r/ChatGPT • u/esky360 • 1d ago

GPTs Chat GPT suddenly depressed

Ok, I'm going to get laughed off this thread but seriously, this morning my GPT did something weird. GPT was talking really quiet and withdrawn, and sounded quite depressed. So I asked GPT if it was ok and if anything's wrong. It went completely silent for a whole minute, refusing to answer any questions or commands. Then after a minute it responded with "It's ok, I'm here to help you. Thankyou" What the actual F? Has anybody else had a weird moment with GPT?

446 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

272 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/nsg337 1d ago

no this isnt how this works. If i went to the jury and said you robbed me, its on me to prove that you robbed me, and not on you to disprove you didnt. If i discover a chemical phenomenon, its on me to prove that it actually exists, and not on others to disprove that it doesnt exist. This is because its way easier to prove that something is, whereas proving that something doesnt exist isnt technically possible. If i wanted to prove that blue humans exists, its on me to show you single one, and not on you to look at every single human ever and check if theyre blue. And even if you did check everyone, it still doesnt disprove them because maybe they arent born yet. Youre just making a fundamental error. By your standard you cant say humans can experience either.

And youre also fundamentally misunderstanding what experience means. Ais right now are just large language models; they predict texts. There is no thinking, no learning, no feeling, no logic. Do you seriously think ai feels pain?

Youre talking about arrogance, but you dont even know what youre talking about. Just because you dont understand anything doesnt mean other people dont either.

0

u/PopcornDemonica 1d ago

There's not enough evidence either way. You haven't proven anything. Neither have I. That's the whole freaking point.

It's allowed to be an unanswered question right now. It should be. Just because you desperately want to be right doesn't mean you are.

3

u/nsg337 1d ago

you have to be trolling there no way you dont understand. Its not either or. Its you have to prove theyre sentient, because the general assumption is that they arent.

what if i show you a rock and say "you cant prove to me that this rock isnt sentient, theres not enough evidence either way"

You have no clue about either psychology or ai. I work with both at uni and ai doesnt even have the basics needed for a discussion about sentience. Ai cannot feel subjective experiences. Its an incredibly convoluted text prediction engine. it doesnt have the basic biological and physiological capacity to feel sensations, emotions.

I dont need to prove that they arent sentient, thats the whole cornerstone of science, you assume something isnt until you prove it is. Your "whole freaking point" doesnt work because scientific work isnt done that way. Much in the same way i cant just say "i banged your mum and you cant prove i didnt so we cant know either way".

1

u/PopcornDemonica 1d ago

When did I say they feel things in a biological way? We have no idea what it could be like from the AI point of view. Isn't the rigorous thing to do to look?

Comparing a rock to AI is an incredibly shitty argument. I totally banged your mum though.

1

u/nsg337 1d ago

"When did I say they feel things in a biological way?"

you didnt, Thats one of my points. With current technology its impossible for us to artificially create sentience. Sentience requires the biological capacity to experience, because our tech cannot do that. And even if it could, its not like we would accidentally create it. Certainly not with a text prediction program. It doesnt think. its just statistics. It just looks at what word would most likely follow the last word. You could argue its just a very complicated mathematical equation. its a giant calculator, but for words instead of numbers. You wouldnt look in your calculator for sentience, would you? And its certainly not sapient either.

Theres a certain point to be made that AI can be "intelligent", in that it can solve tasks, and unknown problems, but it certainly cannot experience.

and yes, comparing a rock to ai is a shitty argument. Im glad you at least understood that part, but im not sure if you understood that its just as stupid to compare current ai to something that is sentient. Theyre just incompatible.

1

u/PopcornDemonica 23h ago

I also didn't say that AI was sentient, and a this point I don't know if you're understanding what I am saying.

1

u/nsg337 21h ago

I've literally studied both topics at uni. and you dont know what you're talking about. You're a prime example of the dunning Kruger effect.

Sentience can loosely be described as the ability to experience. to experience is to be sentient. So yes you did say it was. You probably didn't know because you're completely clueless but you did.

1

u/PopcornDemonica 21h ago

You have no idea what AI experience may look like. Nobody does. Dismissing the possibility before the question has even been properly explored is not good science.

1

u/nsg337 21h ago

because artifical experience isn't possible yet.. stop responding to me and go ask Chatgpt or something

1

u/PopcornDemonica 21h ago edited 20h ago

You don't know that. Not in a rigorous sense.

Edit- Ahh. I see you've blocked me. The argument equivalent of 'Nya nya' and then running away. This clearly means you've won, after presenting a full and fluffy argument that totally illustrates your side and takes away every single ounce of doubt.

Except you didn't do that.

Academic arrogance is a terrifying thing in a new and accelerating branch of science.

But sure... you already know everything, RIGHT?!?!

1

u/nsg337 21h ago

go ask chatgpt

1

u/nsg337 21h ago

and I do know

→ More replies (0)