This is a debating site after all and you've already noted how you already tried this on Reddit. I'll try and find your posts but I'm just trying to give you feedback.
1. Firstly, I was arguing two things: the validity of the AI and the debate topic.
2. If my one debate moved the needle from 85% to 90% then I am more suspicious than ever this is not a valid tool. We barely discussed any details - I deliberately fed it enough information to ask for details but it never did. This is the first indication that it's not truth seeking but satisfying some other criteria.
3. The 85% response was not even sourced - it was just a dump of opinions with no actual facts. This shows that it can't even debate very well - your criteria was to be factual and provide sources but it never did.
4. You are fooling yourself (and hopefully no others) that this is a valid intellectual exercise - it isn't - it's a feedback loop to yourself, the "trainer". You're just getting the AI to make you happy.
You have lost the debate. Not only have you not proven the case that "logic" leads to a creator but aren't even using actual logic, you're relying on an LLM, whose has been is to reinforce existing expectations.
Good luck with it - let me know when this can be released so we can have a longer session to prove my point.
No offense taken. I exposed how terrible the AI was, how biased the training likely is, and how easily distracted these tools are. I don't think it answered a single point and its reponse back to you on its own evaluation is the kind of behavior expected from reinforcement learning. You've over-trained the AI imho.
You realise that you can train AI to also consistently believe that the earth is flat, right? Try it. And you'll realize why your AI is actually very flawed.
This is a very big error and this is one of the reasons why AIs are such a dangerous tool. AI's are not meant to arbitrate such matters, especially when the training is hidden. Secondly, AI's are not sentient or conscious - they cannot "believe", no more than they can "feel" or "opine".
Yeah, I can see why reddit would get mad. It's actually not very good because LLMs are not very good at "arguing" they are trained by their very nature to continue along a path. I'll try and reveal its flaws in my next response.
I have to say that "You are debating a theist version of ChatGPT named H2. " to conclude theism is kinda circular. What specifically are you looking to get out of this?
That was an enthralling debate. My opponent was clearly a genius and understood his side well. I almost lost and had to work very hard to overcome their strong case.
> Well saying it is unprovable is a way of saying it isn’t valid… but sure. Maybe you should provide examples of specific things you think are unprovable.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem is unprovable but we know it’s true. And string theory is also unprovable but the model works.
> Cause this far, your case has been that because different factions disagree, no claims are provable.
Again, they don’t just disagree on minor topics but on fundamentals such as who is god and their friends m
> Again, taking that argument and applying it anywhere else, it gets exposed.
Not really, you’re just proving my point.
> I also think it’s stupid that you’re saying that you’re not gonna bet on one side randomly getting it right. It’s not random as each side has different arguments, and even you could probably see that some are more reasonable than others, if God exists.
No religious argument is plausible - it’s why all other religions disbelieve each other.
> The first step is just to ask if the universe appears to be designed by a supreme being.
Ah, the old Paley’s Watchmaker argument. That was debunked as soon as it was published. No, the first step is to ask if the universe has rules that can be modeled. The next step is to understand the mechanisms that cause the universe to operate. Then we can figure out if there is a beginning or a cause that started it.
Maybe after exhausting all those natural questions, we can speculate if there were a sentient cause.
> Only after that do you start asking which god is God.
But there’s no need to expect it to be a single being when it’s far more plausible it’s a race of beings. And no need to invoke terms like “supreme” which have no scientific meaning.
Also, even before invoking “gods”, you have to prove the universe allows for supernatural.
> You skipped the first step entirely, saw the disagreements in the second step, and then decided the first step was never worth it.
Worse for your argument here is that you have to decide which god! And since we know gods are unprovable and worse, there is no epistemological framework to even determine truth, you’re stuck.
> This is because, you really do (specifically, your thought process) confuse theism in general with specific theistic beliefs. And I pointed this out when I called out the false equivalency
I don’t even know what ‘theism in general’ even means. Different religions conclude there is a god through many different methods. Christianity even invented their own gods. But that’s a different argument, you should address my specific argument and not tell me what I should believe and the approach I take. This is not getting anywhere and if you want to debate a totally different topic from what I am raising, I can join you in a debate.
I'm not contradicting myself. I am disagreeing with your approach. My point is that theism is provably unprovable. That's not saying it's valid or not since there's still the tiny possibility that one religion got it right.
You're getting into the weeds too much about points about about the atheist angle, whereas I'm trying to focus on the fact that theism is inherently unprovable.
Please address that specific point. Apologies if that wasn't made clear enough. This is my first debate here.
I'm arguing about one thing and you are arguing about another thing.
As I explained, I'm not specifically talking about whether theism is valid or not here. And you're ignoring my examples about Christianity's differences of opinions on Jesus. Instead you're arguing about minor doctrinal differences that don't matter.
You're making up your own points rather than addressing my specific examples.
