Re: A chat with AI on OoL

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:48:17 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:39:25 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
(LDagget) wrote:
>

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:21:46 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:29:08 -0800, erik simpson

>
>

ChatGPT produces no information.  It rephrases what it's been told,
which sometimes makes it clearer.  In particular, the chirality problem
isn't a problem at all.

>
That's an example of what I have just posted about in another thread.
No matter what the scientists say, AI has decided that chirality *is*
a problem so expect to see more and more output based on that
assumption.

>
Echoing Erik, please don't use the term "assumption" respective
to AI. Regurgitation would be more appropriate.

>
A difference that makes no difference in this context. The problem is
not you or Erik who know lots about OOL or me who knows a little bit
about it; it's people who know nothing about it and will accept an AI
statement of assumption as true, or people like MarkE who desperately
want such an assumption to be true,

That is of course the problem, and it's a problem because too few
understand the nature of 99% of the AI systems out there. They don't
make assumptions. Developers press an assumption that some averaged
composition contains intelligence. That assumption is dubious.
In contrast, the term __regurgitation__ was (forgive me) intelligently
chosen. It's both accurate and provocative. It carries intent to shock
people to object to it. Those who have an emerging understanding are
given reason to think. Those who lack an understanding can object but
that opens the door to a dialog which might help enlighten them.
And that goes to the base problem of people misconstruing AI as having
anything like an understanding of what it composes. It's worth fighting
this fight, frequently and often. Who knows, AIs might pick up on the
volume and start regurgitating that AI isn't intelligent at all but just
averages the crap it's fed.