In any event, I don't think you're going to get any kind of support from OpenAI by posting it here. They don't understand how any of it works either so they won't be able to tell you why you get "echoes" of previous answers.
Just an example of a broken behavior from ChatGPT Thinking that has wrecked some of my work for several hours. Their Support process says “no policy violation” and that’s that.
Perhaps a demonstration will produce a different result.
Over a decade of cloud provider propaganda achieves that. We appear to have lost the basic skill of operating a *nix machine, so anything even remotely close to that now sounds terrifying.
You mean you need to SSH into the box? Horrifying!
Sure, the "stupid" is effectively "unintelligent" in that context (unless I'm being stupid here ;-)
My point is that even intelligent people can be incredibly stupid and Dunning-Kruger can still apply (because they know they are intelligent and are too arrogant to question their positions)
Okay, so, if you think people are only metaphorically referring to their "minds eye", then you probably have aphantasia. If the idea of people "counting sheep" to go to sleep confuses you, thinking that perhaps you could not go to sleep if you just lay there counting to yourself (hint: that's not what they mean), welcome to club aphantasia.
I haven't even read the comments yet and I guarantee there are people here debating that there is some spectrum or degree of quality to the imagery of the minds eye, and those people don't understand that there is nothing which can possess qualities when you have aphantasia. If there are degrees, then you don't have aphantasia.
It's entirely possible to imagine things, and to access data/information about things that the brain is presumably constructing, but there is no direct, sober, conscious access to mental imagery. None. Not "fuzzy", not "cloudy", not "not very strong": none.
Best comment by far. The post suffers from making good points about the lack of rigor and narrative nature of the book, but then does exactly the same thing to claim the opposite conclusion the book makes.
As I read this I kept thinking that it seemed too skeptical to be rationally critical. Which isn't necessarily an improvement over the book.
My intuition (I know, that isn't better than the book or this post) is that there's truth in both places, and we'd ultimately land somewhere in the middle if we had access to the truth.
This touches on the nature vs nurture problem, wherein there never seems to be a clear victor and the answer seems to be that both play a role depending on what you're measuring. It's also very difficult to say how the chicken and egg scenario unravels, since we don't know what's the chicken and what's the egg, so to speak. The author seems to think they know—confidently as you mentioned—but it's abundantly murky to me.
I suppose we need confident people pushing in all directions to help us look more deeply in places and ways we otherwise might not. But wow, it gets tiring to see such unapologetic bias in scientific contexts. I admittedly stopped reading just passed the half way point and should probably keep most of my opinions about it to myself.
I'm not familiar with the field's research, but how much of the discussed perspective is linked to this book or the paper it is named for? If removing the book would not leave any supporters for the perspective, then skepticism is in fact the rational conclusion.
reply