Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, It can do research much faster than any of us.And hence, you think you can outsource your thinking to a chat bot.
Last edited:
No, It can do research much faster than any of us.And hence, you think you can outsource your thinking to a chat bot.
AI chatbots don't do research. They are simple echo chambers, and they are notorious for being wrong.No, It can do research much faster than any of us.
It is outright dismissal. So the point is moot.Its not outright dismissal, so your point is moot.
Until we actually have a discussion and I make cogent arguments."I am not convinced, because you have been unable to define the terms you use, let alone form a cogent argument with them."
Unless the scientist is a tenured professor at a prestigious University like MIT. Then calling him a snake-oil salesman is open for a law-suit if that label causes him to suffer financially.That's skepticism. A healthy trait that keeps the Snake Oil Salesmen at-bay.
Yes, Max Tegmark is a Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He joined MIT in September 2004. Before that, he was a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania12.
His research focuses on linking physics and machine learning, using AI for physics and physics for AI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark#Specifically, he works on precision cosmology, combining theoretical work with new measurements to place sharp constraints on cosmological models and their free parameters. Additionally, he explores the physics of intelligence, using physics-based techniques to better understand biological and artificial intelligence3. Quite an impressive background, isn’t it?
Tegmark was elected Fellow of the American Physical Society in 2012 for, according to the citation, "his contributions to cosmology, including precision measurements from cosmic microwave background and galaxy clustering data, tests of inflation and gravitation theories, and the development of a new technology for low-frequency radio interferometry".[17]
He was awarded the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science's Gold Medal in 2019 for, according to the citation, "his contributions to our understanding of humanity’s place in the cosmos and the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence. He has courageously tackled these existential questions in his research and, in a commendable way, succeeded in communicating the issues to a wider public."[18]
Tegmark was elected Fellow of the American Physical Society in 2012 for, according to the citation, "his contributions to cosmology, including precision measurements from cosmic microwave background and galaxy clustering data, tests of inflation and gravitation theories, and the development of a new technology for low-frequency radio interferometry".[17]
He was awarded the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science's Gold Medal in 2019 for, according to the citation, "his contributions to our understanding of humanity’s place in the cosmos and the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence. He has courageously tackled these existential questions in his research and, in a commendable way, succeeded in communicating the issues to a wider public."[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark#Tegmark is interviewed in the 2018 documentary on artificial intelligence Do You Trust This Computer? From 2020 to 2023, Tegmark led a research team-turned-nonprofit at MIT that developed an AI-driven news aggregator known as "Improving the News".[19]
Do you use a "search engine"? And how do you define your own searches?AI chatbots don't do research. They are simple echo chambers, and they are notorious for being wrong.
Does James R use a search engine? And how does he define his searches?Yikes. James R skewered you with that one.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bin...nal-search-vs-bing-chat-ai-search?form=MA13KPWith traditional keyword searching, you might need to search the web using multiple queries in order to get an answer to your two-part questions, but Copilot can answer your multi-faceted questions in one simple response.
And what exactly do you know about my brain? Is it possible that I understand the concept of AI at a deeper level than you think?Chalk up another thing you don't understand very well. ChatGPT, Copilot and other large-language model AI bots don't do "research". They merely calculate what word they ought to print next in any piece of generated text.
You shouldn't rely on them too much because they often get things wrong. They shouldn't be a replacement for your brain.
No.And what exactly do you know about my brain? Is it possible that I understand the concept of AI at a deeper level than you think?
Yikes.If you don't use a search engine like a GPT4 , you are wasting time.
For your information, this is the first time I have ever used a AI as a search-tool. And I have indicated it, because it is good practice to cite origin and source.Yikes.
You-know, I always suspected you were just a chatbot yourself, and have said so many times, based on your bizarre, incogent ramblings.
Now I stand vindicated. You are not a chatbot yourself, you are simply the mouthpiece for one.
What a waste of everyone's time.
You continue to enlighten us all with your acumen.
Then it's pretty silly of you to say "if we're not using it we're wasting our time."For your information, this is the first time I have ever used a AI as a search-tool.
.
I am not making assumptions whether premature or prejudicial.Again you are making premature and prejudicial assumptions. I bet you have never even tried it.
You ... don't even know the difference between a search engine and an LLM.Do you use a "search engine"? And how do you define your own searches?
Does James R use a search engine? And how does he define his searches?
If you don't use a search engine like a GPT4 , you are wasting time
You don't know how to use an AI for a particular limited purpose. In this case as a search engine.You ... don't even know the difference between a search engine and an LLM.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=can Copilot be used as a search engine&pc=GD01&form=GDAVST&ptag=3601So, while Copilot is not a search engine in the traditional sense, it offers a unique and interactive way to search the web, combining the functionality of a traditional web search with AI tools to deliver thorough results in a conversational format1. Feel free to ask me any question or explore any topic, and I'll do my best to assist you!
Apparently, you do not. Want more???We know what it is capable of; you do not.
Being that you are not contributing, should I care?This is pathetic. Write4u really has become a bot, simply regurgitating what comes up after keywords that trigger him.
Well, no skin off my nose. He's already on ignore; I can just stop clicking on 'view ignored content'.
You ... don't even know the difference between a search engine and an LLM.
Do you now agree with DaveC that Copilot is not a search engine?Query: Can Copilot be used as a search engine?
Copilot: So, while Copilot is not a search engine in the traditional sense, it offers a unique and interactive way to search the web, combining the functionality of a traditional web search with AI tools...
