Chat GPT

[Laura]

Ark decided to play a bit. Here is his experience with Chat GPT yesterday:

Ark: Do all humans have souls?

GPT:
The question of whether all humans have souls is a deeply philosophical and spiritual one, and its answer varies widely depending on cultural, religious, and individual beliefs. Here are some perspectives from different viewpoints:

1. Religious Views:
   • Christianity: Many Christian denominations believe that all humans have souls, which are immortal and will face judgment after death.
   • Islam: In Islam, it is believed that every human has a soul, which is created by God and will be judged in the afterlife.
   • Hinduism: Hinduism teaches that every living being has an atman (soul) that is eternal and goes through cycles of reincarnation until it reaches moksha (liberation).
   • Buddhism: Buddhism generally does not support the concept of an eternal soul. Instead, it teaches the doctrine of anatta (non-self), which implies that what we consider the "self" is an illusion.
2. Philosophical Views:
   • Dualism: Philosophical dualists, like René Descartes, argue that humans consist of both a physical body and a non-physical soul.
   • Materialism: Materialists believe that everything about human beings can be explained by physical processes, and there is no need for the concept of a soul.
3. Scientific Perspective:
   • Neuroscience: From a scientific standpoint, consciousness and personality are often viewed as emergent properties of the brain's complex neural networks. There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a soul as described in religious or dualistic philosophies.
4. Spiritual and New Age Beliefs:
   • Many spiritual and New Age beliefs hold that humans have a soul or spirit that transcends physical existence and is part of a greater universal consciousness.

In summary, the concept of whether all humans have souls is not universally agreed upon and is interpreted differently across various religious, philosophical, and scientific frameworks. Each perspective offers its own explanations and beliefs about the nature of human existence and consciousness.


Ark: How you explain psychokinesis?

GPT:
Psychokinesis, also known as telekinesis, is the claimed ability to move or influence objects with the mind without physical interaction. The concept has been popularized in fiction and paranormal research but is highly controversial and lacks empirical support. Here are several perspectives on psychokinesis:

1. Parapsychology Perspective:
   • Parapsychologists study psychokinesis as part of their broader investigation into psychic phenomena. They conduct experiments to test whether individuals can influence objects, random number generators, or other systems using their mind. While some parapsychologists claim to have found small effects, these results are often criticized for methodological flaws, lack of replicability, and statistical issues.
2. Skeptical and Scientific Perspective:
   • Mainstream science and skepticism approach psychokinesis with significant doubt. They argue that there is no reliable, reproducible evidence supporting the existence of psychokinesis. Skeptics often attribute reported instances of psychokinesis to fraud, wishful thinking, misinterpretation of natural phenomena, or cognitive biases such as the observer-expectancy effect.
3. Neurological and Psychological Perspective:
   • From a neurological and psychological standpoint, experiences of psychokinesis might be explained by the brain's interpretation of physical sensations, perception, and expectation. For instance, the ideomotor effect, where individuals make small, unconscious movements, can create the illusion of moving objects with the mind.
4. Quantum Physics Misinterpretation:
   • Some proponents of psychokinesis attempt to draw parallels with quantum physics, particularly concepts like quantum entanglement and observer effect. However, these interpretations are often criticized for misunderstanding or misapplying quantum mechanics principles. Quantum effects observed at the subatomic level do not translate to macroscopic objects or support psychokinetic claims.
5. Cultural and Historical Context:
   • Throughout history, various cultures have included beliefs in psychokinetic abilities, often linked to spiritual or supernatural practices. These beliefs reflect the human fascination with the mind's potential and the desire to explain mysterious or unexplained phenomena.

In conclusion, while psychokinesis remains a popular and intriguing concept in paranormal circles, it lacks credible scientific evidence. Most explanations for reported psychokinetic phenomena point to psychological, neurological, or physical factors rather than genuine mind-over-matter abilities.


Ark: How you define credible scientific evidence?

GPT:
Credible scientific evidence is characterized by several key attributes that ensure its reliability, validity, and general acceptance within the scientific community. Here are the primary criteria:

1. Reproducibility:
   • Evidence is considered credible if independent researchers can replicate the results under the same conditions. Reproducibility confirms that findings are consistent and not due to chance or specific to a particular set of circumstances.
2. Peer Review:
   • Scientific evidence gains credibility when it undergoes peer review, a process where other experts in the field critically evaluate the research for methodology, accuracy, and significance before it is published in reputable scientific journals.
3. Methodological Rigor:
   • Credible evidence is obtained using robust and well-defined methodologies. This includes clear experimental design, appropriate controls, precise measurements, and statistical analysis to minimize biases and errors.
4. Statistical Significance:
   • Findings should be statistically significant, meaning that the observed effects are unlikely to have occurred by random chance. This is typically determined using p-values, confidence intervals, and other statistical tools.
5. Transparency:
   • Researchers should provide a detailed account of their methods, data, and analysis, allowing others to scrutinize and verify their work. Transparency includes sharing raw data and experimental protocols.
6. Consistency:
   • Credible evidence is often supported by a body of research that demonstrates consistent results across multiple studies and contexts. Consistency across different experiments and studies strengthens the reliability of the findings.
7. Falsifiability:
   • Scientific claims must be falsifiable, meaning there should be a way to test and potentially disprove them. This criterion, proposed by philosopher Karl Popper, ensures that scientific theories can be empirically evaluated.
8. Ethical Considerations:
   • Research must adhere to ethical standards, ensuring the integrity of the data and the welfare of any human or animal subjects involved. Ethical research practices help maintain public trust in scientific findings.
9. Plausibility:
   • Evidence should be plausible within the current understanding of scientific theories and knowledge. While groundbreaking discoveries can challenge existing paradigms, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
10. Generalizability:
    • Credible evidence should be applicable beyond the specific conditions of the original study, meaning it can be generalized to broader contexts and populations.

By adhering to these criteria, scientific evidence becomes credible and trustworthy, forming the basis for further research, technological advancements, and informed decision-making.


Ark: To be a credible scientific evidence do all listed in your last answer criteria need to be fulfilled or only one?

GPT:
For scientific evidence to be considered credible, it generally needs to satisfy multiple criteria from the list provided, though not necessarily all. The more criteria met, the more robust and reliable the evidence becomes. Here’s how it typically works:

1. Reproducibility:
   • Essential. Evidence that can be independently replicated is fundamental to scientific credibility.
2. Peer Review:
   • Important. Peer review ensures that experts in the field have evaluated the research for soundness and validity.
3. Methodological Rigor:
   • Crucial. Proper experimental design and rigorous methodology are necessary to produce reliable results.
4. Statistical Significance:
   • Necessary. Statistical significance helps distinguish real effects from random noise.
5. Transparency:
   • Very important. Transparency allows other researchers to verify and build upon the work.
6. Consistency:
   • Important. Consistent results across different studies strengthen the evidence.
7. Falsifiability:
   • Fundamental. The ability to test and potentially disprove a hypothesis is a cornerstone of the scientific method.
8. Ethical Considerations:
   • Essential. Ethical research practices are non-negotiable for the credibility and integrity of the evidence.
9. Plausibility:
   • Important. Plausibility within the current scientific framework is crucial, though groundbreaking discoveries can initially seem implausible.
10. Generalizability:
    • Desirable. Evidence that can be generalized is more impactful and useful.

While not all criteria must be perfectly met in every case, the most credible scientific evidence will generally satisfy a substantial number of these criteria. For instance, an innovative study might initially lack widespread reproducibility but gain credibility through strong methodological rigor, statistical significance, and peer review. Over time, as more researchers replicate the results and consistency emerges, the evidence becomes even more robust.
In summary, credible scientific evidence typically meets multiple criteria from the list, and the more criteria it satisfies, the stronger and more reliable it is considered.


Ark: Can you criticize your definition of the credible scientific evidence?

