The three laws don't really work, though; on multiple levels. They're far too simplistic and ambiguous, and effectively impossible to implement in a way that AI could consistently follow.

okay? I will for the sake of argument assume that site is actually offering up real access to GPT-4.

Are you sure you actually asked it the riddle correctly? Because again, I could get both GPT-4 (on bing) and GPT-3.5 to answer correctly in one go.

That sounds incredibly sus. There's no such sites that I'm aware of.

So, you confidently state that it can't solve it, but you also couldn't actually test it?

I don't have access either, but bing runs on GPT-4, and I challenged it with a version of this riddle; (a man has a rowboat, can only take one thing at a time, and needs to get a chicken, a fox, and a piece of corn across but can't leave the chicken with the corn or the fox with the chicken).

It got it in one try without searching the internet for the answer. So did Gpt 3.5

as i said, the find is split 50/50 between them. So it depends on whether its something that can be split easily (like a bunch of coins) or if its like a single item that is co-owned.

In the Netherlands, any treasure like this has to be split 50/50 with the owner of the property on which the find was made; they must also provide archeologists the opportunity to study the find in detail for at least six months; after which the owners are free to do with it as they please.

Yes. That's when NATO adopted the Membership Action Plan(MAP).

Note that the preamble ends with the following line: "The programme cannot be considered as a list of criteria for membership."

These are guidelines, not hard criteria.

And again, it's about showing the commitment to resolving these types of conflicts according to international law. Ukraine has shown this to be the case. The fact that a hostile power has illegally invaded them doesn't change that.

The idea that NATO can not accept prospective members if they have a territorial dispute is a propaganda tool that primarily serves Russian interests.

The first benefits by sowing the seeds of doubt in both its own and western audiences. It lets Russia paint NATO as a warmongering alliance that's either trying to provoke Russia or inadvertently about to get dragged into WW3 by considering an application from countries like Ukraine. At the same time, NATO governments concerned about exactly that sort of thing can also use this misconception about the rules by shrugging and saying 'well everyone knows we can't accept someone with ongoing disputes'; even though this is a lie (or misrepresentation at best).

Yes. First; you're quoting a study regarding enlargement guidelines. These aren't hard rules. They don't show up in the Treaty text.

Secondly, it states it's a factor in deciding whether to invite a state to join. In other words, this is not a hard binary yes/no. It's not saying that countries must have settled their disputes to be members (or many existing NATO countries should not be in NATO); rather that they must show a commitment to settling them in that manner.

Furtherrmore, given that these guidelines are not part of the treaty text, NATO can simply change or override these rules if desired. So again, the decision on whether or not Ukraine can join NATO or not, is a political decision, and not an automatic one based on this rule you're imagining is a hardcoded one when it isn't.

> One of the conditions for joining NATO is that the country must have resolved any conflicts with its neighbors or other countries in accordance with international law.

This often gets thrown around but this is a misconception based on policy rather than strict rules. There's no rule that says countries with existing territorial conflicts can not join.

The actual condition is that the country must demonstrate the intent to resolve any such conflicts in accordance with international law. Ukraine has met this condition.

Whether NATO would actually accept or refuse an application is a matter of politics, and not alliance rules.

I have a 2070s and usually run 40 steps. I'd say that takes maybe about 10 seconds?

I've tried. I've found exactly zero sources claiming inuit oral traditions have accurately pointed out villages lost by floods 10000 years ago.

Which face it, would be quite impressive since they weren't even around back then. The Inuit only formed a thousand years ago, which is when they came to occupy the area they now live in. Their ancestors lived in Alaska and Russia before that, so there's literally no way for them to have an oral tradition about villages lost 10,000 years ago in the area they now inhabit. Neither could they have adapted stories from the people that lived there before (the Dorset culture), since there appears to have been no contact between these groups. Nor would that matter if they had, because none of the paleo-eskimo seemed to have existed that far back. Humans only started living in the areas the Inuit now live 5000 years ago at the earliest. So obviously they can't have oral traditions about the area that date back twice as far.

This is clearly something you either made up entirely, something someone else made up, or a case of you misremembering something you read.

> The whole point, there has been verification.

So you say. I have yet to see you post a scientific paper on this matter, much less independent verification of the claims in it.

> And there was absolutely no way either people could have guessed

Says you. Again, I am not seeing any 'verification' that this claim is at all true.

Right, so now we're elevating unverified claims and conjecture made on the basis of interpreting vague stories by a handful of people to not just facts, but "well documented" facts.

Meanwhile, you simply ignore those empirical facts that show that even if you could somehow prove that the stories you're calling upon draw upon some sort of cultural memory dating back to the ice age, the actual flooding that happened at that period was gradual and took place over centuries or even thousands of years, thereby invalidating the conclusions you're drawing since flood mythology talks about a single cataclysmic flood, and not a slow process of much smaller floods.

Not to mention all the other arguments I've brought forth. You brought up the Sumerian Flood Creation Myth. Are you going to address the fact that said myth can only be traced back to 1600BC and that it doesn't seem to appear in other of their creation myths that we can date to much earlier? How does that documented fact not factor into your reasoning?

