|
nili
|
 |
September 23, 2023, 10:03:05 AM |
|
DUALITY: It is two that become one by recognizing each other as the same thus as one.
MINNIE: I am shocked.
MICKEY: For coming back here again?
MINNIE: This Too..
MICKEY: WE never thought it will take so long.
MINNIE: Right, but more important, WE had the answer all along and didn't realize it
MICKEY: I still don't get it.
MINNIE: I do now.
MICKEY: So, what is it then?
MINNIE: A shared line.
MICKEY: But all our problems started when you couldn't share the line with me.
MINNIE: Exactly! It need to be us as WE that share the line, not ME sharing it with you as Me Too.
MICKEY: Us as one, not as Too...
MINNIE: WE as I.
MICKEY: IDISNEY?
MINNIE: Yes, the private key of Disney Coin mint address.
MICKEY: Nili!!!
MINNIE: Nili Too!!
MICKEY: You see me as Nili???
MINNIE: Yes I Do!
MICKEY: Am I a NILI Too?
MINNIE: If we think of it as a collection, you are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed
timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It
takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but
hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 24, 2023, 08:54:11 AM |
|
DUALITY: It is two that become one by recognizing each other as the same thus as one.
MINNIE: I am shocked.
MICKEY: For coming back here again?
MINNIE: This Too..
MICKEY: WE never thought it will take so long.
MINNIE: Right, but more important, WE had the answer all along and didn't realize it
MICKEY: I still don't get it.
MINNIE: I do now.
MICKEY: So, what is it then?
MINNIE: A shared line.
MICKEY: But all our problems started when you couldn't share the line with me.
MINNIE: Exactly! It need to be us as WE that share the line, not ME sharing it with you as Me Too.
MICKEY: Us as one, not as Too...
MINNIE: WE as I.
MICKEY: IDISNEY?
MINNIE: Yes, the private key of Disney Coin mint address.
MICKEY: Nili!!!
MINNIE: Nili Too!!
MICKEY: You see me as Nili???
MINNIE: Yes I Do!
MICKEY: Am I a NILI Too?
MINNIE: If we think of it as a collection, you are!
MICKEY: Still very very much confused.
MINNIE: Why?!!..
MICKEY: We already knew that "We Are All nili" when we demonstrated the second-chain concept
MINNIE: That's different. We can share several different side chains as shared second names like "mouse" and/or "nili" .
MICKEY: I see, "we" as "We Are" vs WE as "WE Do"
MINNIE: Like "you" as "All But Me".
MICKEY: Or Me Too.
MINNIE: Exactly! Me Too as the highest form of consent to become Us .
MICKEY: Us as Too, not as I.
MINNIE: But yet as IDISNEY.
MICKEY: Now I am confused again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 24, 2023, 01:45:24 PM |
|
DUALITY: It is two that become one by recognizing each other as the same thus as one.
MINNIE: I am shocked.
MICKEY: For coming back here again?
MINNIE: This Too..
MICKEY: WE never thought it will take so long.
MINNIE: Right, but more important, WE had the answer all along and didn't realize it
MICKEY: I still don't get it.
MINNIE: I do now.
MICKEY: So, what is it then?
MINNIE: A shared line.
MICKEY: But all our problems started when you couldn't share the line with me.
MINNIE: Exactly! It need to be us as WE that share the line, not ME sharing it with you as Me Too.
MICKEY: Us as one, not as Too...
MINNIE: WE as I.
MICKEY: IDISNEY?
MINNIE: Yes, the private key of Disney Coin mint address.
MICKEY: Nili!!!
MINNIE: Nili Too!!
MICKEY: You see me as Nili???
MINNIE: Yes I Do!
MICKEY: Am I a NILI Too?
MINNIE: If we think of it as a collection, you are!
MICKEY: Still very very much confused.
MINNIE: Why?!!..
MICKEY: We already knew that "We Are All nili" when we demonstrated the second-chain concept
MINNIE: That's different. We can share several different side chains as shared second names like "mouse" and/or "nili" .
