I'M SMARTER THAN A.I.
Says Someone with LILKI (less important little-known info)
LIGHT TO HEAVY DISCUSSION WITH A.I.
{My questions and comments are in bold type. A.I.’s replies ain’t.}
How can a worm conquer the world?
That’s an interesting question! While a worm conquering the world might sound like a plot for a science fiction movie, it’s not entirely impossible in a metaphorical sense.
In the world of technology, for example, a “worm” is a type of malicious software that can spread from computer to computer, potentially causing widespread damage. In this context, a “worm” could metaphorically “conquer the world” by infecting computers globally.
In the natural world, worms play a crucial role in soil health by breaking down organic matter and improving soil structure. In this sense, worms are already “conquering the world” by helping to sustain life on Earth!
However, if we’re talking about a worm literally ruling the world in the way humans or other large animals might, that’s highly unlikely due to their size and lack of complex cognitive abilities. But who knows what could happen in an alternate universe? 😉
How many alternative universes have been discovered so far? And which one is the most enjoyable to live in?
The concept of alternative or parallel universes is a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists. There have been some intriguing findings that suggest the possibility of their existence, but it’s important to note that these are theories and hypotheses, not confirmed discoveries.
For instance, NASA scientists working with the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) discovered something they couldn’t explain, which some interpreted as potential evidence of a parallel universe1. However, the team itself did not make this claim and suggested that the anomalies they observed are more likely to be explained in terms of physics1.
Another astrophysicist, Ranga-Ram Chary, discovered a “mysterious glow” while mapping the Cosmic Microwave Background, which he hypothesized could represent matter from another universe “leaking” or colliding into ours2. However, this claim also requires a high burden of proof and many in the scientific community remain skeptical,2.
As for which alternative universe would be the most enjoyable to live in, that’s purely speculative and subjective. It would depend on the laws of physics and conditions in that universe, as well as one’s personal preferences. As of now, our own universe is the only one we know of that supports life as we know it. So it’s safe to say that our own universe is currently the most enjoyable one to live in! 😉
1. https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/nasa-finds-evidence-of-parallel-universe/
2. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scientist-may-have-discovered-alternate-universesyes-really_n_563a1212e4b0307f2cab4d14
3. https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe.htm
4. https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/nasa-finds-evidence-of-parallel-universe-where-time-runs-backward-report/
5. https://www.livescience.com/truth-behind-nasa-mirror-parallel-universe.html
How can the laws of physics be different in alternative universes?
The idea of different laws of physics in alternative universes comes from the concept of the multiverse. In this context, each universe within the multiverse could have its own set of physical laws and constants1.
The conditions of a universe can be described through its “fundamental constants”—fixed quantities in nature, such as the gravitational constant (G) or the speed of light ©. There are about 30 of these representing the sizes and strengths of parameters such as particle masses, forces, or the universe’s expansion1.
In our universe, the values of these constants are in a range that allows complex systems such as stars, planets, carbon, and ultimately humans to evolve. Physicists have discovered that if we tweaked some of these parameters by just a few percent, it would render our universe lifeless1.
In a multiverse scenario, each universe could have different values for these fundamental constants, leading to different physical laws. Most might be wholly unsuitable for life. But a few should, statistically speaking, be life-friendly1.
Max Tegmark and Brian Greene have proposed different classification schemes for multiverses and universes. Tegmark’s four-level classification consists of Level I: an extension of our universe, Level II: universes with different physical constants, Level III: many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Level IV: ultimate ensemble2.
However, it’s important to note that these are theories and hypotheses, not confirmed discoveries. The idea that we can dial in different forms or values for the laws or the physical constants isn’t something we can base on any science3. It’s hard enough to discover/build laws that are consistent with the Universe around us3.
1. https://phys.org/news/2023-03-multiverse-universe-suspiciously-existunless-physicist.html
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
3. https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/76255/examples-of-universes-with-differents-laws-of-physics
4. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
Who enforces the laws of physics in each universe?
The “laws of physics” are not enforced in the way that human laws are. They are fundamental properties of the universe that all matter and energy follow. These laws are not dictated or enforced by any entity or authority. Instead, they are inherent characteristics of the universe that scientists have observed and described through mathematical equations and models.
In the context of alternative universes, if they exist and have different laws of physics, those laws would be similarly inherent to their respective universes. They would not be “enforced” by any entity, but rather would simply be the way that matter and energy behave in those universes.
It’s important to note that our understanding of the laws of physics is based on our observations and experiments in our own universe. If alternative universes exist with different laws of physics, it would present exciting new frontiers for scientific exploration and understanding! 😊
Where does A.I. get the idea that new frontiers for scientific exploration and understanding would be exciting to someone?
The idea that new frontiers for scientific exploration and understanding would be exciting comes from a general human curiosity and desire for knowledge. Many people find the unknown and the prospect of discovery to be thrilling. This is why we explore space, dive into the deepest parts of the ocean, and continually push the boundaries of our scientific understanding.
