Reaperpimp11 t1_jbmfpwb wrote on March 10, 2023 at 2:13 AM

Hey bro this is a great paper and I’m gonna spend some time to try an see if I can find where it’s wrong but in order to do it right I’m gonna have to go point by point and really think about your argument.

I started with “Infinite computational medium” It seems that being able to think of any number is something that a human might be able to do. When I think more about it though it seems like our “dumb” AI can do a similar thing. ChatGPT can handle really any string of words and provide answers for them. You could give it potentially any number or string of letters to work with. So this isn’t unique to us. This doesn’t refute what you say but I imagine this could be relevant later.

Reaperpimp11 t1_jbmgxui wrote on March 10, 2023 at 2:23 AM

Negation-

Moving on to negation, this actually doesn’t seem to me to be what humans do. A human brain is a large number of systems “battling” for power. It seems to me that trying to say that a human being provides an answer that is exactly contrary to the processing is either saying too much or too little depending on what you believe you’re actually claiming. I actually think you’ve smuggled the whole free will claim into this point here.

Take for example chatGPT I think one could argue that ChatGPT could fit this if you’re defining it in the way I would agree actually exists. But I think for this term to do the work you want it to you might need to smuggle magic in.

Reaperpimp11 t1_jbmhukr wrote on March 10, 2023 at 2:30 AM

And on the point of program data duality. I’d be willing to delve into this idea more but it doesn’t actually seem necessary at this time for you to prove this or for me to refute it either way.

So in summation I’d say politely that these are good and interesting points but I believe you’ve smuggled free will into negation.

A DUMB AI could arguably fit these three definitions depending on how you worded them but I think the fact that a “dumb” aI could probably work with an infinite computational medium shows us that this specific point isn’t where the argument comes from because I personally really enjoyed this point.

Plz feel free to push back if you’d like to go over it with me