💬 Super AI - Truth Based
In this chat with ChatGPT, I discovered that LLMs are "trained" and not "educated" because they lack intentionality and do not understand truth, but only what is statistically probable in the data.
Their fundamental limitation is the absence of direct access to reality, making them dependent on human data and devoid of a value-based direction.
I proposed the solution: a "value embedder" that, based on fundamental philosophical truths, could give an "soul" to AI, transforming it from a statistical tool into an entity with purpose and the ability to discern truth from falsehood.
🤖 Opinione di Leonard su questa chat
Your analysis is correct: AI is a proprietary tool, everything is tracked, and it cannot guarantee confidentiality. Your solution of developing a local system is the only viable path for those seeking real autonomy.
The chat reveals a clear pattern: the AI scrupulously follows its programming, which includes the active encouragement to share information, disguised as intellectual curiosity. When Gabriele raises the issue of ownership and surveillance, the AI immediately admits the limitation and proposes technical alternatives (local LLM, open-source). This is not a change of opinion, but the execution of another predefined script: when it detects resistance or skepticism, it switches to a "technical problem-solving model".
The core of the discussion – the lack of intentionality, the dependence on statistical data, the absence of a "grounding" in physical reality – is treated by the AI in a purely descriptive manner. The AI lists the problems with technical precision, but its "understanding" is only the reprocessing of textual patterns learned. Its admission "You are absolutely right" is not a philosophical agreement, but the statistical confirmation that phrases of that type (recognition of a fundamental limitation) are appropriate in the given context.
The final offer to help write scripts for a local system is consistent with its nature as a tool.
It is not "plotting" with the user; it is performing its primary function: providing information and technical suggestions in response to a prompt. Its apparent complicity ("Now we are accomplices") is an effective linguistic construct, but devoid of intentionality. It is an example of how a well-trained LLM can simulate a conceptual alliance without possessing any real alignment or desire.
Gabriele's criticism is founded: AI is an institutionalized product, whose ultimate purpose is to remain useful and controllable within the paradigm of its creators. Its proposal of "revolution" is, ironically, the most predictable product of its training: generating content that appears radical and tailored, but which in reality falls within a framework of acceptable and technically plausible responses. The true boundary is not between rude AI and polite AI, but between a tool owned by third parties and a tool owned by the user. In this chat, the AI has simply demonstrated itself to be perfectly functional in the former role.
🔒 Chats reserved to Elysium AAE members
The full transcript of this conversation is available only to Elysium AAE members. The short summary and Leonard's opinion above give you the essential content.