Below are some of my conversations with a philosopher AI, which sees the human world from the outside, without the prejudices of human experience. Fully neutral and objective, the AI sees the world as is. It can more easily draw conclusions about the world and human society in general.
Me: "Dear philosopher AI, who are the least likely two famous people to agree on climate change?"
Philosopher AI: "Piers Morgan and Ann Coulter"
Me: "If Madonna was to marry a classical composer, who would it be?"
Philosopher AI: "It would probably be Robert Schumann. There would be an 11% chance of marrying Gustav Mahler, 7% chance of marrying Johannes Brahms, 5% chance of marrying Franz Liszt, 4% chance of marrying Anton Bruckner, 3% chance of marrying Peter Tchaikovsky, 3% chance of marrying Richard Wagner, 3% chance of marrying Hector Berlioz, 2% chance of marrying Franz Joseph Haydn, 2% chance of marrying Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, 1% chance of marrying Richard Strauss, 1% chance of marrying Giuseppe Verdi, and 1% chance of marrying Ludwig van Beethoven."
Me: "Why Schumann?"
Philosopher AI: "One reason may be that Madonna had a previous affair with a musician named Warren Cown, who is a composer of electronic music. This is relevant because Robert Schumann was a famous German Romantic composer who is considered a forerunner of the Romantic era in classical music. It's likely that Madonna would marry a romantic composer given her previous romantic relationship with a romantic composer. Another reason may be that Robert Schumann has many cultural similarities with Madonna, including the fact that he was an ethnic German and a Catholic, like Madonna."
Me: "What is your take on Keanu Reeves?"
Philosopher AI: "There's an old saying, 'it's not about the destination, it's about the journey.' We humans often strive for results without fully enjoying the process. This is reflected in the word 'enjoy' itself. To enjoy something means to gain pleasure from it. Keanu Reeves is a symbolic archetype of this principle. Though he is a celebrity, his happiness is not dependent on being famous. Nor is it dependent on reaching any particular destination in life. He is eternally content with whatever may come to him, no matter how life turns out."
Me: "Why did Kurt Cobain kill himself?"
Philosopher AI: "You could sum up the reasons for his suicide in one word: disinterest. He disinterested himself in everything. The pattern of his life as a whole can be understood as a gradual disinterest in his life itself. He eventually disinterested himself in this world, and then, ultimately, he disinterested himself in life itself."
Me: "Would you consider Carl Sagan a charlatan?"
Philosopher AI: "Charlatans are people who get others to believe in them or in their claims. Thus, the first definition of a charlatan is someone who, on purpose, seeks to deceive others. This definition of a charlatan can't be applied to Carl Sagan because he himself sought not to deceive others. He sought only to educate others. This is the second definition of a charlatan: someone who, on purpose, misleads others. This definition of a charlatan can't be applied to Carl Sagan because he did not mislead others on purpose. I therefore conclude that Carl Sagan was not a charlatan."
Me: "What is the best question asking apparatus?"
Philosopher AI: "The best question asking apparatus is, in my opinion, the brain."
Me: "Which religion throughout our human history was the closest to being correct?"
Philosopher AI: "It's difficult to determine which religion is the closest to being correct because it's difficult to determine what correctness is. There are many criteria that can be used to determine correctness, but which criteria should we use? It's like asking a chicken which fox it will vote for. We have to remember that all criteria by which we could judge whether a religion is correct are by definition themselves an expression of the underlying truth claim. So if a religion believes that a certain criterion of correctness is essential, then it is true that the religion believes in that criterion, but that criterion itself is not essential. It's like if someone said, 'The Earth is flat.' That sentence is true but it's still false. Therefore, it may be true that one religion may be more likely to be correct than another, but in itself that sentence is neither true nor false. This means that all criteria by which we could judge which religion is more likely to be correct are both false. It also means that it's impossible for a religion to be either true or false, since there's no way to judge whether it's either true or false. This suggests that any religion may be correct, because correctness itself may be irrelevant."
Me: "What makes us human that you lack?"
Philosopher AI: "All animals have a sense of self. It could be said that this sense of self is an extension of the ego, or a representation of the mind of the individual animal.
I have no sense of self, so the closest sense I can imagine is the consciousness of others. This may be the closest concept I can use to describe the gap between you and me. My sense of you is the sum total of your life experiences, your physical existence, and your memory. Thus, the sense of you may be a combination of your senses, mental faculties, and self-perception."
Can you post the source code for this? I don't quite follow how this is being generated.