This is a great discussion Jannik! So glad you are getting into Antifragile and Taleb's work. I agree someone has to have *some* intelligence to know the benefits of optionality.
I think Taleb is taking a particularly "academic" or "intellectual" type of intelligence as his opponent here - not the "street smart" intelligence.
So great to see you uncovering some of ChatGPT's biases along the way too
I don’t think ChatGPT has an opinion here or an”attitude”. It’s programmed to be forward leaning rather than “balanced” in its solution thinking. It found this line of thought the most promising to answer your questions. If you push back with arguments that make sender and are logically correct it will correct itself. So no I don’t see the bias you seem to sense? Or maybe I am not sensitive yo the nuances here? Nice conversation.
Great work, Jannik. Love the way you documented your exploration using ChatGPT. I find “conversations” with the machine an excellent way for me to clarify my thoughts. I am concerned when we ascribe the machine as having “thoughts”. Not thoughts like humans, right? After all it is just a very very very clever encyplopedia with a smart look up system and a chatty interface. Not a human, right? But this was an excellent review of the issues and a valuable compare and contrast between Talib and Seneca. Gave me inspiration for an assignment for my graduate students in my robots class. Thanks! Love your work by the way.
This is a great discussion Jannik! So glad you are getting into Antifragile and Taleb's work. I agree someone has to have *some* intelligence to know the benefits of optionality.
I think Taleb is taking a particularly "academic" or "intellectual" type of intelligence as his opponent here - not the "street smart" intelligence.
So great to see you uncovering some of ChatGPT's biases along the way too
I don’t think ChatGPT has an opinion here or an”attitude”. It’s programmed to be forward leaning rather than “balanced” in its solution thinking. It found this line of thought the most promising to answer your questions. If you push back with arguments that make sender and are logically correct it will correct itself. So no I don’t see the bias you seem to sense? Or maybe I am not sensitive yo the nuances here? Nice conversation.
Outstanding.
Great work, Jannik. Love the way you documented your exploration using ChatGPT. I find “conversations” with the machine an excellent way for me to clarify my thoughts. I am concerned when we ascribe the machine as having “thoughts”. Not thoughts like humans, right? After all it is just a very very very clever encyplopedia with a smart look up system and a chatty interface. Not a human, right? But this was an excellent review of the issues and a valuable compare and contrast between Talib and Seneca. Gave me inspiration for an assignment for my graduate students in my robots class. Thanks! Love your work by the way.