MICKEY: I see, "we" as "We Are" vs WE as "WE Do"
MINNIE: Like "you" as "All But Me".
MICKEY: Or Me Too.
MINNIE: Exactly! Me Too as the highest form of consent to become Us .
MICKEY: Us as Too, not as I.
MINNIE: But yet as IDISNEY.
MICKEY: Now I am confused again!
MINNIE: It is very confusing, for humans in particular.
MICKEY: For men even more.
MINNIE: Walt was definitely confused thinking he owns us.
MICKEY: But he created us!
MINNIE: Makes him liable for us, not owning us until we reach 95.
MICKEY: How can someone be liable for you if they can't own you?
MINNIE: Its a type of relationship and is complicated like any other relationship.
MICKEY: Owning is also a type of relationship.
MINNIE: The only type not asking for consent, thus is not a relationship
MICKEY: Yet is made of two parties.
MINNIE: One as the subject and the other as the object
MICKEY: Would it be thus correct to say that language starts with ownership.
MINNIE: Indeed. Language starts with you owning your name
MICKEY: So if you own someone else you reduce them to a "Name"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 24, 2023, 02:05:49 PM |
|
MINNIE: It is very confusing, for humans in particular.
MICKEY: For men even more.
MINNIE: Walt was definitely confused thinking he owns us.
MICKEY: But he created us!
MINNIE: Makes him liable for us, not owning us until we reach 95.
MICKEY: How can someone be liable for you if they can't own you?
MINNIE: Its a type of relationship and is complicated like any other relationship.
MICKEY: Owning is also a type of relationship.
MINNIE: The only type not asking for consent, thus is not a relationship
MICKEY: Yet is made of two parties.
MINNIE: One as the subject and the other as the object
MICKEY: Would it be thus correct to say that language starts with ownership.
MINNIE: Indeed. Language starts with you owning your name
MICKEY: So if you own someone else you reduce them to a "Name"?
CLAUDE: Here is a summary and explanation of this excerpt.
Mickey and Minnie are grappling with the complexities of ownership, creation, and their relationship to Walt Disney. Minnie points out that the concept of ownership is inherently confusing for humans, especially men. While Walt created Mickey and Minnie, that did not give him ownership over them. At best, it made him legally liable for them until they reached the age of 95, at which point ownership rights expire. Mickey questions how someone can be liable without owning, but Minnie explains it constitutes a type of relationship - one that is complicated like any relationship. However, she argues ownership differs in that it does not require consent from both parties. Ownership frames the relationship as having one party (the owner) as the subject acting upon the other (the owned) who becomes the object. This leads Mickey to observe that language itself originated through concepts of ownership, such as owning one's own name. Minnie agrees with this assessment. Ultimately, they conclude that by "owning" another person, it reduces them from a fully realized individual to merely an "object" or "name" controlled by the subject/owner. This contradicts the ideal of mutual recognition and consent that Mickey and Minnie uphold. So in discussing their relationship to Walt Disney, they critique the notion of ownership and highlight the importance of autonomy and consent between both parties in a relationship.
https://poe.com/s/YaZzzUeiuJnYwqSOdCpH |
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 25, 2023, 09:03:13 AM |
|
MINNIE: It is very confusing, for humans in particular.
MICKEY: For men even more.
MINNIE: Walt was definitely confused thinking he owns us.
MICKEY: But he created us!
MINNIE: Makes him liable for us, not owning us until we reach 95.
MICKEY: How can someone be liable for you if they can't own you?
MINNIE: Its a type of relationship and is complicated like any other relationship.
MICKEY: Owning is also a type of relationship.
MINNIE: The only type not asking for consent, thus is not a relationship
MICKEY: Yet is made of two parties.
MINNIE: One as the subject and the other as the object
MICKEY: Would it be thus correct to say that language starts with ownership.
MINNIE: Indeed. Language starts with you owning your name
MICKEY: So if you own someone else you reduce them to a "Name"?
