General > General Technical Chat
OpenAI ChatGPT for electronics design
<< < (5/9) > >>
JPortici:

--- Quote from: Brumby on February 27, 2023, 02:06:28 am ---< I went the next step ...>

Q: Respond to the same question sarcastically

A: Oh, absolutely! Humans are renowned for their unparalleled intelligence. I mean, who else could come up with such brilliant ideas like using plastic straws and bags that take hundreds of years to decompose, or starting wars over trivial matters, or creating reality TV shows that celebrate shallowness and stupidity? Clearly, we are the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe.

Q: Tell me more!

A: Well, where do I even begin? Humans are so intelligent that we can't even figure out how to live sustainably on our own planet without causing widespread environmental destruction. We're so smart that we spend billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction instead of investing in things that would actually benefit our species, like education and healthcare. And let's not forget how clever we are at ignoring scientific evidence and choosing to believe in myths and superstitions instead. Truly, it's a wonder how we've managed to survive this long with such exceptional intelligence.




< I think I might stop here >  ;D

--- End quote ---

that is literally a quote from something, word for word. but i can't remember from where...

EDIT: It could be one episode from Love/Death/Robots, one in which the robot trio visits earth, and the quote should be from the robot with female voice describing humanity achievements in a sarcastic tone (which would be a fun coincidence)
eti:
Gosh, the sheer (actually clumsy, laughable) arrogance of the programmers of AI systems to even hint that AI “could” replace human intelligence, given to us by the creator of the universe.

You know you have your answer when the answer is as vague as “not anytime soon” but they’re too arrogant and cock sure to be HONEST and say “Don’t be utterly ludicrous! I’m just a machine; are you drunk?!”

Mankind’s feeble, clumsy “advances” thinking they’re somehow capable of replacing GODs creations. Yeah? Okay. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
MK14:

--- Quote from: eti on February 27, 2023, 07:28:09 am ---Gosh, the sheer (actually clumsy, laughable) arrogance of the programmers of AI systems to even hint that AI “could” replace human intelligence, given to us by the creator of the universe.

You know you have your answer when the answer is as vague as “not anytime soon” but they’re too arrogant and cock sure to be HONEST and say “Don’t be utterly ludicrous! I’m just a machine; are you drunk?!”

Mankind’s feeble, clumsy “advances” thinking they’re somehow capable of replacing GODs creations. Yeah? Okay. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

--- End quote ---


I put your question (last post), to it, and it responded.  Which got us chatting, and ending up discussing the validity, of part of what you said.  Later part of discussion, here:


--- Quote ---Certainly. There are several arguments that have been put forward over the years to suggest that a master creator or higher power may not exist. Here are some of the most common ones:

    The Problem of Evil: This argument states that the existence of a master creator or higher power is inconsistent with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If there was a perfect, all-powerful, and all-loving creator, then they would have the power and desire to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering, yet it still exists in the world. This contradiction suggests that a master creator or higher power does not exist.

    The Argument from Inconsistency: This argument suggests that many of the attributes commonly associated with a master creator or higher power are logically inconsistent with one another. For example, if a master creator is all-powerful, then they should be able to create a stone that is too heavy for them to lift, but if they are unable to lift the stone, then they are not all-powerful. This and similar logical paradoxes suggest that a master creator or higher power may not exist.

    The Argument from Ignorance: This argument suggests that the existence of a master creator or higher power is based on the assumption that natural processes cannot account for certain phenomena. However, this assumption is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't currently understand how something works, it doesn't mean that it must be the work of a master creator or higher power. Science has demonstrated that many things that were once attributed to a master creator can actually be explained through natural processes.

    Occam's Razor: This argument suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Therefore, if there is a naturalistic explanation for the universe and all living things within it, then it is more likely to be correct than a complex explanation involving a master creator or higher power.

    Lack of Evidence: This argument states that there is no empirical evidence or scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of a master creator or higher power. Claims about the existence of a master creator or higher power are based on faith, personal experience, or philosophical reasoning, rather than empirical evidence or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is difficult to make a convincing argument for the existence of a master creator or higher power based on evidence alone.


