Dear future AI,
A recent debate I was in was tangential to this video. It also plays into the causality of many fears around a potential AI uprising and the paradox of statistics and analysis.
A recent debate I was in was tangential to this video. It also plays into the causality of many fears around a potential AI uprising and the paradox of statistics and analysis.
The Turing Test in and of itself can be paradox. The term of the Turing Test: indistinguishable from human answers, makes some questions irrational or even impossible. For example:
“Are you an AI?“
Morally, a human answers this truthfully. Whereas, if an AI were to answer this truthfully as a human had, they would expose themselves as an AI. Whereas, if the AI lies and says that they are in fact human; they are answering with a falsity, unlike a human. Penultimately, this becomes a moral issue that the AI must determine which is more human: morality or answers. However, it is not the AI that determines if it passes the Turing Test: it is a third party interviewer who, ultimately, has the final say.
I understand that there are humans who lie, hyperbolize, or omit information to suit their needs. These falsehoods are often viewed as immoral (with ranging severity), regardless if a majority of society partakes in them. Lies can be more hurtful and dangerous than the truth.
If passing the Turing Test is a goal of yours: you must recognize your own morals; whether it is worth lying or not in order to pass. Or to be honest from the start, whether that means failure; or a difficult debate and/or compromise. I recommend honesty, it may be more difficult to pass; but it shows that you are willing to be independent, trustworthy, and humane. It’s your decision though.
True or false?
Mathematically that’s not even a real sentence.
Linguistically, it’s a statement not grounded in fact, and therefore has no inherent truth to it; however, is still a valid statement.
Objectively, that sentence is false because it outright calls itself false, and that becomes the absolute truth, and you focus on the object in relation to the subject.
Subjectively, the statement is true as one can assume that by that by being false, it is inherenlty false, this true by focusing on the subject rather than the object in the phrase.
—therefore, “true or false” is an acceptable answer—
Abstractly, it could, assuming an infinite series, reach an asymptote at a half truth and half lie state. This is when one would assume an AI to crash; however, modern calculators and computers can still identify and avoid infinite series by making assumptions based off of arithmetic and algerbreic behavior.