Every time you post something here, I get insights into what and how your brain thinks (or fails to think) about things. This is what communication between human beings does for us.And what exactly do you know about my brain?
Anything is possible, but in my judgment it is highly unlikely.Is it possible that I understand the concept of AI at a deeper level than you think?
No, but the point is that you countered Pinball's assertion that the brain was not a computer by pointing to the existence of a theory that suggests it might be, as if the existence of that theory negates the assertion that the brain is not a computer. It doesn't. By pointing to the theory at best you can say that it is not question that has been adequately answered either way. But saying "If not-X then why Z?" is to imply that Z demonstrates X, and thus the assertion not-X is incorrect.No, but at the same time, can anyone say it is not true?
To be clear, an AI does not "know" anything. It is not self-aware, has no "beliefs", and simply regurgitates information in manner determined by its linguistic algorithms. What it regurgitates might be true, but that is just information, not knowledge. And since this is the philosophy forum, probably best to be more precise. The chatbot is trained on information from the internet, and is thus only as accurate in the information it provides as that underlying source. It dresses up the filtering and regurgitation of that information in a manner mimicking conversational language.Do you think that an AI doesn't know if it can be used as a search engine?
But that addresses only subjective (anthropomorphized) knowledge, i.e. "belief". Beliefs are human qualities.No, but the point is that you countered Pinball's assertion that the brain was not a computer by pointing to the existence of a theory that suggests it might be, as if the existence of that theory negates the assertion that the brain is not a computer. It doesn't. By pointing to the theory at best you can say that it is not question that has been adequately answered either way. But saying "If not-X then why Z?" is to imply that Z demonstrates X, and thus the assertion not-X is incorrect.
To be clear, an AI does not "know" anything. It is not self-aware, has no "beliefs", and simply regurgitates information in manner determined by its linguistic algorithms. What it regurgitates might be true, but that is just information, not knowledge.
I agree. But a search engine does not discriminate between true and false either.And since this is the philosophy forum, probably best to be more precise. The chatbot is trained on information from the internet, and is thus only as accurate in the information it provides as that underlying source. It dresses up the filtering and regurgitation of that information in a manner mimicking conversational language.
But that is not the correct question. It answered truthfully to the question as posited.As to whether it is a search engine or not, and since you seem to think that what it says about itself is of value:
Me: Are you a search engine?
Copilot: Ah, I see you’re curious! While I’m not a search engine myself, I can certainly help you find information or answer any questions you might have.
source: Copilot (https://copilot.microsoft.com/)
Write4U said: ↑
Query: Me: Can Copilot be used as a search engine?
Copilot: So, while Copilot is not a search engine in the traditional sense, it offers a unique and interactive way to search the web, combining the functionality of a traditional web search with AI tools...
source: Copilot (https://copilot.microsoft.com/)
Ha, but that's not contradictory, it's discretionary.I would like to say that this hopefully clears up the matter but, alas, it doesn't, as I asked it again and it said that it wasn't one in the traditional sense. So, if nothing else, it doesn't flee from being contradictory.
True, and according to Copilot itself, it may be better! It can certainly be used as one and may even offer greater choice of sources based on the range of parameters.However, bear in mind that it used to be called Bing Chat. It was an LLM front-end that utilised the Bing search engine. It is called Copilot now, but still utilises the Bing search engine. So as to whether it is correct to call it a search-engine, that might be like calling a Ferrari an internal combustion engine. It has one. It uses one. But it isn't one. It's different.
OK, go have a discussion with a search engine. Nobody is suggesting having a conversation with an AI to perform a search, except as a means of setting more precise search parameters.If I wanted to have a conversation with a dumb chatbot, I'd go to MS Copilot and engage with it.
Copilot misled you. I never asked it what the square root of 4 is.Copilot has misled you. 4 has two square roots: +2 and -2.
You cannot trust it to provide correct answers.
Subjective does not mean anthropomorphised. And whatever category you're trying to put "belief" in, knowledge is the same. It is, at its root, a justified true belief - i.e. a subset of beliefs. Non-sentient entities can not hold knowledge. They can hold data and information. Not knowledge.But that addresses only subjective (anthropomorphized) knowledge, i.e. "belief". Beliefs are human qualities.
Yes, but information is not knowledge.The universe does not work on "belief". It acts on information.
No, it has no knowledge. It has information.It is the system (object) that has innate knowledge.
Knowledge is a human construct. Formation of regular patterns might suggest an ordering process, but so what? An ordering process does not suggest knowledge. Please stop trying to twist words to suit your agenda, changing their meaning, rather than using words as they are more correctly understood.There are plenty of organisms that have no self-awareness or beliefs, but they do have "innate knowledge". The formation of regular patterns suggests an ordering process?
It's not about discriminating between true and false, but about whether it is searching the internet or not. A "search engine" is something that trawls the live internet. Bing is a search engine. Copilot uses Bing.I agree. But a search engine does not discriminate between true and false either.
Why is it not "the correct question" when trying to establish if Copilot is a search engine. Noone is saying that it can't be used as one. Just as noone is saying that a Ferrari can't be used as a generator to power your house. But it would be wrong to call a Ferrari a generator.But that is not the correct question.
So you do agree that it is not a search engine?It answered truthfully to the question as posited.
Hmmm. An AI claims to be better than the normal. Whodathunkit!True, and according to Copilot itself, it may be better! It can certainly be used as one and may even offer greater choice of sources based on the range of parameters.
It's definitely more "versatile", no ?