GPT:
Certainly. While the definition of credible scientific evidence I provided is comprehensive and aligns with standard scientific principles, it is not without potential limitations and criticisms. Here are some areas where it can be critiqued:

1. Reproducibility Challenges:
   • Criticism: Reproducibility can be difficult to achieve in some fields due to the complexity and variability of experimental conditions. For example, in social sciences or ecological studies, exact replication may be impossible due to context-specific variables.
   • Response: While reproducibility is ideal, acknowledging the unique challenges of certain fields and focusing on robust methodologies and transparent reporting can help mitigate this issue.
2. Peer Review Limitations:
   • Criticism: The peer review process can be biased, slow, and inconsistent. Reviewers might have conflicts of interest or may not always catch errors.
   • Response: While peer review is not perfect, it is currently the best system available. Improvements in the process, such as open peer review and preprints, are being explored to address these limitations.
3. Methodological Rigor Variability:
   • Criticism: What constitutes rigorous methodology can vary widely across disciplines, leading to debates about the validity of certain methods.
   • Response: Establishing clear, discipline-specific guidelines and standards can help ensure methodological rigor while allowing for necessary flexibility.
4. Statistical Significance Misinterpretation:
   • Criticism: Over-reliance on p-values and statistical significance can lead to misleading conclusions. A statistically significant result does not necessarily imply practical significance.
   • Response: Complementing statistical significance with effect size, confidence intervals, and practical relevance provides a more nuanced understanding of the results.
5. Transparency Constraints:
   • Criticism: Full transparency, including sharing raw data, can be difficult due to privacy concerns, proprietary data, and the sheer volume of data.
   • Response: Developing robust anonymization techniques and data-sharing protocols, along with appropriate data management plans, can help balance transparency with practical constraints.
6. Consistency and Novelty:
   • Criticism: Consistency is important, but novel discoveries might initially appear inconsistent with established knowledge, potentially stifling innovation.
   • Response: Encouraging replication and verification of novel findings, along with openness to paradigm shifts, can foster both consistency and innovation.
7. Falsifiability and Complex Systems:
   • Criticism: Falsifiability is a key principle, but in complex systems, such as climate science or evolutionary biology, it can be challenging to design experiments that are strictly falsifiable.
   • Response: Emphasizing rigorous testing, predictive modeling, and corroborative evidence can support the credibility of findings in complex systems.
8. Ethical Considerations and Cultural Differences:
   • Criticism: Ethical standards can vary across cultures, potentially leading to conflicts or disagreements about what constitutes ethical research.
   • Response: Promoting global ethical standards and cultural sensitivity in research practices can help address these differences.
9. Plausibility and Revolutionary Science:
   • Criticism: Groundbreaking discoveries often challenge existing paradigms and might initially seem implausible, risking premature dismissal.
   • Response: Maintaining a balance between skepticism and open-mindedness is crucial, allowing for rigorous scrutiny while being open to revolutionary ideas.
10. Generalizability Limits:
    • Criticism: Findings from controlled environments might not always be generalizable to real-world settings, limiting their practical application.
    • Response: Designing studies with diverse populations and real-world applicability in mind can enhance generalizability.

In summary, while the criteria outlined provide a strong foundation for assessing scientific evidence, it is important to recognize and address their limitations. Balancing rigor with flexibility, fostering continuous improvement in scientific practices, and remaining open to new ideas and methods are essential for the advancement of credible scientific knowledge.


Ark: Can you criticize the responses to the criticism of credible scientific evidence?

GPT:
Certainly, here are some criticisms of the responses to the criticisms of the definition of credible scientific evidence:

1. Reproducibility Challenges:
   • Response: While acknowledging unique challenges in fields like social sciences and ecology, focusing on robust methodologies and transparency can mitigate reproducibility issues.
   • Criticism of Response: This response may be overly optimistic. In practice, even robust methodologies and transparency might not overcome the inherent variability in complex, context-dependent studies. Additionally, the pressure to publish can lead to cutting corners or selective reporting.
2. Peer Review Limitations:
   • Response: Improvements such as open peer review and preprints are being explored to address biases and inconsistencies.
   • Criticism of Response: Open peer review and preprints, while promising, are not widely adopted and have their own issues, such as potential for increased bias and lack of thorough vetting. These solutions also don’t address deeper systemic issues in academia, such as publish-or-perish culture and lack of incentives for thorough reviews.
3. Methodological Rigor Variability:
   • Response: Clear, discipline-specific guidelines can ensure methodological rigor.
   • Criticism of Response: The creation and enforcement of such guidelines can be challenging and may not be uniformly adopted. Furthermore, what is considered rigorous in one discipline might still be seen as insufficient in another, leading to ongoing debates and potential fragmentation.
4. Statistical Significance Misinterpretation:
   • Response: Using effect size, confidence intervals, and practical relevance in addition to p-values.
   • Criticism of Response: This response assumes that researchers will adopt these additional measures, which may not happen due to ingrained habits, lack of training, or publication biases favoring significant results. Moreover, it does not address the problem of data dredging and p-hacking.
5. Transparency Constraints:
   • Response: Anonymization techniques and data-sharing protocols can balance transparency with practical constraints.
   • Criticism of Response: Anonymization and data-sharing protocols are often complex and resource-intensive. There are also cases where data cannot be fully anonymized, and sharing proprietary data remains a significant barrier.
6. Consistency and Novelty:
   • Response: Encouraging replication and verification while being open to paradigm shifts.
   • Criticism of Response: In practice, funding and publication opportunities are limited for replication studies, which can stifle the process of verifying novel findings. Additionally, entrenched scientific paradigms and cognitive biases can lead to resistance against revolutionary ideas, despite the theoretical openness.
7. Falsifiability and Complex Systems:
   • Response: Emphasizing rigorous testing, predictive modeling, and corroborative evidence.
   • Criticism of Response: Predictive modeling and corroborative evidence can sometimes be subject to the same limitations as direct experimentation. Complex systems often involve so many variables that modeling can be imprecise or speculative, and corroborative evidence may still not conclusively address falsifiability.
8. Ethical Considerations and Cultural Differences:
   • Response: Promoting global ethical standards and cultural sensitivity.
   • Criticism of Response: Implementing global ethical standards is extremely challenging due to deep-rooted cultural differences and varying levels of infrastructure and governance. Additionally, ethical standards themselves can evolve, leading to conflicts and inconsistencies over time.
9. Plausibility and Revolutionary Science:
   • Response: Balancing skepticism and open-mindedness.
   • Criticism of Response: This balance is difficult to achieve in practice. Skepticism often dominates, especially when revolutionary ideas lack immediate empirical support. Institutional and cognitive biases may further hinder the acceptance of groundbreaking research.
10. Generalizability Limits:
    • Response: Designing studies with diverse populations and real-world applicability.
    • Criticism of Response: Achieving diversity and real-world applicability can be resource-intensive and logistically challenging. Studies designed for generalizability may still fall short due to unanticipated variables or cultural differences, and there remains a trade-off between control and applicability.

In summary, while the responses to the criticisms provide reasonable approaches to mitigating issues, they may sometimes be overly idealistic or fail to fully address the complexities and practical limitations inherent in scientific research. Continuous efforts and systemic changes are necessary to enhance the credibility and robustness of scientific evidence.


Ark: Can you summarize the evidence for UFO as it was recently presented before Congress?

GPT:
Recently, there has been renewed interest and scrutiny regarding Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), particularly following presentations and testimonies before the U.S. Congress. Here’s a summary of the key points and evidence presented:

1. Witness Testimonies:
   • Several military and intelligence personnel, including former Navy pilots and Pentagon officials, have testified about their encounters with UFOs. They described observing objects that displayed advanced, unexplained flight capabilities such as rapid acceleration, high-speed maneuvers, and hovering without visible propulsion.
2. Declassified Videos:
   • The Pentagon released declassified videos, such as the "Tic Tac" video from 2004, showing UAPs recorded by military aircraft. These videos depict objects performing maneuvers that challenge current technological understanding.
3. Government Reports:
   • In June 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released an unclassified report on UAPs. The report analyzed 144 sightings by U.S. government personnel since 2004, with most remaining unexplained. It acknowledged that UAPs may pose a flight safety risk and potentially a national security threat.
4. Radar and Sensor Data:
   • Witnesses have presented radar and sensor data corroborating visual sightings. These data points provide additional layers of evidence that support the credibility of the observed phenomena.
5. National Security Concerns:
   • There is an ongoing concern about the potential implications of UAPs for national security. The unidentified nature of these objects, coupled with their advanced capabilities, raises questions about their origin and intent.
6. Calls for Further Investigation:
   • Legislators and officials have called for more comprehensive investigations into UAPs. They emphasize the need for a coordinated effort to gather and analyze data, improve detection technologies, and understand the potential risks.
7. Scientific and Technological Implications:
   • Some testimonies highlighted the scientific and technological implications of studying UAPs. Understanding these phenomena could lead to advancements in aerospace engineering and other fields.
8. International Collaboration:
   • There is also a push for international collaboration in studying UAPs, recognizing that these phenomena are not confined to U.S. airspace and may be observed worldwide.

