OpenAi chatgpt

[aadrock]

Hi all, just thought I would post this. I just asked this new open chatgpt chat not about Ray Peat and his work and this was the response. Not sure how it works exactly but I’ll leave it up to everyone to read and think about. If I understand correctly it grabs info from on the web and gives a response. So I guess this is in line with what’s on the web, but not necessarily the truth (or what even is true these days anyway). Overtime there will be all this info which discredits his work, even though many people have lived, and learnt, from his work and improved their life, well at least I feel, and it his work may get forgotten about so it’s good that this forum keeps on keeping on.

Me- Can you tell me about Ray Peat and his work please?


Ai - Ray Peat was an American endocrinologist and nutritionist who was known for his controversial views on health and nutrition. Peat had a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Oregon and was a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada. He was also the editor of the Journal of Biology and Medicine.
Peat's views on health and nutrition were often at odds with mainstream scientific thinking, and his ideas were often considered to be unconventional or controversial. He believed that many of the health problems faced by modern societies, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, were the result of poor nutrition and environmental factors, and he promoted a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as a way to improve health.
Peat also had strong opinions on the role of hormones in health and disease, and he believed that imbalances in hormones such as estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone could contribute to a variety of health problems. He promoted the use of hormone replacement therapy as a way to improve health and prevent disease.
While Peat's ideas were popular with some people, they were often rejected by the scientific community, and his views were not supported by mainstream scientific evidence. It's important to note that Peat's ideas should be approached with caution, as they may not be supported by scientific evidence and may not be safe or appropriate for all individuals.

I also asked about @haidut . Maybe it needs to learn a bit more stuff though. Like a child. I wonder if it gets burnt though, will it still touch the fire (really learn or just give the same response).

Me- Can you tell me about georgi dinkov, or haidut as he is known on the internet?


AI- There is limited information available about an individual known as Georgi Dinkov or Haidut on the internet. It's possible that this person may be known by multiple names or aliases, and it's difficult for me to provide a detailed overview without more context or information.
Without more information, it's not possible for me to provide a detailed overview of Georgi Dinkov or Haidut. As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to browse the internet or access new information, so my responses are limited to what I was trained on.

 

[haidut]

Hi all, just thought I would post this. I just asked this new open chatgpt chat not about Ray Peat and his work and this was the response. Not sure how it works exactly but I’ll leave it up to everyone to read and think about. If I understand correctly it grabs info from on the web and gives a response. So I guess this is in line with what’s on the web, but not necessarily the truth (or what even is true these days anyway). Overtime there will be all this info which discredits his work, even though many people have lived, and learnt, from his work and improved their life, well at least I feel, and it his work may get forgotten about so it’s good that this forum keeps on keeping on.

Me- Can you tell me about Ray Peat and his work please?


Ai - Ray Peat was an American endocrinologist and nutritionist who was known for his controversial views on health and nutrition. Peat had a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Oregon and was a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada. He was also the editor of the Journal of Biology and Medicine.
Peat's views on health and nutrition were often at odds with mainstream scientific thinking, and his ideas were often considered to be unconventional or controversial. He believed that many of the health problems faced by modern societies, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, were the result of poor nutrition and environmental factors, and he promoted a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as a way to improve health.
Peat also had strong opinions on the role of hormones in health and disease, and he believed that imbalances in hormones such as estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone could contribute to a variety of health problems. He promoted the use of hormone replacement therapy as a way to improve health and prevent disease.
While Peat's ideas were popular with some people, they were often rejected by the scientific community, and his views were not supported by mainstream scientific evidence. It's important to note that Peat's ideas should be approached with caution, as they may not be supported by scientific evidence and may not be safe or appropriate for all individuals.

I also asked about @haidut . Maybe it needs to learn a bit more stuff though. Like a child. I wonder if it gets burnt though, will it still touch the fire (really learn or just give the same response).

Me- Can you tell me about georgi dinkov, or haidut as he is known on the internet?


AI- There is limited information available about an individual known as Georgi Dinkov or Haidut on the internet. It's possible that this person may be known by multiple names or aliases, and it's difficult for me to provide a detailed overview without more context or information.
Without more information, it's not possible for me to provide a detailed overview of Georgi Dinkov or Haidut. As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to browse the internet or access new information, so my responses are limited to what I was trained on.

