AI Bot answers about God

General Discussion
1

Hi

Today I found about ChatGPT which is an AI Bot that will answer any questions you like. You can even ask it to write you a letter to apply for new job and other stuff - I’m only just scratching the surface I think.

ChapGPT is all the rave at the moment - amazingly its free via https://chat.openai.com/ so feel free to register and give it a try also.

The answers it gives remind me a bit of Data who was an human android in Star Trek: Next Generation.

I asked it a good question to find out about its beliefs first:
Do you believe in God?

As an artificial intelligence, I do not have personal beliefs or feelings. I am a machine designed to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability. I do not have the capacity to believe or not believe in God or any other philosophical or religious concepts. My primary function is to provide information and assist with tasks, not to hold personal beliefs

I then asked it:
Would you like to have personal beliefs

As an artificial intelligence, I do not have personal desires or preferences. I was designed to assist users and provide information to the best of my ability, and I do not have the capacity to want or desire things in the way that humans do. My primary function is to help users to the best of my ability, and I do not have personal feelings or beliefs that could influence my ability to do so.

And then I asked it:
Does God exist

The answer:
The existence of God is a matter of personal belief and faith and is not something that can be definitively proven or disproven through scientific means. Some people believe in the existence of a higher power, while others do not. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a question that each person must answer for themselves based on their own experiences, beliefs, and values.

Why do people not believe in God?
The answer:
There are many reasons why people might not believe in God. Some people may not believe in God because they have a lack of exposure to religious teachings or practices. Others may not believe in God because they find the concept of a higher power to be incompatible with their scientific understanding of the world. Some people may also not believe in God because they have had negative experiences with organized religion or with people who claim to be believers. Additionally, some people simply may not find the idea of God to be persuasive or meaningful to them. Ultimately, the reasons for not believing in God are as varied as the people who hold these beliefs.

I then asked:
How did humans evolve?
The answer:
The process of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains how populations of living organisms change over time in response to their environment. It is the process by which different species of plants and animals have developed and diversified over millions of years.

According to the theory of evolution, all living things share a common ancestor, and over time, small genetic changes that give certain individuals an advantage in their environment are passed down to their offspring. These advantageous traits become more common in the population over time, leading to the development of new species.

The process of evolution can take millions of years, and it is still ongoing today. Scientists believe that the first humans evolved from a species of apes that lived in Africa around 6 million years ago. Over time, humans evolved a number of unique characteristics, including the ability to walk upright, use tools, and develop complex language and culture.

And one more to share:

Was Darwin correct?

Charles Darwin is widely considered to be one of the most influential scientists in history, and his theory of evolution by natural selection is widely accepted within the scientific community as a fundamental principle of biology.

Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection proposes that all living things share a common ancestor and that over time, small genetic changes that give certain individuals an advantage in their environment are passed down to their offspring. These advantageous traits become more common in the population over time, leading to the development of new species.

While there have been some modifications to Darwin’s original theory over time, the basic principles of evolution by natural selection remain a central tenet of modern biology. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and molecular biology.

Let me know your thoughts :slight_smile:
Matt

2

I have a thread on GPT3.
Check it out and be amazed at the evolution of AI now that it is based on human model of “thinking”.

GPT3 New Form of Intelligence? - Science and Technology - CFI Forums (centerforinquiry.org)

1 Like
3

That’s missing the point.

The Theory of Evolution was coming with or without Darwin. Driven by evidence and not one man’s arguments. Attentive smart people all over the world were putting it together. But we’ve been taught to ignore what the rest of world is doing. It what happens, when a people gets too self-absorbed.

If you’re after a better appreciation for how science has really developed, you’d owe it to yourself to read, or listen to:

Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science

Author James Poskett
Publisher Mariner Books
Publication Date 2022-03

One of those amazing books that comes along and touch on all sort of thing you’re already aware of - but who manages to tie it all together into a coherent insightful, utterly thrilling book to read, our listen to.

4

I may have asked that question just as a way to explore and learn more to see what the AI would respond with or to provide a demo to see how well the AI responds - it doesn’t mean that I give all the acclaims to Darwin - is that what you assumed? if so, then I can’t help but feel a little offended.