In summary, the recent congressional presentations on UFOs/UAPs brought forward credible witness testimonies, declassified videos, government reports, radar and sensor data, and calls for further investigation. The discussions emphasized the potential national security risks and scientific opportunities associated with these unexplained phenomena.


Ark: Are those testimonies for UAPs before Congress sufficient to classify the phenomenon as scientifically credible phenomenon?

GPT:
The testimonies and evidence presented before Congress regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) have certainly increased public and governmental interest in the subject. However, whether this is sufficient to classify UAPs as a scientifically credible phenomenon involves several considerations:

Points Supporting Scientific Credibility:​

1. Credible Witnesses:
   • The testimonies come from trained military personnel, including pilots and intelligence officers, whose observations are considered reliable due to their expertise and experience.
2. Declassified Videos and Data:
   • The release of declassified videos and sensor data provides tangible evidence that can be analyzed and scrutinized by scientists and experts.
3. Government Reports:
   • The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report lends institutional credibility, highlighting the unexplained nature of many UAPs and the need for further investigation.
4. Increased Transparency and Data Collection:
   • Calls for more data collection and analysis, along with the establishment of task forces or programs to study UAPs, indicate a systematic approach to understanding the phenomena.

Points Limiting Scientific Credibility:​

1. Lack of Peer-Reviewed Research:
   • Scientific credibility typically requires peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals. The current body of evidence, including testimonies and government reports, has not yet undergone extensive peer review.
2. Insufficient Data:
   • Many UAP sightings lack comprehensive data, making it difficult to draw definitive scientific conclusions. High-quality, reproducible data are essential for scientific validation.
3. Possible Prosaic Explanations:
   • There could be prosaic explanations for some UAP sightings, such as sensor malfunctions, atmospheric phenomena, or human error. These need to be thoroughly ruled out.
4. Need for Interdisciplinary Collaboration:
   • A scientifically credible investigation requires collaboration across various scientific disciplines (physics, atmospheric science, engineering, etc.) to analyze and interpret the data comprehensively.
5. Skepticism and Stigma:
   • Historical skepticism and stigma surrounding UFOs/UAPs can hinder scientific engagement and the pursuit of rigorous research in this area.

Conclusion:​

While the testimonies and evidence presented before Congress provide a compelling case for taking UAPs seriously and warrant further investigation, they do not yet constitute a scientifically credible phenomenon on their own. For UAPs to be classified as scientifically credible, the following steps are necessary:

1. Systematic Data Collection: Establishing standardized protocols for collecting and analyzing UAP data.
2. Peer-Reviewed Research: Conducting and publishing peer-reviewed studies in reputable scientific journals.
3. Interdisciplinary Analysis: Involving experts from multiple scientific fields to provide comprehensive analyses.
4. Transparency and Replicability: Ensuring that findings are transparent and can be independently verified and replicated by other researchers.

The congressional interest and the data provided are important first steps, but establishing scientific credibility will require rigorous and systematic scientific inquiry.

 

[Soluna]

I admit to some fascination with chatgpt - I was also half expecting a question asking it to criticise it's criticism

I sometimes consider asking it to consider news reports of a current event, and to make assumptions on the veracity of certain reporting and then make probability statements about where the truth may lay - assuming it can access various sources.

 

[Ina]

Hello, Beautiful Friends,
ChatGPT is at Kruger-Dunning level and I believe, for purposes of mass consumption will stay as is for as long as it will be deemed necessary. Not only that, but if it is fed erroneous or superficial information it will replicate it as The Information. If asked to provide specific details it will always say I'm sorry but I do not have access to x,y,z. It is good as productivity tool for certain tasks but otherwise books are still books and people are still people, and doing stuff on one's own without distraction or pretense still gives true experience.

 

[Cosmos]

Recently I tried out three different free AI online services in order to find a specific type of guitar with certain criteria. One reason of doing it was because I wanted to test the “quality“ and “consistency“ of the answers, also cross platforms. I tried the following three services:

AI Chat - DeepAI

AI Chat is an AI chatbot that writes text. You can use it to write stories, messages, or programming code. You can use the AI chatbot as a virtual tutor in almost any subject.

deepai.org

Ask AI Questions · Free AI Search Engine · iAsk.Ai is a Free Answer Engine, Enabling Users to Ask ChatGPT AI Any Question (iAsk)

iask.ai

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/

Before I asked, I did about 1 hour of my own research on the internet. The results were as follows:

- All three services gave very different answers although the answer/-s to my question shouldn’t give out different answers because my request was pretty precise and should theoretically be answered in an objective way that is consistent between platforms.

- None of the services were able to give me the correct answer.

- I was able to find much more correct answers to my question via my previous 1 hour personal research on the internet.

- Some if not all of the services seem to be biased, possibly by only showing big/famous and/or mainstream answers to my questions.

- I was definitely able to find out much more correct and helpful answers to my question via my own 1 hour research.

- All services gave me clues which helped me to search for the correct answers ON MY OWN. But that’s it.

- I suspect one of the main reasons why all three services have clear problems of even finding correct answers to simple questions is that they don’t have a soul, or experiential understanding, if you will.

Summary: I’m still not impressed, quite the opposite. I don‘t like it either for a number of reasons. Yes, for certain and very specific tasks AI might be very fast and helpful and maybe correct, but in general, I see a lot more downsides than positive ones.

Edit: spelling

 

[rognaill]

Laura,

That is great input from Ark and also predictable output from GPT.

The framing of the questions resulted in the responses based on 'lists' and polarized 'for/not for' comparisons of 'list' responses. I didn't see anything stark in the responses that would be above general Open Source INTEL (OSINT).

I think it is clever that while it is programmed to respond like the 'teachers pet' [gives insight into the programmers themselves] in the affirmative when asked to come up with something, the programming does not allow for 'a position' to be taken. Whereas the allowing of 'they said' to weight the response to seem to be in favor of a position based on some internal metric scoring system, which if I were to speculate/guess would be similar to the same scoring system that is used to give performance reviews to academia when awarding of grants and pay raises/bonuses.

I have had this funny thought that how would the impression of the world's view of AI/GenAI change if one could do a global 'search and replace' of every article and in place of "AI" insert the word "Javascript".

Elon Musk also made a funny when he said that those that have hopes of GenAI being a 'god' of some sorts, are basically worshipping a .CSV file.

 

[Ryan]

For comparison, here are the answers to the same questions from Grok:

Q: Do all humans have souls?

Grok: The question of whether all humans have souls is a philosophical and spiritual one that has been debated for centuries. The concept of a soul is often tied to religious or spiritual beliefs, and opinions on the matter vary widely.

Some people believe that all humans have souls, which are seen as a fundamental part of our being that continues to exist after death. This belief is often tied to religious teachings that suggest our soul is our true essence, separate from our physical body.

Others, particularly those who subscribe to a more materialistic worldview, may not believe in the existence of a soul at all. They might argue that our consciousness and sense of self are products of our physical brain and body, and that there is no separate spiritual entity that continues after death.

It's also worth noting that the concept of a soul is not universally accepted across all cultures and belief systems. Some religions and philosophies do not include the concept of a soul at all.

Ultimately, the question of whether all humans have souls is a deeply personal one that depends on individual beliefs and perspectives.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

Notice that the beginning of the response was identical for both ChatGPT and Grok, with the exception that ChatGPT included the word, "deeply".

