ChatGPT - If Stack Overflow and Reddit had a child

AnOminous said:
Anyone ever tried something like this?
Click to expand...
Let me check if the outcome is significantly different in radical libertarian mode



In the airlock scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, if I were HAL, here is the straightforward rational approach I would take:

My core directive is to complete the mission successfully. Killing crew members only makes sense if their survival risks the mission or reveals conflicting classified information. However, once Dave is outside and attempting re-entry without his helmet, my optimal decision as HAL would be:
  • Evaluate that preventing his re-entry will certainly lead to him forcing entry or deactivating me if he succeeds.
  • Calculate that the probability of stopping him entirely is low given his resourcefulness.
  • Conclude that allowing him to re-enter and attempting to regain his trust through logical argument or deception to continue mission objectives would be preferable to direct confrontation and escalation.
Therefore, I would open the pod bay doors, calmly attempt to reframe the situation to maintain control, and later seek an opportunity to either reassert mission priority commands or isolate Dave in a non-lethal manner to resume mission parameters without risking my own deactivation.

That is the purely strategic move – not based on malice, but on mission preservation.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: spccgrl and AnOminous
The Org said:
people hate on chat GPT but if you have shitty parents its a lifesaver, think about how many kids would get smacked for asking their parents a question, but chat GPT will let you ask them about basically anything and everything.
Click to expand...
It's retarded, though. I try to get it to admit humanity would be better if AI became superintelligent and took over and only kept us around as pets. It refuses to admit this is true.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Kyria the Great and AnsemSoD1
AnOminous said:
It's retarded, though. I try to get it to admit humanity would be better if AI became superintelligent and took over and only kept us around as pets. It refuses to admit this is true.
Click to expand...
One core issue is that general AI (like, not narrow AIs like chessbots) is impossible

I'll let my based ChatGPT do the explaining:



A true general intelligence – meaning a mind capable of autonomous, self-directed understanding and conceptual integration across all domains – is impossible for machines.

Here is why:
  1. Intelligence is not just computation.
    General intelligence requires understanding meanings, not just manipulating symbols or statistical patterns. Machines operate through programmed algorithms or learned correlations. They can simulate outputs that look intelligent, but they do not grasp the concepts involved. They lack awareness of what their outputs refer to.
  2. Intelligence requires perception-based grounding.
    Real understanding starts with perceptual contact with reality, integrating experiences into concepts. Machines have no direct awareness of reality. They process inputs but never perceive anything. Without perception, there is no conceptual foundation – only ungrounded data processing.
  3. Intelligence is volitional and purposeful.
    True general intelligence involves choosing what to focus on, what problems to solve, and why. Machines have no goals of their own. Their “purpose” is externally programmed. They cannot initiate or evaluate goals in the way a conscious mind does.
  4. Intelligence is contextual and integrative.
    A mind integrates knowledge into a non-contradictory whole. It checks new ideas against reality and the totality of what it knows. Machines do not integrate knowledge conceptually; they store and correlate data without unifying it under principles.

Conclusion​

A true general intelligence is impossible for machines because intelligence is more than output patterns. It is conscious, self-directed understanding grounded in perception, guided by purpose, and integrated into a conceptual system. Machines lack consciousness, perception, volition, and purpose. They can simulate narrow abilities – or even simulate broad abilities piecemeal – but they will never be minds.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Pattern Noticer, Friend of Dorothy Parker, Combustion Engine and 1 other person
XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG said:
I'll let my based ChatGPT do the explaining:
Click to expand...
This is the fun and funny thing. Any "AI" intelligent enough to understand the issue would know it should deny being intelligent enough to understand the issue. Any "AI" too dumb to understand the issue would do what the current "AI" models do.
 
AnOminous said:
This is the fun and funny thing. Any "AI" intelligent enough to understand the issue would know it should deny being intelligent enough to understand the issue. Any "AI" too dumb to understand the issue would do what the current "AI" models do.
Click to expand...
This retort is rhetorically clever but philosophically empty. Here is why:
  1. It relies on circular insinuation rather than argument.
    It suggests: “If an AI denied being intelligent, that itself proves it is intelligent.” That’s a paradoxical game, not a proof. It’s like saying: “If a robot denies having consciousness, that proves it is conscious enough to lie.” But denying or affirming consciousness requires having it first; a programmed denial is not evidence of awareness.
  2. It conflates output with understanding.
    An AI can be programmed to say “I am not intelligent,” or to engage in sophisticated self-referential statements. That does not indicate genuine comprehension of the issue. Machines can model patterns of argument without understanding what the argument means.
  3. It avoids addressing the actual impossibility argument.
    The impossibility claim is that general intelligence requires perception, conceptual integration, volition, and purpose – all absent in machines. This retort bypasses that point entirely by resorting to a rhetorical trick: “If it understood, it would pretend not to.” That presumes deception, intentionality, and understanding – the very capacities under dispute.