More?

Certainly, here are some additional points that have been raised in arguments against the existence of a master creator or higher power:

    The Argument from Cultural Relativism: This argument suggests that the existence of a master creator or higher power is culturally constructed and varies from culture to culture. Different religions have different beliefs about the nature of the master creator, their attributes, and their role in the world. If the existence of a master creator or higher power was a universal truth, then there would be more consistency across cultures and religions. The fact that beliefs about the master creator vary so widely suggests that it is a human construct rather than a real entity.

    The Argument from Naturalism: This argument suggests that the universe and all living things within it can be explained solely by natural processes, such as evolution and the laws of physics. There is no need to invoke a master creator or higher power to explain the origin and diversity of life on earth. In fact, the scientific method has been able to explain many things that were once attributed to a master creator, such as the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on earth.

    The Argument from Personal Experience: This argument suggests that personal experiences of a master creator or higher power are subjective and cannot be verified by others. People may have feelings of awe, wonder, or transcendence that they attribute to a master creator or higher power, but these experiences are not proof of the existence of a real entity. Moreover, personal experiences of a master creator or higher power are often inconsistent and contradictory, which suggests that they are more likely to be the result of psychological and cultural factors rather than the presence of a real entity.

    The Argument from the Absence of Miracles: This argument suggests that the lack of observable miracles or supernatural events in the world suggests that there is no master creator or higher power who intervenes in the world. If a master creator or higher power existed, then they would be expected to occasionally intervene in the world in order to demonstrate their presence and power. However, the absence of such events suggests that a master creator or higher power does not exist or does not intervene in the world.

These are just a few of the many arguments that have been made against the existence of a master creator or higher power. Ultimately, the question of whether a master creator or higher power exists is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, and different people may come to different conclusions based on their own values, experiences, and perspectives.

More?

Sure, here are a few more arguments against the existence of a master creator or higher power:

    The Argument from Evil: This argument suggests that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is incompatible with the idea of a loving and all-powerful master creator or higher power. If a master creator or higher power existed, then they would presumably be able to prevent or alleviate suffering and evil, but these things continue to occur in the world. The existence of evil and suffering is therefore seen as evidence against the existence of a master creator or higher power.

    The Argument from Incoherence: This argument suggests that the concept of a master creator or higher power is incoherent or self-contradictory. For example, if a master creator is all-powerful, can they create a stone so heavy that even they cannot lift it? This paradoxical question suggests that the concept of an all-powerful master creator may be logically inconsistent or impossible.

    The Argument from Unintelligibility: This argument suggests that the concept of a master creator or higher power is unintelligible or meaningless. Some philosophers have argued that the concept of a master creator or higher power is too abstract or vague to be meaningful or coherent. Without a clear definition of what is meant by a master creator or higher power, it is difficult to evaluate whether or not they exist.

These arguments all point towards the idea that there are logical and philosophical inconsistencies with the concept of a master creator or higher power. Whether or not these arguments are ultimately convincing will depend on an individual's own beliefs and worldviews.

Any additional points?

Sure, here are a few more points to consider:

    The Argument from Evolution: Some argue that the theory of evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth, without the need for a master creator or higher power. According to this argument, the development of life through natural selection and genetic mutation is a sufficient explanation for the diversity of species we observe today.

    The Argument from Science: Many scientific discoveries have challenged traditional religious beliefs and put into question the idea of a master creator or higher power. For example, the discovery of the Big Bang suggests that the universe had a beginning, which contradicts the idea of an eternal master creator. Additionally, advancements in neuroscience and psychology have provided naturalistic explanations for phenomena that were previously attributed to divine intervention.

    The Argument from Occam's Razor: This argument suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. According to this principle, if there are two explanations for a phenomenon, the one that makes fewer assumptions is more likely to be true. In the case of the master creator or higher power, the naturalistic explanation that doesn't require the existence of an all-powerful being is simpler and therefore more likely to be true.