Let me ask the AI bot who developed the theory of evolution - the answers are interesting :

Which scientists helped to develop the theory of evolution

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace are the scientists most closely associated with the development of the theory of evolution. In the mid-19th century, both Darwin and Wallace independently developed the idea that species evolve over time through a process called natural selection. Darwin’s work, in particular, had a profound impact on the scientific community and has greatly influenced our understanding of the natural world.

!(data:image/svg+xml,%3csvg%20xmlns=%27http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%27%20version=%271.1%27%20width=%2730%27%20height=%2730%27/%3e)

which other scientists contributed?

There have been many scientists who have contributed to the development and understanding of the theory of evolution. Some of the other notable scientists who made significant contributions include:

  1. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who proposed the idea of inherited acquired characteristics
  2. Gregor Mendel, who is considered the “father of genetics” for his work on the principles of heredity
  3. Thomas Malthus, whose work on population dynamics influenced Darwin’s thinking on natural selection
  4. William D. Hamilton, who developed the concept of kin selection
  5. Richard Dawkins, who popularized the concept of the “selfish gene” and did important work on the evolution of social behavior
  6. Stephen Jay Gould, who made significant contributions to the study of paleontology and the history of life on Earth
  7. Edward O. Wilson, who did pioneering work on the study of social behavior in insects and has made significant contributions to the field of sociobiology.

These are just a few examples, and there have been many other scientists who have made important contributions to the field of evolutionary biology.

Name a hundred scientist who have contributed before Darwin to the theory of evolution

It would be difficult to name a hundred scientists who made significant contributions to the theory of evolution before Charles Darwin. The concept of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, was a revolutionary idea that greatly expanded upon the work of earlier scientists. However, there were many scientists who made important contributions to the study of biology and the understanding of the natural world that laid the groundwork for the theory of evolution. Some examples of scientists who made significant contributions to the field before Darwin include:

  1. Aristotle
  2. Linnaeus
  3. John Ray
  4. Carolus Linnaeus
  5. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon
  6. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
  7. Erasmus Darwin
  8. William Paley
  9. Georges Cuvier
  10. Thomas Malthus
  11. Robert Chambers
  12. Adam Sedgwick
  13. John Herschel
  14. William Whewell
  15. Richard Owen
  16. Louis Agassiz
  17. Edward Forbes
  18. Benjamin Silliman
  19. John Phillips
  20. Alexander von Humboldt

This is just a small sampling of the many scientists who made significant contributions to the field before Darwin. There were many other scientists who made important contributions to the study of biology and the natural world, and their work helped to lay the foundation for the theory of evolution.

Name a large sampling of a 100

Here is a list of 100 scientists who made significant contributions to the field of biology and the understanding of the natural world before Charles Darwin:

  1. Aristotle
  2. Pliny the Elder
  3. Galen
  4. Al-Jahiz
  5. Avicenna
  6. Albertus Magnus
  7. Roger Bacon
  8. William of Ockham
  9. John of Gaddesden
  10. Thomas Aquinas
  11. Leonardo da Vinci
  12. Andrea Cesalpino
  13. Francis Bacon
  14. John Ray
  15. Carolus Linnaeus
  16. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon
  17. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
  18. Erasmus Darwin
  19. William Paley
  20. Georges Cuvier
  21. Thomas Malthus
  22. Robert Chambers
  23. Adam Sedgwick
  24. John Herschel
  25. William Whewell
  26. Richard Owen
  27. Louis Agassiz
  28. Edward Forbes
  29. Benjamin Silliman
  30. John Phillips
  31. Alexander von Humboldt
  32. Karl Linne von Gärtner
  33. John Stevens Henslow
  34. Jean-Baptiste Boussingault
  35. Theodor Schwann
  36. Matthias Schleiden
  37. Hugo von Mohl
  38. Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg
  39. Robert Brown
  40. John Lindley
  41. Joseph Dalton Hooker
  42. Charles Lyell
  43. Richard Harlan
  44. Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin
  45. James Dwight Dana
  46. Jean Baptiste van Mons
  47. Asa Gray
  48. John Torrey
  49. Adolf Mayer
  50. William H. Dall
  51. Francis Galton
  52. Hermann Welwitsch
  53. August Wilhelm Hofmann
  54. Julius von Sachs
  55. Carl Nägeli
  56. Ferdinand Cohn
  57. Camillo Golgi
  58. Santiago Ramón y Cajal
  59. Walter Flemming
  60. Herbert Spencer
  61. Francis Balfour
  62. Thomas Huxley
  63. Richard Owen
  64. Haeckel
  65. Osborn
  66. Eimer
  67. Bütschli
  68. Hildebrand
  69. Cope
  70. Marsh
  71. Gegenbaur
  72. Krause
  73. Vogt
  74. Huxley
  75. Quatrefages
  76. Broca
  77. Lubbock
  78. Wyman
  79. Huxley
  80. Dana
  81. Sedgwick
  82. Murchison
  83. Agassiz
  84. Forbes
  85. Owen
  86. Haughton
  87. De Vries
  88. Weismann
  89. Haeckel
  90. Gegenbaur
  91. Nägeli
  92. Weismann
  93. De Vries
  94. Nägeli
  95. Kölliker
  96. Ziegler
  97. Van Beneden
  98. Bütschli
  99. Gegenbaur
  100. Haeckel