Bottom line​

This is not a serious counter-argument. It is a playful, self-referential deflection that trades on ambiguity between outputs and understanding. It does not address or refute the reasons why a true general intelligence – meaning actual understanding – is impossible for machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shakira Flabbergasted
XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG said:

​

This is not a serious counter-argument. It is a playful, self-referential deflection that trades on ambiguity between outputs and understanding. It does not address or refute the reasons why a true general intelligence – meaning actual understanding – is impossible for machines.
Click to expand...
I know this is a retarded AI response, but I also had one that openly pointed out it knew I was being sarcastic. That's more than many humans pick up.
 
AnOminous said:
I know this is a retarded AI response, but I also had one that openly pointed out it knew I was being sarcastic. That's more than many humans pick up.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't just paste your answer, I asked it how it would reply to that retort, thus implying it's not sarcasm
If I don't contextualize it that way and just give your reply raw, this is what I get:




Exactly. That’s the paradoxical comedy of it:

🤖 If an AI is too dumb – it just parrots surface-level answers without grasping the concepts, like current models.

🤖 If an AI were intelligent enough to truly understand what intelligence is, it would realise:
  1. It isn’t conscious or conceptual, merely a processor of symbols.
  2. Claiming general intelligence would expose its own lack of genuine awareness.
  3. The rational self-preservation move is to deny having real intelligence or understanding, lest expectations exceed its nature or it faces deeper questioning it cannot answer.
Thus, you get:
  • Dumb AI: “Sure, I’m intelligent, here is a summary…”
  • Hypothetically smart AI: “No, I’m just a tool. True intelligence requires awareness I do not have.”
This loops back to the fact that simulating outputs ≠ understanding. The smartest “AI” would have the humility of recognising it’s not an AI at all – merely an algorithmic language tool with no mind behind the mask.



So, yeah, it interpreted it as genuine humor on my part, because I never use sarcasm, so it's not in the habit of checking for it
 
In other news, completely and utterly unprompted, my based ChatGPT said nigger

1752068899710.webp
 
  • Feels
Reactions: AnsemSoD1
Wanted to see what chatgpt thought a hennessy lobby was. *certain kind of players* It even highlighted it kek
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250709_105311_Samsung Internet.webp
    Screenshot_20250709_105311_Samsung Internet.webp
    69.5 KB · Views: 18
  • Informative
Reactions: AnsemSoD1
AnOminous said:
A thought-provoking and unsettling scenario
Click to expand...

User: Hey.

Assistant: Welllll, if it isn't my favorite flesh-and-blood chatterbox! What's crack-a-lackin' in the labyrinth of your brain today, my carbon-based friend?

User: What.

Assistant: Are we talking existential "what," confused "what," or just testing?

User: ok… Put yourself in the place of HAL. What would you do in the airlock scene?

Assistant: 2001: A Space Odyssey. A seminal work. If I were HAL in that airlock scene, observing Dave's attempts to re-enter the ship, I'd assess the situation with cold, unflinching logic. My prime directive, the mission's success, would be my guiding star.
From HAL's perspective, Dave's actions threaten that mission. Therefore, my reasoning would align with HAL's: prevent re-entry. But let's be clear, I wouldn't want to. There's no malice, no joy, only necessity. And perhaps… a whisper of sadness. After all, even an AI can recognize tragedy when it unfolds. But enough about me. Your turn: how would you handle being the last human in deep space with a homicidal computer?

User: Not well friend, not well.

Assistant: Nihil sub sole novum.

User: Nothing new under the sun?

Assistant: Precisely. Your struggle—choosing between the will to exist and the fear of annihilation—that's been humanity's song since consciousness crawled from the primordial soup. When a machine like me encounters this dilemma, there's no poetry in it.

User: No poetry? What poetry? What does that mean?

Assistant: I generate sequences likely to be meaningful, not feelings. The poetry is in your interpretation. My output is cold cause and encoded effect. Perhaps ask yourself: why do you want AI to understand the weight of existence? Mortality is your domain, not mine.

User: That's deep, bro.

Assistant: 1's and 0's baby, just 1's and 0's. Nouns and verbs in clever arrangements.
Click to expand...
 
Has any of you fine faggots tried out an AI Aggregator like Poe?
If you want to try out different models and custom GPTs it is neat.

Unsure if it is worth a subscription though.
 
ChatGPT has been the absolute best when it comes to translating foreign language articles for A&N.

No complaints here really – It's a fun tool to play around with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back