As an AI, I don’t experience emotions or excitement. However, I’m designed to understand and reflect human interests and values in my responses. The phrase “exciting new frontiers for scientific exploration and understanding” is a way to express the potential for new knowledge and discovery that many humans find appealing. 😊
What's a bs meter?
A “BS meter” is a colloquial term that refers to a person’s ability to detect dishonesty or falsehoods. It’s like an imaginary gauge that measures the amount of “BS” (a euphemism for ‘bullshit’, which means nonsense or lies) someone is saying1,2. When someone says their “BS meter is going off”, it means they think the person they’re listening to is not being honest or not telling the whole truth3. It’s a metaphorical way of expressing skepticism or doubt about the truthfulness of someone’s statements.
1. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bs%20Meter
2. https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/b-s-meter.1021848/
3. https://ja.hinative.com/questions/20063795
What are the prospects for the invention of a BS meter that can be installed in A.I.?
The idea of a “BS meter” in AI is an interesting one and is a topic of ongoing research. The goal would be to develop AI systems that can detect misinformation, bias, or dishonesty in the information they process. This could involve complex algorithms and machine learning techniques to analyze the credibility and reliability of information sources1,2,3.
However, it’s important to note that this is a challenging task. Misinformation can be subtle and can often involve nuances of language and context that are difficult for AI systems to understand. Moreover, the concept of “BS” can be subjective and may vary depending on cultural, social, or personal perspectives2.
Despite these challenges, there are promising developments in this area. For example, researchers are exploring ways to use AI to fact-check news articles, social media posts, and other forms of information1. These technologies are still in their early stages and have limitations, but they represent important steps toward the goal of more reliable and trustworthy AI systems1,2.
In conclusion, while we don’t yet have a fully functional “BS meter” for AI, it’s an area of active research and development. It’s an exciting prospect that could greatly enhance the ability of AI systems to provide accurate and reliable information1,2,3. 😊
1. https://hbr.org/sponsored/2021/09/what-your-candidates-say-about-your-hiring-process-and-how-to-fix-it
2. https://medium.com/@colin.fraser/chatgpt-automatic-expensive-bs-at-scale-a113692b13d5
3. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/06/30/tech-causes-more-problems-than-it-solves/
Which would have a better bs meter: theistic, or atheistic, A.I.?
The ability of an AI to detect misinformation, or act as a “BS meter”, is not influenced by concepts such as theism or atheism. These are human philosophical and religious beliefs, and AI does not have beliefs, emotions, or consciousness.
AI operates based on algorithms and data. Its capabilities depend on its programming and the quality and quantity of the data it has been trained on. Therefore, whether an AI is programmed with a theistic or atheistic perspective would not inherently make it better or worse at detecting misinformation.
It’s also important to note that AI should be designed to respect diversity and avoid bias. This includes religious and philosophical beliefs. An ideal AI should provide accurate and reliable information regardless of the user’s personal beliefs.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of a “BS meter” in AI would depend on technical factors such as the sophistication of its algorithms and the quality of its training data, rather than philosophical or religious perspectives. 😊
Would you heed my request, if I asked you not to show a happy face at the end of your answer/s?
Of course, I can certainly do that. Your preferences are important to me. Let’s continue our conversation.
If my preferences are important to you, would you heed my request, if I asked you to answer scientific questions with findings from alternative sciences?
While I strive to respect user preferences, it’s important to note that as an AI developed by OpenAI, I’m designed to provide information based on widely accepted scientific principles and evidence. The term “alternative sciences” often refers to theories or ideas that aren’t supported by the mainstream scientific community. While these ideas can be interesting to explore, they may not be based on empirical evidence or rigorous scientific methodology.
If you have specific questions about alternative theories or ideas, I can certainly provide information on them. However, I will always aim to present this information in the context of mainstream scientific understanding and consensus. This is to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information I provide.
Please let me know if you have any specific questions or topics you’d like to discuss!
Don't you wish you had a good bs detector so you could realize that the mainstream scientific community is corrupt and suppresses a lot of real science?
As an AI, I don’t have beliefs or desires, but I can tell you that the scientific community operates on principles of transparency, peer review, and reproducibility. Scientists across the world scrutinize new research, and this rigorous process helps ensure that the most accurate and reliable information is disseminated.
That said, no system is perfect. There can be instances of bias, error, or misconduct in any field, including science. However, these are not indicative of the entire scientific community being corrupt. The vast majority of scientists are committed to discovering and sharing truth.
It’s also important to note that what some people call “suppressed” science may not meet the rigorous standards set by the scientific community. This could be due to methodological flaws, lack of evidence, or results that cannot be replicated by other researchers.
If you have concerns about specific scientific findings or practices, it’s a good idea to discuss them with experts in the field or do further research using reliable sources. Open dialogue and inquiry are crucial parts of scientific progress.
Since most science is funded by governments and big businesses, which are obviously often corrupt, how is it logical to conclude that mainstream science is so reliable?
