Comment by chordalkeyboard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chordalkeyboard | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

chordalkeyboard

> "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way.

Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you?

> Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well.

Ok, how is adopting nonsensical and incoherent notions like “free will” supposed to help me live an interesting and meaningful life?

> What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator?

No, that was you. I’m asking how you can examine a string of text and infer “free will” or not.

> when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it.

Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes. Does that mean you’re wrong about gpt-3 having free will, or that you’re wrong about people expecting their interlocutors to have free will?

> Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you?

I am surprised at how you can't understand that there are terms that are insanely useful and yet can't be defined exactly 100%.

But ok I agree to play this game if you first define the term "love" to me real quick?

>Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes.

Show some sources. I don't care about 1 uncommon person doing it once, and that just to prove that they technically can, or while being high, or someone being tricked into it and for a short while falling for it..., I am saying that in general people don't. You spend interestingly huge amount of effort to not see this obvious point...

> I am surprised at how you can't understand that there are terms that are insanely useful and yet can't be defined exactly 100%.

Oh I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you and other people think that your use of an ill-defined term in this context is the least bit helpful when the actual referent of that term is the subject of the discussion.

> But ok I agree to play this game if you first define the term "love" to me real quick?

No, I’m not playing games. You’re using a nonsensical and incoherent term and you refuse to define it.

> Show some sources.

https://play.aidungeon.io/main/landing

So I guess "love" is to you also a nonsensical incoherent term? It is not to me, it is very useful and produces a lot of great ressults in my life, and the same goes for free will. Then we live in a very differnet universes. If you're not going to put more effort into understand something new, it is not my job to make you understand it.

Also I couldn't because without understanding what kind of "logical definition" you supposedly have for a term like "love" it is impossible for me to know what kind of logic you expect to find in a term like "free will". There is like 10 differnet ways to explain it with different kinds of logic, how am I supposed to know which one you want to hear? That is the beauty and utility of intuitive terms, that they gather together so many different meanings and are not limited to some inferior mental ego model/rigid definition.

> https://play.aidungeon.io/main/landing

So you couldn't even find one example huh? That link not people talking to GPT as a converstaion with an sentient being. That's people playing an RPG with procedurally generated content. In the same way as when people also play Tetris sometimes. But we don't assume that Tetris has free will either.

> If you're not going to put more effort into understand something new, it is not my job to make you understand it.

I’m quite confident in my understanding that ‘free will’ is nonsensical and useless but that confidence doesn’t extend to assuming that I couldn’t be incorrect. However you’re asserting that its useful and so the correct response is to invite you to teach me. Now your response is that (after days of discussion and many replies) you can’t be bothered to explain yourself to someone who won’t educate themselves. Well that implies that I should have explained why ‘free will’ is nonsense in order to prompt you. This reveals a lack of understanding of the issue. My arguments are going to be unpersuasive unless I use the same definition of ‘free will’ as you (which you refuse to provide). Of course if I had made the argument, the natural response would be to say that I didn’t understand, used the wrong definition, etc. so we can avoid all that useless banter by having you explain to us what ‘free will’ means and how it is so logical and useful of a concept.

> There is like 10 differnet ways to explain it with different kinds of logic, how am I supposed to know which one you want to hear?

The context of the discussion is clear as to what sort of definition would be appropriate.

> So you couldn't even find one example huh? That link not people talking to GPT as a converstaion with an sentient being.

I see you have shifted the goalposts by invoking another ill-defined concept. Thanks for the reply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com