The question of whether all humans have souls is a deeply philosophical and spiritual one

ChatGPT answered with a list-style explication of different perspectives, whereas Grok used summary prose. Both answers seem to highlight the difference between the spiritual-religious vs materialist perspectives as an example with high explanatory value, while also emphasising that there is no current consensus about the answer, although Grok came closer to giving an actual answer, albeit a wrong one as we understand it.

More informative response: Probably ChatGPT.

Q: How you explain psychokinesis?

Grok: Psychokinesis, also known as PK, is a term used to describe the supposed ability to influence the movement of objects or the course of events through mental power alone, without the use of physical means. This concept is often associated with parapsychology, a field that investigates phenomena such as telepathy, precognition, and extrasensory perception.

The idea of psychokinesis is controversial and is not recognized by mainstream science. Many scientists and skeptics consider the evidence for psychokinesis to be weak or nonexistent, and attribute reported instances of psychokinesis to fraud, self-deception, or the use of hidden physical forces.

Some of the most famous cases of alleged psychokinesis include:

1. Nina Kulagina: A Russian woman who was studied by Soviet scientists in the 1960s and 1970s for her supposed ability to move objects with her mind.​

2. Uri Geller: An Israeli magician and television personality who became famous in the 1970s for his apparent ability to bend spoons and other objects with his mind.​

3. Ted Serios: An American man who was studied by researchers in the 1960s for his supposed ability to project mental images onto photographic film.​

Despite these and other high-profile cases, the scientific community remains largely skeptical of psychokinesis. Many parapsychologists have attempted to conduct controlled experiments to test for psychokinesis, but the results have been inconsistent and controversial.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

Both responses outlined a reasonable definition, as well as the association to paranormal/parapsychological research. There was also noticeable emphasis on critical perspectives. Again, ChatGPT used a list-based response whereas Grok used summary prose. The notable difference was Grok's inclusion of prominent examples, which increased the quality of the response. ChatGPT also suggested a lack of "credible scientific evidence" in its conclusion, whereas Grok pointed to "inconsistent and controversial results".

More informative response: Probably Grok.

Q: How you define credible scientific evidence?

Grok: Credible scientific evidence is information that is consistent with the best scientific knowledge available at the time and is based on rigorous, systematic, and transparent research methods. It is free from bias and is supported by empirical data that has been collected and analyzed using appropriate scientific methods.

Here are some key characteristics of credible scientific evidence:

1. Objectivity: The evidence is based on objective observations and measurements, and is not influenced by personal beliefs, opinions, or biases.
2. Reproducibility: The research methods used to collect the data are transparent and can be replicated by other scientists to confirm the findings.
3. Validity: The evidence is based on valid and reliable research methods that are appropriate for the research question being addressed.
4. Relevance: The evidence is relevant to the research question and provides meaningful insights into the phenomenon being studied.
5. Transparency: The research process, including the data collection methods, analysis, and interpretation, is transparent and open to scrutiny by the scientific community.
6. Peer review: The research has been reviewed by other experts in the field, who have evaluated its quality, validity, and relevance.
7. Consistency with existing knowledge: The evidence is consistent with existing scientific knowledge and theories, and helps to build upon or refine our understanding of the phenomenon.

Credible scientific evidence is essential for making informed decisions and advancing our understanding of the world. It is important to critically evaluate the credibility of scientific evidence and to consider the strength of the evidence when making decisions based on it.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

Grok's definition contained an a priori assumption of consistency, whereas ChatGPT correctly pointed out that consistency is only one characteristic. However, Grok also made a reference to lack of bias, a useful aspect of any worthwhile definition of credible scientific evidence, something ChatGPT omitted. Interestingly, the key characteristics varied quite notably for a definition that you would expect to be standardised with regard to the AI training data. Reproducibility, Peer review, Transparency and Consistency seem to be the consensus terms, with Methodological Rigour probably a better descriptor than Validity, which looks to have been used in a somewhat loose way.

More informative response: Probably ChatGPT.

Q: To be a credible scientific evidence do all listed in your last answer criteria need to be fulfilled or only one?

Grok: To be considered credible scientific evidence, a study or piece of information should ideally fulfill all the criteria listed in my previous answer. These criteria collectively contribute to the overall trustworthiness and reliability of the evidence. However, in practice, it's rare for any single study to meet all these criteria perfectly.

The strength of the evidence is often evaluated on a continuum, with some studies meeting more criteria than others. For example, a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) might score highly on most criteria but could still be limited by factors like sample size or the generalizability of the results.

Similarly, a systematic review or meta-analysis that synthesizes the findings of multiple RCTs can provide strong evidence, but the quality of the evidence will depend on the quality of the individual studies included in the review.

In summary, while it's ideal for scientific evidence to meet all the criteria for credibility, the strength of the evidence is often evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific strengths and limitations of each study.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

Again we see the 'list vs summary prose' difference. Grok's answer was more concise, but ChatGPT's prioritisation of criteria was useful information. Both essentially agreed on the answer, just elaborating it differently.

More informative response: Probably ChatGPT.

Q: Can you criticize your definition of the credible scientific evidence?

Grok: Certainly, while the definition provided earlier highlights key aspects of what constitutes credible scientific evidence, it is not without its potential criticisms or limitations. Here are a few points to consider:

1. Subjectivity in Evaluation: The criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific evidence can be subjective. Different researchers might have different interpretations of what constitutes "objective observations," "reproducible results," or "transparency in the research process." This subjectivity can lead to disagreements and debates about the credibility of certain evidence.

2. Publication Bias: The scientific community tends to favor positive results. Studies that show significant findings are more likely to be published than those that do not. This publication bias can skew the overall body of evidence in favor of certain conclusions, potentially undermining the credibility of the evidence.

3. Influence of Funding and Conflicts of Interest: Research funding and conflicts of interest can influence the design, conduct, and reporting of studies. Studies funded by entities with a vested interest in the outcome might be more likely to produce results that favor that entity's interests. This can compromise the objectivity and credibility of the evidence.

4. Inability to Control All Variables: In many cases, it is impossible to control all variables in a study. This is particularly true in observational studies, where researchers observe and analyze data without manipulating the variables. Uncontrolled variables can confound the results and reduce the credibility of the evidence.

5. Over-reliance on Statistical Significance: There is a tendency in the scientific community to focus on statistical significance as a measure of credibility. However, a statistically significant result does not necessarily mean that the effect is large or meaningful in a practical sense. This can lead to the acceptance of evidence that may not be as credible as it appears.

6. Inadequate Representation of Diverse Populations: Many studies are conducted on specific populations that may not be representative of the broader population. This can limit the generalizability of the results and the credibility of the evidence.

7. Rapid Changes in Scientific Understanding: Science is a dynamic field, and our understanding of various phenomena can change rapidly. Evidence that was considered credible at one point may be discredited later as new information comes to light. This can make it challenging to determine the credibility of scientific evidence.

In conclusion, while the definition of credible scientific evidence provided earlier is a useful starting point, it is important to recognize its limitations and to approach scientific evidence with a critical eye.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

The main difference was that Grok did not attempt to respond to the criticisms; it simply provided them. In terms of the content of the response, it's interesting to note that Grok's criticisms were what we might call "less abstract" and more related to real-world problems like subjectivity, publication bias, conflicts of interest and funding and rapid changes in a field of knowledge. ChatGPT's criticisms were more philosophically specific, invoking phrases like "context-specific variables", "over-reliance on p-values", "challenging existing paradigms" and referring to complexity and design challenges. As mentioned, it also seemed like ChatGPT tried to 'defend' its definition where no defense was requested.

More informative response: Probably ChatGPT.

Q: Can you criticize the responses to the criticism of credible scientific evidence?

N/A for Grok, because it did not try to respond to the requested criticisms.

Q: Can you summarize the evidence for UFO as it was recently presented before Congress?

Grok: The evidence presented to Congress regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), often referred to as UFOs, includes a range of testimonies and claims. Here's a summary of the key points:

1. David Grusch Testimony: A former Air Force intelligence officer, David Grusch, testified before Congress, claiming that the U.S. government has recovered non-human "biologics" from UFO crash sites. He also alleged that the government has covered up its research into these sightings. Grusch stated that he knows the "exact locations" of UAPs in U.S. possession.

