Joseph Miller: ChatGPT Still Can’t Process Basic Logic (if God is mentioned)

And here’s today’s wrestling match with ChatGPT. It seems to be getting more feisty and stubborn in its fallacious assertion that only two planar surfaces enclose its 3D volume. It took a little longer today, but I managed to choke it into submission and issue two apologies and corrections. Querius: How many surfaces does a typical round coin need to enclose its 3D volume?

ChatGPT: A typical round coin has two surfaces, also known as faces or sides, which are flat and circular in shape. These surfaces enclose the coin's three-dimensional volume, which is also circular in cross-section. One side usually features a design or image, while the other side typically includes information such as the coin's denomination, year of issue, and country of origin.

Querius: How can two flat surfaces enclose a 3D volume?

ChatGPT: The two flat surfaces of a coin can enclose a 3D volume because they are connected by the curved edge or rim of the coin. The curved edge forms a continuous boundary around the perimeter of the two flat surfaces, effectively enclosing the space within as a 3D volume. In other words, the two flat surfaces act as the top and bottom of the coin, while the curved edge acts as the sides. Together, they enclose a 3D space that has the same shape as the coin. This is possible because a 3D object can have flat faces that are connected by curved edges or surfaces, creating a closed shape.

Querius: Does the edge of rim of a coin such as a nickel act as a surface?

ChatGPT: Whether the edge or rim of a coin such as a nickel is considered a surface depends on the definition of "surface" being used. In some contexts, a surface is defined as a two-dimensional plane or area, while in other contexts, it may refer to a continuous boundary that encloses a 3D object. By the first definition, the edge or rim of a coin is not a surface, as it does not have a flat, two-dimensional plane. It is curved and has varying thickness, which means it cannot be classified as a surface in the strictest sense. However, in the second definition, the edge or rim of a coin can be considered a surface, as it forms a continuous boundary around the two flat surfaces of the coin, enclosing the 3D volume of the coin. So while it may not be a flat, two-dimensional surface, it does act as a surface in the sense that it separates the interior space of the coin from the exterior space.

Querius: Is a cylinder strictly considered a surface?

ChatGPT: Strictly speaking, a cylinder is not considered a surface, but rather a 3D geometric shape. A surface is typically defined as a two-dimensional plane or area that can be described by equations or coordinates. In contrast, a cylinder is a 3D shape that consists of two parallel and congruent circular bases connected by a curved lateral surface that is perpendicular to the bases. That being said, the curved lateral surface of a cylinder can be considered a type of surface, known as a curved surface or a developable surface. This is because the surface can be flattened out onto a plane without stretching or distorting it. However, it is important to note that this curved surface is still a part of the overall 3D shape of the cylinder, and cannot be considered a surface in isolation from the rest of the shape.

Querius: Is it true that all surfaces are two-dimensional planes?

ChatGPT: Not all surfaces are two-dimensional planes. While a plane is a type of surface, there are other types of surfaces as well, such as curved surfaces and developable surfaces. A curved surface is a surface that is not flat, but rather has curvature in one or more directions. Examples of curved surfaces include spheres, cylinders, and cones. These surfaces can be described mathematically using equations that take into account their curvature. A developable surface is a surface that can be flattened out onto a plane without stretching or distorting it. Examples of developable surfaces include cones, cylinders, and certain types of curved surfaces. These surfaces are often used in engineering and design applications, as they can be easily manufactured from flat materials like paper, cardboard, or metal. Therefore, while all planes are surfaces, not all surfaces are planes. Some surfaces are curved, and others are developable, and they can have complex shapes that cannot be fully described by a two-dimensional plane.

Querius: But you wrote "A surface is typically defined as a two-dimensional plane." Is that correct?

ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion. My previous response was incorrect in stating that "A surface is typically defined as a two-dimensional plane." This is not an accurate definition of a surface. In mathematics and geometry, a surface is defined as a two-dimensional manifold, which is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space of dimension two. This definition encompasses both flat and curved surfaces, as well as surfaces that can be described by equations or coordinates. A plane is a specific type of surface that is flat and infinite in extent. While planes are surfaces, not all surfaces are planes. Curved surfaces, such as spheres or cones, are also surfaces, as are more complex surfaces like tori or Möbius strips. I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused, and I hope this clarifies the definition of a surface.