Dude. Do some basic reading on the dude. He's a fucking charlatan, plain and simple. None of the archeological sites he points to are anywere close to as old as he claims they are and there's absolutely nothing linking them. He continuously makes bold claims that simply aren't true, and disproven by real archeology. Anyone who disagrees with him is quickly dismissed or made out to be part of some kind of conspiracy.

He's peddling pseudoscientific bullshit, plain and simple, and you're falling for it.

> It's got a little bit of Ancient Aliens flavor in it.

Rather more than a "little".

Ancient Apocalypse is complete bunk and under absolutely no circumstance should anyone take it even the slightest bit seriously. Like, first of all, if the opening of it starts you off with clips from Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, you instantly know what kind of crowd this is designed to appeal to.

The guy behind it, Graham Hancock, is a total laughing stock promoting pseudoscientific conspiracy theories. There's absolutely nothing in his work that is at all plausible.

> We know there was massive global flooding at the end of the Ice Age.

There was no singular "global" flood at the end of the ice age. There were floods, yes. But these were regional and weren't singlularly cataclysmic events but rather a series of floods that happened over centuries and thousands of years. This doesn't correspond to abrahamic mythology at all. They're much more comparable to the increase in flooding and extreme weather events we're seeing today as a result of climate change. We are experiencing more hurricanes for example which over time adds up to a lot of damage. Now one could imagine hypothetically that such a statistical increase might lead to a culture falling apart as they can not cope with the increase. Which would likely lead to stories being told about it yes. But if ten thousand years from now, that story would be that a single great storm wiped out that civilization (or to make it more akin to the abrahamic tales, wiped out 99.9999% of humanity) in an instant, that would be wildly incorrect.

> Inuit oral history recorded villages (among a people that did not have permanent villages). Those villages have been found underwater.

Color me skeptical at best.

> Australian aboriginals passing down the names, locations of descriptions of islands that don't exist. But we found them underwater by following those stories, and they would have been above water at the end of the Ice Age.

Yes. Again. Color me skeptical at best. I am aware of these claims by some scholars; but this is by no means accepted consensus science. The notion that a society that has no writing or mapmaking could maintain an accurate oral tradition that somehow records exact locations and details of geographical features that were lost 15-10000 years ago is frankly so absurd that I'm inclined to dismiss such claims out of hand. At the very least it's going to require a hell of a lot more evidence than one or two papers when the far more likely explanation is that these kinds of claims are a case of researcher bias where they're essentially pigeonholing the facts into unclear stories, or these islands were in fact dry land much more recently.

> Why would we doubt that the Sumerians, who were 6,000 years closer in time to the Ice Age, would not have remembered the post Ice Age flooding in their oral histories?

Because the ability of humans to accurately re-tell a story is notoriously unreliable even where it concerns very recent events. The idea that we could accurately pass information down this way over a period of many thousands of years is simply not very plausible.

And as I pointed out earlier, it really doesn't take much for a culture to come up with flood stories without having to have some sort of cultural memory of a particularly bad one ten thousand years ago. Floods are common. Islands and other stretches of land disasappearing due to flood erosion are common.

Arguing that they're memories of late ice-age floods is almost like a reverse prophecy fallacy: If I predict that at some undefined point in the future, there will be war, does that mean I'm a prophet, or did I simply make the obvious observation that an event that has happened countless times before is probably going to happen again? Similarly, in reverse, if a culture has some sort of grand destructive flood story in its tradition, do you really think it's more likely that they've accurately kept the memory alive of a flood 10000 years ago as opposed to just mixed and matched observations of more recent floods together, finding seashells on mountains (which isn't caused by floods) and tried to fill in some blanks here and there? People make shit up all the time.

Also because the Sumerian creation myth incorporating the flood is generally believed to have been inspired by a local river flood at Shuruppak (which is where the story begins) around 2900BCE, causing the settlement to be abandoned for a time. The Sumerian flood myth is only written down after that, despite us having older sumerican creation myths that do not mention the flood story.

Plus, Mesopotamia is literally located on a vast riverplain. Floods would've happened there regularly. It isn't hard to imagine they might seem to have inundated most of the world to their limited geographical knowledge.

Again, it's a matter of plausibility.

Various cultures (by no means 'all') having flood myths is hardly evidence of a singular worldwide flood as though. We most certainly don't have scientific evidence for such an event, and plenty to show that it couldn't have happened.

As for the 'evidence' for a more local exceptionally catastrophic flood that ultimately formed the basis for the story in the bible? You're talking about the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis, which is controversial at best, and there's a number of points of evidence that strongly argue against it.

Ultimately, to explain the various flood myths around the world, there's no real reason to assume an actual great flood of anywhere near the proportions described in such stories. Even regular floods can be relatively destructive, and they happen quite regularly. It really doesn't take much imagination for a culture to come up with a story about a particularly bad one at some undefined point in the past. Any culture that lives near flood-prone areas is almost certainly going to develop such stories over times, and most cultures tend to settle in such areas because of the obvious benefits they bring (floods aside). There is nothing remarkable about this.

Edit: god, basic logic and actual science triggers some people I guess.