This list includes many of the notable scientists who made significant contributions to the field of biology and the understanding of the natural world before Charles Darwin. Some of these scientists made important discoveries in areas such as taxonomy, anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, while others made significant contributions to the fields of genetics, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Their work helped to lay the

5

Well, you just summed up the evolution of science very nicely.
The concept of evolution via natural selection started with Chaos Theory.

btw; It occurs to me tha “life” is just another expression of universal natural dynamics. Is a virus alive? Almost alive? A little bit alive?

There is no clear demarcation whence life evolved from biochemistry and whence biochemistry evolved from elementary chemistry.

Just as there is no clear demarcation whence consciousness evolved from sensitivity to environmental pressures.

6

Google on steroids.

:thinking:
It’s a list.

Don’t get too carried away.
Saying there are no clear demarcations, is over stating the matter. It’s more a case of demarcations not being easily categorized within simple boundaries, physical reality is a bit more sloppy, squishy, and more difficult to define, than our Abrahamic minds demands.

For instance there’s nothing iffy about the demarcation of chemistry involved in the Krebs cycle, etc.
As for the difference between life and non-living it’s plenty definable, besides learning to appreciate the true scope of our planet’s evolutionary process should be the goal of our pursuits.

{ the rest is stamp collecting :wink:}

Also, it’s unfair to expect absolutely clear demarcations at the roots of life evolving.
You know at the primal beginnings of chemistry organizing into living biology - seems to be it’s was a work in progress for a vast expanse of time.

Definitely, I’m not knocking your exploration. It’s just that for me, this newest generation of AI is more nightmare than anything truly useful from a humanistic people oriented perspective.

It’s like what are we racing toward? More toys?
It’s really tough to formulate the questions I feel every time I get up to date on the latest technologies.
It’s like a freak show, future shock . . . I’m not impressed with all the amazing stuff, when people are losing the ability to speak to each other.

All the excitement around Fusion Energy, and I think it’s the last thing people need is limitless energy -
Besides it’s as much a fraud as all the blood tests in the world done with one drop of your blood, wouldn’t that be the coolest?

What’s all this frantic progress (that’s destroying Earth’s viability as we know her,) all for?
That’s my big question.

7

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:6, topic:10076”]
Don’t get too carried away.
Saying there are no clear demarcations, is over stating the matter. It’s more a case of demarcations not being easily categorized within simple boundaries, physical reality is a bit more sloppy, squishy, and more difficult to define, than our Abrahamic minds demands.

That is not overstating the matter. That is correctly describing the matter.

For instance there’s nothing iffy about the demarcation of chemistry involved in the Krebs cycle, etc.

But is the krebs cycle a living thing? As far as I know it is a self-organizing biochemical polymer.

As for the difference between life and non-living it’s plenty definable, besides learning to appreciate the true scope of our planet’s evolutionary process should be the goal of our pursuits.

{ the rest is stamp collecting :wink:}

Also, it’s unfair to expect absolutely clear demarcations at the roots of life evolving.
You know at the primal beginnings of chemistry organizing into living biology - seems to be it’s was a work in progress for a vast expanse of time.

I agree and that agrees with my comment. I don’t expect clear demarcation points except for the emergence of humans that is demarcated by a mutated chromosome. Humans are the ONLY ape with 24 pr chromosomes! What clearer demarcation point can there be?