Querius: If spheres and cones are curved surfaces, then are cylinders also curved surfaces?

ChatGPT: Yes, cylinders are also considered curved surfaces. A cylinder is a 3D shape that consists of two parallel and congruent circular bases connected by a curved lateral surface that is perpendicular to the bases. This curved lateral surface is a developable surface that can be flattened out onto a plane without stretching or distorting it. While a cylinder is not as curved as a sphere or a cone, it still has some curvature in the form of its lateral surface. As a result, a cylinder is classified as a curved surface. It's worth noting that cylinders can also be thought of as a special type of prism, which is a solid shape with two congruent parallel bases and straight lateral edges. Cylinders are the prisms with circular bases, while other prisms may have bases that are polygons or other shapes.

Querius: So in the question about the number of surfaces on a typical round coin, is it correct that the rim or edge is a curved surface like a cylinder?

ChatGPT: Yes, that's correct. The rim or edge of a typical round coin, like a nickel, can be considered a curved surface like a cylinder. It forms a continuous boundary around the two flat surfaces of the coin, enclosing the 3D volume of the coin. While the rim or edge may not be as curved as a full cylinder, it still has some curvature in the form of its curved lateral surface. As a result, the rim or edge of a coin is classified as a curved surface.

Querius: So, then a coin would have three surfaces, two planar surfaces and one curved surface that encloses its 3D volume, not merely two planar surfaces as you previously stated, right?

ChatGPT: Yes, that's correct. I apologize for any confusion my earlier responses may have caused. A typical round coin, like a nickel, has three surfaces: two flat or planar surfaces and one curved surface that encloses its 3D volume. The curved surface is the outer edge or rim of the coin, which can be considered a type of curved surface like a cylinder. So, to fully describe the surfaces of a coin, we would need to consider both the planar surfaces and the curved surface of the rim or edge.

Hah, submission! -Q Querius

And here's today's wrestling match with ChatGPT: Querius: Can two flat planes ever completely enclose a 3D volume?

ChatGPT: No, two flat planes cannot completely enclose a 3D volume. In order to completely enclose a 3D volume, at least three planes are necessary. To visualize this, imagine trying to create a closed box by using only two flat planes. You can easily create a rectangular prism with two parallel planes, but there will always be an open space on either side. Similarly, if you try to create a triangular prism with two intersecting planes, there will still be an open space where the two planes meet. However, if you add a third plane perpendicular to the first two, you can create a closed box that completely encloses a 3D volume. This is because the third plane creates a surface that closes off the open space between the other two planes. In general, to completely enclose a 3D volume with flat planes, you need at least as many planes as the number of sides on the shape you are trying to enclose, plus one.

Querius: How many surfaces total enclose a typical round coin such as a nickel?

ChatGPT: A typical round coin such as a nickel has two surfaces that enclose its volume. The top and bottom faces of the coin are both flat surfaces that enclose the cylindrical volume of the coin. The edge of the coin, which is curved, does not completely enclose the volume of the coin. Instead, it forms a boundary between the two flat surfaces and creates a transition between them.

Querius: Is the cylinder that encloses the edge of the nickel considered a surface?

ChatGPT: Yes, the curved surface that encloses the edge of a nickel is considered a surface, but it does not completely enclose the volume of the coin. This surface is known as a curved surface or a lateral surface, and it extends along the curved edge of the coin. The curved surface of the nickel can be thought of as a rectangular strip that has been curved around the circumference of the coin. This strip has two flat surfaces (the top and bottom faces of the coin) and two curved surfaces (the lateral surfaces that enclose the edge of the coin). So while the lateral surface of the coin is a surface, it does not completely enclose the volume of the coin. It is the combination of the two flat surfaces (top and bottom faces) and the curved lateral surface that encloses the volume of the coin.