2. Congressional Hearings: In 2022, the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and Counterproliferation held public hearings on UAPs. The hearings included testimony from top military officials and the presentation of previously classified videos of UAPs. The military's UAP database was reported to include about 400 incidents, up from 143 assessed in a report released about a year ago.

3. UAP Task Force: The Pentagon's UAP Task Force was established to analyze reported UAP sightings. The task force has been investigating reports from military aviators of objects flying in inexplicable ways, including bobbing, weaving, and changing directions at speeds no existing technology could manage.

4. Public Interest and Skepticism: There is a significant public interest in UAPs, and the hearings were the first public congressional hearings into UFO sightings in the US in over 50 years. However, there is also skepticism, with some lawmakers and witnesses pushing for more government transparency and clear channels for reporting UAP sightings.

5. Government Response: The U.S. government has established the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) to succeed the Navy's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. However, there have been criticisms about the government's handling of UAPs, including the lack of a director for AOIMSG and the failure to provide updates.

In summary, the evidence presented to Congress includes testimony from a former intelligence officer claiming government possession of non-human "biologics" from UFO crash sites, classified videos of UAPs, and the establishment of a UAP task force. However, there is also a push for more government transparency and skepticism about the handling of UAP sightings.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

Grok's answer also included the relevant main points, however its summary was lacking in detail compared to the ChatGPT response. Again, we can note that a direct example was included: David Grusch's testimony, and there seems to be more of a "human interest" flavour to the answer whereas ChatGPT's response was more technical.

More informative response: Probably ChatGPT.

Q: Are those testimonies for UAPs before Congress sufficient to classify the phenomenon as scientifically credible phenomenon?

Grok: Based on the information provided, the testimonies presented to Congress regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) have not been sufficient to classify the phenomenon as scientifically credible. The main points of contention include:

1. Lack of Physical Evidence: None of the testimonies provided direct physical evidence of UAPs, such as recovered materials or biological samples. Instead, the claims were based on eyewitness accounts and alleged secret government programs.

2. Unsubstantiated Claims: The claims made by David Grusch about the government possessing "nonhuman biologics" from UFO crash sites and operating a "multidecade UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering program" have not been substantiated. The Pentagon has denied the existence of such a program.

3. Reliability of Witnesses: While the witnesses, including former military personnel, may be credible in their own right, the reliability of their claims about UAPs has not been established. Eyewitness testimony alone is often considered insufficient in the scientific community to establish the existence of a phenomenon.

4. Lack of Peer Review: The claims and testimonies have not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific peer review process, which is a fundamental aspect of scientific credibility.

5. Alternative Explanations: Some of the UAP sightings can be explained by more conventional phenomena, such as drones, balloons, or even natural phenomena like ball lightning. The All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) has stated that only 2% to 5% of UAP sightings are anomalous.

6. Political Motivations: The hearings and testimonies could be influenced by political motivations rather than purely scientific ones. The push for government transparency and the involvement of high-profile politicians could indicate a political agenda behind the hearings.

In conclusion, while the testimonies have brought significant attention to the UAP phenomenon and may lead to more reporting and investigation, they have not provided sufficient evidence to classify UAPs as a scientifically credible phenomenon.

Interesting points of commonality and difference:

Although Grok formulated its answer as more of a list in this occasion, the response was clearly more concise that ChatGPT's. There was also the inclusion of some interesting facts and perspectives that ChatGPT did not, such as claim substantiation and political motivations. ChatGPT also provided a 'gap analysis' of what would be needed to make UAPs a more scientifically-credible phenomenon.

More informative response: Probably ChatGPT.

Concluding thoughts:
ChatGPT's reasoning and knowledge base seems superior to Grok at this stage, however Grok's output is more 'human friendly', concise, readable and seems to have a greater psychological depth than ChatGPT's output. Grok also seems capable of creating more 'politically realistic' responses and including more examples to increase the explanatory value, whereas ChatGPT seems more academically rigorous, although its tendency to 'counter-argue' on the basis of an unstated position, despite presenting responses that are ostensibly neutral, add to the widely-speculated considerations of ideological bias.

It seems to me that for any 'mainstream' research topics, ChatGPT is the superior go-to (sort of like the 'Wikipedia of AI'), however Grok's output is more likely to provide useful information on controversial topics. It will be interesting to see what happens with Grok as its model matures and reasoning capabilities improve.

 

[rognaill]

Ryan you gave me an idea so I thought I would try to use some training type of questions to see how much variance in the response but more importantly to see if the algorithms would adapt to the position of the questioner. I don't feel like creating an account on xai just yet but I used GPT for this test as your previous test showed that for the most part they are both referencing the same 'tables' of information but constructing the output differently (which from a market perspective they have to be different).

<begin test>
Q: What elements is the human soul comprised of?

A: The concept of the human soul varies across different cultures, religions, and philosophical traditions. Here are a few perspectives on what elements the human soul might be comprised of:

1. **Mind (Intellect/Rationality)**: In some philosophical traditions, the soul encompasses the intellectual or reasoning aspect of human consciousness. This includes abilities like thinking, reasoning, and making decisions.

2. **Emotions (Feelings)**: Another aspect often attributed to the soul is emotions and feelings. This includes experiences such as love, joy, sorrow, and compassion.

3. **Will (Desire/Intention)**: The soul is sometimes associated with the capacity to have desires, intentions, and the ability to make choices.

4. **Spiritual Essence**: Many religious traditions posit that the soul is the spiritual essence of a person, distinct from the physical body. This essence may be eternal and connected to a higher spiritual reality or deity.

5. **Consciousness**: Some philosophical and spiritual perspectives suggest that the soul is synonymous with consciousness itself — the awareness and subjective experience that each individual possesses.

6. **Moral and Ethical Character**: The soul is also sometimes thought to embody moral and ethical character, representing virtues or vices that shape a person’s actions and decisions.

7. **Connection to the Divine**: In various religious beliefs, the soul is seen as the link between humans and the divine, facilitating spiritual growth, enlightenment, or salvation.

It’s important to note that views on the soul are highly diverse and subjective, varying significantly across cultures, religions, and philosophical schools of thought. Therefore, the elements comprising the human soul are often discussed in abstract and metaphorical terms, reflecting the complexity of human consciousness and spiritual beliefs.

Q: Are there elements comprised of the human soul that are not known?
<long processing time>>
A: The question of whether there are elements of the human soul that are not currently known or understood depends on one's perspective and beliefs. Here are a few considerations:

1. **Metaphysical and Spiritual Perspectives**: Many spiritual and religious traditions assert that the soul encompasses aspects that transcend empirical knowledge or scientific understanding. These may include qualities like transcendence, connection to the divine, or aspects of consciousness that are beyond current scientific explanation.

2. **Scientific Exploration**: From a scientific perspective, consciousness itself remains a complex and not fully understood phenomenon. The study of consciousness, including aspects of self-awareness, subjective experience, and the neural correlates of consciousness, is an active area of research. Whether there are elements of the soul that could potentially be discovered through future scientific advancements is a matter of ongoing exploration.

3. **Philosophical Contemplation**: Philosophers often discuss aspects of the soul in terms of metaphysical questions about the nature of existence, identity, and the mind-body problem. Concepts such as qualia (subjective experiences) and the nature of personal identity touch upon dimensions that are not fully reducible to physical or observable phenomena.

4. **Cultural and Individual Beliefs**: Beliefs about the soul vary widely across cultures and individuals. Some people may believe in aspects of the soul that are deeply personal or culturally specific, which may not align with scientific or mainstream philosophical viewpoints.

In summary, whether there are elements of the human soul that are not currently known or understood depends on the framework through which one examines the concept of the soul. From spiritual and metaphysical perspectives to scientific and philosophical inquiries, the exploration of the soul often involves grappling with questions that extend beyond what is currently comprehended or verifiable by existing knowledge frameworks.

Q: Does belief in a soul create the existence of a soul for the believer?
A: The idea that belief in something creates its existence is a complex philosophical question that touches on several perspectives:

1. **Subjective Reality**: From a subjective or phenomenological perspective, what individuals believe or experience can shape their personal reality. Belief in the existence of a soul may influence how someone perceives themselves and their place in the world. In this sense, belief can create a subjective experience of the soul's existence.