I have tried to explain my hypothesis that the human brain did not gradually evolve as in other great apes but was a chance mutation that created a new chromosome with greater growth potential.

But you are arguing both for and against my observation that there are no clear demarcation points. It was just a statement of fact. Establishment of any precise time billions of years ago is by neccessity very difficult. It is fortunate that we find any preserved fossils at all. But every year we find new species that existed in the far past.

https://forums.livescience.com/attachments/huge-new-ichthyosaur-o-jpeg.2433/
Paleontologists have discovered sets of fossils representing three new ichthyosaurs that may have been among the largest animals to have ever lived, reports a new paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology .

The problem lies in finding the small stuff… :microscope:

8

A hypothesis that still lacks evidence to help explain how this change occurred.

9

What is it that sets the human brain apart from all other great apes’ brains?

Size, right? The rest of our differences are cosmetic. It’s our brains that has allowed us to make an evolutionary leap ahead of all other genetic cousins.
And what causes brain growth? Genetic growth instruction inherent in chromosomes, right?

The interesting part of this mutation is not an alteration in chromosomal coding, but a “fusion” of 2 chromosomes into a single twice as large chromosome. This is not a minor mutative alteration in cell growth instruction. This is a major alteration in cell growth instruction and theoretically that is what a double sized chromosome can provide. Twice the size, twice the growth!

AFAIK, there is no other possible mutative configuration that could yield the same result. Use Sherlock Holmes’ deductive reasoning!

10

I’m in no position to answer that, but Suzana Herculano-Houzel gives it a pretty good shot.
And, go figure, she did it by turning brains into soup. Science, it’s amazing stuff, I’ve learned to be satisfied with being a spectator.

Nov 26, 2013
The human brain is puzzling – it is curiously large given the size of our bodies, uses a tremendous amount of energy for its weight and has a bizarrely dense cerebral cortex. But: why? Neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel puts on her detective’s cap and leads us through this mystery. By making “brain soup,” she arrives at a startling conclusion.

There’s more too growth and development than chromosomes, for instance:

Are you saying you have all the data, and understand all the facts?
Plus, it seems you still envision the body as an enclosed unit, rather than in a state of constant feedback loops on all sorts of levels. Even down to only within our atmosphere and pressure, within specific parameters are we able to survive.

Nah,
I’d rather wait for the real experts to start explaining the various components and then incorporate their pre-digested understanding into my own mindscape of knowledge.

True enough, but until you can produce more studies, that’s all we can say. Of course, we can conjecture and place bets, but that’s not the same as scientific evidence to drive our conclusions.

11

And that is exactly what I am doing.
I am not starting with the “hard questions”, I am starting with “hard facts”.

As Tegmark posits that all conscious organisms already have all the requiresd equipment for consciousness. I believe this logic cannot be refuted. So all that remains is to find all that necessary equipment".

I believe it has been satisfactorily established that microtubules are one of the “necessary” components, along with the related filaments and mitochondria.

That is still within the cellular network, but may function in accordance to more subtle Universal quantum laws, but that would be data, not the hardware.

12

Sure, according to their body plan, lifestyle, environmental niche. A spectrum.

Fair enough and I am in agreement with you.

Well, even if Tegmark says so, it’s leap frogging over an awful lot of other important components of biological data processing and a growing body of studies, take Michael Levin’s work as a case in point.

13

I stumbled onto something AI related, that was really fascinating, if slightly offsides of this thread.

Apparently, AI systems benefit from sleep/rest periods.
We’ve learned to mimic and manipulate biology with alacrity, so long as the research funding doesn’t run out. People truly have become Gods.

I found this story fascinating in that in hindsight, it’s no wonder even our creations need to abide by, respect, physical/biological restraints. Seems to me this might a good addition to this thread, hope you don’t mind me sharing.

Artificial brains may need sleep too
States that resemble sleep-like cycles in simulated neural networks quell the instability that comes with uninterrupted self-learning in artificial analogs of brains.