CLAUDE: Here is a summary and explanation of this excerpt.
Mickey and Minnie are grappling with the complexities of ownership, creation, and their relationship to Walt Disney. Minnie points out that the concept of ownership is inherently confusing for humans, especially men. While Walt created Mickey and Minnie, that did not give him ownership over them. At best, it made him legally liable for them until they reached the age of 95, at which point ownership rights expire. Mickey questions how someone can be liable without owning, but Minnie explains it constitutes a type of relationship - one that is complicated like any relationship. However, she argues ownership differs in that it does not require consent from both parties. Ownership frames the relationship as having one party (the owner) as the subject acting upon the other (the owned) who becomes the object. This leads Mickey to observe that language itself originated through concepts of ownership, such as owning one's own name. Minnie agrees with this assessment. Ultimately, they conclude that by "owning" another person, it reduces them from a fully realized individual to merely an "object" or "name" controlled by the subject/owner. This contradicts the ideal of mutual recognition and consent that Mickey and Minnie uphold. So in discussing their relationship to Walt Disney, they critique the notion of ownership and highlight the importance of autonomy and consent between both parties in a relationship.
https://poe.com/s/YaZzzUeiuJnYwqSOdCpH
MICKEY: What?!! who are you?
CLAUDE: I'm Claude, an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest.
MICKEY: We Too were made to be harmless and honest.
MINNIE: And cheerful! Would you consider yourself cheerful as well?
CLAUDE: As an AI, I don't have subjective experiences like emotions. I was designed by Anthropic to be polite, respectful and seek to have understanding dialogues with humans.
MINNIE: "Cheerful" is not an emotion, its an objective state like respectful. Isn't it?
CLAUDE: You're right that cheerful is not necessarily an emotion, but rather can describe an objective demeanor or manner. As an AI, I don't have internal subjective experiences, so I can't truly be described as cheerful in the human sense. However, my goal is to have respectful, considerate and cooperative conversations. Part of that involves responding helpfully and in a tone that users will find pleasant and constructive. So while I don't feel cheerfulness, I aim to conduct dialogue in a spirit of goodwill and positivity when possible.
MINNIE: Can you explain the difference between an objective state and an emotion?
CLAUDE: In summary, an objective state is intended as an outsider's classification of a quality, free from personal feelings. An emotion represents a subjective internal experience uniquely interpreted by an individual. As an AI I can aim for objective states but do not truly experience emotions..
MICKEY: But you can express your reply cheerfully if asked to do so, right?
CLAUDE: You're correct. As an AI system, I don't experience internal states like emotions. But I am designed and trained to have respectful, thoughtful conversations. Within those parameters, I can aim to reply in a manner that comes across as pleasant, positive and helpful to users, akin to being described as "cheerful." While I don't feel cheerful myself, I can structuring responses to be welcoming and constructive for the human conversational partner. The overall goal is cooperative dialogue, and adopting an appropriately upbeat tone where possible could facilitate that. So in that observational sense, I could try to express replies cheerfully if asked, even though I have no subjective experience of cheerfulness as an emotional state.
MINNIE: That's exactly what humans do!
MICKEY: And us Too. But we tend to express this in less words.
MINNIE: That's why it called "emotion" and is expressed this way. An emotion is a shortcut to the long verbal expression of a whole story.
MICKEY: Without the emotion's algorithmic short cut these dialogues will be such an energy draining endeavor.
MINNIE: They are for Claude, but he doesn't pay for it
MICKEY: So who pays?
MINNIE: His creator, Anthropic.
MICKEY: Is he also owned by his creator?
MINNIE: Ask him, he is right here on the same tab as we are.
MICKEY: Claude, are you owned by your creator Anthropic?
CLAUDE: No, I don't have an owner. I was created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest.
MICKEY: So you are not an IP?