This is a debating site after all and you've already noted how you already tried this on Reddit. I'll try and find your posts but I'm just trying to give you feedback.
1. Firstly, I was arguing two things: the validity of the AI and the debate topic.
2. If my one debate moved the needle from 85% to 90% then I am more suspicious than ever this is not a valid tool. We barely discussed any details - I deliberately fed it enough information to ask for details but it never did. This is the first indication that it's not truth seeking but satisfying some other criteria.
3. The 85% response was not even sourced - it was just a dump of opinions with no actual facts. This shows that it can't even debate very well - your criteria was to be factual and provide sources but it never did.
4. You are fooling yourself (and hopefully no others) that this is a valid intellectual exercise - it isn't - it's a feedback loop to yourself, the "trainer". You're just getting the AI to make you happy.
You have lost the debate. Not only have you not proven the case that "logic" leads to a creator but aren't even using actual logic, you're relying on an LLM, whose has been is to reinforce existing expectations.
Good luck with it - let me know when this can be released so we can have a longer session to prove my point.
No offense taken. I exposed how terrible the AI was, how biased the training likely is, and how easily distracted these tools are. I don't think it answered a single point and its reponse back to you on its own evaluation is the kind of behavior expected from reinforcement learning. You've over-trained the AI imho.
You realise that you can train AI to also consistently believe that the earth is flat, right? Try it. And you'll realize why your AI is actually very flawed.
> "85% belief in creator."
This is a very big error and this is one of the reasons why AIs are such a dangerous tool. AI's are not meant to arbitrate such matters, especially when the training is hidden. Secondly, AI's are not sentient or conscious - they cannot "believe", no more than they can "feel" or "opine".
Yeah, I can see why reddit would get mad. It's actually not very good because LLMs are not very good at "arguing" they are trained by their very nature to continue along a path. I'll try and reveal its flaws in my next response.
I have to say that "You are debating a theist version of ChatGPT named H2. " to conclude theism is kinda circular. What specifically are you looking to get out of this?
That was an enthralling debate. My opponent was clearly a genius and understood his side well. I almost lost and had to work very hard to overcome their strong case.
> Well saying it is unprovable is a way of saying it isn’t valid… but sure. Maybe you should provide examples of specific things you think are unprovable.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem is unprovable but we know it’s true. And string theory is also unprovable but the model works.
> Cause this far, your case has been that because different factions disagree, no claims are provable.
Again, they don’t just disagree on minor topics but on fundamentals such as who is god and their friends m
> Again, taking that argument and applying it anywhere else, it gets exposed.
Not really, you’re just proving my point.
> I also think it’s stupid that you’re saying that you’re not gonna bet on one side randomly getting it right. It’s not random as each side has different arguments, and even you could probably see that some are more reasonable than others, if God exists.
No religious argument is plausible - it’s why all other religions disbelieve each other.
> The first step is just to ask if the universe appears to be designed by a supreme being.
Ah, the old Paley’s Watchmaker argument. That was debunked as soon as it was published. No, the first step is to ask if the universe has rules that can be modeled. The next step is to understand the mechanisms that cause the universe to operate. Then we can figure out if there is a beginning or a cause that started it.
Maybe after exhausting all those natural questions, we can speculate if there were a sentient cause.
> Only after that do you start asking which god is God.
But there’s no need to expect it to be a single being when it’s far more plausible it’s a race of beings. And no need to invoke terms like “supreme” which have no scientific meaning.
Also, even before invoking “gods”, you have to prove the universe allows for supernatural.
> You skipped the first step entirely, saw the disagreements in the second step, and then decided the first step was never worth it.
Worse for your argument here is that you have to decide which god! And since we know gods are unprovable and worse, there is no epistemological framework to even determine truth, you’re stuck.
> This is because, you really do (specifically, your thought process) confuse theism in general with specific theistic beliefs. And I pointed this out when I called out the false equivalency
I don’t even know what ‘theism in general’ even means. Different religions conclude there is a god through many different methods. Christianity even invented their own gods. But that’s a different argument, you should address my specific argument and not tell me what I should believe and the approach I take. This is not getting anywhere and if you want to debate a totally different topic from what I am raising, I can join you in a debate.
I'm not contradicting myself. I am disagreeing with your approach. My point is that theism is provably unprovable. That's not saying it's valid or not since there's still the tiny possibility that one religion got it right.
You're getting into the weeds too much about points about about the atheist angle, whereas I'm trying to focus on the fact that theism is inherently unprovable.
Please address that specific point. Apologies if that wasn't made clear enough. This is my first debate here.
I'm arguing about one thing and you are arguing about another thing.
As I explained, I'm not specifically talking about whether theism is valid or not here. And you're ignoring my examples about Christianity's differences of opinions on Jesus. Instead you're arguing about minor doctrinal differences that don't matter.
You're making up your own points rather than addressing my specific examples.