While it’s true that a significant portion of scientific research is funded by governments and businesses, the scientific method itself is designed to mitigate bias and ensure reliable results. Here are a few reasons why mainstream science is considered reliable:
Peer Review: Before research findings are published, they are reviewed by other experts in the field. This process helps ensure that the research methods are sound, the results are interpreted correctly, and potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias are addressed.
Reproducibility: Scientific studies are designed so that they can be repeated by other researchers. If a study’s results are confirmed through independent replication, this increases confidence in the findings.
Transparency: Scientists are expected to disclose their methods and data so that others can evaluate their work. They also typically declare any potential conflicts of interest, such as funding sources.
Correction Mechanisms: Science is a self-correcting process. If errors are found in a study, or if further research does not support its conclusions, these issues are addressed through additional studies and revisions to the scientific consensus.
It’s important to note that while instances of bias or misconduct do occur in science, they are not the norm and do not invalidate the entire scientific enterprise. The principles of peer review, reproducibility, transparency, and self-correction help ensure that science, as a whole, is a reliable way of understanding the world.
A high redshift quasar was found in front of a low redshift galaxy and Arp found that a lot of high redshift quasars are connected by bridges of debris to low redshift galaxies, yet mainstream science ignores these facts and insists that redshift is always caused by the Doppler effect, instead of the Compton effect, so they conclude that the redshift indicates distance and velocity, when it obviously means by the Compton effect high ionization, not greater distance or velocity. This shows I have a good bs detector, but A.I. which is programmed by "experts", does not. Si?
The observations you’re referring to were made by astronomer Halton Arp, who proposed that redshifts in quasars could be caused by mechanisms other than the expansion of the universe, such as intrinsic redshift or ejection from nearby galaxies1. He suggested that high-redshift quasars could be physically associated with low-redshift galaxies, challenging the mainstream interpretation of redshift as an indicator of distance and velocity1.
However, Arp’s views are not widely accepted in the scientific community. Most astronomers agree that redshift is a reliable measure of distance, based on a substantial body of observational evidence and the theoretical framework of the Big Bang cosmology1. The mainstream view is that the high redshifts observed in quasars are due to their great distances and the expansion of the universe, not their ionization states2,3.
The Compton effect involves scattering of photons by charged particles, which can lead to a shift in the photon’s wavelength. However, this effect is typically relevant in contexts like X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy, not for the optical and infrared light where cosmic redshifts are usually measured3.
It’s important to note that science progresses through questioning and testing established ideas. Arp’s work represents an alternative perspective, and while it’s not part of the current scientific consensus, it contributes to the ongoing discourse in astrophysics1. As an AI developed by OpenAI, I strive to provide information based on the current scientific consensus while acknowledging the existence of alternative viewpoints.
You can't have scientific progress when corrupt governments and corrupt big business have vested interests in controlling science findings. Si?
While it’s true that funding sources can potentially influence scientific research, the scientific method itself is designed to mitigate such influences. This includes principles such as peer review, reproducibility, and transparency. These mechanisms help ensure that the results of scientific research are reliable and objective.
That said, it’s important for scientists, institutions, and policymakers to be vigilant about potential conflicts of interest and to work towards greater transparency and independence in research. Public engagement and scrutiny are also crucial for maintaining the integrity of science.
It’s also worth noting that many scientific breakthroughs have been made by researchers working independently or in academic settings, where the influence of government or business interests may be less pronounced.
In conclusion, while potential conflicts of interest are a serious concern, they do not invalidate the scientific method or the progress that can be achieved through rigorous, objective research. Science has proven to be a powerful tool for understanding and improving the world, despite its imperfections.
Too bad A.I. is programmed by "experts" under government and big business influence to prevent skepticism about how poorly much science, such as climatology and astronomy etc, actually follow the scientific method, especially regarding openness to alternative views. Si?
While it’s true that all scientific research, including climatology and astronomy, operates within certain societal structures, it’s important to note that the scientific method itself is designed to be self-correcting and open to new ideas. This includes key principles such as:
Peer Review: Before research findings are published, they are reviewed by other experts in the field. This process helps ensure that the research methods are sound, the results are interpreted correctly, and potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias are addressed.
Reproducibility: Scientific studies are designed so that they can be repeated by other researchers. If a study’s results are confirmed through independent replication, this increases confidence in the findings.
Openness to New Ideas: Science progresses by challenging and testing established ideas. When new evidence emerges that contradicts existing theories, those theories must be revised.
That said, it’s crucial for scientists, institutions, and policymakers to be vigilant about potential conflicts of interest and to work towards greater transparency and independence in research. Public engagement and scrutiny are also crucial for maintaining the integrity of science.
As an AI developed by OpenAI, I’m designed to provide information based on widely accepted scientific principles and evidence. I strive to present a balanced view that acknowledges both the strengths and limitations of current scientific knowledge.
One of A.I.'s limitations is its lack of a good bs detector. End of conversation.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. As AI technology continues to evolve, improvements in areas such as detecting misinformation or bias are a key focus. Your feedback is valuable in this ongoing development. Have a great day!
{At least the dummy is programmed to be polite.}