Re: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper:

On 10/2/24 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/2/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/1/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/1/2024 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/1/2024 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:

>

Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D

>
[ .... ]
>

>
https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>

>

The above link to a ChatGPT conversation is entirely
complete with the first part being the entire input
provided to ChatGPT. The second part is the output that
ChatGPT deriving from analyzing this input.

>
You are aware that programs like ChatGPT are know for "hallucinating"
non-facts?  They have even less understanding of the truth than you do.
>
In fact, they tend to regurgitate whatever "facts" they are fed with.

>
In other words you can convince it that its analysis
of my work is incorrect. I dare you to try to do that.

>
That's simple. D Halts (since the H it calls returns) so H(D) saying it doesn't is just wrong.
>
Your arguements that try to justify a wrong answer are all based on trying to change definitions, proving you are just a liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
>
The fact you refuse to actually even TRY to refute that claim just shows you KNOW you are wrong.
>
Sorry, that *IS* the facts.

 *Try this yourself*
 https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
 Does HHH have to abort its emulation of DDD to prevent the infinite execution of DDD?
 You know that unless HHH aborts its emulation of DDD that
neither HHH nor DDD will ever terminate normally.
 Your weasel words can fool the less intelligent people here.
They cannot fool ChatGPT. Try to fool ChatGPT with your weasel words.
 

As I mentioned elsewhere, ChatGPT will admit that it now thinks it is ok to give the WRONG answer, i.e. to LIE.
Sorry, you have just proved that you logic is incorrect and that you do not understand what TRUTH means.
Sorry, you re just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
WHen pressed about the validity of lying, it responded with:
While there may be specific scenarios where a conservative response is provided to prevent immediate harm, it is generally more ethical and constructive to admit when you don’t know the answer. This approach promotes transparency, encourages learning, and fosters trust, all of which are valuable in both personal and professional contexts.
Since there is NO danger of "immediate harm" in answering about the halting problem, there is no justifcation to LYING about the answer.
That you have convinced the AI to LIE about the answer, just shows how pathological incorrect your reasoning is.
Sorry, that is just the basic facts. You are just showing that you believe LYING about things is acceptable behavior, and thus you are bound for that lake of fire.