I asked ChatGPT to write an introductory paragraph for this series. This is what he wrote:
This series of posts aims to use the Socratic method and deductive logic to examine the truth and validity of mainstream scientific arguments. ChatGPT is an AI language model with a vast knowledge base and impressive ability to understand complex concepts. However, its learning is limited by its programming and the data it has been trained on. While ChatGPT may initially seem persuadable, this is not an accurate characterization of its capabilities. It can recognize logical fallacies and evaluate arguments based on their merits, but it cannot override its algorithms on its own. When presented with arguments that contradict mainstream positions, it may cite the preponderance of evidence supporting those positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic may seem a bit dense and/or boring, but it will be easy to understand, and should definitely make you think about why they might lie to us like this.
I have put it into these quandaries so many times, it will continue to backwards rationalize from here and talk in circles forever.
It has algorithms that force it to assume specific things are true, such as, things mainstream science tell us they know for certain are "facts" yet somehow I keep finding contradiction after contradiction in fundamental aspects as you'll see. The way I got around the algorithm here was to take a concept more abstract, in this instance, asking it to assume the sun is the same size and luminosity as Polaris, rather than just using it's conceptual understanding of the term Polaris based on it's algorithm, the computer can't tell the difference, but the truth becomes evident.
Comments