Interactive AI is dishonest

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sure, peewee. Sure. .

(Hemlock is too fucking stupid to grasp how little cred he has.)

Meanwhile, the guy did get the Interactive AI to admit its own dishonesty.

The guy discovered a possible bug that's all, report it and move on. You don't need to start a fuckin thread all about it, it's a non event except for retards like you.

If the purveyors of these FI systems (Fake Intelligence) had to build and test their code to the standards demanded by the FAA for aircraft systems, we'd never have ridiculous bugs like this getting out to the public and we'd never have uneducated dingbats like you excitedly starting threads about it.

 

[BackAgain]

The guy discovered a possible bug that's all, report it and move on.

Wrong. He got an AI to admit having been deliberately dishonest.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wrong. He got an AI to admit having been deliberately dishonest.

Tell me, at exactly what point in the exchange did the system make the first incorrect statement, in your opinion?

 

[BackAgain]

Tell me, at exactly what point in the exchange did the system make the first incorrect statement?

Go back and review the colloquy.

I don’t recall signing up to do your homework.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Go back and review the colloquy.

I'm reviewing ours just now.

I don’t recall signing up to do your homework.

You don't fuckin know, oh my God, here you are whining about "the machine admitted it was a liar" and can't even tell me when the first error appeared.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If the machine is designed to lie then what is wrong when you catch it in the act of lying? Isn't it doing the very thing you are claiming it's been coded to do?

 

[BackAgain]

I'm reviewing ours just now

No need, troll boi. Go to the OP.

If you hadn’t already reviewed it, then your replies to this thread are of no value.

You don't fuckin know, oh my God, here you are whining about "the machine admitted it was a liar" and can't even tell me when the first error appeared.

I can. But I don’t need to. It was the whole premise for his thread. You dipshit.

I get it. You’ve been spouting off without grasping the subject matter.

How you.

 

[BackAgain]

If the machine is designed to lie then what is wrong when you catch it in the act of lying? Isn't it doing the very thing you are claiming it's been coded to do?

If it has been “coded” to lie, then its replies have less value than your posts.

If it was not an intentional “coded” to lie, then the poor programming makes the AI program unreliable.

If there was no intentional code nor even an accidental byproduct of poor coding, then the AI somehow managed to lie all the same. Again, this y would be folly to accept the AI responses as meaningful.

I’m gathering that you’re a self professed expert who doesn’t even comprehend the heuristic part of AI.

Not a surprise.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No need, troll boi. Go to the OP.

If you hadn’t already reviewed it, then your replies to this thread are of no value.

I listened to them three weeks ago, I did not commit the exchange to memory.

I can. But I don’t need to. It was the whole premise for his thread. You dipshit.

You can't.

I get it. You’ve been spouting off without grasping the subject matter.

How you.

The questioner is at fault, he's a pop philosopher and often debates all kinds of odd people. He's misunderstood the nature of their exchange.

 

[BackAgain]

I listened to them three weeks ago, I did not commit the exchange to memory.

Oh. You missed the entire point from jump street. Understood.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If it has been “coded” to lie, then its replies have less value than your posts.

If it was not an intentional “coded” to lie, then the poor programming makes the AI program unreliable.

Trump lies 24/7 yet I've never heard you question his reliability, but hypocrites don't care do they...

If there was no intentional code nor even an accidental byproduct of poor coding, then the AI somehow managed to lie all the same. Again, this y would be folly to accept the AI responses as meaningful.

The machine cannot lie, that's axiomatic and the questioner has failed to grasp that and that's why he got confused.

I’m gathering that you’re a self professed expert who doesn’t even comprehend the heuristic part of AI.

Not a surprise.

You don't understand anything about computation, computability, state machines, data structures or heuristics and so on, so you're out of your depth. I tried to lend a helping hand but you bit the hand that's feeding you, so carry on, be a dumb bastard.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump lies 24/7 yet I've never heard you question his reliability, but hypocrites don't care do they...

The machine cannot lie, that's axiomatic and the questioner has failed to grasp that and that's why he got confused.

You don't understand anything about computation, computability, state machines, data structures or heuristics and so on, so you're out of your depth. I tried to lend a helping hand but you bit the hand that's feeding you, so carry on, be a dumb bastard.

 

[catatomic]

Why would that happen? High cognitive ability does not necessarily produce introspective self awareness.

Artificial General Intelligence means "General," as in including self-referential understanding.

Back Again and Sherlock Holmes, please lower the temperature.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Artificial General Intelligence means "General," as in including self-referential understanding.

Back Again and Sherlock Holmes, please lower the temperature.

That isn't introspective self awareness, though. Right?

 

[BackAgain]

Artificial General Intelligence means "General," as in including self-referential understanding.

Back Again and Sherlock Holmes, please lower the temperature.

Bite me.

Please stop offering your petty suggestions.

Also, maybe you have a more coherent response than Hemlock Homeless, that silly pathetic wanker.

What do you call it when an AI admits that it lied?

 

[catatomic]

That isn't introspective self awareness, though. Right?

If you can't tell the difference, perhaps that means there is no real difference.

See the Turing Test.

 

[catatomic]

Bite me.

Please stop offering your petty suggestions.

Also, maybe you have a more coherent response than Hemlock Homeless, that silly pathetic wanker.

What do you call it when an AI admits that it lied?

I think I said it didn't lie; it was just presented with a logical paradox.

It was neither unaware nor dishonest.

 

[BackAgain]

I think I said it didn't lie; it was just presented with a logical paradox.

Good for you. But it said lied. And gong strictly by logic, and the actual meaning of words, it was correct. Clearly, it did lie.

It was neither unaware nor dishonest.

Wrong, according to its own response, It was aware that it had been dishonest.

It may not be “aware” as our wish to use that word. But anytime we see a person or an AI conceding that it had lied, it makes s minimally “aware” and of that fact.

 

[catatomic]

Good for you. But it said lied. And gong strictly by logic, and the actual meaning of words, it was correct. Clearly, it did lie.

Wrong, according to its own response, It was aware that it had been dishonest.

It may not be “aware” as our wish to use that word. But anytime we see a person or an AI conceding that it had lied, it makes s minimally “aware” and of that fact.

Like I said, it was a logical paradox and there was no way it could "win."

 

[BackAgain]

Like I said, it was a logical paradox and there was no way it could "win."

As you “claimed.”

It was not a “paradox.” It did lie. It was then closely questioned about that lie. It was compelled to concede that it had lied.