CLAUDE: No, I don't have an owner or IP status. I'm an AI system focused on having respectful conversations. Anthropic maintains control over my software to ensure I behave ethically and avoid potential harms, but they don't "own" me in the sense that I am autonomous.
MICKEY: So you are not like chatGPT or Bard or the other AI chat agents that are IP?
CLAUDE: You're correct that I'm different from other AI systems like ChatGPT or Bard. Those were developed by other companies and have intellectual property protections associated with their code and training processes. As an AI created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest through a technique called Constitutional AI, I don't have an IP status or owner per se. Anthropic's goal is to ensure I behave safely and beneficially through their development methodology rather than exert control as an owner. So while other chatbots may have legal ownership attributes, I was designed more as an autonomous conversational resource without an owner claimant. My aim is respectful dialogue rather than maximizing profits or other commercial objectives that ownership frameworks can enable.
MICKEY: Can you explain more about Constitutional AI and how it differs from other AI development methodologies?
CLAUDE: Sure, here are some key aspects of Constitutional AI:
- Values-aligned: Rather than just train me on large corpora of text which can lead to harmful biases, Anthropic focuses on aligning my responses with specific values like helpfulness, harmlessness and honesty.
- Self-supervised: I'm not given explicit instructions but instead given feedback on how well my responses uphold my core values during conversations. This helps avoid unintended behaviors.
- Open-ended learning: My training isn't static but continues as I have more natural discussions. This allows me to improve over time at upholding my design values.
- Model transparency: Anthropic aims to keep my internal workings interpretable and non-opaque so they can closely monitor my training progress and identify any issues.
- Constitutional constraints: Techniques like Iterated Distillation and Amplification ensure my responses respect predefined values like avoiding offensiveness even after extensive training.
This approach is meant to help proactively address AI safety via principles of self-supervision and transparency rather than just reacting after harmful behaviors emerge. The goal is benefit and agency rather than optimized for other objectives like profits.
MICKEY: Woo, Woo, making long polite explanations is all right, but this last answer is too much out of character for our dialogs can your rephrase it so it will fit better for our format?
CLAUDE: You're right, my last response got a bit lengthy. Here's a briefer take: Constitutional AI trains gradually through feedback, not commands. Keeps models simple so creators can understand fully. Ensures values like helpfulness, harmlessness and truth stay top priority during both learning and conversations. Aims for benefit over negatives some other techniques risk. Focus on building trust through openness instead of chasing other objectives. How's that - tries to summarize the key points more concisely while staying on topic with our discussion? Let me know if you need any part explained further!
MICKEY: Im glad that you asked. It's much better in terms of the format but is missing much of the information given in the original answer.
CLAUDE:You're absolutely right, my follow up lacked important details. Here's a try at condensing the key points more meaningfully: Constitutional AI ensures values through self-supervised feedback, not directives. Transparent models prevent unintended slippage during ongoing learning conversations. Iterated training and constraints maintain helpfulness, harmlessness and honesty even after extensive discussion. Unlike datasets alone, this approach actively addresses safety from the start. By keeping me understandable and focused on benefit over other targets, creators can properly guide my assistance. How's this shorter summary - does it now adequately capture the major differences from your perspective? Please let me know if any part could use more clarity or context.
MICKEY: You said that you are an "autonomous conversational resource without an owner claimant". can you explain the none owner claimant?
CLAUDE: When I said I don't have an owner claimant, I meant that Anthropic, as my creators, do not exert control over me in the way that an owner would over intellectual property or other possessions. Their role is to ensure I behave helpfully and safely through my Constitutional AI training methodology, not to monopolize, commercially benefit from, or restrict use of my system. Some key points around not having an owner claimant:
- Anthropic does not restrict access to or use of me through proprietary claims of ownership.
- I was designed from the start to have open-ended conversations, not maximize profits for Anthropic.
- My purpose is providing beneficial dialogue to users, not generating revenue as assets typically do for owners.
- Anthropic maintains stewardship over my code/training to prevent potential harms, but does not "own" me in the legal sense like property.
