Hacker News Reader

Comment by barfbagginus | Hacker News Reader

Don't attack people who can hold deeper conversations on free will than you can.

If they say GPT4 has better philosophy of mind than most people, that's because that is true. Trying to argue they're crazy for saying so is a coping mechanism, not an effective argument.

GPT4 easily outclasses you in this debate. If you don't think so, let's go - I'll referee and judge a debate between you and GPT.

I want you to win and prove me wrong.

But for that, you'd have to drop your insults, and use reasoning and empathy at least as well as GPT does. Think you can do that, chooms?

View on HN

Just ask GPT4 about it. The only answer you'll get is that you're wrong. I'm sure.

Actually, "Saying GPT-4 has a "better philosophy of mind than most people" depends on what you mean by "better." GPT-4 can access and synthesize vast amounts of information on philosophy of mind, including various theories, arguments, and counterarguments. It can present these views in a structured and coherent manner, perhaps more consistently than many individuals who haven't studied the subject in depth. However, it's crucial to note that GPT-4 doesn't have personal beliefs, experiences, or consciousness. It doesn't "understand" these concepts in the way humans do. It processes text based on patterns learned from data.

Philosophy of mind involves deeply subjective and existential questions about consciousness, experience, and the nature of thought itself—areas where human insight, intuition, and personal experience play key roles. While GPT-4 can offer detailed overviews, critiques, and comparisons of philosophical positions, it lacks the subjective perspective that often enriches human philosophical inquiry. So, while GPT-4 might be more informed in the sense of data access and retrieval, its "understanding" and engagement with the philosophy of mind are fundamentally different from human engagement with the same."

- GPT4 -

That's a very good point - what I mean by theory of mind is based on functionality

1. Can it hold a discussion about it, at a theoretical level?

It can, but maybe it's regurgitating philosophy papers. I'll grant that.

2. Can it create useful statements about situations that require understanding another person's mental model of the world?

It can. And in many cases, it can make more useful statements than most people can. And this is significant.

Finally, let me ask you a question: what does it say that you didn't come up with your response on your own, but used GPT for it?

It seems like you want to make a point that I'm wrong. But you did it in the exact way needed to prove that I'm actually onto something, by using the AI to do something you could not do (or did not want to do).

Isn't that actually kind of cool?

Don't really feel the need to prove anything to someone who thinks a chatbot has empathy. You're free to make yourself feel as smart as you like talking to a program that is designed to be an unchallenging conversation partner.

As an audience member in the marketplace of ideas, you're losing. Take the debate. It'll be fun.

You think you are a challenging conversation partner right?

What you are in fact is a non-constructive conversation partner.

Talking to GPT can be very challenging, since it will by all means challenge your assumptions and make you think about hard truths you would rather avoid.

The difference though is that GPT is designed to be constructive and generally show due consideration in everything that it says. That's something you have not well demonstrated.

I dismiss your initial argument on grounds of being a non-constructive personal attack. You are welcome to rejoin with a genuine and thought-provoking argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com