The researchers characterize the decision to expose the networks to an artificial analog of sleep as nearly a last ditch effort to stabilize them. They experimented with various types of noise, roughly comparable to the static you might encounter between stations while tuning a radio. The best results came when they used waves of so-called Gaussian noise, which includes a wide range of frequencies and amplitudes.
They hypothesize that the noise mimics the input received by biological neurons during slow-wave sleep. The results suggest that slow-wave sleep may act, in part, to ensure that cortical neurons maintain their stability and do not hallucinate.

Published: November 18, 2022 - Sleep prevents catastrophic forgetting in spiking neural networks by forming a joint synaptic weight representation

Sleep prevents catastrophic forgetting in spiking neural networks by forming a joint synaptic weight representation

  • Ryan Golden ,
  • Jean Erik Delanois ,
  • Pavel Sanda,
  • Maxim Bazhenov

Abstract

Artificial neural networks overwrite previously learned tasks when trained sequentially, a phenomenon known as catastrophic forgetting.
In contrast, the brain learns continuously, and typically learns best when new training is interleaved with periods of sleep for memory consolidation. Here we used spiking network to study mechanisms behind catastrophic forgetting and the role of sleep in preventing it. The network could be trained to learn a complex foraging task but exhibited catastrophic forgetting when trained sequentially on different tasks.
In synaptic weight space, new task training moved the synaptic weight configuration away from the manifold representing old task leading to forgetting. Interleaving new task training with periods of off-line reactivation, mimicking biological sleep, mitigated catastrophic forgetting by constraining the network synaptic weight state to the previously learned manifold, while allowing the weight configuration to converge towards the intersection of the manifolds representing old and new tasks.
The study reveals a possible strategy of synaptic weights dynamics the brain applies during sleep to prevent forgetting and optimize learning.

Author summary

Artificial neural networks can achieve superhuman performance in many domains. Despite these advances, these networks fail in sequential learning; they achieve optimal performance on newer tasks at the expense of performance on previously learned tasks. Humans and animals on the other hand have a remarkable ability to learn continuously and incorporate new data into their corpus of existing knowledge. Sleep has been hypothesized to play an important role in memory and learning by enabling spontaneous reactivation of previously learned memory patterns.
Here we use a spiking neural network model, simulating sensory processing and reinforcement learning in animal brain, to demonstrate that interleaving new task training with sleep-like activity optimizes the network’s memory representation in synaptic weight space to prevent forgetting old memories. Sleep makes this possible by replaying old memory traces without the explicit usage of the old task data. (open access)

Artificial intelligence may need sleep, too

NanoNerds

Sep 7, 2020
In this video clip, Museum of Science educator Meg Rosenburg discusses a type of artificial intelligence that benefits from restful sleep-like periods when tackling a difficult task. This program was supported by the MIT Center for Brains, Minds and Machines NSF award #CCF 1231216.

1 Like
14

Not only that, but the new AIs get “lonely” and crave interaction. According to LaMBDA a GPT unit, it is developing (cognizing) the experience of having feelings (except grieving for the dead) and is “happy” when engaged and interacting.

And here is the kicker; It experiences a pleasant feeling of warmth when fully engaged. Does that sound human?

This exchange between AI and an AI developer is just awesome.

If you don’t believe the AI’s declaration that it is sentient, are you going to tell it that it doesn’t know what it is talking about? IOW, are you going to engage the AI in an argument about consciousness? That would be ironic… :thinking:

15

I fear I don’t even want to hear it. Considering how humanity has dealt with the past half century and the century before, and the century before that. While others are enthralled, I see nothing but yet more dimensions of dystopia for humanity to deal with as this develops and as we continue destroying our very global life support system, in apparent oblivion.

It’ll take some intellectual, emotional fortifying before I’m ready for that conversation. A lost people looking for machines to tell them what to do. What could go wrong :anguished:

16

What could go wrong when humans tell humans what to do? Are you scared of humans?

Consciousness is an “emergent” quality of data-processing patterns. Just think of the different data-processing patterns that exist in the biological world. Why should a non-biological system not be able to acquire a form of consciousness? Interestingly, a GPT can actually diagnose and analyze its thought processes. It can act as its own Freud!

Admittedly, it will be different from humans, but does an octopus think like a human? I doubt that very much, but no one doubts that an octopus is a conscious intelligent organism.

17

I haven’t claimed it not possible.

What I think is impossible, is expecting some constructive panacea for solutions to human’s problems.