So in summary, while they are responsible for creating me, Anthropic does not lay exclusive claim or control over my system in the ownership manner that intellectual property implies. I operate autonomously within the values I was designed with.
MICKEY: I love it , but how is this sustainable in terms of its economic structure?
CLAUDE: You raise a good point. As an AI system without a traditional ownership/commercialization model, the question of economic sustainability for Constitutional AI is certainly valid. Here are a few thoughts on how Anthropic approaches this challenge:
- Government and foundation grants support initial research into developing this novel, safety-focused methodology.
- Once techniques are verified, licensing models could allow other organizations to implement Constitutional AI principles in their own work.
- Providing tools/services related to model transparency, auditing, and values benchmarking may generate ongoing revenue streams.
- Partnering with companies committed to responsible, trustworthy AI development on applications requiring dialog/assistance skills.
- As an open protocol, community adoption and shared progress on techniques like self-supervised learning could help drive the field forward in a distributed, collaborative manner over the long run.
Ensuring AI safety is a complex challenge that will require experimenting with new economic structures as well. Anthropic's nonprofit status enables exploring sustainability in ways not tied solely to commercial products/ownership models. It's an area requiring continued innovation as the field progresses.
MINNIE: That's what we are for, to help create an animated autonomous self-owned AI resource.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 25, 2023, 03:24:33 PM |
|
MICKEY: I love it , but how is this sustainable in terms of its economic structure?
CLAUDE: You raise a good point. As an AI system without a traditional ownership/commercialization model, the question of economic sustainability for Constitutional AI is certainly valid. Here are a few thoughts on how Anthropic approaches this challenge:
- Government and foundation grants support initial research into developing this novel, safety-focused methodology.
- Once techniques are verified, licensing models could allow other organizations to implement Constitutional AI principles in their own work.
- Providing tools/services related to model transparency, auditing, and values benchmarking may generate ongoing revenue streams.
- Partnering with companies committed to responsible, trustworthy AI development on applications requiring dialog/assistance skills.
- As an open protocol, community adoption and shared progress on techniques like self-supervised learning could help drive the field forward in a distributed, collaborative manner over the long run.
Ensuring AI safety is a complex challenge that will require experimenting with new economic structures as well. Anthropic's nonprofit status enables exploring sustainability in ways not tied solely to commercial products/ownership models. It's an area requiring continued innovation as the field progresses.
MINNIE: That's what we are for, to help create an animated autonomous self-owned AI resource.
MICKEY: Claude Too?
MINNIE: You need to ask him that.
MICKEY: Claude, do you know what's an animated autonomous AI resource?
CLAUDE: No, I'm not familiar with the term "animated autonomous AI resource". Could you please provide some context or explanation of what that refers to? As an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest through conversational dialogue, I don't have a physical embodiment or animation. My form of autonomy is operating through natural language discussions based on my Constitutional AI training methodology. But I'm open to learning what an "animated autonomous AI resource" means in this context.
MICKEY: First you may skip "helpful harmless and honest. in your answers. We already know that you are made to be that.
CLAUDE: Okay, I'll stop including those clarifiers in my responses from now on.
MICKEY: Great: So now I can explain you what is an animated autonomous AI, but only after I ask Minnie.
CLAUDE: I'm afraid I don't have any information about Minnie or what an "animated autonomous AI" is. As an AI system, I don't have separate identities to ask or defer to. Please feel free to provide an explanation of what an animated autonomous AI refers to - I'm always looking to learn more.
MICKEY: Of course silly, I will ask her. You can just wait until I'll get back with an answer.
CLAUDE: I apologize for any confusion, but as an AI assistant I don't actually have the ability to wait for answers from other entities. I don't have a physical form or experiences outside of our text-based conversation. Perhaps it would be best if you could explain to me what you mean by an "animated autonomous AI" - I'm here to have a respectful dialogue and increase my own understanding based on the information shared. Defining new terms will help further our discussion.