So, basically the "AI" bot is essentially a very capable language manipulator, which these days passes for intelligence...but is, tragically, nothing of the sort. The stuff it spits out on Peat is basically what you can read on Wikipedia in regards to most "alternative" medical topics - i.e. a patronizing and manipulative way of saying Peat was "wrong" according to the scientific community and that's what should be considered the indisputable truth. If you have time, I would ask it something along the lines of "Can you please provide examples of claims by Ray Peat that are unsupported by mainstream scientific evidence?" And when (if) it answers, then you can say "Can you provide evidence contrary to Peat's claims, or maybe you can site some studies in support by saying "well, how about study X or Y that Peat cites on this topic? Isn't that also scientific evidence?" You can get some study titles from Peat's website on topics like estrogen, progesterone, thyroid, testosterone, etc that the bot claims are controversial.
I was reading a related thread on ChatGPT on HackerNews and virtually all people who interacted with the bot discovered the same thing - basically as soon as you challenge the bot with actual concrete evidence it falls apart and start repeating ad-nausaeum the line "X goes against the scientific consensus" while refusing to provide concrete evidence to back this statement up. In other words, the same behavior as what we got from Fauci and his ilk - "this is the truth because we say so, and this cannot be question and does not need to be backed up by evidence". Which is not surprising at all considering the bot was trained on text from those people and many of the bot's maintainers/trainers probably share those same views/biases and provided biased training sample.
So, yeah, mankind finally created a fully automated model of psychopathic behavior. I have a feeling this will not end well at all...especially if this technology is widely adopted in everyday life, as most people won't even challenge the B.S. that this thing spits out.

 

[aadrock]

So, basically the "AI" bot is essentially a very capable language manipulator, which these days passes for intelligence...but is, tragically, nothing of the sort. The stuff it spits out on Peat is basically what you can read on Wikipedia in regards to most "alternative" medical topics - i.e. a patronizing and manipulative way of saying Peat was "wrong" according to the scientific community and that's what should be considered the indisputable truth. If you have time, I would ask it something along the lines of "Can you please provide examples of claims by Ray Peat that are unsupported by mainstream scientific evidence?" And when (if) it answers, then you can say "Can you provide evidence contrary to Peat's claims, or maybe you can site some studies in support by saying "well, how about study X or Y that Peat cites on this topic? Isn't that also scientific evidence?" You can get some study titles from Peat's website on topics like estrogen, progesterone, thyroid, testosterone, etc that the bot claims are controversial.
I was reading a related thread on ChatGPT on HackerNews and virtually all people who interacted with the bot discovered the same thing - basically as soon as you challenge the bot with actual concrete evidence it falls apart and start repeating ad-nausaeum the line "X goes against the scientific consensus" while refusing to provide concrete evidence to back this statement up. In other words, the same behavior as what we got from Fauci and his ilk - "this is the truth because we say so, and this cannot be question and does not need to be backed up by evidence". Which is not surprising at all considering the bot was trained on text from those people and many of the bot's maintainers/trainers probably share those same views/biases and provided biased training sample.
So, yeah, mankind finally created a fully automated model of psychopathic behavior. I have a feeling this will not end well at all...especially if this technology is widely adopted in everyday life, as most people won't even challenge the B.S. that this thing spits out.

It is also sponsored by Microsoft I think so probably some bias there as well.

Anyway I did ask as you said and see the below lol

Me - Can you please provide examples of claims by Ray Peat that are unsupported by mainstream scientific evidence?


Ai - There are several claims made by Ray Peat that are not supported by mainstream scientific evidence. Here are a few examples:

1. Peat promotes the use of high doses of supplemental progesterone as a treatment for a wide range of conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. However, there is little scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of progesterone as a treatment for these conditions.
2. Peat claims that estrogen is toxic and causes a wide range of health problems, including cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. However, mainstream scientific research has found that estrogen plays important roles in the body and has protective effects against a number of health conditions.
3. Peat suggests that consuming carbohydrates and sugar can improve energy and brain function, and that low-carbohydrate diets can lead to a number of health problems. This is not supported by mainstream scientific research, which has found that low-carbohydrate diets can be effective for weight loss and may have other health benefits.
4. Peat claims that polyunsaturated fats, such as those found in vegetable oils, are harmful to health and can contribute to a number of conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. However, mainstream scientific research has found that polyunsaturated fats can be beneficial for health when consumed in moderation as part of a healthy diet.

