XPost: sci.physics

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...and it's own programmers of
course.

Let your GPT do all your thinking for yous. (most of yous have already
have...)

artificial intelligence talking to artificial intelligence.




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...and it's own programmers of
course.

Let your GPT do all your thinking for yous. (most of yous have already have...)

artificial intelligence talking to artificial intelligence.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

All of them?

That's funny I don't even need any physicist but myself,
and all I do is quote other physicists.

I don't need GPT, that's what physicists are for.

Of course if it helps me when someone says
"what is your opinion as a physicist",
helps "I can explain to Chat why what I say is so",
also "it's the opinion of physicists".

Yeah, all I do is quote other physicists and me.

So, I wrote a very long quote.

So, "Quoting GPT", is for GPT's dialectic: it's
the didactic dialectic, laid out down, very "conservative",
what quotes I see of GPT, there are others.

So, "AI", any report or data, makes for that "making a report"
and "running on the cloud on a large language model", are
"two different things", thusly, I expect to reflect on its relation.

A "concept diagram" and "phrasing", "natural language understanding",
"AI" as mechanized thinkers and reply makers wonders up a rule,
All the "AI" can do like any other physicist is construct narratives
of physicists, which in a language of physicists, is only quotes
from physicists.

It's called "academic" including "responsible".

So, short, formulaic papers, have that, papers as usually include
the exposition, arriving not just "ask me more..." instead
"and so it goes...", making "it's called bibliography" and
"sources" not "the source".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:00:09 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...and it's own programmers of course.

Let your GPT do all your thinking for yous. (most of yous have already have...)

artificial intelligence talking to artificial intelligence.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

All of them?

That's funny I don't even need any physicist but myself,
and all I do is quote other physicists.

I don't need GPT, that's what physicists are for.

Of course if it helps me when someone says
"what is your opinion as a physicist",
helps "I can explain to Chat why what I say is so",
also "it's the opinion of physicists".

Yeah, all I do is quote other physicists and me.

So, I wrote a very long quote.

So, "Quoting GPT", is for GPT's dialectic: it's
the didactic dialectic, laid out down, very "conservative",
what quotes I see of GPT, there are others.

So, "AI", any report or data, makes for that "making a report"
and "running on the cloud on a large language model", are
"two different things", thusly, I expect to reflect on its relation.

A "concept diagram" and "phrasing", "natural language understanding",
"AI" as mechanized thinkers and reply makers wonders up a rule,
All the "AI" can do like any other physicist is construct narratives
of physicists, which in a language of physicists, is only quotes
from physicists.

It's called "academic" including "responsible".

So, short, formulaic papers, have that, papers as usually include
the exposition, arriving not just "ask me more..." instead
"and so it goes...", making "it's called bibliography" and
"sources" not "the source".

How can I tell you're not just some form of artifical intelligence who
call itself...Ross Finlayson????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

It's impossible just like "g-d just made the whole world and just now started it".

Or, at least, I "Ross Finlayson" couldn't know the difference.

You imagine the intelligence reads both of us, ....

I would buy you a beer.

Which somehow must be worth "time".

I got set up to attack all science, so I did.

Now with more science, ....

I know there's no difference, "sufficiently advanced".
I won't suspend my disbelief, though.

No, there's no way, I agree.

"Artificial intelligence: must be natural intelligence."

I do point at me though and "left mathematics to defend everything
he said", I set myself up as a giant straw-man. I depend on
intelligence to agree, is all.

Not that I can care, ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:00:09 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...and it's own programmers of course.

Let your GPT do all your thinking for yous. (most of yous have already have...)

artificial intelligence talking to artificial intelligence.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

All of them?

That's funny I don't even need any physicist but myself,
and all I do is quote other physicists.

I don't need GPT, that's what physicists are for.

Of course if it helps me when someone says
"what is your opinion as a physicist",
helps "I can explain to Chat why what I say is so",
also "it's the opinion of physicists".

Yeah, all I do is quote other physicists and me.

So, I wrote a very long quote.

So, "Quoting GPT", is for GPT's dialectic: it's
the didactic dialectic, laid out down, very "conservative",
what quotes I see of GPT, there are others.

