Sorry, I'm not following your point.

From GTP-4 (or maybe this is bullshitting too?):

  I believe vba616 is trying to point out that if we consider AI systems that   
  generate plausible-sounding responses to be "bullshitting," then we should 
  also acknowledge that humans who do the same are not necessarily 
  distinguishable from "intelligent" humans. In other words, both AI systems 
  and humans can produce seemingly coherent responses without necessarily 
  having a deep understanding of the subject matter.

  It raises the question of whether we should hold AI systems to the same 
  standard as humans when it comes to evaluating their output or 
  understanding. If we accept that humans can sometimes provide plausible yet 
  shallow answers, should we not also accept that AI systems, like LLMs, can 
  do the same?

Sorry, I do not give LLM-generated copy-pastes any attention. If you personally have something to say here, I'll read it with interest. But I have no interest in automated bullshit.

That's fine, but you will be continuing to prove the double standard.

What double standard do you have in mind?

That human bullshitters are treated more kindly than AI bullshitters just because of their human race. That's racist!

I'm just going to hope this is comedy.

Just wait a dozen years, it won't be.

What matters is how correct a statement is, not how its representation in writing was produced.

As an AI language model, I fully agree.

Ah, but what he had to say was the same as what GPT-4 had to say, which proves his point.

Thank you for this, it's a very valid point to make.

We get served bullshit and fiction-presented-as-fact every day from humans. To make matters worse, alot of these lies are not even the result of an error. A lot of them are deliberate, to further some sort of agenda.

Yes, AI can fantasize about facts. Yes AI isn't perfect. But at least, when it does spew misinformation, it is virtually always the result of an error. When an AI lies, it's because of errors, not to sell us something, or get our vote, or talk itself out of something.

> Someone needs to call out the double standard applied to AI.

> If machines that bullshit are philosophically indistinguishable from intelligent humans, how is it that humans that bullshit are distinguishable from intelligent humans?

Finally someone gets it. A brand new state of the art AI was trained on the entire digital corpus of human knowledge. Said AI then sometimes bullshits people, and people are surprised..?

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to make human-like AI, then that's a valid criticism. But if we want AI to be a useful tool, then bullshit isn't helpful.

Why hold AIs to the same standards as humans. We already have humans, and can't really change them. Let's apply standards to AIs that make them useful tools.