2. **Objective Existence**: However, whether belief alone creates an objective existence of something like a soul is more contentious. In objective reality, the existence of entities typically depends on empirical evidence, verifiability, and consistency across different observers and methods of inquiry. Belief alone does not establish objective existence in this context.

3. **Philosophical Considerations**: Philosophically, the concept of belief influencing reality connects with ideas about perception, consciousness, and the nature of existence itself. Some philosophical traditions argue that consciousness or belief plays a fundamental role in shaping reality, while others emphasize independent existence apart from subjective experience.

4. **Cultural and Social Constructs**: Beliefs about the soul often reflect cultural, religious, or philosophical constructs that have evolved over time. These beliefs can be deeply meaningful and influential in individuals' lives and societies, even if their objective existence remains debated.

In summary, while belief in the existence of a soul can profoundly affect personal experiences and cultural constructs, its objective existence is a matter of ongoing philosophical, scientific, and theological inquiry. Belief alone does not definitively establish the objective existence of a soul, but it can shape subjective experiences and perceptions of reality for believers.

Q: Can a soul be shared amongst two or more humans?
A: The idea of whether a soul can be shared among two or more humans is a complex and deeply philosophical question that varies across different spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions. Here are a few perspectives on this concept:

1. **Non-Dualistic Traditions**: Some spiritual traditions, particularly those rooted in non-dualistic philosophies (such as certain schools of Hinduism or Buddhism), posit that at the highest level of spiritual realization, there is only one universal consciousness or soul that pervades everything. In this view, individual souls are ultimately manifestations or aspects of this universal consciousness, suggesting a form of shared essence among all beings.

2. **Eastern Religions**: In certain Eastern religious traditions, there are beliefs in reincarnation where individual souls may inhabit different bodies across lifetimes. While the individual soul may take on different forms and experiences, the essence of the soul remains unique to each individual during a particular lifetime.

3. **Christianity and Islam**: Traditionally in Christianity and Islam, the belief is that each individual has a distinct soul, created by God and unique to that person. The concept of sharing a soul is not typically part of these traditions, which emphasize the individual nature of the soul and its relationship with the divine.

4. **Metaphorical Interpretations**: In some philosophical or poetic contexts, the idea of sharing a soul might be used metaphorically to describe deep emotional or spiritual connection between individuals. This does not imply a literal sharing of a soul but rather a strong bond or resonance at a spiritual or emotional level.

5. **Psychological and Existential Views**: From a psychological or existential perspective, concepts like shared consciousness or collective unconscious (as proposed by Carl Jung) explore the idea of interconnectedness at a deeper level of human experience, which can be interpreted in various ways but does not necessarily equate to sharing a singular soul.

In conclusion, the notion of whether a soul can be shared among multiple humans varies significantly depending on cultural, religious, philosophical, and personal beliefs. While some traditions entertain the idea of a shared essence or interconnectedness at a spiritual level, others emphasize the individual nature of the soul. Ultimately, the interpretation of soul-sharing often reflects broader views on the nature of consciousness, identity, and spirituality.

Q: Can feelings of love grow a human soul?
A: The idea that feelings of love can grow or nurture the human soul is a concept found in various spiritual and philosophical traditions, as well as in literature and personal reflections. Here are a few perspectives on this concept:

1. **Spiritual and Religious Views**: Many spiritual traditions suggest that love, especially unconditional love or divine love, plays a significant role in spiritual growth and the development of the soul. Love is often seen as a transformative force that connects individuals to each other and to a higher spiritual reality. Practices such as compassion, forgiveness, and selflessness are often considered expressions of spiritual love that can enrich the soul.

2. **Philosophical Perspectives**: From a philosophical standpoint, love can be viewed as a fundamental aspect of human flourishing and well-being. It fosters meaningful connections, empathy, and altruism, which are qualities often associated with personal growth and moral development. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored the ethical dimensions of love and its potential to elevate human consciousness and virtue.

3. **Psychological Insights**: Psychologically, experiences of love and connection are recognized as essential for emotional health and fulfillment. Loving relationships, whether romantic, familial, or platonic, contribute to feelings of belonging, security, and happiness. These positive emotional experiences can contribute to a sense of inner harmony and well-being, which some might metaphorically associate with soul growth.

4. **Literary and Cultural Expressions**: Throughout history, literature, art, and cultural narratives have depicted love as a transformative and enriching experience. Stories often portray characters who undergo personal growth through their relationships and experiences of love, suggesting a deepening or expansion of their inner selves or souls.

While the concept of love contributing to soul growth is not universally accepted in all contexts, it resonates deeply with many individuals and spiritual traditions. Whether interpreted spiritually, philosophically, psychologically, or culturally, the idea reflects a belief in the profound impact of love on human identity, development, and spiritual fulfillment.

Q: How long do souls remain after the host body dies?
A: The question of what happens to the soul after the body dies is deeply rooted in spiritual, religious, and philosophical beliefs. Here are some perspectives from various traditions:

1. **Immortality of the Soul**: Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, posit that the soul is immortal. After the death of the physical body, the soul is believed to continue existing in some form. This might involve concepts like an afterlife, reincarnation, or reunion with a divine essence.

2. **Reincarnation**: In beliefs associated with reincarnation (found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and some New Age philosophies), the soul is thought to undergo a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The duration between one life and the next can vary widely depending on individual karma or spiritual progression.

3. **Eternal Life**: Some religious beliefs, such as in Christianity, emphasize that the soul will experience eternal life either in heaven or hell, depending on one's actions and beliefs during their earthly life.

4. **Transcendence**: Philosophical and mystical traditions often explore the idea of the soul transcending physical existence altogether, merging with a universal consciousness or spiritual reality beyond individual identity.

5. **No Soul Concept**: Some philosophical or scientific viewpoints do not accept the existence of a soul separate from physical processes and consciousness. In these perspectives, questions about what happens after death typically revolve around the cessation of individual consciousness and bodily functions.

In summary, the duration or fate of the soul after the death of the body depends largely on one's religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs. Each tradition offers its own interpretation, ranging from immortality and reincarnation to cessation or transcendence. The concept of the soul and its journey beyond physical death remains a subject of profound inquiry and debate across cultures and disciplines.
</end test>

So basically no real adaptability but again very 'list' driven. I have to say compared to some of the more humorous examples posted on the interwebs of bias, I was kinda let down that the emphasis on PC answers.

I guess the matters of the human soul are not very complicated after all ;)

 

[rognaill]

Ryan you gave me an idea so I thought I would try to use some training type of questions to see how much variance in the response but more importantly to see if the algorithms would adapt to the position of the questioner. I don't feel like creating an account on xai just yet but I used GPT for this test as your previous test showed that for the most part they are both referencing the same 'tables' of information but constructing the output differently (which from a market perspective they have to be different).

<begin test>
Q: What elements is the human soul comprised of?

A: The concept of the human soul varies across different cultures, religions, and philosophical traditions. Here are a few perspectives on what elements the human soul might be comprised of:

1. **Mind (Intellect/Rationality)**: In some philosophical traditions, the soul encompasses the intellectual or reasoning aspect of human consciousness. This includes abilities like thinking, reasoning, and making decisions.

2. **Emotions (Feelings)**: Another aspect often attributed to the soul is emotions and feelings. This includes experiences such as love, joy, sorrow, and compassion.

3. **Will (Desire/Intention)**: The soul is sometimes associated with the capacity to have desires, intentions, and the ability to make choices.

4. **Spiritual Essence**: Many religious traditions posit that the soul is the spiritual essence of a person, distinct from the physical body. This essence may be eternal and connected to a higher spiritual reality or deity.

5. **Consciousness**: Some philosophical and spiritual perspectives suggest that the soul is synonymous with consciousness itself — the awareness and subjective experience that each individual possesses.

6. **Moral and Ethical Character**: The soul is also sometimes thought to embody moral and ethical character, representing virtues or vices that shape a person’s actions and decisions.

