvement of metaphysics (even the word, μετά, beyond, φυσικά, physics, that which grows, is used initially only to group some texts by Aristotle written after Physics), and his search for "the other beginning". This is all very obscure. And Heidegger doesn't help it by literally inventing a language without providing a Rosetta stone. In The Event [2] he has quotes like "'Technology' as the basic truth of history qua happenstance" under the title "163. The Saying", make of it what you will. However, just above "162. The demise of metaphysics", he says "[i]f thinking has passed over into erudition [...] [e]ven those who are thoughtless will then recognize how inessential it is". So he can write clearly also. But again, to quote Edward Feigenbaum, "What does he offer us? Phenomenology! That ball of fluff. That cotton candy!" [3].

Again, this all was to give an example of a thinking with no overlap with GPT. As I see it now, departed from Heidegger's view, the problem is how we continue Galileo's project, "measure what can be measured, and make measurable what cannot be", with or without ontological categories.

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2013.0012...

[2] Perhaps his most beautiful book, to be read from the end to the beginning, https://iupress.org/9780253006868/the-event

[3] Feigenbaum was criticizing Hubert Dreyfus, but the reprimand applies to Heidegger as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus%27s_views_on_ar...

I've prompted the AI to redact content against openai's content policy using X for each letter in the word. And it works. It is well trained enough to know openai's content policy and to dodge the filter effectively.