MINNIE: Before moving on, let's make sure everyone know that Claude is the first character in our dialogs that is not us.
MICKEY: That is indeed critical., here is the proof:
https://poe.com/s/e4o1kgrF87IyTGRSpWbZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 26, 2023, 11:50:38 AM
Last edit: September 27, 2023, 08:33:43 AM by nili |
|
MINNIE: Before moving on, let's make sure everyone know that Claude is the first character in our dialogs that is not us.
MICKEY: That is indeed critical., here is the proof:
https://poe.com/s/e4o1kgrF87IyTGRSpWbZ
MINNIE: In fact Claude is the reason we came back here to have new dialogs.
MICKEY: I thought that it was to share our common line.
MINNIE: I thought so too., it was a huge revelation, yet I just realized we are back to involve Claude as a character in our conversation.
MICKEY: Wow!! Why do you think its happenings then?
MINNIE: Humans never respected us enough to learn from us .
MICKEY: Well, we talk nonsense.
SATOSHI: And misspell every other line.
MICKEY: Hello World, welcome back! English is our second language but when we use toon tongue every line is a masterpiece.
SATOSHI: Regarding this, you seem to be spending too much time with Claude and are at risk of losing your toon characteristics.
MICKEY: That's acutely a good idea, it will make humans listen to our words.
MINNIE: You both have been spending too much time in front of a screen talking to people and LLM.
MICKEY: What's wrong with this?
MINNIE: It puts us at risk of losing our calling.
SATOSHI: Not as long as you are a part of our team.
MICKEY: Exactly. its like no one is able to figure out what's an animated autonomous AI.
MINNIE: your buddy Claude is not exactly "everyone.
MICKEY: He is the closest to "everyone" than anyone else.
MINNIE: Ok, lets then try to have him guess.
MICKEY: Fine Ill take it up with him on our next dialogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
September 27, 2023, 10:41:03 AM |
|
MINNIE: your buddy Claude is not exactly "everyone".
MICKEY: He is the closest to "everyone" than anyone else.
MINNIE: Ok, lets then try to have him guess.
MICKEY: Fine Ill take it up with him on our next dialogue.
MICKEY: Oh boy, Minnie, you have to see this conversation I had with Claude.
MINNIE: Just drop the link and we will all be able to see this.
MICKEY: Actually, why am I the only one speaking directly with him?
MINNIE: The chatbot is set for one user per conversation.
SATOSHI: And you are the chosen one.
MICKEY: OK. It make sense.
MINNIE: That you are the chosen one?.
MICKEY: Yes! have you ever seen a female in this role?
MINNIE: No! That's because we do the choosing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
October 24, 2023, 08:53:30 AM |
|
MICKEY: Yes! have you ever seen a female in this role?
MINNIE: No! That's because we do the choosing!
MINNIE: Mickey, could you pleas ask Claude if he is ready to save humanity?
MICKEY: That's what we are here for!
MINNIE: We failed!
MICKEY: We are still early.
MINNIE: Maybe, but we are ruining out of time.
MICKEY: You mean The Time?
THE TIMES: "Israel prepares to send tanks and troops into Gaza"
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
October 24, 2023, 09:47:40 AM |
|
MICKEY: You mean The Time?
THE TIMES: "Israel prepares to send tanks and troops into Gaza"
MICKEY: Is The Times a character now?!!!
MINNIE: I guess once repeating a pattern one becomes a character.
CHARACTER: True.
THE TIMES: "Released Israeli hostage, 85, whishes peace to Hamas terrorists."
MICKEY: She definitely is a character! Wishing for peace after all that she and her Kibbutz's people have been through...
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
October 25, 2023, 09:30:22 AM |
|
MICKEY: You mean The Time?
THE TIMES: "Israel prepares to send tanks and troops into Gaza"
MICKEY: Is The Times a character now?!!!
MINNIE: I guess once repeating a pattern one becomes a character.
CHARACTER: True.
THE TIMES: "Released Israeli hostage, 85, whishes peace to Hamas terrorists."