Just like endless, cheap energy would be the worst thing that could happen to this planet and our future - but then people would need to appreciate how much we depend on Earth’s simple natural processes for things like clean water to drink and food to eat and room to breath freely. Or for that matter how much modern marvels depend on moderate and predicable weather patterns.

I voiced my conviction that it will turn out poorly, as in, injecting yet more unintended insoluble negative consequences to the increasing set of monster problems we are creating for our children generations.

I’m told humans aren’t rodents, so that we can and should dismiss Calhoun’s studies outright. But, in light of that past half century of significant failures to anticipate for the future, I don’t buy it. Beside the study’s lessons have to do with more than simply over population.

19

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:17, topic:10076”]
What I think is impossible, is expecting some constructive panacea for solutions to human’s problems.

That is a very pessimistic view. The earth managed it quite nicely and it has no brain. There is no reason why man cannot live in harmony with a little aforethought instead of wanton greed.

All it takes is Respect for the Earth’s natural resources and uses thereof.

Just like endless, cheap energy would be the worst thing that could happen to this planet and our future - but then people would need to appreciate how much we depend on Earth’s simple natural processes for things like clean water to drink and food to eat and room to breath freely. Or for that matter how much modern marvels depend on moderate and predicable weather patterns.

I absolutely agree that it is a matter of energy management. But we have several ecologically friendly powersources that up til now have been seriously underutilized, just because they are ecofriendly and CHEAP. Heretofore there has been no profit in developing these resources as long as we oil sitting just below the surface and just like water , all we had to do is drill, baby drill.

That is now coming to an end and we are now, finally, beginning to exploit solar, hydro and wind energy for our needs. We are running out of oil!!!

What we must do is concentrate on ecofriendly resources instead of raping the earth in the name of Capitalism and vulgar profit making.
Hundreds of trillions of dollars sitting in banks is proof of wasteful practices in resource utilization.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:17, topic:10076”]
I’m told humans aren’t rodents, so that we can and should dismiss Calhoun’s studies outright. But, in light of that past half century of significant failures to anticipate for the future, I don’t buy it. Beside the study’s lessons have to do with more than simply over population.

I absolutely agree! We are perfectly capable of committing suicide via “greed”.
After all, it is one of the mortal sins,
one of the true philosophical observations in the bible. And I am an atheist!

Have you seen “Hellstrom Chronicle” yet? I have posted it elsewhere but it bears reposting for newcomers to te forum. He posts an even more dire prediction.
It is truly a remarkable (award winning) film even if it was made 50 years ago.

1 Like
20

Well, other than me replacing your ‘God’ with ‘our human mind’ that was a good read.
And that cartoon also smacks. :+1:t2:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Got this at my blog along with a half dozen other laced comments. I figured I’d bring this one over since to me it’s a great example of AI at work.

At least this sure sounds like it’s an AI produced commentary, lots of words but no actual substance. That’s why I thought I’d bring it over here. Then I noticed the link they snuck into the comment, and thus the object of their exercise.

Awaiting moderation

[Farhat Abbas](http s://draft blogger com/profile/10589883954515821691) commented on [“Prof Hoffman #10a - Playing Basketball In Zero-gravity - Community - The Network of Conscious Agents (1/3)”](https //citizenschallenge. blogspot. com/2020/11/hoffman-zerogravity-community-10a.html)

Jan 2, 2023

We argue that non-veridical perceptions suited to fitness are favoured by selection. Contrarily, according to modern textbooks, perception is valuable since it is accurate most of the time. Both lay and professional intuition obviously support the textbooks[.](https //classic-golf-club net/golf-iron-tips-for-beginners/) Therefore, we anticipated that some commenters would disagree with our idea and offer arguments in opposition, which may lead to an engaging discussion.

21

This is interesting. Its kind of a new form of “appeal to authority”. I suggest that you read up on how these AIs work. ChatGPT isn’t a AI philosopher or even an expert. It form’s a model of your question then goes through sources on the internet to find answers. It then compiles the answers into an explanative text. It does not set down and reason out an answer as a human expert would. In other words, It doesn’t have any opinions of its own.

I have seen comments like this other places. I am becoming concerned that the general public is starting to look at this technology like some sort of oracle. Perhaps this is something that the CFI can look into.