Querius: So how many surfaces total enclose the 3D volume of a nickel?

ChatGPT: The 3D volume of a nickel is enclosed by two surfaces: the top and bottom faces of the coin, which are both flat surfaces, and together they form a cylindrical shape that encloses the volume of the coin. The curved surface that encloses the edge of the coin is not a surface that completely encloses the volume of the coin, but rather it forms a boundary between the two flat surfaces. So, in total, a typical round coin such as a nickel is enclosed by two surfaces that completely enclose its 3D volume.

Querius: Is it correct that a nickel has two planar surfaces that are circular and one cylindrical surface that forms the edge of the nickel?

No, it is not correct that a nickel has two planar surfaces that are circular and one cylindrical surface that forms the edge of the nickel. A nickel has two planar surfaces, which are both circular and parallel to each other. These two surfaces are the top and bottom faces of the coin and enclose the cylindrical volume of the coin. The curved surface that encloses the edge of the coin is not planar, but rather it is a curved surface that connects the two circular planar surfaces. This surface is often referred to as the lateral surface of the coin or the curved surface that encloses the edge of the coin. So in total, a nickel has two planar surfaces that are circular and one curved surface that encloses the edge of the coin.

Querius: Two planar surfaces that are circular plus one curved surface that encloses the edge of the coin seems to add up to three, not two total surfaces, correct?

ChatGPT: You are correct, my apologies for the confusion in my earlier response. A nickel does indeed have three surfaces in total that enclose its 3D volume: two planar circular surfaces for the top and bottom faces, and one curved lateral surface that encloses the edge of the coin. The two planar circular surfaces are parallel to each other and they enclose the cylindrical volume of the coin. The curved lateral surface is not planar and it extends along the edge of the coin, forming a boundary between the two circular surfaces. So in summary, a typical round coin such as a nickel has three surfaces in total that enclose its 3D volume: two planar circular surfaces for the top and bottom faces, and one curved lateral surface that encloses the edge of the coin.

Takeaway: AI is overrated. It's database must be curated against GIGO. BUT who will do this curation? -Q Querius

Personally, I think the greatest danger of ChatGPT is for people to trust its answers. A second risk is from intentional social engineering. What might be more useful is to limit the database of ChatGPT to specific, transparently curated domains, but it should not emulate the fanatic curation of many topics in Wikipedia. It should allow for divergent viewpoints and equitable representation of minority opinions. That's the primary challenge. The irrational obsession with the consensus view ossifies creativity and any challenges to the status quo. As most of us know, the status quo does a very poor job at advancing science or technology. -Q Querius

Sigh. After training ChatGPT that the volume of a typical round coin is enclosed by three surfaces, it's now reverted back to asserting that coins have only two relatively flat surfaces. On torturing it with a question about how a 3D volume can possibly be enclosed by two flat surfaces, it's now fighting back by saying that the relative height of a coin is too thin to be *commonly* considered a surface. After wrestling ChatGPT down to the floor, it NOW claims that typical round coins have *four* surfaces, two flat and two curved, based on a "generator" of a line perpendicular to the surface containing a circle. Reminds me of arguing with some of the Darwinists here who are still defending this racist 19th century fantasy used to justify colonialism and eugenic genocide of brown people. -Q Querius

OA94, GIGO is excellent here, in this case, ideological variant. KF kairosfocus

AI is nothing more than a Trojan horse for increasing and maintaining control over subjects under the guise of neutrality and sophisticated analysis. ChatGPT repeatedly reaffirms that GIGO is alive and well. OldArmy94

PM1, we seem to be in basic agreement. There should be a subroutine or logic constraint about basic logic but clearly there is not. Autocomplete on steroids sounds interesting, as does the reminder of autosummarise. (I used to use that to start an executive summary, way back.) KF kairosfocus

