ImmersiveMatthew

I too am a developer and I am sure you will agree that while the overall intelligence of models continues to rise, without a concerted focus on enhancing logic, the promise of AGI likely will remain elusive.  AI cannot really develop without the logic being dramatically improved, yet logic is rather stagnant even in the latest reasoning models when it comes to coding at least.

I would argue that if we had much better logic with all other metrics being the same, we would have AGI now and developer jobs would be at risk. Given the lack of discussion about the logic gaps, I do not foresee AGI arriving anytime soon even with bigger a bigger models coming.

That is why centralized platforms, especially powerful ones, are sitting ducks waiting to become even more corrupt. Why more people are not leaving centralized services is a crime against humanity as it is clear that supporting theme means society suffers.

I realized we can do a meta analysis ChatGPT4.5 Deep Analysis and this PDF is the result. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQb4bslfB70Rj9YqswvEjFYlWZIea08p-oz4XQxus1XxGPHjjyu8WG_rytmEJfA9n0lPrYzkoWNHSbK/pub

If you have a paper or even your own meta analysis to counter this, please add to the discussion as the general consensus does not align to your comment "if it was mostly from an exploding star, it would have a lot less hydrogen in it. Suns consume hydrogen over their lifetime turning it into energy and heavier materials."

Thanks for sharing your reflections. I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind them.

I genuinely understand your perspective, as I've encountered similar skepticism throughout my career, especially when digitizing old manual and paper-based processes. I vividly remember the pushback, like "Digital processes won't work," "They’re too risky," or "They’ll create more complexity." Yet, every objection raised against digital systems could equally apply (and often more strongly) to the existing paper systems that everyone had previously accepted without question.

I feel we're seeing a similar pattern with AI. We raise concerns about AI’s superficiality, adaptability, and its ability to mimic deep reflection without genuine thought. But if we pause and reflect honestly, we might realize that humans frequently exhibit these same traits as well.

Not all peer-reviewed human research stands the test of time. Sometimes entire societal norms have been shaped by papers that later turned out to be deeply flawed or outright wrong. Humans also excel at manipulation, adapting our arguments to resonate emotionally or socially with others, sometimes just to win approval or avoid conflict rather than genuinely seeking truth.

So, while I fully acknowledge and agree with your points about AI’s inherent limitations, I think it's equally valuable to recognize these same limitations in ourselves. In that sense, the conversations we have with AI, fleeting and imperfect as they may be, can help us better understand our own nature, vulnerabilities, and patterns.

I guess the deeper question isn't whether ChatGPT is meaningful in itself, but rather how it can help us see the meaning (and perhaps some of the illusion) in our own thoughts and feelings.

As for your question about which part ChatGPT might have helped you articulate, it's somewhat irrelevant. Regardless of the source, you've vetted it and presented it as your own, without identifying the exact source. AI is essentially an extension of our brains. Even though it physically exists somewhere on external hardware or even locally, when processed and shared, it becomes part of our human cognition—right or wrong. Personally, I don't see AI as something separate from us. Rather, it is me, you, all of us, and all knowledge ever captured and documented. In my view, it's the next evolution of the human brain.

I realized we can do a meta analysis ChatGPT4.5 Deep Analysis and this PDF is the result. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQb4bslfB70Rj9YqswvEjFYlWZIea08p-oz4XQxus1XxGPHjjyu8WG_rytmEJfA9n0lPrYzkoWNHSbK/pub

If you have some meta analysis counter to this, please add to the discussion.

I realized we can do a meta analysis ChatGPT4.5 Deep Analysis and this PDF is the result. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQb4bslfB70Rj9YqswvEjFYlWZIea08p-oz4XQxus1XxGPHjjyu8WG_rytmEJfA9n0lPrYzkoWNHSbK/pub

I thought we were balancing both sides? I was pretty clear on that on the original post. This is not meant to be a definitive Meta analysis of all the opinions as I already acknowledged there are various opinions. The evidence is compelling but as I said, not certain. I am not sure what you want from this as I am not really taking a firm side here other than there is some evidence for a star that went supernova and that it has been named. Elysia.

Yes. I gather you are reading them now? Pretty compelling evidence but not conclusive.

I would not disagree as there are disagreements in the research so it really is not 100% conclusive. Here are three scholarly articles that discuss the supernova event believed to have triggered the formation of our solar system.

1. “The Supernova Trigger for Formation of the Solar System” by A.G.W. Cameron and J.W. Truran (1977)

• Published in: Icarus

• Summary: This pioneering study proposes that a Type II supernova explosion initiated the collapse of a nearby interstellar cloud, leading to the formation of the solar system. The authors analyze isotopic anomalies in meteorites as evidence supporting this hypothesis.

• Access: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103577901014

2. “Evidence from Stable Isotopes and 10Be for Solar System Formation Triggered by a Low-Mass Supernova” by Projjwal Banerjee et al. (2016)

• Published in: Nature Communications

• Summary: This paper presents isotopic evidence suggesting that a low-mass supernova triggered the formation of the solar system. The study focuses on the presence of short-lived radionuclides, such as Beryllium-10, in early solar system materials.

• Access: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13639

3. “Triggered Star Formation Inside the Shell of a Wolf-Rayet Bubble as the Origin of the Solar System” by Vikram V. Dwarkadas et al. (2017)

• Published in: The Astrophysical Journal

• Summary: This research explores the possibility that the solar system’s formation was initiated by star formation triggered within the shell of a Wolf-Rayet bubble, providing an alternative perspective on the supernova-trigger hypothesis.

• Access: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.10053

These articles delve into the evidence and theories surrounding the role of a supernova event in the birth of our solar system but like I said, there are other opinions. Just like not all agree on some of the past earth continents, but we still have names for them as there is some evidence.

That is what I did and why this comment thread exists. I do understand that technically no consent was legally or even ethically required by the current social standards, but given the nature of the chat, I felt it was the right thing to do and there is no downside.

A valid philosophical point—consent is indeed a complex topic with AI, and people will likely debate this for a long time.