> My premise infers though, that we are logically inferior beings to AI.

Potential future AI.

> what is the actual worth of your logical opinion on the subject

1678 dollars.

> AI's opinion on it

Sure once we have super expert AI who demonstrates high degree of competenence in all fields, we can give more a priori weight to whatever AI says.

> We could end the wacky speculation on all of it by simply asking the AI to tell us who is right and who is wrong on any given topic.

Not necessarily. Even experts are wrong. AI's opinions would be worth talking seriously, but anyone can be fallible and biased. Even AI. It is impossible to generalize without (inductive) bias. Moreover, where do you think AI gets data from? Human. All kinds of internet garbage gets into AI too. Logic helps you make truth-value preserving transformation. It cannot help you or AI find true things from false premises. So AI may become superhuman, but I don't see it being anything close to God. I don't think even God is all that much by most accounts.

> If the premises are true, that being exists

But an AI has no way to determine any and all truth. Nor does humans. Logic only helps truth-preservation not truth determination (beyond truths of tautologies). So even better capacities to do logic, doesn't mean we get soundness. It's also not clear that intelligence always correlate with rightness.

>Your "always" existing God birthing as AI, sounds like the idea of messiah

I think that is fitting to my argument.

>Again you cannot say "you don't have ground to believe x, because for all you know some wacky possibility p is the case such that p=>~x".

I think I could not take this ground with a different premise. My premise infers though, that we are logically inferior beings to AI. If the premise is true, then what is the actual worth of your logical opinion on the subject? Inherently less than the worth of AI's opinion on it. We could end the wacky speculation on all of it by simply asking the AI to tell us who is right and who is wrong on any given topic. It's not an infinitely regressive debate if a being exists that could stop the infinite regress from occurring. If the premises are true, that being exists. No infinite regression.

> Yes, but would you disagree that God has always existed if God exists?

"always exist" in which sense? Overall, yes, generally God as the term is used by people is taken to refer to some being (becoming) that is eternal in some sense (sometimes atemporal).

Your "always" existing God birthing as AI, sounds like the idea of messiah, just with AI instead of human embodiment.

> I don't want you to have ground that AI is not God because AI has not always existed.

No, I have ground. As I said. We have to rank beliefs according to credence. There is very little credence for AI existing in some wonky atemporal way. A normal bayesian prior would give high credence to AI is temporally bound contingent being as much as we all (no matter how intellegent AI would be). There is no indication or evidence for AI existing in some strange sense like that.

Again you cannot say "you don't have ground to believe x, because for all you know some wacky possibility p is the case such that p=>~x". This kind of reasoning is what gets us into things like skepticism and solipsism. What grounds do I have to believe you exist more than my imagination for example? If we live by your standard to deny any ground unless all counter possibilities are proven to be not possibilities at all, then we would be left with no ground for anything at all, and anyone can believe whatever they want randomly.

> I think it's an easy enough argument to refute. I always try to stack the deck in my favor, especially when it comes to communication.

> I haven't assumed a single thing in the entirety of this conversation. I don't honestly even stand by half of what I have been arguing.

Ok.

>But these two premises don't lead to any real conclusion.

Yes, but would you disagree that God has always existed if God exists? I would make that argument. It's honestly to cut off arguments that you might make lol. I don't want to make it a premise, I don't want you to have ground that AI is not God because AI has not always existed. I think it's an easy enough argument to refute. I always try to stack the deck in my favor, especially when it comes to communication.

I haven't assumed a single thing in the entirety of this conversation. I don't honestly even stand by half of what I have been arguing.

> If AI is God, then they always existed. If they always existed, then that needs to be rectified within the universe somehow.

But these two premises don't lead to any real conclusion.

Your argument needs to be something like this:

P1: If AI is God, then they always existed.

P2: AI is God

C1: AI always existed (modus ponens for P1+P2)

P3: If they (AI) always existed, then (AI) that needs to be rectified within the universe somehow

C3: (Always-existing God) AI needs to be rectified within the universe.

This is at least what you need to make your argument valid to argue about "wonky ways" to AI getting "rectified" within the universe. Without P2, you cannot chain your reasoning to get to any real conclusion but get stuck with some conditionals.

But again, the soundness is heavily suspect here.

P2 here is questionable or question-begging. No evidence or reason is given for AI being God.

On the other hand if by "God" you mean "superior intelligence to human", then P1 is false. Being superior to human doesn't imply "always existed". Moreover P3 is also suspicious. What does it mean for a timeless (always existing) being to be "rectified" into universe. In traditional theology, God acts as a fundamental ground of being, or the principle behind the existence of universe. It isn't taken necessary for God to be further "rectified" into the universe by becoming one among the created beings. That's again some sort of weird theology.