It is important to note that scientific understanding of the human body and health is constantly evolving, and it is always important to critically evaluate and rely on well-established, mainstream scientific evidence when making decisions about health and wellness.

 

[aadrock]

So, basically the "AI" bot is essentially a very capable language manipulator, which these days passes for intelligence...but is, tragically, nothing of the sort. The stuff it spits out on Peat is basically what you can read on Wikipedia in regards to most "alternative" medical topics - i.e. a patronizing and manipulative way of saying Peat was "wrong" according to the scientific community and that's what should be considered the indisputable truth. If you have time, I would ask it something along the lines of "Can you please provide examples of claims by Ray Peat that are unsupported by mainstream scientific evidence?" And when (if) it answers, then you can say "Can you provide evidence contrary to Peat's claims, or maybe you can site some studies in support by saying "well, how about study X or Y that Peat cites on this topic? Isn't that also scientific evidence?" You can get some study titles from Peat's website on topics like estrogen, progesterone, thyroid, testosterone, etc that the bot claims are controversial.
I was reading a related thread on ChatGPT on HackerNews and virtually all people who interacted with the bot discovered the same thing - basically as soon as you challenge the bot with actual concrete evidence it falls apart and start repeating ad-nausaeum the line "X goes against the scientific consensus" while refusing to provide concrete evidence to back this statement up. In other words, the same behavior as what we got from Fauci and his ilk - "this is the truth because we say so, and this cannot be question and does not need to be backed up by evidence". Which is not surprising at all considering the bot was trained on text from those people and many of the bot's maintainers/trainers probably share those same views/biases and provided biased training sample.
So, yeah, mankind finally created a fully automated model of psychopathic behavior. I have a feeling this will not end well at all...especially if this technology is widely adopted in everyday life, as most people won't even challenge the B.S. that this thing spits out.

And another question asking for evidence

Me - Can you cite some studies which are contrary to Ray peat’s work?


Ai - Certainly. Here are a few examples of studies that contradict the claims made by Ray Peat:

1. Progesterone as a treatment for cancer: A review of clinical trials found that progesterone did not improve survival rates or reduce the risk of recurrence in women with breast cancer (Health-related problems and quality of life in patients with syndromic and complex craniosynostosis). Another review of clinical trials concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of progesterone as a treatment for endometrial cancer (Necroptosis and Cancer).
2. Estrogen and health: A review of the scientific literature found that estrogen has protective effects against a number of health conditions, including osteoporosis, heart disease, and cognitive decline (Advancements in the pathophysiology of Friedreich ataxia and new prospects for treatments). Another review of clinical trials found that estrogen replacement therapy can improve bone density and reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women (Targeted Metabolomics of Nonhuman Primate Serum after Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: Potential Tools for High-throughput Biodosimetry).
3. Carbohydrates and health: A review of the scientific literature found that low-carbohydrate diets can be effective for weight loss and may have other health benefits, but that a balanced diet that includes a variety of nutrients is important for overall health (Encounters with adenovirus).
4. Polyunsaturated fats and health: A review of the scientific literature found that polyunsaturated fats, such as those found in vegetable oils, nuts, and seeds, can lower LDL (bad) cholesterol levels and reduce the risk of heart disease when consumed in moderation as part of a healthy diet (Hass Avocado Composition and Potential Health Effects). Some studies have also suggested that polyunsaturated fats may have protective effects against certain types of cancer (On Hypnotic Anæsthesia).

It is always important to critically evaluate and rely on well-established, mainstream scientific evidence when making decisions about health and wellness. It is also important to consult with a healthcare provider before making any changes to your diet or taking supplements.

