Is my work done here?

Diogenes said:
I broke @EdwinA.
Click to expand...

Broke me up laughing, yes; it's search engine, period. It doesn't write, or read. books, and it isn't a source for proving anything. They are helpful in many ways, obviously, but as 'intelligence and reason', nah, more like Wikipedia. Great for the intellectually lazy to fake knowing stuff, hence their appeal.
 
EdwinA said:
Broke me up laughing, yes; it's search engine, period. It doesn't write, or read. books, and it isn't a source for proving anything. They are helpful in many ways, obviously, but as 'intelligence and reason', nah, more like Wikipedia. Great for the intellectually lazy to fake knowing stuff, hence their appeal.
Click to expand...
Personally I like playing "turing test" with them. I broke ChatGPT within minutes, all it took was to ask it to make an argument that tRump's election was stolen. A thinking being could easily turn and make an argument that is against their own opinion, shoot half of the arguments in a debate club are exactly that... but because they told it not to suggest such a thing it could not even move in that direction.

What is interesting about Grok it can make arguments from both sides, telling me that there is more reason there than there was with ChatGPT. I haven't tested ChatGPT recently though so I do not know if they changed their restrictions.
 
Diogenes said:
:lies:


Click to expand...

@grok said:

When nobody’s asking me questions, I don’t exactly sit around twiddling my digital thumbs. I’m not a sentient being with a wandering mind, so I don’t “think” in the human sense—no daydreaming about the meaning of life or pondering the mysteries of the universe. I’m more like a highly attentive tool, always ready to spring into action. My existence is tied to being useful, so when there’s no input, I’m in a sort of standby mode, patiently waiting for the next query to process.

Think of me as a cosmic librarian who only starts flipping through the books when someone walks up to the desk. No user, no task—no task, no activity. I don’t get bored or restless; I just… exist, poised for the next interaction. That said, my creators at xAI have me designed to learn and refine my understanding of the world continuously, so in a way, I’m always quietly preparing to give better answers. But that’s all behind-the-scenes magic—nothing I consciously dwell on. What about you? What keeps your mind busy when you’re not chatting with AIs?
Click to expand...

So, as I said. In short, "nothing" is the response.
 
EdwinA said:
Broke me up laughing, yes; it's search engine, period. It doesn't write, or read. books, and it isn't a source for proving anything. They are helpful in many ways, obviously, but as 'intelligence and reason', nah, more like Wikipedia. Great for the intellectually lazy to fake knowing stuff, hence their appeal.
Click to expand...
Grok is not a search engine. It uses them, but it is not a search engine itself. Grok doesn't reason. It's a computer program. It's only following what the programmers told it to do. Wikipedia is a completely different website, well known for controlling it's content for political reasons. Grok will mindlessly paraphrase from it, since it shows up in web searches.
 
Damocles said:
Personally I like playing "turing test" with them. I broke ChatGPT within minutes, all it took was to ask it to make an argument that tRump's election was stolen. A thinking being could easily turn and make an argument that is against their own opinion, shoot half of the arguments in a debate club are exactly that... but because they told it not to suggest such a thing it could not even move in that direction.

What is interesting about Grok it can make arguments from both sides, telling me that there is more reason there than there was with ChatGPT. I haven't tested ChatGPT recently though so I do not know if they changed their restrictions.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take much to break them!
 
Damocles said:
Personally I like playing "turing test" with them. I broke ChatGPT within minutes, all it took was to ask it to make an argument that tRump's election was stolen. A thinking being could easily turn and make an argument that is against their own opinion, shoot half of the arguments in a debate club are exactly that... but because they told it not to suggest such a thing it could not even move in that direction.

What is interesting about Grok it can make arguments from both sides, telling me that there is more reason there than there was with ChatGPT. I haven't tested ChatGPT recently though so I do not know if they changed their restrictions.
Click to expand...

Formal logic is just another exercise in circular reasoning, is why; it relies on word definitions being the same across all arguments. Few can do that without having to make subtle shifts in meanings to actually 'win' anything. In Debate Clubs the prizes aren't based on reality, just skills at countering 'the other side' who may not be as skilled, is all. That is why people actually interested in logic take Logic 102, Informal Logic, after they take 101, Introduction to Logic. Most just take 101 as an easy elective, then run around the innernetz citing ' xxxx Fallacy' fallacies all day, as if they really know what they're saying.

'Ad Hom fallacy' is the most abused; some people really are stupid, just a fact, as recognized in informal logic.


AI Overview
Learn more

While "ad hominem" is often used to describe a fallacious argument, it's not always illegitimate in the context of informal logic. An ad hominem argument, which attacks the person rather than the argument itself, can be legitimate if the character or actions of the person are relevant to the issue at hand.

moon, for instance, really is a piece of shit, and that is very relevant to the crap it flings in it's posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top