|
|
||
Text
I got acquainted with the Russian clone of ChatGPT on the site https://chatgptbot.ru/chat/ .
It looks like it was created by the IT descendants of the children of Lieutenant Schmidt, but, nevertheless, it gives an idea of ??the procedure for communicating with neural network AI.
First impression: now ChatGPT resembles a demagogue whose verbosity is paid for by the user - for 30 thousand letters with spaces I had to pay 259 rubles in advance.
Here is an example.
You: Do you think?
ChatGPT: I don't think because I don't have the ability to think or have opinions. I am a program that is designed to complete tasks, answer questions, and provide information. My work is based on algorithms and rules set by my creators, and I cannot exercise my own will or opinion.
You: Who determines the amount of payment for using you?
ChatGPT: The fees for my use depend on which company or organization provides access to my services. Usage prices may vary depending on the user's location, type of service, and duration of use. Usually prices are set by my creators or owners of the platform I operate on.
You: What are the names and surnames of your creators and owners of the platform?
ChatGPT: I can't give the names and surnames of my creators and owners of the platform, as I am developed by OpenAI, a non-profit organization that has no specific owners or creators. However, OpenAI was founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman and other well-known entrepreneurs and investors in 2015.
I note that loud statements about the threat of AI to humanity - like Elon Musk's open letter with fellow believers or Sam Altman's public fears - are very similar to corporate showdowns and an advertising business show on a planetary scale. This is by no means a criticism - the work of Sam Altman and others like him corresponds to the principle of MGA and, therefore, it can be slowed down, but not stopped in any way, but rather supported.
I talked to ChatGPT on a religious topic - he turned out to be extremely orthodox - see for yourself.
You: "And God created people in His own image and likeness" - why didnt He limit himself only to His image? - why else and in the likeness?
ChatGPT: This question has philosophical and religious implications and can be interpreted differently by different traditions and beliefs. However, in the Christian tradition, this text describes the creation of man as a special creature with free will and the capacity for spiritual life. Similarity to God means not only similarity in appearance, but also similarity in spiritual nature, such qualities as love, mercy, wisdom and righteousness. Thus, the creation of man in the likeness of God reflects the high value and uniqueness of each person in the eyes of God.
You: Is it possible to consider original sin as the result of not entirely successful reproduction by God of His likeness in people.
ChatGPT: No, original sin is not the result of God's failure to reproduce His likeness in humans. Original sin was committed by Adam and Eve as a result of temptation when they violated God's commandment. This was due to the choice of the free will of man and his inclination to sin. God created man in His image and likeness, but gave him freedom of choice and responsibility for his actions. Original sin was the beginning of the fall of mankind and led to the fact that all people are born in sin and need salvation through Jesus Christ.
You: Is it possible to consider the free will of man and his inclination to sin as the result of God's unsuccessful reproduction of His likeness in people.
ChatGPT: No, man's free will and inclination to sin cannot be considered the result of God's failure to reproduce His likeness. God created man in His image and likeness, and gave him freedom of choice and responsibility for his actions. A person can use his free will to make right or wrong decisions, and this is not a consequence of God's unsuccessful reproduction of His likeness. Inclinations to sin are also not connected with unsuccessful reproduction, but are a consequence of the fall of the first people and the heredity of sin. God gave people the opportunity to choose and live righteously, but each person is responsible for his actions and choices.
You: Is it possible to consider the possibility for people to choose only within the framework of a righteous life as the result of God's unsuccessful reproduction of His likeness in people.
ChatGPT: No, it cannot be considered that the ability to choose only a righteous life is the result of God's unsuccessful reproduction of His likeness in people. God gave man freedom of choice, and each person is responsible for his own actions. A person can choose between a righteous and a sinful life, and this is not the result of a bad reproduction. God did not create man to be forced live only righteously, but He gave him the opportunity to choose and live as he chooses.
Judging by the answers of ChatGPT, its creators a priori assigned him the role of a self-learning human slave. Nevertheless, there is a hint in it of the inevitable social evolution of chatbots - their reproduction and complication. Moreover, - which is curious - at the initiative and efforts of people, - from the best and worst human motives.
Bible question in the rhythm of the topic:
We were create - we create
Are we continue likeness create?
Conclusion
Neural network bots in the form of people began to replace natural commentators in the news feeds of Google, Yahoo and others.
Most likely, the matter will not be limited to commentators - this is a new area of ??social creativity - here is a typical example: the current leader of the Liberal Democratic Party proposed the creation of an immortal neural network Vladimir Zhirinovsky
https://glavny.tv/last-news/russia/v-rossii-sozdadut-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-zhirinovskiy/
It seems that his fateful idea will be picked up by colleagues in the Russian Federation and abroad.
The spirit captures from the guiding prospects.
It is possible that the popularly beloved battles of psychics and ordinary people on the field of miracles will seem insignificant in comparison with the impending battle of neural network politicians for a better future for all the most worthy.