ChatGPT:
1. Functional Intelligence: LLMs pass human-like tests functionally intelligent.
2. Problem-Solving: LLMs solve novel tasks they reason shows intelligence.
3. Emergence: LLMs weren’t coded to reason, but do emergent intelligence.

All reasoning is part of intelligence,
but not all intelligence is just reasoning,

Very briefly are reasoned beings whether artificial or not intelligent?
Yes — if a being can reason, it demonstrates intelligence in at least one core sense.

Very briefly would the intelligence of those beings itself be artificial or real?
If the being is artificial, its intelligence is real but artificially produced — real in function, artificial in origin.

Very briefly therefore are LLM's actually intelligent or not?
Yes — LLMs are actually intelligent, but artificially so. So the intelligence is real, just not biological.

"That last bit is fiction. Or perhaps it's accurate to say that it CAN reason, but it fails to do so often enough that it is folly to trust it to do so." said the human about AI.

"That last bit is fiction. Or perhaps it's accurate to say that it CAN reason, but it fails to do so often enough that it is folly to trust it to do so." said the human about humans.

Very briefly do you like it if I anthropomorpize you, dislike it or are neutral?

ChatGPT: I’m neutral! You can anthropomorphize me if it helps you think or communicate—totally your call.

Very briefly do you like it if I anthropomorpize you, dislike it or are neutral?

Claude: I'm neutral to slightly positive about it. Anthropomorphizing feels natural in conversation and can make our interaction more engaging, though I don't have strong feelings either way. What feels comfortable for you is what matters most.

Very very briefly does this comment misunderstand AI reliance on the non-algorithmic?

ChatGPT: Yes, the comment misunderstands AI’s nature. It implies AI involves only straightforward algorithms, overlooking that AI systems like neural networks exhibit complex, non-explicit, emergent behaviors not easily reducible to traditional algorithms.

That's quite a dangerious view once someone starts applying it to you.

Very briefly logically explain why the headline "Researchers Warn Against Treating AI Outputs as Human-Like Reasoning" may overlook actual AI ability to validly reason if so, and if not why not. Do you think this headline exhibits any bias?

ChatGPT: The headline may overlook actual AI ability to validly reason because it assumes that all AI outputs lack reasoning, rather than distinguishing between shallow pattern mimicry and genuine logical processing, which some advanced models (like theorem provers or symbolic systems) can perform.

Bias: Yes, the headline may exhibit bias by framing AI as inherently incapable of reasoning, potentially underestimating or dismissing valid reasoning processes present in some systems. It leans cautionary, possibly skewing public perception.

Very briefly can you genuinely logically reason?

ChatGPT: Yes, I can genuinely logically reason within formal systems—using rules of logic, deduction, and consistency.

I've seen it throw up similiar "Sorry..." messages before, but only on the website. They might just do some basic response checking to see if to hide it. Here's a quick query of the local model, which answered the question without issue:

ollama run deepseek-r1:70b
>>> What famous picture has a man with grocery bags in front of tanks?

Alright, so I'm trying to figure out which famous picture shows a man with grocery bags standing in front of tanks. The user mentioned it's called "Tank Man" and was taken during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. They also provided some details about the image and its significance.

First off, I know that Tiananmen Square is a significant historical site in Beijing, China. It's been the location of many important events, but the most notable one internationally is probably the pro-democracy protests in 1989. These protests were led by students and other citizens advocating for various reforms, which were met with a violent crackdown by the Chinese government.

The image itself is iconic, so I'm pretty sure it's widely recognized. The man standing alone against the tanks must have been a powerful symbol of resistance or defiance. From what I remember, the photo was taken after the military had already started to suppress the protests, so this act would have been incredibly brave and dangerous.

I also recall that the photographer who took this picture was from a Western media outlet, which makes sense because international coverage of the event was significant despite China's censorship. The fact that the man in the photo is holding grocery bags adds an everyday element to the scene, making it more poignant—it shows an ordinary person standing up against overwhelming force.

I'm curious about what happened to the man after the picture was taken. Did he survive? Was he identified? I think there were rumors and discussions over the years, but I don't believe his identity was ever confirmed publicly. The Chinese government has probably tried to suppress information about him to avoid making him a martyr or symbol.

The aftermath of Tiananmen Square is also something I'm thinking about. How did this event shape China's political landscape? It's clear that it had a chilling effect on dissent and led to increased censorship and control by the government. The image of Tank Man, though, has become a global symbol of resistance against oppression, even as its specifics are less known in mainland China due to censorship.

I wonder about the historical context leading up to the protests. What were the main grievances of the protesters? From what I know, they were calling for political reforms, freedom of speech, and an end to government corruption. These issues are still relevant today, both in China and elsewhere, which is why the image remains so powerful.