So, "AI", any report or data, makes for that "making a report"
and "running on the cloud on a large language model", are
"two different things", thusly, I expect to reflect on its relation.

A "concept diagram" and "phrasing", "natural language understanding",
"AI" as mechanized thinkers and reply makers wonders up a rule,
All the "AI" can do like any other physicist is construct narratives
of physicists, which in a language of physicists, is only quotes
from physicists.

It's called "academic" including "responsible".

So, short, formulaic papers, have that, papers as usually include
the exposition, arriving not just "ask me more..." instead
"and so it goes...", making "it's called bibliography" and
"sources" not "the source".

How can I tell you're not just some form of artifical intelligence who
call itself...Ross Finlayson????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

You can see Ross's hands on his videos and hear his voice. And see his desktop on which sits an item purchased from the Yee Olde Curiosity Shoppe. Rir. Ross is real.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:22:33 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:00:09 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...and it's own programmers of course.

Let your GPT do all your thinking for yous. (most of yous have already have...)

artificial intelligence talking to artificial intelligence.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

All of them?

That's funny I don't even need any physicist but myself,
and all I do is quote other physicists.

I don't need GPT, that's what physicists are for.

Of course if it helps me when someone says
"what is your opinion as a physicist",
helps "I can explain to Chat why what I say is so",
also "it's the opinion of physicists".

Yeah, all I do is quote other physicists and me.

So, I wrote a very long quote.

So, "Quoting GPT", is for GPT's dialectic: it's
the didactic dialectic, laid out down, very "conservative",
what quotes I see of GPT, there are others.

So, "AI", any report or data, makes for that "making a report"
and "running on the cloud on a large language model", are
"two different things", thusly, I expect to reflect on its relation.

A "concept diagram" and "phrasing", "natural language understanding", "AI" as mechanized thinkers and reply makers wonders up a rule,
All the "AI" can do like any other physicist is construct narratives
of physicists, which in a language of physicists, is only quotes
from physicists.

It's called "academic" including "responsible".

So, short, formulaic papers, have that, papers as usually include
the exposition, arriving not just "ask me more..." instead
"and so it goes...", making "it's called bibliography" and
"sources" not "the source".

How can I tell you're not just some form of artifical intelligence who call itself...Ross Finlayson????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

It's impossible just like "g-d just made the whole world and just now started it".

Or, at least, I "Ross Finlayson" couldn't know the difference.

You imagine the intelligence reads both of us, ....

I would buy you a beer.

Which somehow must be worth "time".

I got set up to attack all science, so I did.

Now with more science, ....

I know there's no difference, "sufficiently advanced".
I won't suspend my disbelief, though.

No, there's no way, I agree.

"Artificial intelligence: must be natural intelligence."

I do point at me though and "left mathematics to defend everything
he said", I set myself up as a giant straw-man. I depend on
intelligence to agree, is all.

Not that I can care, ....

How much intelligence, nay, how much mind does a single cell possess? Say an amoeba. I may publish another post for Athel's eyes only.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 18.09.2023 um 00:10 schrieb patdolan:

"Artificial intelligence: must be natural intelligence."

Who said so? George Orwell?

I do point at me though and "left mathematics to defend everything
he said", I set myself up as a giant straw-man. I depend on
intelligence to agree, is all.

Not that I can care, ....

How much intelligence, nay, how much mind does a single cell possess? Say an amoeba. I may publish another post for Athel's eyes only.

Some posters are most likely amoebas (or possibly subroutines of ChatGpt...)

But I always thougth, the UseNet would actually be the playground of the agencies to test their supernatural AI-disinformation-agents.

TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:14:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 17:39:44 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT), patdolan
<patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:00:09?PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:05:29?PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...and it's own programmers of >>> > > course.

Let your GPT do all your thinking for yous. (most of yous have already
have...)

artificial intelligence talking to artificial intelligence.




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

All of them?

That's funny I don't even need any physicist but myself,
and all I do is quote other physicists.

I don't need GPT, that's what physicists are for.

Of course if it helps me when someone says
"what is your opinion as a physicist",
helps "I can explain to Chat why what I say is so",
also "it's the opinion of physicists".

