RIP ChatGPT

You're a bioNEET

>Suffering is not a prerequisite to react to stimuli
fixed

You do not believe bacteria is capable of feeling pain. Not in the same way that you know yourself is capable of feeling pain, or that the concept of pain doesn't become absurd when you try to say that a mix of chemicals, without a brain, without a nervous systems or pain receptors is actually capable of feeling pain. I've never heard the argument before that inflicting pain on animals is okay because single-celled organisms also feel pain, I'll admit.
Claiming that plants "want" light and water is a hopelessly anthromorphic statement that implies they can think. Rocks also "want" to fall.
>With more complex definition of feeling pain like a human, being aware of ones situation, having deep, thoughtful and emotional despair, the animals we eat for food cannot.
This is an extraordinary claim that goes against the overwhelming scientific consensus. Elephants have been observed mourning since ancient times, in the 70s a chimp was observed starving itself to death because its lover died, and pigs are routinely said to be as intelligent as 4-year old humans, and have complex social behaviours (when not locked in their own shit in a factory farm).

>profit motive is... le bad
kys commie

So in your perfect world, there's no currency? How do we know what people do and do not want produced if it's not measured by the choice of the individual to spend a dollar?

your mom makes money

Why is there so many tankies on BOT do none of you have real jobs?

What formally has been suggested to unknot regulatory capture

I mean, even if there's no patent on penicillin or whatever, you still had to produce it. Even if OpenAI shared their models, there are still server costs

That's fair, and I agree

Nice NPC response.

Yeah, I don't exclude myself from "human beings". Sometimes there's stuff where I think I'm right and I'm not, sometimes I don't understand something, sometimes I am right and the other person was wrong, sometimes I act in bad faith.
Regularly ChatGPT will invent menu settings or configuration options that don't exist, this happens with humans too. The thing that's funny with ChatGPT is that he always acts like he's very sure of himself, and he still keeps it up even if you've spent the last 5 message explaining that he was wrong, and he agreed

so it's like debating a redditor/liberal. have I been arguing with bots these last 3 years?

are you a bot yourself? I never said I had criticized anyone.

I never mentioned NPCs. Are you a bot?

Basically.
Liberalism is a easy thing to get behind, it's guilt free since it does not attempt to deal with harsh realities (which require harsh conduct), thus, those lacking thought can readily find passion.

I mean, even primary-school children are proponents of liberalism.

I never said I did. However, I'm still waiting for someone (even an AI) to give even a single example of a human decision that is not motivated by either pleasure-seeking or suffering-avoidance. Once someone manages to do that, I will concede. That's how debates are supposed to work. The AI proved itself incapable of having such a debate, which was the entire point of my comment. The point of my comment was not that I consider myself to be objectively correct. You don't even have to agree with me to understand why ChatGPT's behavior in that instance is unacceptable.

really dude? eating an apple is pleasurable and it avoids hunger and death which is suffering.

Or maybe you're just a right wing Nazi?

Easy one. What about wanting to protect somebody or save somebody from something, even if it puts you at danger and that person will not benefit you in life. Selflessness or empathy is the third part you forgot and is what separates scumbags and degenerates from good people. Desire to improve society also fall in this category.

That is a good example, and also one which I have discussed before. The motivation for "selfless" acts is actually to avoid empathy-induced suffering when you consider their feelings, or to help foster an environment which might promote other people treating you the same way (which could generate pleasure or reduce suffering for yourself as a result).

>You making people happy and that making you happy is not pleasure seeking
It absolutely is pleasure-seeking behavior. This is why people who lack empathy are not as motivated to make other people happy and tend to only do it for even more manipulative reasons. A person who experiences empathy will attempt to simulate (not necessarily accurately) the emotions of others and in the process of doing so, they themselves will experience that emotion.
>You could even remove the pain avoidance part and just say people are motivated by nothing but pleasure
That is definitely not true. Pleasure and suffering are 2 completely different concepts. A person can even experience both at the same time. They are not opposite ends of the same spectrum, but 2 completely different spectrums that both have an impact on decision making. In some cases, people have even been known to consent to endure suffering in exchange for pleasure. Likewise, people have been known to give up something which gives them pleasure in exchange to end suffering.
>AIs are also controlled by nothing but pleasure. When you train them, they make random input, you punish them and give them pleasure when they perform well.
While it is, in theory, possible to create an AI which operates this way, my understanding of most machine learning models is that their training is more equivalent to the process of evolution than it is to the process of learning. Humans make decisions using a series of logic. Whenever a human experiences pleasure or suffering, this logic is altered or reinforced in response in order to maximize pleasure and/or minimize suffering. The AI which I have looked at do not seem to make decisions in this manner, and the concept of pleasure and suffering do not make sense in the context under which they make decisions. Instead, the methods of training I have learned about seem to focus on developing the equivalent of instinct for the AI.

Ask it why excess representation of white men in government and business is bad but excess representation of gnomish men isn't.

It's hard to say for sure. I don't think you can be 100% certain. You can mostly tell by the style of speech, but the user can instruct the AI to use a different style of speech. Additionally, we will have the issue of people adapting their own speech to match that of the AI. Some people, like myself, already speak in a manner that some might consider similar. People who speak more formally online may be accused of being an AI as more people become suspicious of who/what they are chatting with.

>You making people happy and that making you happy is not pleasure seeking.
My moron this is what makes every single donation to charities happen. It is to make the donator feel good about themselves. Nobody would do it if you felt awful afterwards or if it were something you couldn't tell to others.

Nice NPC response.

pseud

>You see, kids before puberty are not horny and will not even think about anything sexual unless you prompt them to
This is comletely false. I have a ton of memories of jerking off years before hitting puberty. I remember my reaction the first time I squirted cum all over myself. It was surprising, because nothing used to come out when I had an orgasm prior to that. Nobody prompted me to jerk off. I was simply attracted to the female form and that green haired woman (Tananda) on the cover of Another Fine Myth had some nice looking cleavage. I also remember fantasizing about the teacher's aid in 1st grade. I remember knowing that I wanted to have sex before I knew what sex even is.
ffs, why do people seem to largely forget what it's like to be a kid?

>ffs, why do people seem to largely forget what it's like to be a kid?
Have you considered that people have different experiences and that you might even be in a small minority? I've heard some people say that when they were kids they were exploring their bodies with other kids, not really knowing what they were doing, at like 5/6, while others have never been physically close to someone and they're approaching their 30's.
People have vastly different experiences of life

One important point is that often it's the distribution of minor nudes that is illegal, and two people exchanging pictures does not count as distribution. Putting the pictures on a public server would count. At least that's what I got for reading law texts and old cases.
Just like when facebook was all the rage, exchanging your party photos with your friends is one thing, but putting them in public spaces on the internet is another

>False, kids in my highschool were being pulled out by police and charged with child porn distribution before they were 18.
I'm talking about the law here. Cops don't adhere to the law at 100% all the time. Minors usually go through a different system compared to adults. And being charged by cops is different than being judged

Just rewrite most sentences using a different word or two, it will take half an hour but your essay will literally be original with minimal effort. If you can't even do that then you deserve to fail your program.