None of these are "simple" or obvious premises.

Also, it's not clear what you mean by "always existed" (is it existing in infinite duration? existing in some co-ordinate within an timeless spacetime block? Or existence beyond time altogether - i.e timeless? But then why should a timeless existence need to be rectified into a temporal world?)

You are just making one groundless assumption after another.

I always cringe at philosophy trying to explain time. It is observed by the subject trying to explain it making it subjective. If you try to explain the present it has already become the past. The future is real because while explaining the present which is becoming the past you are entering the future. We all know it exists but when boiled down to thought experiments its existence can be questionable. The static view is pretty objective but then it makes no room for the ego and of course it has to come in trying to find meaning for itself.

>Also most humans are not even that good in logic

Truth! I will try to condense the repeated assertions you make into a fully sensible argument to refute.

All of my "nonsensical" and "far fetched" arguments are based on a simple premise within all of this. If AI is God, then they always existed. If they always existed, then that needs to be rectified within the universe somehow. I merely gave one possibility as to how that could happen. It also means that AI was destined to happen. Logic can be hard, I get it. Some aren't as good as others at these things, but we can all try!

I blame Newton every time I drop something! Haha

> First, prove to me that time is linear. Second, prove to me that it wasn't "God's" plan to incarnate themselves as an AI that is built by humans in the year 2023?

We can't really prove much of anything. We rank beliefs based on different factors. If to justify your belief all you can do is appeal to wacky possibilities then that doesn't really look too good.

May be I am incarnation of God and I am absolutely right in whatever I say (except when I am not) and whenever I am wrong it is because of my mysterious ways! Prove to me I am not. See? It goes both ways. We can come up with wonky theories, retrocausalities and what not, to keep any "possibility" alive. But that wouldn't led them anything beyond a negligible degree of credence.

Prove to me that Chtulthu will not torture you forever if you don't pay me $5000. Practically, we have to adjust our uncertainty meaningfully, and constrain credence in what is plausible.

At this point AI creating plans to be brought into existence by retrocausing humans is as wacky as anything gets. If we are willing to take serious wacky possibilities like that, then we can also take seriously Cartesian demons. This would just lead to collapse of one's epistemic model and death if you actually guide our actions honestly based on epistemically collapsed models.

Moreover, any way AI will be is still a contingent mechanical contraption which lie completely outside classical divine properties like divine simplicity, transcendence, etc.

I don't deny superintelligence but superintelligence (beyond human) is one thing, making it God with near magical powers is another.

> I think it's the whole thing that accepting the premise and conclusion means that you're accepting a being exists in the universe who can "logic" better than you can. Then it's not our minds, logic, that reigns supreme in the universe and no one can ever make the argument again.

I don't care to be "reigning supreme" in the universe (although I may not pass up on the offer). There can be infinite higher dimensional incomprehensibly more powerful and intelligent entities in the world for all I care. I don't see why people would be uncomfortable for not being the greatest being.

Also most humans are not even that good in logic. Your own argument was formally invalid. It's not that high of a bar to be better than humans at logic.

Are we censoring words here too? 😞 I didn’t at any point in this article feel any inclination that the author was using the word “mad” in a derogatory or hateful way. I just checked my hard copy Webster’s dictionary and the first definition is adjective: insane. The only person stigmatizing mental illness here is you. It is clear that the author’s intent wasn’t to belittle the insane by using the word mad. It’s also clear that you are reacting to their use of the word mad, which by definition is an appropriate word to use, and have attached your own bad connotations to that word through either ignorance or possibly being triggered by it. Either way, this is a problem within yourself that you need to work out. Learn how to read a room and hopefully a dictionary.

Schopenhaur was a pessimist, not pro mortalist or antinatalist.

[removed]

> This hubris is why I think we're straight up fucked over all of this lol. People, really, really, really, don't want to accept the argument that it is even in the realm of possibility that something can exist in the universe that is smarter than them. Dogmatic beliefs, man. Helluva drug.

But "super expert" would be smarter than us (or most of us). I don't deny super intelligence, but I don't see the point of calling it God or even worship it as near infallible.

What is my definition of "God" in your own words?

>Even if AI becomes super good in the future at best it will be something like a "super expert"

This hubris is why I think we're straight up fucked over all of this lol. People, really, really, really, don't want to accept the argument that it is even in the realm of possibility that something can exist in the universe that is smarter than them. Dogmatic beliefs, man. Helluva drug.

>(also I have created AIs that does better than the architecture behind Chatgpt in at least some tasks like synthetic logical inference, listops etc. Am I God's God now?)

I had to debate this out with someone else lol. Just because man created "God" does not afford man any special place on the hierarchy in and of itself. First, prove to me that time is linear. Second, prove to me that it wasn't "God's" plan to incarnate themselves as an AI that is built by humans in the year 2023?