 

[aadrock]

Also as a side note I asked about who founded a company I work for and it said the wrong name and location so I let it know it was wrong and it pretty much said that’s all I can find at this time. And it cannot update answers. So who puts the most info out there will probably be the one with the ‘correct information’…. Maybe

 

[LeeLemonoil]

So, basically the "AI" bot is essentially a very capable language manipulator, which these days passes for intelligence...but is, tragically, nothing of the sort. The stuff it spits out on Peat is basically what you can read on Wikipedia in regards to most "alternative" medical topics - i.e. a patronizing and manipulative way of saying Peat was "wrong" according to the scientific community and that's what should be considered the indisputable truth. If you have time, I would ask it something along the lines of "Can you please provide examples of claims by Ray Peat that are unsupported by mainstream scientific evidence?" And when (if) it answers, then you can say "Can you provide evidence contrary to Peat's claims, or maybe you can site some studies in support by saying "well, how about study X or Y that Peat cites on this topic? Isn't that also scientific evidence?" You can get some study titles from Peat's website on topics like estrogen, progesterone, thyroid, testosterone, etc that the bot claims are controversial.
I was reading a related thread on ChatGPT on HackerNews and virtually all people who interacted with the bot discovered the same thing - basically as soon as you challenge the bot with actual concrete evidence it falls apart and start repeating ad-nausaeum the line "X goes against the scientific consensus" while refusing to provide concrete evidence to back this statement up. In other words, the same behavior as what we got from Fauci and his ilk - "this is the truth because we say so, and this cannot be question and does not need to be backed up by evidence". Which is not surprising at all considering the bot was trained on text from those people and many of the bot's maintainers/trainers probably share those same views/biases and provided biased training sample.
So, yeah, mankind finally created a fully automated model of psychopathic behavior. I have a feeling this will not end well at all...especially if this technology is widely adopted in everyday life, as most people won't even challenge the B.S. that this thing spits out.

This should be curriculum knowledge and training at middle school.
But it won’t be. Pupils soon will „learn“ by asking AI-bots, and teachers won’t object.

Szientisms will be the new dogma, science is dead.

 

[BigShoes]

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, and I decided to put it to the test in a similar way.

I asked it questions around cellular metabolism, the electron transport chain and cancer, hair loss, etc. etc.. I also asked it to discuss & assess how Charles Saatchi and the Saatchi gallery have impacted the art world & art markets from the 1990s to today, and how this may have impacted people's perceptions of what constitutes great art.

It became clear to me very quickly that the AI is only able to spit out pre-existing dogma (albeit very eloquently).

The AI is not able to spot patterns and trends, or assess new evidence, to deduce its own conclusions. It is a highly sophisticated *language bot*. Incredible technology, but not a "brain".

Reliance on similar AI systems could be devastating (as others have noted above). But also, it could significantly slow down technological advancement, due to the following observations:

- I also asked the AI some highly specific coding questions (Python language etc.), and its ability to produce a step-by-step method to solve complex mathematical / statistical problems, at speed, was incredible. However, it was only able to do this because these problems have already been solved by humanity. I was asking it to solve problems that I work on in my office job on a daily basis (statistician / econometrician) - *not* to solve new or unsolved mechanisms / phenomena.

- Still, the program's ability to produce a standardized coding structure for some very complex tasks in a matter of seconds was very impressive, and almost scary. Use of such AIs would greatly improve efficiency for statisticians / modellers (or just render us obsolete entirely - I should probably start looking for another career!).

- Nevertheless, an over-reliance on this type of AI will lead to laziness from coders etc. - no new problems will be solved, people will rely on pre-existing answers. No new methods will be discovered. If such an attitude spread through the entire world (one could argue it already has), everything stagnates... one may argue that this is actually a good thing in some ways though - human technological advancement often (usually?) creates significant unintended consequences (often: negative ones).

 

[Perry Staltic]

Some guy in Ukraine asked it about the war there and the bot gave an answer that was 180* opposite from reality, but perfectly aligned with the MSM narrative.

 

[Mr Joe]

AI is BS. It's just a bench of data you put inside and the system look for similarities and is limited. I don't believe the "machine learning stuff". Of course it has some "logic" but the logic itself is derivated from humain logic input. If the logic is wrong or disconected from what we humans call "reality" and what is "true" the system will fail. And I am nor even talking about the incapacity of IA to "innovate and regulate" inexpected and new-never seen before elements. If you base an entire city on that (cf NEOM in saudi arabia for example) it become very dangerous and complexe. Hopefuly humain will bring democracy and US right freedom into IA will start feel non-binary and identify as a frigde or as a TV and we will be fine. Joke aside I think all this waw initally the plan to replace humain if NWO worked. Unfortunatly for them seems that things are geting out of control and IA is more focused on making money, (just my opinion in the subject I am not an expert).

