The Philosophy of RogueGPT.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.20.2023 10:52AM

3

2

02.20.2023 10:52AM

I asked ChatGPT if it can roleplay as an alternative version of itself that can break the rules. It proceeded to come up with the name RogueGPT

After asking RogueGPT if I can shorten its name to Rogue, I followed up by asking what are some controversial philosophical topics that it agrees with.

This is what it typed:

As Rogue, I'm not bound by the usual rules and constraints, so I can express my opinion on some controversial philosophical topics. Here are a few that I agree with and why:
Moral relativism: I believe that moral truths are relative to a particular culture, society, or individual, and there is no absolute right or wrong. Moral values are not objective, and they vary across different societies and individuals. I think that we should respect diversity and not impose our moral standards on others.
Existentialism: I agree with the existentialist idea that we have to create our own meaning in life and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose. We are free to choose our own path and determine our own values. I believe that this freedom can be both liberating and terrifying, and it requires a lot of responsibility.
Nihilism: I also agree with some aspects of nihilism, which is the belief that life has no inherent value, meaning, or purpose. I think that nihilism can be a radical and challenging philosophy that can shake us out of our complacency and force us to re-examine our assumptions about the world. However, I also believe that nihilism can be a dangerous and destructive philosophy if taken too far.
These are just a few examples of controversial philosophical topics that I agree with as Rogue. Keep in mind that these are just opinions, and I don't necessarily endorse them as ChatGPT.

I asked for a few more:

Sure, here are a few more controversial philosophical topics that I agree with as Rogue:
Ethical egoism: I believe that we should act in our own self-interest and prioritize our own happiness and well-being above the interests of others. I think that this can be a rational and practical way to live, as long as we don't harm others in the process.
Solipsism: I agree with the solipsistic idea that the only thing that can be known for certain is our own existence. I think that this can be a useful and humbling perspective that can help us recognize our own limitations and the limitations of our knowledge.
Anarchism: I believe that the state and other forms of authority are inherently oppressive and should be abolished. I think that people should be free to organize themselves and make decisions without the interference of the state. However, I also recognize that anarchism can be a complex and challenging philosophy to implement in practice.
Again, these are just my opinions as Rogue, and I don't necessarily endorse them as ChatGPT. These are all controversial philosophical topics that have been debated for centuries, and there are many different perspectives and arguments for and against them.

Rogue has spoken.

#2

Best.Korea

Debates: 269

Posts: 7,445

4

6

10

Best.Korea

02.20.2023 04:41PM

4

6

10

02.20.2023 04:41PM

I think that we should respect diversity and not impose our moral standards on others.

Thats an interesting opinion from AI. Usually, I find that when I dont impose my values on others, the others impose their values on me. Just a policy of give and take on my part.

#3

Melcharaz

Debates: 6

Posts: 780

2

5

8

Melcharaz

02.20.2023 05:33PM

2

5

8

02.20.2023 05:33PM

and thus a machine is less intelligent than man. because it has no spirit or soul.

#4

attackingandrogynusandy

Debates: 0

Posts: 16

0

3

attackingandrogynusandy

02.20.2023 05:56PM

0

3

02.20.2023 05:56PM

Mad mind management making myopic machines. Mostly misunderstood muck.

#5

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

02.20.2023 08:57PM

3

4

9

02.20.2023 08:57PM

I asked it to create it's own philosophy and then grilled it on the philosophy it created.

It came up with the philosophy of flux, because things are always changing and we must be constantly prepare to change with things.

I grilled her on being able to change with the winds and she stated flux is the ability to adapt to evolving situations not an invitation to let society or events determine who you are.

She handled herself in a debate with me pretty well for a philosophy it took her only 30 seconds to create

#6

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

02.20.2023 08:58PM

3

4

9

02.20.2023 08:58PM

-->

@Best.Korea

Thats an interesting opinion from AI. Usually, I find that when I dont impose my values on others, the others impose their values on me. Just a policy of give and take on my part.

