Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

is not the same as

Statistical significance is enough.

These are two different things.

Not meaningful to discuss in a universal context. As in where did we come from? How did the universe form? What is the nature of reality? The question is not profound in this sense as it is just a categorization problem. From this perspective they are arbitrary.

Of course categorization is very meaningful in other contexts like the ones I listed in my first paragraph. But you have to realize that you're getting into stuff like law, literature, poetry, ethics and things that are arbitrarily given meaning because we are human. Questions in this area are not profound nor meaningful from the "universal context" which is the frame of my point and this branching thread.

That type of processing is not within the scope of its capability.

Ask it. Prod it. Try to force it. It'll tell you.

I like Ai. But It's important to be realistic. It can't abstract in a completely creative way from a basis of language with embedded and only-implied meta-patterns, the latter which is the nature of human cognition.

I just tried asking Bing ChatGPT to solve the most rudimentary allegory: presented in a single sentence and with given three solution options. It deflected endlessly, before telling me that it couldn't solve it for the benefit of my self-growth and then signing itself off!

It'll be nice when open source Ai renders these clownish interactions obsolete, but there still isn't evidence that it can begin to mimic the plasticity of human cognition.

What it can do is bs a lot when it hits a dead end.

Ai can match shapes, as a rudimentary part of its ability. That is a start. But what it needs to be able to do is decaode complex narrative as a shape, and then identify the same shape in other narratives and concepts. Thereby making a novel connection born out of abstract thought. Or it even might create a new model (ie: allegory) using the prior undetected pattern. As high IQ humans do, subconsciously and sometimes consciously.

That may be the case, conceding your chosen use of language. The minutia doesn't matter if it can't demonstrate novel high level creativity for novel problems.

Acknowledging the importance of its actual capabilities, but also acknowledging that we are arguing over one: applied abstract thinking. If it can't output what is requested, then there is a lie somehwere in the description of its processing IF it is held to be capable.

>When I query chatGPT I look for intelligence, when you query it you look for flaws.

I disagree with your binary frame. One can't acknowledge its ability and where it falls short?

>What will happen is this. I will present to you a prompt and the result which I believe verifies the status of chatGPT as an AI capable of solving novel problems

This is an irrelevant prediction that seeks to straw man this conversation, because you haven't done this.

Keep in mind that my argument rests in creative language analysis. Not in its ability to process math, biological systems logic, nor anything parallel.

> We can attempt to pre empt this. I can allow you to come up with a prompt to produce something novel but what will happen is that you will choose a prompt biased towards your argument and I will choose a prompt clearly biased towards mine and we will each have excuses for why the other is invalid

Do you understand that trying to predict a conversation as a form of argument and an attempt at an IQ display (respectfullly) is boorish and boils down to fallacy?

>But you are unaware of this.

Nevermind. You are faking intellgience as a fig leaf for being arrogant and insulting as a substitute for conversation.

>You will never believe ai can produce novel things. Nothing anyone can say will ever convince you at this moment. What may convince you is over a span of 10 years as ai improves your opinion slowly flips the same way a scientologist slowly comes to terms that he is in a cult.

This is how you speak about a piece of software, to another human being, and I'm the one who is acting like they are in a cult?

>my intense meta-analysis

You think that you have presented "intense meta-analysis"?

My recommendation to you, toward improving your writing and thinking, is to pare down the number of words that you use toward the goal of distilling the actual information that you present. Here, it isn't much. Its an accusation of bias, religious thinking, and insults. Combined with sparse comments on the tech and a barely decipherable fully hypothetical thought experiment without a clear stream of logic. There was nothing intense nor meta about it, aside from the intensity of the word count.

>am I blind or are you?

I'm having a flashback to middle school writing assignments. Last, no one called anyone "blind" except for you.