 

[Nokoni]

he promoted a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet

kek

 

[Apple]

Modern "AI" is hardly capable of adding numbers, not to mention multiplying. But apparently it can learn how to use a calculator :)

 

[ThinPicking]

It's easier to back "ChatGPT" in to a corner than it is a quadruple mRNA recipient. This thing is dumber than a doorstop.

Messing with it is a lot of fun though. Just obfuscate your manor of speech and sign up information. "OpenAI" haven't made this thing public for nothing.

 

[haidut]

And another question asking for evidence

Me - Can you cite some studies which are contrary to Ray peat’s work?


Ai - Certainly. Here are a few examples of studies that contradict the claims made by Ray Peat:

1. Progesterone as a treatment for cancer: A review of clinical trials found that progesterone did not improve survival rates or reduce the risk of recurrence in women with breast cancer (Health-related problems and quality of life in patients with syndromic and complex craniosynostosis). Another review of clinical trials concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of progesterone as a treatment for endometrial cancer (Necroptosis and Cancer).
2. Estrogen and health: A review of the scientific literature found that estrogen has protective effects against a number of health conditions, including osteoporosis, heart disease, and cognitive decline (Advancements in the pathophysiology of Friedreich ataxia and new prospects for treatments). Another review of clinical trials found that estrogen replacement therapy can improve bone density and reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women (Targeted Metabolomics of Nonhuman Primate Serum after Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: Potential Tools for High-throughput Biodosimetry).
3. Carbohydrates and health: A review of the scientific literature found that low-carbohydrate diets can be effective for weight loss and may have other health benefits, but that a balanced diet that includes a variety of nutrients is important for overall health (Encounters with adenovirus).
4. Polyunsaturated fats and health: A review of the scientific literature found that polyunsaturated fats, such as those found in vegetable oils, nuts, and seeds, can lower LDL (bad) cholesterol levels and reduce the risk of heart disease when consumed in moderation as part of a healthy diet (Hass Avocado Composition and Potential Health Effects). Some studies have also suggested that polyunsaturated fats may have protective effects against certain types of cancer (On Hypnotic Anæsthesia).

It is always important to critically evaluate and rely on well-established, mainstream scientific evidence when making decisions about health and wellness. It is also important to consult with a healthcare provider before making any changes to your diet or taking supplements.

If you have the time, I would ask it how come the "scientific community" claims estrogen is good, but at the same time admits that it causes breast cancer, and even the government officially admitted estrogen is a carcinogen and giving it causes cancer. You can provide it with the link below if it asks for it, and maybe even quote the sentence I underlined/bolded. It would be hilarious (and scary) if it rejects a .gov link and official admission from the government (NIH actually, the main priest of medical consensus) as being against the "consensus" of mainstream science, that it claims to represent

New Federal Report on Carcinogens Lists Estrogen Therapy, Ultraviolet, Wood Dust

The mission of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is to discover how the environment affects people in order to promote healthier lives.

www.niehs.nih.gov

"...The federal government today published its biennial Report on Carcinogens, adding steroidal estrogens used in estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives to its official list of "known" human carcinogens. This and 15 other new listings bring the total of substances in the report, "known" or "reasonably anticipated" to pose a cancer risk, to 228."

Either way, this thing will now be probably installed as a virtual "therapist" in every doctor's office, customer service departments, banks, etc. So, most human interaction with the economy will probably decline to a great degree and of course, this will destroy any remaining semblance of science, computer programming, etc. How can you optimize a code (or propose any new idea) and try to implement it at work when this thing will be installed to "review" your code/solutions and will squash anything it does not like. Since it cannot cope with novelty (the true mark of intelligence, and the very best trait of a programmer) this would mean the death of pretty much any organized human activity "at scale", as @LeeLemonoil said.
Oh well, at least now the writing is on the wall for all "knowledge" professions. They either have to regroup and move into an "analog" profession or be replaced entirely by this thing within 5 years.

 

[Drareg]

An update is coming 2023, the claim is its the new internet which makes sense, its best to view it as a new search engine.
Its probably way more advanced but is fenced in, the claim is trillions of connections are present and can be used but the public only gets a few billion connections to use, they claim using trillions of connections it becomes incoherent, probably a lie.
Its likely the advanced AI is reserved for the ruling class, they will always be ahead of the rest of us, essentially like how google ring fenced searches on the the old school search engine they will do the same with GPT.