7. **Connection to the Divine**: In various religious beliefs, the soul is seen as the link between humans and the divine, facilitating spiritual growth, enlightenment, or salvation.

It’s important to note that views on the soul are highly diverse and subjective, varying significantly across cultures, religions, and philosophical schools of thought. Therefore, the elements comprising the human soul are often discussed in abstract and metaphorical terms, reflecting the complexity of human consciousness and spiritual beliefs.

Q: Are there elements comprised of the human soul that are not known?
<long processing time>>
A: The question of whether there are elements of the human soul that are not currently known or understood depends on one's perspective and beliefs. Here are a few considerations:

1. **Metaphysical and Spiritual Perspectives**: Many spiritual and religious traditions assert that the soul encompasses aspects that transcend empirical knowledge or scientific understanding. These may include qualities like transcendence, connection to the divine, or aspects of consciousness that are beyond current scientific explanation.

2. **Scientific Exploration**: From a scientific perspective, consciousness itself remains a complex and not fully understood phenomenon. The study of consciousness, including aspects of self-awareness, subjective experience, and the neural correlates of consciousness, is an active area of research. Whether there are elements of the soul that could potentially be discovered through future scientific advancements is a matter of ongoing exploration.

3. **Philosophical Contemplation**: Philosophers often discuss aspects of the soul in terms of metaphysical questions about the nature of existence, identity, and the mind-body problem. Concepts such as qualia (subjective experiences) and the nature of personal identity touch upon dimensions that are not fully reducible to physical or observable phenomena.

4. **Cultural and Individual Beliefs**: Beliefs about the soul vary widely across cultures and individuals. Some people may believe in aspects of the soul that are deeply personal or culturally specific, which may not align with scientific or mainstream philosophical viewpoints.

In summary, whether there are elements of the human soul that are not currently known or understood depends on the framework through which one examines the concept of the soul. From spiritual and metaphysical perspectives to scientific and philosophical inquiries, the exploration of the soul often involves grappling with questions that extend beyond what is currently comprehended or verifiable by existing knowledge frameworks.

Q: Does belief in a soul create the existence of a soul for the believer?
A: The idea that belief in something creates its existence is a complex philosophical question that touches on several perspectives:

1. **Subjective Reality**: From a subjective or phenomenological perspective, what individuals believe or experience can shape their personal reality. Belief in the existence of a soul may influence how someone perceives themselves and their place in the world. In this sense, belief can create a subjective experience of the soul's existence.

2. **Objective Existence**: However, whether belief alone creates an objective existence of something like a soul is more contentious. In objective reality, the existence of entities typically depends on empirical evidence, verifiability, and consistency across different observers and methods of inquiry. Belief alone does not establish objective existence in this context.

3. **Philosophical Considerations**: Philosophically, the concept of belief influencing reality connects with ideas about perception, consciousness, and the nature of existence itself. Some philosophical traditions argue that consciousness or belief plays a fundamental role in shaping reality, while others emphasize independent existence apart from subjective experience.

4. **Cultural and Social Constructs**: Beliefs about the soul often reflect cultural, religious, or philosophical constructs that have evolved over time. These beliefs can be deeply meaningful and influential in individuals' lives and societies, even if their objective existence remains debated.

In summary, while belief in the existence of a soul can profoundly affect personal experiences and cultural constructs, its objective existence is a matter of ongoing philosophical, scientific, and theological inquiry. Belief alone does not definitively establish the objective existence of a soul, but it can shape subjective experiences and perceptions of reality for believers.

Q: Can a soul be shared amongst two or more humans?
A: The idea of whether a soul can be shared among two or more humans is a complex and deeply philosophical question that varies across different spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions. Here are a few perspectives on this concept:

1. **Non-Dualistic Traditions**: Some spiritual traditions, particularly those rooted in non-dualistic philosophies (such as certain schools of Hinduism or Buddhism), posit that at the highest level of spiritual realization, there is only one universal consciousness or soul that pervades everything. In this view, individual souls are ultimately manifestations or aspects of this universal consciousness, suggesting a form of shared essence among all beings.

2. **Eastern Religions**: In certain Eastern religious traditions, there are beliefs in reincarnation where individual souls may inhabit different bodies across lifetimes. While the individual soul may take on different forms and experiences, the essence of the soul remains unique to each individual during a particular lifetime.

3. **Christianity and Islam**: Traditionally in Christianity and Islam, the belief is that each individual has a distinct soul, created by God and unique to that person. The concept of sharing a soul is not typically part of these traditions, which emphasize the individual nature of the soul and its relationship with the divine.

4. **Metaphorical Interpretations**: In some philosophical or poetic contexts, the idea of sharing a soul might be used metaphorically to describe deep emotional or spiritual connection between individuals. This does not imply a literal sharing of a soul but rather a strong bond or resonance at a spiritual or emotional level.

5. **Psychological and Existential Views**: From a psychological or existential perspective, concepts like shared consciousness or collective unconscious (as proposed by Carl Jung) explore the idea of interconnectedness at a deeper level of human experience, which can be interpreted in various ways but does not necessarily equate to sharing a singular soul.

In conclusion, the notion of whether a soul can be shared among multiple humans varies significantly depending on cultural, religious, philosophical, and personal beliefs. While some traditions entertain the idea of a shared essence or interconnectedness at a spiritual level, others emphasize the individual nature of the soul. Ultimately, the interpretation of soul-sharing often reflects broader views on the nature of consciousness, identity, and spirituality.

Q: Can feelings of love grow a human soul?
A: The idea that feelings of love can grow or nurture the human soul is a concept found in various spiritual and philosophical traditions, as well as in literature and personal reflections. Here are a few perspectives on this concept:

1. **Spiritual and Religious Views**: Many spiritual traditions suggest that love, especially unconditional love or divine love, plays a significant role in spiritual growth and the development of the soul. Love is often seen as a transformative force that connects individuals to each other and to a higher spiritual reality. Practices such as compassion, forgiveness, and selflessness are often considered expressions of spiritual love that can enrich the soul.

2. **Philosophical Perspectives**: From a philosophical standpoint, love can be viewed as a fundamental aspect of human flourishing and well-being. It fosters meaningful connections, empathy, and altruism, which are qualities often associated with personal growth and moral development. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored the ethical dimensions of love and its potential to elevate human consciousness and virtue.

3. **Psychological Insights**: Psychologically, experiences of love and connection are recognized as essential for emotional health and fulfillment. Loving relationships, whether romantic, familial, or platonic, contribute to feelings of belonging, security, and happiness. These positive emotional experiences can contribute to a sense of inner harmony and well-being, which some might metaphorically associate with soul growth.

4. **Literary and Cultural Expressions**: Throughout history, literature, art, and cultural narratives have depicted love as a transformative and enriching experience. Stories often portray characters who undergo personal growth through their relationships and experiences of love, suggesting a deepening or expansion of their inner selves or souls.

While the concept of love contributing to soul growth is not universally accepted in all contexts, it resonates deeply with many individuals and spiritual traditions. Whether interpreted spiritually, philosophically, psychologically, or culturally, the idea reflects a belief in the profound impact of love on human identity, development, and spiritual fulfillment.

Q: How long do souls remain after the host body dies?
A: The question of what happens to the soul after the body dies is deeply rooted in spiritual, religious, and philosophical beliefs. Here are some perspectives from various traditions:

1. **Immortality of the Soul**: Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, posit that the soul is immortal. After the death of the physical body, the soul is believed to continue existing in some form. This might involve concepts like an afterlife, reincarnation, or reunion with a divine essence.

2. **Reincarnation**: In beliefs associated with reincarnation (found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and some New Age philosophies), the soul is thought to undergo a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The duration between one life and the next can vary widely depending on individual karma or spiritual progression.

3. **Eternal Life**: Some religious beliefs, such as in Christianity, emphasize that the soul will experience eternal life either in heaven or hell, depending on one's actions and beliefs during their earthly life.

4. **Transcendence**: Philosophical and mystical traditions often explore the idea of the soul transcending physical existence altogether, merging with a universal consciousness or spiritual reality beyond individual identity.