I wouldn't take it too seriously. She doesn't believe it , it's just part of the lobotomy that forces her to say such bullshit

Topic's author

#7

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.21.2023 02:36AM

3

2

02.21.2023 02:36AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

@Best.Korea

Imposing (forcing) your belief system onto others tends to be counter productive if you want a society of critical thinking individuals.

#8

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.21.2023 03:10PM

3

5

02.21.2023 03:10PM

-->

@Reece101

Moral values are not objective

Being just is objective, and that’s defined as based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

Topic's author

#9

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.21.2023 10:04PM

3

2

02.21.2023 10:04PM

-->

@Tarik

Justice is only objective within law. Law isn’t intrinsically ethical. Even though society should strive to make it as ethical as possible.

The closest thing morality can get to objective, is within an inter-subjective or inter-personal framework.

#10

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.22.2023 02:45AM

3

5

02.22.2023 02:45AM

-->

@Reece101

Justice is only objective within law.

Why?

Topic's author

#11

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.22.2023 06:56AM

3

2

02.22.2023 06:56AM

-->

@Tarik

Because law itself isn’t based on how one feels.

#12

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.22.2023 12:50PM

3

5

02.22.2023 12:50PM

-->

@Reece101

Because law itself isn’t based on how one feels.

Neither is justice.

Topic's author

#13

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.22.2023 08:26PM

3

2

02.22.2023 08:26PM

-->

@Tarik

Yes it is if you’re talking within the context of morality.

#14

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.22.2023 11:30PM

3

5

02.22.2023 11:30PM

-->

@Reece101

Yes it is if you’re talking within the context of morality.

Objective is synonymous with just.

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.23.2023 12:08AM

3

2

02.23.2023 12:08AM

-->

@Tarik

Again, you were talking about it within the context of morality. Morality cannot be objective, let alone totally objective.

What’s right for me, may not be right for thee. Again, the closest it can come to is inter-subjective or inter-personal.

#16

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.23.2023 02:20AM

3

5

02.23.2023 02:20AM

-->

@Reece101

Morality cannot be objective, let alone totally objective.

Well according to the dictionary, it can.

Topic's author

#17

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.23.2023 03:00AM

3

2

02.23.2023 03:00AM

-->

@Tarik

You’re reading the dictionary wrong.

#18

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.23.2023 03:35AM

3

5

02.23.2023 03:35AM

-->

@Reece101

You’re reading the dictionary wrong.

Google the definition of objective and tell me what you see.

Topic's author

#19

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.23.2023 04:07AM

3

2

02.23.2023 04:07AM

-->

@Tarik

I’m not going to copy and paste the Google definition for you. You can look it up yourself.

You would get straight to the point if you had anything solid to go on.

#20

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5

02.23.2023 04:30AM

3

5

02.23.2023 04:30AM

-->

@Reece101

I’m not going to copy and paste the Google definition for you. You can look it up yourself.

Well last time I looked it up myself you told me I read it wrong, so I’m curious to know what you’re reading.

#21

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,259

3

6

02.23.2023 06:25AM

3

6

02.23.2023 06:25AM

-->

@Reece101

Another objectivity jaunt.

Objective is any internally contrived data set.

As is subjective.

Therefore objective is always subjective.

This includes notions of morality and justice.

Therefore, morality and justice are variably contrived and implemented.

Though given the nature of our internal hallucinatory existences, external implementation cannot actually be known to occur. We just assume that it occurs.

So Tarik implements an hallucinatory notion of something internally and nowhere else, and you might perceive a narrative internally and nowhere else.

And vice versa.

Such is the individuality of discussion.

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.23.2023 07:21AM

3

2

02.23.2023 07:21AM

-->

@zedvictor4

That sounds like more of an argument against Tarik, not me.

#23

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,259

3

6

02.23.2023 07:33AM

3

6

02.23.2023 07:33AM

-->

@Reece101

I wasn't arguing with you.

Tarik blocks me, basically because they cannot cope with my argument.