I think it will benefit people who are exceptionally bright and know how to form questions correctly, most people will look for answers to general questions and not find it useful, like write my essay on love for example, better to ask what makes or how to form a great essay?
Can you explain how to form style in essay writing?
Can you take the points you just gave for great essay writing and give me examples?
Can you adjust these examples to be about love between a man and a woman?
Can you make it less verbose?
Can you find the most searched terms about love and include narratives around those topics?

Knowing how to weave a tapestry of information together makes it useful, I think thats the idea behind palantir.

 

[ThinPicking]

"Although GPT-4 will definitely seem smarter than its predecessors, its internal architecture remains problematic. I suspect that what we will see is a familiar pattern: immense initial buzz, followed by a more careful scientific inspection, followed by a recognition that many problems remain." - Gary Marcus

And always will. They're just going to keep taking its field testing failures and fill in the blanks. For all the human effort required for this "training" and all the raw compute to play back. Compared to what a well raised, fed, educated human can do in stable environment, under a tiny power envelope. This tech is a paper tiger compared to that which was already here.

 

[Normal Human]

I also asked it to discuss & assess how Charles Saatchi and the Saatchi gallery have impacted the art world & art markets from the 1990s to today, and how this may have impacted people's perceptions of what constitutes great art.

Do you have any educational resources on this topic you could point me to? Sounds interesting but I have zero familiarity with the subject.

 

[aadrock]

If you have the time, I would ask it how come the "scientific community" claims estrogen is good, but at the same time admits that it causes breast cancer, and even the government officially admitted estrogen is a carcinogen and giving it causes cancer. You can provide it with the link below if it asks for it, and maybe even quote the sentence I underlined/bolded. It would be hilarious (and scary) if it rejects a .gov link and official admission from the government (NIH actually, the main priest of medical consensus) as being against the "consensus" of mainstream science, that it claims to represent

New Federal Report on Carcinogens Lists Estrogen Therapy, Ultraviolet, Wood Dust

The mission of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is to discover how the environment affects people in order to promote healthier lives.

www.niehs.nih.gov

"...The federal government today published its biennial Report on Carcinogens, adding steroidal estrogens used in estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives to its official list of "known" human carcinogens. This and 15 other new listings bring the total of substances in the report, "known" or "reasonably anticipated" to pose a cancer risk, to 228."

Either way, this thing will now be probably installed as a virtual "therapist" in every doctor's office, customer service departments, banks, etc. So, most human interaction with the economy will probably decline to a great degree and of course, this will destroy any remaining semblance of science, computer programming, etc. How can you optimize a code (or propose any new idea) and try to implement it at work when this thing will be installed to "review" your code/solutions and will squash anything it does not like. Since it cannot cope with novelty (the true mark of intelligence, and the very best trait of a programmer) this would mean the death of pretty much any organized human activity "at scale", as @LeeLemonoil said.
Oh well, at least now the writing is on the wall for all "knowledge" professions. They either have to regroup and move into an "analog" profession or be replaced entirely by this thing within 5 years.

It seems everyone can put their thoughts into writing so eloquently… maybe this is why I’m a blacksmith and not some sort of English major haha anyway I think everyone here is correct. We will all be taught via computers and or AI and a lot of professionals will be out of a job. It’s only progressing (by progressing I mean the push via tech, not the AI getting smarter) and people are complying and believing what they are being told about how good it will be. A lot of people only think simply, maybe not the bigger picture type thing, or compare maybe events like this and how it could compare to another event (like lockdowns and not being able to visit friends or family and maybe just being locked at home being taught via a computer and going to visit friends and family). People are just sheep a lot of the time.

Anyway I asked it the question and it didn’t really answer it. Or maybe it answered it like a politician. See below. I’ll maybe ask some more in depth questions when I get 5 minutes or anyone else can and we can see it’s answers.

Me - how come the "scientific community" claims estrogen is good, but at the same time admits that it causes breast cancer, and even the government officially admitted estrogen is a carcinogen and giving it causes cancer.