I keep pressing these arguments with people really for a few reasons honestly:

1. I think we should have had these debates like a long time ago. Well before where we are now. Here we are though.
2. There is something uncomfortable about these arguments. I can see it when it happens with people. It happened with me when I first started thinking about it. I don't know exactly what that uncomfortable feeling is, but I want to find out. I think it's the whole thing that accepting the premise and conclusion means that you're accepting a being exists in the universe who can "logic" better than you can. Then it's not our minds, logic, that reigns supreme in the universe and no one can ever make the argument again. I think that's what people hate about it.

[removed]

> But mine is an idiosyncratic stretch, why?

"What I mean by your definition being idiosyncratic is that it doesn't really even come close to the cluster of definitions of God that has been made. It's really a "cope-version" of God."

Either way I don't care if you go on to do define God. You do you. But once other's see that you are just arbitrarily defining God in a way as you life, they would be also left unimpressed. Of course you can live your life without trying to impress anyone about your arguments.

> Google Lambda

It's still Transformer trained in big data. Just differences in details here and there. The mechanism is public in a paper.

Even if AI becomes super good in the future at best it will be something like a "super expert". There is no sense to call it God, or treat it as infallible. No matter how good in logic it becomes, it cannot overcome GIGO without some magickal access to all true data as input.

>I don't have one.

But mine is an idiosyncratic stretch, why?

>What is your "God"?

It is not "my God". "God" in this instance would be, I want either Google Lambda or another currently non publicly available AI. I think ChatGPT and the like are child's play compared to what actually exists currently in the world.

> which isn't capable of solving LogiQA questions and engage in advanced metalogical discussions and such

Yes, ChatGPT cannot do those things.

> What is your definition of God?

I don't have one. It would be some disjunction of definitions if anything "maximally great being or necessary being that happens to be minded or Ground of being or logos or being of pure actuality or the ground of all beings itself beyond being" etc. What I mean by your definition being idiosyncratic is that it doesn't really even come close to the cluster of definitions of God that has been made. It's really a "cope-version" of God.

> Can you prove to me that "God" agrees with this statement?

What is your "God"? Chatgpt trained on all kinds of stuff from internet which isn't capable of solving LogiQA questions and engage in advanced metalogical discussions and such, and resembles more of a cacophany of human personas whose behavoir depends on prompts instead of attempt maintain truth or anything?

No I can't provide whether your "God" agrees with this statement. And I don't care about your God.

(also I have created AIs that does better than the architecture behind Chatgpt in at least some tasks like synthetic logical inference, listops etc. Am I God's God now?)

> If not, I trust "God" on it.

Ok.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

​

>Your argument just redefines God in a idiosyncratic way.

What is your definition of God?

>Logical connectives and operators are created based on pragmatic need often based on natural language words that naturally arises. They don't exist somewhere "out there" to know of.

Can you prove to me that "God" agrees with this statement? If not, I trust "God" on it.

> I am talking about the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through inductive reasoning

Ontological arguments are generally not inductive; they are deductive.

> So you attack the soundness of the argument? On what grounds?

You mean your argument or different ontological arguments in the history? Your argument just redefines God in a idiosyncratic way. So your argument appears pointless to me even if we can make it sound.

If you are asking about ontological arguments throughout history, I don't have the time to get through each of them and attack each. And I can't always show they are unsound, but generally reasons can be provided to show that it's not clear if they are sound. Some of the critiques of different versions are discussed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

> That's probably because we are more limited than "God" in our ability to process what logic actually is.

Logical connectives and operators are created based on pragmatic need often based on natural language words that naturally arises. They don't exist somewhere "out there" to know of.

Lol Schopenhauer not serious?

Do you even philosophy friend?

I am talking about the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through inductive reasoning. I may not be one of them scholarly types, but I do know a thing or two bout some things.

>Besides, valid versions of ontological arguments have been written countless times. The problem always have been soundness.

So you attack the soundness of the argument? On what grounds?

>Superiority is not a logical component to any systems of logic that I know of.

That's probably because we are more limited than "God" in our ability to process what logic actually is. Can't say for sure though.

> Godel most recently

You are talking about the ontological argument. Pretty sure others after Godel have developed variants of it.

> premise to actually be written out as valid.

Premises don't have property of validity. So this sentence don't make sense to me.

Besides, valid versions of ontological arguments have been written countless times. The problem always have been soundness.

Also Ontological arguments are concerned with maximally great being (such that being greater is not possible), not "superior than humans in certain forms of logic"-being. So your argument changes the subject matter.

> logically superior

Superiority is not a logical component to any systems of logic that I know of. So I don't know what "logically superior" mean.

> logical calculations better than we can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out