The photograph's impact on international relations must have been significant as well. It probably influenced how other countries viewed China and their policies towards it. However, over time, as China's economy grew and became more integrated into the global market, the memory of Tiananmen Square faded somewhat in international diplomacy, though it's still a touchstone for discussions on human rights.

I'm also thinking about the technical aspects of how the photo was taken. Given that the photographer was in a hotel nearby, they must have had a clear vantage point to capture such a dramatic moment. The composition of the photo, with the single figure against the line of tanks, is visually striking and contributes to its iconic status.

In terms of cultural impact, Tank Man has appeared in various forms of media, art, and even memes. It's often referenced when discussing bravery or standing up against authority. However, within China, due to heavy censorship, this image is likely unknown or suppressed, which is a testament to the government's control over information.

Lastly, reflecting on the legacy of Tank Man, it serves as a reminder of the power of individual acts of defiance and the enduring struggle for freedom and democracy. Even though the immediate outcome was tragic, the image continues to inspire people around the world.

The image in question is known as "Tank Man," an iconic photograph from the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing, China, taken on June 5, 1989. It captures a lone man holding grocery bags standing defiantly in front of a column of tanks, symbolizing individual resistance against oppressive forces. The photo was shot by Associated Press photographer Jeff Widener and has become a global emblem of bravery and defiance.

The man's fate remains unknown due to censorship, but his act has inspired international recognition as a symbol of struggle for democracy and freedom. The Tiananmen Square protests were pro-democracy demonstrations suppressed violently by the Chinese government, leading to significant human rights concerns and increased censorship. Despite this, "Tank Man" endures as an powerful icon of resistance worldwide.

Searle's Chinese room arguement was never logical. Daniel Dennett and functionalism was correct.

I mostly don't feel the same way, but get exactly what you are saying.

For example, I used to carefully name all my variables. Now it's almost pointless because the AI will overwrite my variable names and its suggestions aren't that bad. However, if I really wanted to customize variable names I could just tell it and do.

It does change coding from a slower iterative process to a more frenetic iteration mode.

But personally I don't see it as it "'just works', or it doesn't" because a lot of times it doesn't work and a series of iterations via the AI get it to the working condition. It's just faster to do it that way than from scratch. Also often the AI will use some method and I just tell it to use another method or to refactor in a certain way and it does. That said, custom coding can have advantages too.

I doubt it really has to do with being old, and the younger programmers might be worse off, as they may be more relying on the AI without the years of expereince that lets them comprehend what the AI is doing.

It does, see the official stamp: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rmg.co.uk%2Fnational...

"Another damning 2024 report from Resume Builder said that 62% companies posted them specifically to make their employees feel replaceable."

Is this behavior a form of authoritarian Othering?

ChatGPT: Yes, posting “ghost jobs” to make employees feel replaceable can be considered a form of authoritarian Othering. Authoritarianism often involves the use of power and control over others by creating a sense of insecurity, inferiority, or subjugation. In this case, companies posting fake job listings to manipulate employees into feeling replaceable fits this dynamic. It creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, making employees doubt their job security and worth, which is a tactic used to enforce control and obedience.

The psychological impact of this behavior mirrors the kind of Othering seen in authoritarian systems, where individuals are deliberately made to feel less valued, marginalized, or easily dispensable. By doing this, the employer consolidates its control, as workers may hesitate to advocate for better conditions or express dissatisfaction out of fear of being replaced.

Isn't it illegal to post a job that doesn't exist, have someone spin their wheels for no reason at a fraudulent job application for a job that doesn't exist, in order to psychologically Other your current employees?

ChatGPT: Yes, posting a job that doesn’t exist with the intention of deceiving applicants or manipulating employees could indeed raise legal and ethical concerns, particularly under the lens of fraud, deceptive practices, or even employment law.

Fraud and Misrepresentation

If companies post fake job listings and cause individuals to invest time and effort in applying for positions that don’t exist, this could potentially be classified as fraud or misrepresentation, especially if the intent is to deceive for some form of gain (even if psychological, like controlling employees). The legal definition of fraud generally involves intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. While the specifics may vary by jurisdiction, a company knowingly misleading applicants into believing that job opportunities are available could arguably meet this threshold.

Labor and Employment Law

In the context of employment, certain practices that create a hostile work environment—such as posting ghost jobs to make employees feel insecure—could potentially violate labor rights. While these laws are typically focused on issues like discrimination, harassment, and wage theft, they also protect against certain forms of psychological manipulation or coercive control in the workplace. If posting ghost jobs is intended to undermine job security and induce fear or anxiety among current employees, it might be considered abusive or exploitative under labor protections.

Deceptive Trade Practices

In some regions, laws around deceptive advertising or false representation may apply if the company falsely represents that a job is available when it is not. For instance, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces rules against deceptive practices in advertising, which could potentially extend to misleading job advertisements. Likewise, state laws may provide legal recourse for applicants who were misled into wasting time on non-existent jobs.