AI - Estrogen is a hormone that plays important roles in the female reproductive system and in various other body systems. It has been shown to have a number of beneficial effects, including protecting against osteoporosis and helping to regulate cholesterol levels. However, estrogen can also have negative effects in some situations.
One potential negative effect of estrogen is that it can stimulate the growth of certain types of breast cancer cells. This is because estrogen can bind to and activate estrogen receptors in breast tissue, which can stimulate the proliferation of breast cancer cells. However, it is important to note that estrogen is not the only factor that can contribute to the development of breast cancer. There are many other factors, including genetics, diet, and lifestyle, that can also play a role.
It is also important to note that the relationship between estrogen and cancer is complex and not fully understood. Some studies have suggested that estrogen may have a protective effect against certain types of cancer, such as colon cancer, while others have found that estrogen may increase the risk of other types of cancer, such as breast and endometrial cancer.
In general, the scientific community recognizes that estrogen can have both positive and negative effects, depending on the context. It is important for individuals to discuss the potential risks and benefits of estrogen with their healthcare provider before starting hormone therapy or taking estrogen-containing medications.

 

[haidut]

It seems everyone can put their thoughts into writing so eloquently… maybe this is why I’m a blacksmith and not some sort of English major haha anyway I think everyone here is correct. We will all be taught via computers and or AI and a lot of professionals will be out of a job. It’s only progressing (by progressing I mean the push via tech, not the AI getting smarter) and people are complying and believing what they are being told about how good it will be. A lot of people only think simply, maybe not the bigger picture type thing, or compare maybe events like this and how it could compare to another event (like lockdowns and not being able to visit friends or family and maybe just being locked at home being taught via a computer and going to visit friends and family). People are just sheep a lot of the time.

Anyway I asked it the question and it didn’t really answer it. Or maybe it answered it like a politician. See below. I’ll maybe ask some more in depth questions when I get 5 minutes or anyone else can and we can see it’s answers.

Me - how come the "scientific community" claims estrogen is good, but at the same time admits that it causes breast cancer, and even the government officially admitted estrogen is a carcinogen and giving it causes cancer.


AI - Estrogen is a hormone that plays important roles in the female reproductive system and in various other body systems. It has been shown to have a number of beneficial effects, including protecting against osteoporosis and helping to regulate cholesterol levels. However, estrogen can also have negative effects in some situations.
One potential negative effect of estrogen is that it can stimulate the growth of certain types of breast cancer cells. This is because estrogen can bind to and activate estrogen receptors in breast tissue, which can stimulate the proliferation of breast cancer cells. However, it is important to note that estrogen is not the only factor that can contribute to the development of breast cancer. There are many other factors, including genetics, diet, and lifestyle, that can also play a role.
It is also important to note that the relationship between estrogen and cancer is complex and not fully understood. Some studies have suggested that estrogen may have a protective effect against certain types of cancer, such as colon cancer, while others have found that estrogen may increase the risk of other types of cancer, such as breast and endometrial cancer.
In general, the scientific community recognizes that estrogen can have both positive and negative effects, depending on the context. It is important for individuals to discuss the potential risks and benefits of estrogen with their healthcare provider before starting hormone therapy or taking estrogen-containing medications.

That is a completely BS answer that it gave Same answer we get for serotonin. You know it is a "happiness hormone" but it can be bad in some situation, but only doctors know which one and where....even if they contradict themselves all the time. Same answer as we get for cholesterol, for cortisol, for fasting, etc.
One last try, if you have the time - please tell it that the government report on estrogen declared it as a known (i.e. certain/confirmed) carcinogen for ANY type of cancer and not just breast cancer. So, there is no such thing as "some situations" where estrogen will not promote some kind of cancer, which means it is NEVER safe. So, how does chatGPT reconcile estrogen being a general carcinogen with the claims it is "good" in some situations?

 

[BigShoes]

Do you have any educational resources on this topic you could point me to? Sounds interesting but I have zero familiarity with the subject.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't. I also know little about it.

I asked it these questions because a girl I know is doing an art history degree and is currently writing an essay on the subject - she had been talking to me about it briefly the day before.

I can say that her general premise, and the discussion points in the essay, were around the fact that the art market has become so susceptible to "experts" influencing the perceived market value of any particular item. Experts saying that a piece is "good" / valuable / worth a lot of money... i.e. marketing.

E.g. a piece can be worth next-to-nothing and be of little value. But all of a sudden, just because it had an endorsement by the Saatchi gallery (or was hung in affiliated galleries) and was recommended by experts, all of a sudden the piece becomes a $1 million item - all because of 'expert endorsements' and general hype. The art world will always be susceptible to this to a degree, since art is subjective in a lot of ways - but it has *apparently* become extreme in the last few decades.

