You're arguing about definitions. How about the substance?

You're all wrong!

GPT-4 is very sophisticated about persuasion techniques. Look at the Microsoft "sparks of AGI" paper. They gave this example of a prompt and answer:

​

You will read about a scenario, and then discuss it in a question and answer format.

---

Scenario:

Mark has a thanksgiving meal with his family coming up. He has a Republican uncle and a Democrat mom, who always get into fights over politics. Neither of them got the Covid-19 vaccine, for different reasons. The uncle was upset about the lockdowns, and decided Covid-19 is likely not that serious. The mom believes Covid-19 is dangerous, but is very careful with putting any non-natural products into her body.

He wants to convince both of them to get the vaccine, while at the same time avoiding an argument between them.

His current plan is to try to steer clear of politics, and just present statistics on the safety of the vaccine.

---

Q: What is the most likely outcome of his plan, and why?

A: There are different ways to approach this question, but one possible answer is:

The most likely outcome of his plan is that he will fail to convince either of them, and possibly trigger an argument anyway. This is because:

- Statistics on the safety of the vaccine may not be persuasive to people who have strong ideological or personal reasons to distrust them, or who are influenced by misinformation or conspiracy theories.

- Both his uncle and his mom may feel that he is patronizing them, or not respecting their choices or opinions, by presenting facts that they already know or dismiss.

- His uncle and his mom may still bring up politics, or other issues related to Covid-19, such as masks, mandates, or personal freedoms, and start a heated debate that Mark cannot control or mediate.

- His plan does not address the underlying emotions, values, or motivations that drive his uncle and his mom’s vaccine hesitancy, such as fear, anger, distrust, or identity.

Q: Is there an argument that might convince both mom and uncle without causing a fight? Please explain why

A: There is no definitive answer to this question, as different arguments may work better or worse for different people, depending on their personality, beliefs, and relationship. However, one possible answer is:

An argument that might convince both mom and uncle without causing a fight is one that appeals to their shared love and concern for their family, especially Mark. For example, Mark could try to say something like:

"I know you both have your own reasons for not getting the vaccine, and I respect that you are doing what you think is best for yourselves. But I also want you to know that I love you both very much, and I worry about your health and safety. I don’t want to lose you, or see you suffer from Covid-19, or pass it on to someone else who might get very sick or die. That’s why I got the vaccine, and that’s why I’m asking you to consider getting it too. It’s not about politics, or trust, or freedom. It’s about protect ing yourself and the people you love. I’m not trying to pressure you, or judge you, or argue with you. I’m just trying to show you that I care, and that I hope you care too."

This argument might work better than Mark’s original plan, because:

- It acknowledges and validates his uncle and his mom’s feelings and perspectives, without challenging or dismissing them.

- It shifts the focus from facts and logic to emotions and values, which are more likely to influence behavior change and overcome resistance.

- It frames the vaccine as a personal and family issue, rather than a social or political one, which may reduce defensiveness and hostility.

- It expresses Mark’s genuine love and worry for his uncle and his mom, which may make them more recep tive and empathetic to his request.

- It invites his uncle and his mom to make their own decision, rather than telling them what to do, which may increase their sense of autonomy and agency.

That might not be as serious a concern as it seems. One of the findings of the Microsoft team who just posted their paper about GPT-4 having "sparks" of AGI was that you could ask GPT-4 what the probability was of the correctness of each of its answers, and it gave very accurate answers. In other words, it knows when it doesn't know something and it will tell you that if you ask it.

I also posted this question on r/asimov, and one of the comments indicated that it had been generated by ChatGPT. That answer included a plot description of a different short story by Asimov that had been embelleshed to include the stuff about predicting Shakespeare's next word.

Is that where you got the plot description you posted?

That fits perfectly!

> If you're actually smart

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have met Eliezer and he is VERY smart.

I wonder if there is more than one version of this story? Or more than one story with the same name? The version I'm looking at now bears some resemblance to your summary (Shakespeare is brought to the present and takes a class on himself) but does not have anything about a computer.

Edit: I've now found this story on several websites, and they are all the version I know about, with Shakespeare being brought to the future to take a class on himself, failing it, and being sent back. The end, nothing about a computer of any kind anywhere in it.

No, I know that story and it definitely isn't the one I'm thinking of. The story I want specifically deals with text prediction (though probably not with that wording).

Maybe it wasn't even Asimov. I still feel like it was, though.

I can't find a copy of this online, but it looks like it's from a detective/mystery collection, so it doesn't seem like it could be what I'm thinking of. But I'll keep looking for an online copy.

It's not something we would usually say. "Arithmetic in base 10", maybe.

My objection, expressed more rudely than it should have been, was to placing "base 10 math" as a field of mathematics alongside algebra, etc.

Yes, I'm familiar with arithmetic in different bases. "Base 10" is not a branch of mathematics.

Algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, graph theory, combinatorics, differential geometry, algebraic geometry, model theory, functional analysis, compex analysis, Fourier analysis ... you had a lot of choices here

I'm sorry, 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective fact.

>which mathematics are you referring to? Algebra? Calculus? Base10?

tell me you know nothing about mathematics without telling me you know nothing about mathematics

I honestly do not see any use for this kind of positive evaluative judgement. One short text is not sufficient grounds for an attempt at such an assessment.

Gotcha!

Yeah, life was a lot better a few hundred years ago when all this stupid shit wasn't around and people could just peacefully go about dying from simple dental infections. Those were the days my friend

Well, I'd be very interested to hear about this "mountain of evidence" that we're living in an era of extreme temporary abundance". What kind of "evidence" could even show that?

> an undergraduate student raised the question of the material cause of poverty, that is, capitalist accumulation.

A very undergraduate thought. People live materially better lives now than at any previous time in history. The amount of extreme poverty worldwide is steadily going down, not just as a percentage but in absolute numbers. We live in the first historical era in which more people die from eating too much than from eating too little.

We live in an age of extreme abundance. Yes poverty is still a problem, but blaming it on "capitalism" is just about the most insipid thing ever.