Or throwing it out the window as you said. Which was an egregious misrepresentation of what transpired, moreso reflecting your views than any objective reality of the situation. It's no surprise you've backpeddled here afterwards.

No it wasn't, many families were able to pay bills and engage in economic activity from what they earned from the project.

That's valuable whether you acknowledge it or not.

Lol whatever you say. You equated it to a complete waste instead of recognizing that money still has value in the community via its recipients.

That isn't what you said.

Why you changing your words around now?

Right out the window? Where do you think it went? Everyone involved with this project was paid and that money will continue to flow through the local economy with their own respective spending activities. The money isn't gone and vanished, it's just no longer in the city's budget.

Granted, could that money have been used better? Sure. But it wasn't just lit on fire.

Except for the fact that you can sit with no stimuli and still end up with outputs from your brain.

ChatGPT is entirely dependent on a creative user if it is going to make a creative output. It will not do so independently, which has been my entire point. It can only be perceived as creative because it relies on creative work and inputs from creative beings.

It still cannot do so independently. That's my point. It depends entirely on our collective knowledge to do any of that. It is not creative by itself.

I agree with you. And I can see the validity of the argument that you can have a creative outcome, primarily because you have a creative being interacting with the tool.

What I was trying to emphasize, in response to the original comment on this thread, is that it is not yet independently creative or intelligent. It relies on our intelligence and creativity. I could have expressed that better.

I dont disagree with you. The point I was trying to make in reply to the original comment is that it simply cannot be independently creative given that everything in its function depends on the inputs it receives from the user, the data it has to pull from, and sure, an evolving code base.

It's the same reason that yes it can string together existing thoughts from existing data into an essay, but it hasn't produced any novel ideas because it can only pull from existing data.

And it all depends on the user, the code, and the data it pulls from to make a response. It's not independently creative or intelligent, it is great at making people believe it is.

Except the brain can actually derive new ideas independently, whereas this is software that depends upon prompts and rules to return output. It is not independently intelligent by any means, nor creative.

You can make the same argument for most people, myself included. But we are fortunate enough to be able to think outside of a prompt/response format, because we are not bounded by code.

It's not creating anything that doesn't already exist. Not at this point.

Independently? No.

It's only as intelligent as the user.

And? This is artificial intelligence. It's doing its best to replicate the most base level of intelligence, connecting existing ideas together, but it has no existing capabilities that would allow it to think for itself and create truly new concepts, without relying on direction from an actually sentient being.

It's combing available data and making matches based on prompts and feedback.

The brain can actually make new connections that never existed before. All AI does at this point is spoof the brain, and its believeable enough but clearly not independently intelligent.

Not always. We have actual nueral pathways that can make novel connections and inspire truly new ideas.

It's rare but there are genesis points of new ideas throughout history.

At this point AI can only be trained on existing data, its not creating novel nueral connections that could result in original thought.

The only way it "creates" new content is through amalgamation of existing knowledge and concepts.

It's not creative nor inspired, even if it may seem that way with limited observation.

Lmao right? Who tf is the judge of using something to make food "too often"? Buddy, my body wants to eat every fucking day. I wouldn't do it this often if I didn't have to.

Cool quiet early mornings, with something warm to drink. Maybe even a smoke.

God, absolutely perfect.

Nobody is keeping you here lol

You seem very out of touch with reality.