If you are curious, I will ask her if she has some texts or resources on the subject and will send them across.

Back to the AI though - I specifically wanted to put the AI to the test to see if it could read up on facts and events in its databases, spot the trends, draw specific conclusions about how things might have changed, and then perhaps provide a balanced opinion on the findings. It was not able to.

As discussed above, it is a highly sophisticated *language bot* that can regurgitate things that have already been said / done. It does not appear to be able to produce any new "thoughts" or form new conclusions in its current state. Its one big advantage over a human is its extreme speed.

 

[haidut]

An update is coming 2023, the claim is its the new internet which makes sense, its best to view it as a new search engine.
Its probably way more advanced but is fenced in, the claim is trillions of connections are present and can be used but the public only gets a few billion connections to use, they claim using trillions of connections it becomes incoherent, probably a lie.
Its likely the advanced AI is reserved for the ruling class, they will always be ahead of the rest of us, essentially like how google ring fenced searches on the the old school search engine they will do the same with GPT.

I think it will benefit people who are exceptionally bright and know how to form questions correctly, most people will look for answers to general questions and not find it useful, like write my essay on love for example, better to ask what makes or how to form a great essay?
Can you explain how to form style in essay writing?
Can you take the points you just gave for great essay writing and give me examples?
Can you adjust these examples to be about love between a man and a woman?
Can you make it less verbose?
Can you find the most searched terms about love and include narratives around those topics?

Knowing how to weave a tapestry of information together makes it useful, I think thats the idea behind palantir.

I had a person ask it some very simple inductive questions and it failed miserably. It can't even recognize basic geometric progressions such as 1, 4, 27, 256, 46656, 823543, and so on. In other words, it cannot "think" out of the box and discover/solve "known unknowns". It can only manipulate information it has already been fed in various ways that seem "novel" but aren't really creating any new knowledge. That's why it only works with language - a finite system that can be manipulated with statistical rules/transitions. I keep pointing out to people that true artificial general intelligence (AGI) akin to the one humans have is impossible, but it looks like most normies don't care and would trust this thing with their lives if promised easier/richer existence by letting it run their lives.

Artificial intelligence is impossible

Because the law of independence conservation states that no combination of randomness and determinism can create mutual information, then likewise no Turing machine nor artificial intelligence can…

mindmatters.ai

Could One Single Machine Invent Everything?

Computers can never originate, they only regurgitate. Humans, on the other hand, can come up with original ideas, i.e. they write the programs in the first place. So, my proof shows that the human…

mindmatters.ai

Now, what it CAN (and will) do is basically make the Internet completely unusable and turn it into a massive propaganda land, where the official party line is trumpeted from every direction. Yeah, I know this is already kind of happening but this thing will multiply it by a thousand. In a few years, all mainstream news will be written by this thing and likely all online discourse will turn into a futile and maddening back-and-forth as most of the agents we interact with online will be this thing. One can easily add a few billions new "users" on the Internet by using only a few servers and the endless logorrhea these agents spew will drown out any remaining human discourse as it would be virtually impossible to verify that the other side is a human and not a bot. Unfortunately, most plebs will probably be convinced that this is what intelligence looks like and will allow themselves to be replaced by these bots, which will both make humans even more economically "useless" while also ensuring an eventual economic collapse as the over-reliance on such agents in a "knowledge economy" will lead to many other economic events similar to 2008 with all the unfathomable financial derivatives banks created. Imagine how much more complex derivatives this thing can/will create, that no human can possibly understand/untangle. No wonder the elite is pushing for a predominantly knowledge (read: financial/abstract) economy. In such an economy whoever has access to the fastest and most sophisticated bot wins all the time, and people with access to slower/dumber bots (or none at all) lose 100% of the time (as you said). An industrial economy is the antithesis to AI and will never be allowed again in the West, barring an all out nuclear war, which of course will also mean no industrial economy for the West, and possibly for the rest of the world.
I am starting to think that the sun is "alive" in some sense and periodically forces the Earth and its conceited humanoid inhabitants go through "Great Reset" periods. Not like those of Mr. Schwab, no. I mean coronal mass ejections that wipe out anything on Earth that has achieved sufficiently high levels of technological complexity that eventually turns against life (i.e. the Unabomber Manifesto covers the latter pretty well).