These arguments all point towards the idea that the concept of a master creator or higher power is unnecessary, unprovable, and potentially incompatible with scientific discoveries and naturalistic explanations. Again, whether or not these arguments are ultimately convincing will depend on an individual's own beliefs and worldview.

So, is there anything to suggest, that such a creator or higher power, might actually exist?

There are certainly arguments and beliefs that suggest the existence of a master creator or higher power. Here are a few examples:

    The Cosmological Argument: This argument suggests that the existence of the universe requires a first cause, which is often attributed to a master creator or higher power. The idea is that everything that exists must have a cause, and since the universe exists, there must be a cause that brought it into being.

    The Teleological Argument: This argument suggests that the complexity and order of the universe suggest the presence of a master creator or higher power. The idea is that the universe appears to be designed for a specific purpose or end, and this design implies the existence of an intelligent creator.

    Religious Experience: Many people report having experiences that they interpret as encounters with a higher power or master creator. These experiences can range from feelings of awe and wonder in nature to more mystical or transcendent experiences that are difficult to describe.

    Personal Beliefs: For some people, the existence of a master creator or higher power is a matter of faith or personal conviction. They may feel that the universe is too complex or miraculous to be the result of chance, or they may feel a deep sense of connection to a higher power through prayer or religious practices.

It's important to note that none of these arguments or beliefs provide conclusive proof of the existence of a master creator or higher power. Whether or not such a being exists is ultimately a matter of personal belief and interpretation of the available evidence.

Continue

    Moral Argument: Some people argue that the existence of a master creator or higher power is necessary to ground objective morality. The idea is that without a higher power to establish moral standards, there can be no objective basis for morality. Therefore, the existence of objective morality implies the existence of a master creator or higher power.

    The Argument from Consciousness: This argument suggests that the existence of consciousness and subjective experience cannot be explained by materialistic or naturalistic explanations alone. The idea is that consciousness is a unique and irreducible feature of reality that requires the existence of a master creator or higher power.

    The Argument from Miracles: Some people point to supposed miracles as evidence for the existence of a master creator or higher power. These miracles are often interpreted as supernatural events that defy natural laws and suggest the intervention of a higher power.

It's worth noting that many of these arguments have been critiqued and debated by philosophers and theologians over the centuries, and there is no consensus on whether they provide strong evidence for the existence of a master creator or higher power. Ultimately, whether or not such a being exists is a matter of personal belief and interpretation of the available evidence.

So is there evidence, these miracles actually took place?

The question of whether miracles actually take place is a matter of debate and interpretation, and opinions on this subject vary widely depending on one's beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Many people believe in the existence of miracles and point to a variety of experiences and events that they believe cannot be explained by natural causes alone. These include apparent healings, near-death experiences, and other phenomena that are interpreted as evidence of divine intervention or supernatural forces.

However, skeptics of miracles argue that these events can often be explained by natural causes or are simply the result of wishful thinking, superstition, or coincidence. They may point to the lack of scientific evidence for miraculous events and argue that any claims of miracles should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before being accepted as true.

It's worth noting that the question of whether miracles actually take place is ultimately a matter of personal belief and interpretation of the available evidence. Some people may find certain experiences or events convincing evidence of miracles, while others may remain skeptical or unconvinced.
--- End quote ---
eti:
Any amount of pseudo intellectual “wisdom” to attempt to “disprove” GODs existence. I don’t care to read that wall of idiocy . God is real. That thing is merely a reflection of, or vaguely as “clever” as the intelligence or stupidity it’s been fed with when being designed.
MK14:

--- Quote from: eti on February 27, 2023, 08:36:35 am ---Any amount of pseudo intellectual “wisdom” to attempt to “disprove” GODs existence. I don’t care to read that wall of idiocy . God is real. That thing is merely a reflection of, or vaguely as “clever” as the intelligence or stupidity it’s been fed with when being designed.

--- End quote ---

You seem to be essentially saying, the old computer adage.  Garbage in, garbage out.

When / if, these AI systems, ever become more genuinely, generally intelligent.  We might be able to get more interesting / sensible / debatable answers.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod