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."
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).
That makes no sense. People don't care that much about how good music or songs are. If not, why do you think the songs on the best playlists keep changing? What matters is being able to maintain the same knowledge and talk about that music or song with someone. So AI-generated music can have no value. In music, narrative isn't something supplementary. People want narratives and music is the medium for that. (But outside of Spotify, maybe this won't be the case. People aren't interested in the narrative of such music as background music or OSTs.)
Let's be honest: where do we make friends if we work from home? To make friends, we need to be in a sort of co-living environment. It's hard to make friends if all we do is passively set up appointments with someone.
School, hobbies, social activities, friends of friends...? I have made very few lasting friends at work that last beyond the current job.
Offices are not actually great places to make lasting friends. I can understand missing the social aspect of work though (although at my age it doesn't bother me at all).
I live in a pretty remote part of Texas; so, see, what I did was walked out of my front door, down the road a little while and introduced myself to Justin — a local roofing expert, and small (medium?) business owner. I offered to help him take down a lightning struck tree.
It seems like you're suggesting that people should return to their hometowns and spend the rest of their lives fishing leisurely. While that might be a good option for some, it may not be the option for many regardless of their financial status.
If blind people can do things primarily with their sense of hearing, then I believe I can learn to do the same with practice. This would allow me to work with both my visual and auditory senses. Alternatively, I could switch between working with my sight and hearing during different sessions, giving each sense a break. It sounds like a wonderful productivity hack. What do you think of this idea? I wonder if there are any blind training services for non-blind people.
> I wonder if there are any blind training services for non-blind people.
Blind people generally get mobility (i.e., navigating with a cane) and technology accessibility (i.e., using your phone and computer with screenreaders) training through social programs that are for blind people, but the individual teachers often offer private tutoring beyond the scope of those programs. Presumably some of those instructors are also willing to teach sighted people. If you call around, I bet you'll find one.
I had the same thought and learned how to comprehend TTS at very high speeds (~5x plus or minus a bit depending on how alert or tired I am.) I recommend it, it allows me to "read" for longer/more than my normal fatigue limit would permit.
Thanks for sharing your case. But what do you do with the parts you miss while listening to TTS? Do you just read fiction or light reading that you don't mind missing?
My headphones have a button which I mapped to seek backwards 10 seconds. Sometimes I still can't make something out (often because TTS is butchering the pronunciation) and have to read it visually. I read both fiction and nonfiction like this. Books, news and technical articles, etc. I turn it off when I run into things like tables of numbers since that just turns into a wall of noise for me.
I have to thank you. Because like you, I had the desire to subvert the mainstream, question normality, and be cool, but I could feel my desire to do so waning after seeing your example. (I'm serious)
If they can't even handle those things and they need advice, what the heck is the founders on the business side of things supposed to do? The business side of things means handling those things.
It says (on his website) that he started coding at the age of 7, so I guess he's had at least 9 years of mixed IT experience.
But learning the basics of setting up a server isn't that hard. One of my first jobs involved a lot of similar work, and I had never touched a server in my life - purely a coder prior to that. Literally my first task was to go down to the server room, install a new server, and install Ubuntu server on it, and set up the server. Took me a week to get that done.
Actually, even if you understand the last item literally, it is impressive enough to gain reputation. Why did you put it as the last item, thinking it was nothing special?
Then, how about creating 1000 startups and operating them in parallel? Since success is mostly luck, it doesn't matter how well each one is operated. Therefore, by operating 1000 startups, the probability of success can be increased to 1000 squared.
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 -