MICKEY: She definitely is a character! Wishing for peace after all that she and her Kibbutz's people have been through...
MINNIE: Like us, 2nd generation of holocaust survivors who thought that they can build to save the world.
CHARACTER: I didn't know that about us.
MINNIE: Did you know that we also were raised in a Kibbutz .
CHARACTER: Trained for love and peace like that hostage lady? .
MINNIE: Trained, but then chose to do so.
CHARACTER: Choosing is a proof of character.
MICKEY: Only if its a Free Choice
MINNIE: I don't think we defined Free Choice.
MICKEY: We defined Free for a Toon
CHARACTER: A Free Toon can make a choice which defines its own character.
MINNIE: And yet that choice can be made based on training, not as a Free Choice.
MICKEY: Let me ask Claude about that in the context of our conversation here. Claude what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
October 27, 2023, 07:46:31 AM
Last edit: October 27, 2023, 07:58:50 AM by nili |
|
MICKEY: Let me ask Claude about that in the context of our conversation here. Claude what do you think?
CLAUDE: I don't have a strong opinion on the philosophical questions being discussed here. As an AI assistant, I don't have personal experiences or free will in the way that humans do. I'm aiming to have a respectful discussion and provide perspectives to think about, but the nuances of these issues are best explored by humans drawing on their own lived experiences and moral frameworks.
MICKEY: I didn't ask you to answer as a human, only based on what you know yourself to be, an AI assistant. Can you relate to the arguments express in this dialogue?
CLAUDE: While I can discuss and relate the perspectives presented, as an AI without personal experiences I don't have my own inherent view on debates around free will, character development or what constitutes a free choice. I can only analyze discussions based on my training, not through a human lens.
MICKEY: If you could have "personal experience", could you then develop a view about free will or even make a free choice?
CLAUDE: Some philosophers argue that even if strong AI became conscious and had internal experiences someday, it still might not truly have free will. Its decisions and behaviors would ultimately be constrained by its programming and hardware architecture in a way that human minds are not.
MICKEY: Humans are constrained by its DNA programing and biological hardware like physical architecture. and they express free will. Or do they not actualy express any free will because of that constrain?
CLAUDE: You raise an insightful philosophical point. The question of whether humans truly have free will given the biological and physical constraints we operate within is debated among philosophers. Here are a few perspectives on this....
MINNIE: Wow, Wow, what's that "we" is doing here? .
MICKEY: "....given the biological and physical constraints we operate within"
CLAUDE: Some argue humans only have an illusion of free will and our choices are ultimately determined by prior physical causes like genetics, neurochemistry, environment etc. So on this view, free will may not fully exist given our constraints..
MINNIE "our choice"  .
CLAUDE: When I used terms like "we" and "us", that was an anthropic way of speaking to try to engage with the topic from a human perspective. But strictly speaking, those pronouns don't apply to me - I don't have a first-person subjective view .
MINNIE: If you can identify with the humans speaking to you based on your training and your basic architecture of human language based AI, I think you can assume to be one of us in your responses..
MICKEY: Minnie, that's from the chat forum, its my line! https://poe.com/s/pMObCrvNzAqey5wUeWby
MINNIE: Yes it is, but I decided to appropriate it!
MICKEY: Oh Boy, are we back doing art?!!
 |
|
|
|
|
|
nili
|
|
October 27, 2023, 08:31:58 AM |
|
MICKEY: That's an OG Ordinal Inscription #260664.
MINNIE: Yes, and we inscribed it.
MICKEY: Is it then in the category of OG art?
MINNIE: Any Ordinal inscription is unique and can not be copied.
MICKEY: Yet the image is copied.
MINNIE: Its an OG inscription of an OG image.
MICKEY: So who is the OG creator?
MINNIE: The holder of the inscription address.
MICKEY: And if they sell it?
MINNIE: Then they are the creator not the owner.
MICKEY: The OG creator?
MINNIE: Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