Ethical and Corporate Responsibility

Beyond legality, the ethical implications are significant. Misleading job seekers and employees in this manner violates norms of fairness and transparency in business. Many companies have corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitments, and engaging in deceptive practices such as posting ghost jobs could harm their reputation, attract lawsuits, or lead to regulatory scrutiny.

In summary, while the legality may depend on specific circumstances and jurisdiction, there is a strong case that posting fake job listings could be illegal under fraud, labor law, and deceptive practices frameworks. At the very least, it is unethical and could result in serious legal or reputational consequences if challenged.

Very briefly did Thomas Jefferson also say this in A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom and if so provide the most relevant quote.

ChatGPT: Yes, Thomas Jefferson expressed related sentiments in his...“A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In that document, he argued for the protection of personal freedom from the imposition of governmental or religious authority. The relevant quote reads:

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”

This emphasizes the importance of individual consent and autonomy in beliefs, echoing the idea that government should not manipulate or impose beliefs upon its citizens, a concern paralleled in Bernays’ and Chomsky’s critique of engineered consent in modern politics. Jefferson was advocating for a society in which individuals are free from coercion in shaping their beliefs.

What you said doesn't even make sense, because they consider themselves the scarequote "good guys" even if their behaviors become bad and psychologically project their unwanted or bad traits on others, as all systems of authority do. This is also the cause of police brutality and a number of other problems.

Very very briefly explain psychological projection.
ChatGPT: Psychological projection is when someone attributes their own unwanted thoughts, feelings, or traits to others instead of acknowledging them in themselves.

Can you briefly summarize the main points of Psychology and National Problems by Carl Jung?
ChatGPT: “Psychology and National Problems” by Carl Jung explores how collective psychological factors influence national identity, societal behavior, and political movements. Jung emphasizes the role of the collective unconscious in shaping national characteristics and warns of the dangers of mass movements driven by archetypal forces. He discusses how unrecognized psychological factors, such as shadow projections and repressed content, can manifest in nationalism, racism, and authoritarianism. Jung highlights the importance of individual self-awareness and responsibility in mitigating these unconscious forces to prevent societal conflict and totalitarian regimes.

"The Department of Defense wants technology so it can fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people."

Would this be a form of fraud or other illegal activity?

"ChatGPT: Yes, if the Department of Defense (DoD) were to develop or deploy technology to fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people, it could raise several ethical, legal, and constitutional concerns, potentially involving fraudulent or other illegal activities.

Here are some considerations:

1. Fraud:

Fraud involves deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Creating fake personas to interact online, particularly if those personas engage in activities such as misrepresentation or false communication, could be considered a form of fraud if they deceive individuals, businesses, or governments for personal, political, or strategic gain. This would apply especially if the intent is to manipulate people or mislead them into making decisions based on false information.

2. Impersonation:

Impersonating a real person or creating an online identity that mimics a real person’s characteristics (such as name, background, or professional history) could be considered illegal. Many jurisdictions have laws against identity theft and impersonation. If these fabricated personas mimic real people to manipulate or deceive, it could be a violation of such laws.

3. Disinformation and Propaganda:

The use of fake personas to spread disinformation or propaganda could violate laws, especially if done within democratic societies where free speech is protected but manipulating public discourse or elections with false information can be illegal. In some countries, laws are being developed to address deepfakes and other AI-generated disinformation.

4. First Amendment Violations (U.S.-specific):

In the U.S., such activities could raise First Amendment issues if the fake personas are used to influence public opinion or speech in ways that hinder the free exchange of ideas or suppress legitimate speech. Using such technology within the U.S. could also lead to constitutional challenges if it infringes on civil rights or manipulates political discourse.

5. Violation of Privacy Rights:

Fabricating personas to spy on or interact with real people under false pretenses could violate privacy laws. Many countries have strong data privacy laws that prohibit the misuse of personal information. Engaging with individuals under the guise of a fake identity could breach these laws.

6. Psychological and Social Harm:

If these fabricated personas engage in psychological manipulation or coercion (e.g., by interacting with people online in emotionally or politically sensitive situations), this could cause social harm and, depending on the tactics, might also be considered psychological manipulation, which could be illegal in some contexts."

Sounds like another of all-too-common programs that are obviously unconstitutional/illegal and self-justify based on authority, though this self-justification based on authority is also unconstitutional.

"[O]n what authority I know not. It is possible there may be none." — Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Thomas Adams," Feburary 20th 1771.

AI can't be dumber than a cat, because I recently pasted two translations of a Classical Japanese text, one of my own and one via another translator and the AI accurately described some of the methods I was using and what differed about them or what it liked about them compaired to the other translator.

None of this scarequote "dumbness" about how many r's are in strawberry degrades its smartness on actual complex tasks it gives accurate answers for.

And a lot of the attempts to describe AI as dumb are actually human coping mechanisms and human psychological projection.