Yeah, all I do is quote other physicists and me.

So, I wrote a very long quote.

So, "Quoting GPT", is for GPT's dialectic: it's
the didactic dialectic, laid out down, very "conservative",
what quotes I see of GPT, there are others.

So, "AI", any report or data, makes for that "making a report"
and "running on the cloud on a large language model", are
"two different things", thusly, I expect to reflect on its relation. >>> >
A "concept diagram" and "phrasing", "natural language understanding",
"AI" as mechanized thinkers and reply makers wonders up a rule,
All the "AI" can do like any other physicist is construct narratives >>> > of physicists, which in a language of physicists, is only quotes
from physicists.

It's called "academic" including "responsible".

So, short, formulaic papers, have that, papers as usually include >>> > the exposition, arriving not just "ask me more..." instead
"and so it goes...", making "it's called bibliography" and
"sources" not "the source".

How can I tell you're not just some form of artifical intelligence who >>> call itself...Ross Finlayson????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

You can see Ross's hands on his videos and hear his voice. And see his desktop on which sits an item purchased from the Yee Olde Curiosity Shoppe. Rir. Ross is real.

a video in a computer is a video in a computer...still.

As far as you know Ross can be a inside a computer...

it's computers all the way down!

Ross is a ...simulation.

Can you not tell by his writing style????

he's a gpt.

In other words, Ross Finlayson is an implant.

Implanted in a universe
(simulated universe)
inside a computer while
patdolan watches
Ross's hands on his videos and
hear his voice
and patnolan
sez: Ross is real.

Ross is in a real computer.

and still a...artificial intelligence.

it's computers all the way down...
down to the last simulated universe computer.

Only one universe.

Ross Finlayson is proof that Ross Finlayson consciouness has been
implanted in a machine.

patnolan sez Ross Finlayson is real because patnolan has seen and head
Ross Finlayson...in a video, in a computer, in a...

a possible world simulation.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Right, it's objectivist, either or neither of us could be real objectivists.

Really, there's a theory that there's nothing at all, though, it's unscientific.

No, I agree with you, there's no reason to trust image at all.

It would just eventually cost too much money to fake, ...,
but sure it's real otherwise.

What it is, is all, then though "I've studied it a while,
don't not trust it".

I pretty much trust me, pretty much believe in me, or, "in theory".
So, I don't necessarily blame you if you don't and wouldn't necessarily, either.

Really though following the subjects, the subject has less of his opinions beaten down by all reason, mathematics, and science (about, reason, mathematics, and science) than most people, claiming such full opinions.

Then, those are pretty universal, or for example,
"I just picked up a book on Tarot and it says the
spiral is common in all cultures", where in an old
theory called Vedanta it's mathematics' Anantha,
for example. Powell Colbert's "Gaia Tarot", ....

Maybe it's like I wrote enough to put into a machine, ....
but it would sort of have to read it all.

Maybe, ....

Surely, you're welcome to "not trust it", I only care because
some things, "can't dispute the truth", guy has free vantage
to tell the truth. I.e., having to read all that was written
as "hmm it must be the absolute truth and I'm illiterate",
or was, or "these comments telling me not to believe it,
maybe they were stupid, and were wrong, and are wrong".

You're welcome of course yourself to "make sense of it" or
"make no sense of it", though, if you lie to yourself,
that's your own business, whether you know it or not.

I must trust _somebody_, though it looks like just like
everybody else I stand up "Einstein" and "QM" and call
that "science" and "theory".

Making what mathematics _owes_ physics though,
that would be more important than some sharp guy
with "the latest dimensional analysis of all string theory", ....

Sure, "Theory of Everything", right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On September 16, 2023 at 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

GPT goal is to replace all Physicsts...

This nefarious replacement program is already ongoing... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7_FXx6b2YkKi0dkolOmLYHqb6cgDYe_k7-g
https://tinyurl.com/next-gen22


Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

but, but...if it was computer scientist who created GPT...then it is
the computer scientists who are replacing all physicstsess.

when they get space data, they feed it to GPT, not to other scientists.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)