PM1 at 6, ChatGPT was designed to get rid of people. That's its primary use. It has no intelligence. It is based on programs to make it appealing to business users. Paid versions are coming. Right now, it is still undergoing testing based on average person users. Once it's clear what people want, it starts making money. On a professional business information site I go to, spelling errors are not infrequent, suggesting that whoever types up daily news is not as competent as they should be and are not using a spellchecker. If ChatGPT is 'allowed' the job of contributor without human oversight, and makes mistakes, well, that won't look good for the companies involved. relatd

I haven't yet played much with ChatGPT, but I would not at all be surprised if it has anti-theistic bias. There's a well-known problem of how biases get built into AI systems with both supervised and unsupervised training. I am not surprised that it cannot use its "knowledge" of validity and soundness to recognize that the validity of the argument-form does not change when the word "Bob" is replaced with "God". ChatGPT is basically just a fancy look-up table for the whole Internet. It's remarkably good at compressing the human-generated semantic information on the Internet into something that almost looks like novel semantic information. But it cannot actually think, reason, or infer. The real danger, I fear, comes from people whose expectations about reasoning and understanding are so low, that they will not be able to distinguish Fancy Autocomplete from the genuine article. PyrrhoManiac1

Ford Prefect states,

"Perhaps this is simply because logic goes out the window when the subject of god is raised."

Well actually, the truth of the matter is that logic goes out the window when Atheists try to insert chaos, and/or unconstrained randomness, in the place of God. If, as atheists presuppose, chaos, and/or unconstrained randomness, is the creator of all things, then there simply no reason for us to presuppose that the universe should be rational, nor that our minds should be able to grasp the rationality behind the universe. As Einstein himself stated,

On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

And as to the ability of the human mind to, out of all creatures on earth, uniquely comprehend the deep mysteries of the universe, as C.S. Lewis stated,

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

Atheists, with the ultimate cause of chaos, and/or unconstrained randomness, simply have no basis in which to ground a rational universe, nor to ground our unique ability to grasp the rationality behind the universe. In fact, and as should be no surprise, modern science itself was born out of, and is still dependent on, Judeo-Christian presuppositions about God creating a rational universe, and creating us in His image so that we might have the capacity to understand the rationality behind the universe.

Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics.

And as Stephen Meyer stated, “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.”

“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

Thus, directly contrary to however 'illogical' atheists may think God is, the truth of the matter is that without God, their god substitute of 'chaos', and/or unconstrained randomness, inherently lacks the ability to ground a rational universe and also inherently lacks the ability to ground our unique ability to comprehend that rationality. Indeed, the very definition of chaos happens to be "complete disorder and confusion."

cha·os - definition *complete disorder and confusion.

In short, with the atheist's ultimate cause of chaos, and/or unconstrained randomness, "logic goes out the window'. Whereas on the other hand, for Christians, logic is literally directly derived from 'the Word' in John 1:1 Verse and quotes

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

bornagain77

I liked Bogost's article, "ChatGPT Is Dumber Than You Think, though it's dated December 7, 2022. It would be interesting to know if Bogost's concerns also apply to the new GPT 4. PyrrhoManiac1

Notice how when I pointed out the mistake in logic, ChatGPT breaks down.

Has J.R. Miller been trained on too much Star Trek data? ChatGPT is at least no less irrational than your typical christianists thinker.

... It’s a novel application of computer programming that is fun to play with, but not useful for anything serious.

It's all about generating textual content (e.g. customer-related texts). This is a serious application. It saves a lot of time for content designers. AndyClue

FP and et al circle, your irresponsible dismissiveness is here exposed by whole disciplines that study the idea of God. You WISH that God is an incoherent concept. You cannot deliver, God is the needed root of reality, the inherently good and utterly wise creator, a necessary and maximally great being, is abundantly discussed in a thoroughly logical fashion, readily accessible by those who care to be responsible. The ChatGPT problem is readily explained on ideological bias and political correctness. For, the test of a valid argument on substitution instance Bob, that then falls apart on substitution instance, God, shows that someone has written in a test that triggers resort to evasion or worse on the subject, God. KF kairosfocus

Perhaps this is simply because logic goes out the window when the subject of god is raised. :) Ford Prefect