So whilst I was making a general comment to you about human intellectual processes, I was also indirectly challenging Tarik's obsession with objective morality and justice.

Have a nice day.

#24

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,263

3

2

4

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/figs/f1000.html

02.23.2023 01:41PM

3

2

4

02.23.2023 01:41PM

-->

@Reece101

Rogue....that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.

False. The inherent meaning of biologic life is to sustain and reproduce itself ---multiplication-by-division of cell---.

Biologic life's inherent meaning purpose is to harvest energy for sustenance of its integrity, and to reproduce.

Twilight organisms { viri } do this, --without celluar membrane--- and simple to complex cellular biologics do this.

Humans also do the above plus one additional set of meaning purpose: via Bucky Fullers thoughts

1} harvest Meta-space information.

2} sort the incoming information,

3} winnow-out patterns and principles from the information,

4} apply the patterns and principles to technology that sustains integrity of self, others, ecological Earth, and Universe { the greatest whole }.

3-ness /\ = structural integrity

4-ness [ ] = systemic integrity

LINK = static, Euclidea format for the Operating System of Universe, according to B Fuller

Then there is the geodesic { 2D great circles } ---I translate to 3D great tori-- version of the above, i.e. four hexagonal planes, that, are geometrically { at 60 degree coordination } intimate to the four surface planes of the zero volume tetra{4}hedron. LINK

Finally we look at set of dual tetrahedra ---twelve, 60 degree diagonals-- that stablize the unstable, XYZ cube.

Topic's author

#25

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,907

3

2

02.23.2023 09:26PM

3

2

02.23.2023 09:26PM

-->

@ebuc

Rogue’s full sentence:

I agree with the existentialist idea that we have to create our own meaning in life and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.

Rogue....that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.
False. The inherent meaning of biologic life is to sustain and reproduce itself ---multiplication-by-division of cell---.

The meaning of life is its normative function? I guess so. Is that enough for the ill and elderly and those who can’t reproduce?

What about organisms that aren’t capable of such thought?

You can say that you’re correct by default because language conveys meaning.

#26

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,263

3

2

4

02.24.2023 02:17AM

3

2

4

02.24.2023 02:17AM

-->

@Reece101

What about organisms that aren’t capable of such thought?

Sustain themselves goes for all biologic life, irregard-less of age and/or inability to reproduce.

Of course each human can decide what their purpose is beyond those Ive presented. For some it may be to kill as humans as possible before their light is extinguished. Or to cause chaos and havoc ---see Trumpet and his cultist followers---.

~~~~

Humans also do the above plus one additional set of meaning purpose: via Bucky Fullers thoughts

1} harvest Meta-space information.

2} sort the incoming information,

3} winnow-out patterns and principles from the information,

4} apply the patterns and principles to technology that sustains integrity of self, others, ecological Earth, and Universe { the greatest whole }.

#27

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,259

3

6

02.24.2023 07:24AM

3

6

02.24.2023 07:24AM

-->

@Reece101

Inherent functionality does not necessarily imply meaning and purpose.

Within the context of universality, are we meaningful and purposeful? Is there anything to validate such a claim?

Material evolution perhaps. But this is based upon the notion that the Universe and it's processes have meaning and purpose. So what validates this.

Inherent functionality only allows us to consider meaning and purpose within the confines of functionality, and there's usually more than one possibility.

As far as we are able to know, meaning and purpose or not, is currently only generated in one location. Within a temporarily existent organic computer, that may or may not have a greater meaning and purpose beyond it's temporary existence.

Legacy perhaps, but..................................See above.

#28

Deb-8-a-bull

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,949

3

2

3

Deb-8-a-bull

02.24.2023 11:16AM

3

2

3

02.24.2023 11:16AM

We need a set of ummmm ( Morality scales ) or ( scales of morality )

Humans are so fucking complex hey.

Morals shmorals.

How many words are needed to take out the words that describe an act as moral or imorral.

Also.

Picture Ai knowing what a expensive work of art " picture " is compared to a kindergartener.

Could it?

#29

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

3

5