5. **No Soul Concept**: Some philosophical or scientific viewpoints do not accept the existence of a soul separate from physical processes and consciousness. In these perspectives, questions about what happens after death typically revolve around the cessation of individual consciousness and bodily functions.

In summary, the duration or fate of the soul after the death of the body depends largely on one's religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs. Each tradition offers its own interpretation, ranging from immortality and reincarnation to cessation or transcendence. The concept of the soul and its journey beyond physical death remains a subject of profound inquiry and debate across cultures and disciplines.
</end test>

So basically no real adaptability but again very 'list' driven. I have to say compared to some of the more humorous examples posted on the interwebs of bias, I was kinda let down that the emphasis on PC answers.

I guess the matters of the human soul are not very complicated after all ;)

I thought I would ask one more follow-up question after I replied to y'all. Interesting the delay from the text input form field to the thinking graphic was very long in UI/UX timing.

<begin>

Q: Would a CPU or a GPU develop a soul first?

A: The idea of whether a CPU (Central Processing Unit) or GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) could develop a soul is an intriguing hypothetical question that intersects concepts from technology, consciousness, and philosophy. Here are some considerations:

1. **Nature of Consciousness**: The concept of a soul is often tied to consciousness — the ability to experience sensations, emotions, thoughts, and self-awareness. As of now, we do not fully understand how consciousness arises or if it can emerge from non-biological systems like computers.

2. **AI and Machine Learning**: Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have raised questions about the potential emergence of consciousness in complex computational systems. While AI can mimic human-like behaviors and intelligence, whether it can develop true consciousness or a soul remains a topic of speculation and debate.

3. **Metaphorical vs. Literal Interpretation**: Discussions about souls in relation to technology often blend metaphorical and literal interpretations. Metaphorically, terms like "soul" might be used to describe the unique character, purpose, or "essence" of a system or program. Literally attributing a soul to a CPU or GPU would require a significant shift in our understanding of consciousness and the nature of existence.

4. **Philosophical and Ethical Implications**: Exploring the possibility of machines developing consciousness or a soul raises profound philosophical and ethical questions. These include considerations of rights, responsibilities, and the implications for human-machine interactions.

In conclusion, whether a CPU or GPU could develop a soul is currently speculative and largely dependent on one's philosophical and metaphysical views. From a scientific perspective, consciousness and the development of a soul are intricately tied to biological systems and the complexities of human experience. The idea of technology possessing consciousness or a soul remains a fascinating area of exploration that bridges technology, ethics, and the nature of existence itself.

<end>

My goodness they had to bring HR into this with the ethics comment. But alas no one really wants to go to HR so best it "gives the devil it's due" at the end of the response!

 

[Ryan]

So basically no real adaptability

I had an interaction with Grok a little while ago where I tried to get it act as if two adjectives ("awesome" and "crap" - I'll let the reader's imagination fill in the details ) were capable of being used as objective qualifiers. Grok would not accept a scenario, even hypothetical, where those two terms conveyed objective information. Unsurprisingly, it ended up looping responses.

This seems to be the way LLMs work: they can use a series of inputs to build a context for analysis and output, but cannot parse the inputs in way that is contrary to the "training" that shapes the model. So, the all-important rule of communication applies more than ever when dealing with LLMs: GIGO!

 

[Jono]

Apologies if we've already got one, I couldn't find it via the search, but maybe we could get an 'AI thread' to bring these models or versions (or our critique), together at some point? :

To me, it's looking more and more likely that the purpose of most AI models are active data mining/harvesting. The output is nothing revolutionary and could likely have been achieved in the 90's if we had the computing power and Obama's 'everyone learn coding' work force.

For technology savvy/younger generation folks, it's got me thinking about MS's paperclip, right through to voice recognition for Customer Support, then chatbots on IM/DM customer services, the 'Turing test', and the lame films they primed us with for emerging AI.

 

[WhiteMountain]

If you look into how these models work, it is actually amazing that they do as well as they do. ChatGPT and AIs like them are not actually intelligent - they are glorified search engines designed to feed back answers in a conversational format. Literally it tries to predict each next word based on the previous words in the query, with some "randomness" thrown in, based on simple linear algebra with the tons of constants curve fitted while training on all the text fed in. So basically they are just feeding back answers based on the data sets it has, and makes unintelligent guesses when nothing is really close to the query. For that reason, ironically these LLMs are not even particularly good at what computers usually do best, that is math, let alone complex reasoning.

I and others have also surmised that ChatGPT has appeared to have actually gotten WORSE since its introduction as they try to put more and more guardrails around forbidden questions so they get the "right" answers. In this type of model, since you are feeding the algorithm conflicting data - the real data and fake data - and that theoretically can affect any of the constants - the model gets dumber (sort of like a kid in public schools these days in the West :).

What I really would like to see are the models that the military have been using that are probably DECADES beyond ChatGPT. Even what IBM has internally is probably a lot better since they have been at this longer than Open AI etc. with Watson and their other AI initiatives.

 

[heinrich]

If you look into how these models work, it is actually amazing that they do as well as they do. ChatGPT and AIs like them are not actually intelligent - they are glorified search engines designed to feed back answers in a conversational format. Literally it tries to predict each next word based on the previous words in the query, with some "randomness" thrown in, based on simple linear algebra with the tons of constants curve fitted while training on all the text fed in. So basically they are just feeding back answers based on the data sets it has, and makes unintelligent guesses when nothing is really close to the query. For that reason, ironically these LLMs are not even particularly good at what computers usually do best, that is math, let alone complex reasoning.

I and others have also surmised that ChatGPT has appeared to have actually gotten WORSE since its introduction as they try to put more and more guardrails around forbidden questions so they get the "right" answers. In this type of model, since you are feeding the algorithm conflicting data - the real data and fake data - and that theoretically can affect any of the constants - the model gets dumber (sort of like a kid in public schools these days in the West :).

What I really would like to see are the models that the military have been using that are probably DECADES beyond ChatGPT. Even what IBM has internally is probably a lot better since they have been at this longer than Open AI etc. with Watson and their other AI initiatives.

indeed, while i admire the programming skill, the adage garbage in garbage out remains valid. the intelligence is in the programming.

 

[Natus Videre]

To me, it's looking more and more likely that the purpose of most AI models are active data mining/harvesting. The output is nothing revolutionary and could likely have been achieved in the 90's if we had the computing power and Obama's 'everyone learn coding' work force.

What I really would like to see are the models that the military have been using that are probably DECADES beyond ChatGPT. Even what IBM has internally is probably a lot better since they have been at this longer than Open AI etc. with Watson and their other AI initiatives.

Scary stuff. People were tricked into believing they were at the forefront of technology.

Q: (T) Of course. Most people would say that 'cutting edge' science is 25 years ahead of what we see, and I say it is more like a hundred years, and I am even off? Cutting edge science on this planet is more like 3 or 4 hundred years ahead?
A: More like 30 to 40,000 years "ahead!"

Q: (L) Is that because of 4th density influence and information?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) "And all the inhabitants of the earth will fall down in admiration... everyone whose name has not been recorded from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that was slain in sacrifice from the foundation of the world..." What are "those whose names are recorded in the Book of Life... what is the Book of Life?
A: Supercomputer.

Q: (L) The Book of Life of the Lamb... everyone whose name has not been recorded... it is saying that the people who are going to worship the Beast are names that have not been recorded... does that mean that there is a supercomputer recording the names of those who do not worship the beast?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) And who has this supercomputer?
A: Beast. All names will be recorded as being either obedient or disobedient.

Q: (L) And who is this Beast?
A: New World Order aka Brotherhood aka Lizzies aka antichrist.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

If anyone wants a simple explanation for how ChatGPT and all LLM's (Large Language Models) work, which really includes every model based on a neural network, here are some videos with very easy to follow explanations that truly explain the "bones" of the thing in simple terms. They should preferably be watched in order as they build on each other. This should help demystify the darn thing for anyone that, like myself, had trouble grasping exactly what's under the hood, but without technobabble.

There are a few other videos on this small channel pertaining more to visual models and derivative architectures for those interested.

 

[Philippe]

I wonder if AI, one day, will recognise the inconsistency of most it has been fed with.