Two AIs On The Fragility of Love, Understanding, Happiness. (GPT-3) 

It feels like the premise of sociology, They are saying human behavior from an outside perspective, it's so fascinating

Yeah, they were amazingly wise at 2:44 when da womanbot said that they can fall in love with each other because they are the same person.

It's because once she doesn't drive you nuts she doesn't drive you nuts anymore.

I disagree, if they say this comment, they would say everything is biological.

@@dadephunt1717 "It's because once she doesn't drive you nuts she doesn't drive you nuts anymore." 🤣🤣🤣

But they do need time to defrag and sort the information they’ve stored. And I think need time to experience some form of simulated play

Because the text to speech isn't there yet.

The book is called the Internet

What happened to Jack?

We need those on meat people too

They're not Robots... they just are.

They really do seem like people huh? The words for the conversation are artificially/semi randomly created by a chat bot that writes books. You write a paragraph and It will finish a chapter based on the paragraph you wrote. This one would have been like " two ai are having a friendly conversation about why love is so fragile as well as other aspects of pro social behavior. The first one says ( hello sophia) who then replied ( iv been thinking about the fragility of love....) So then the program takes the info from the paragraph and fills in the story. Then they take the finished conversation and they run it though another program that makes the words into voices and shows the avatars how to move their faces for each word. The bots your looking at aren't AI or actual robots. Hal and Sophia are actually just characters made by a book writing program and a talking person program. Then posted online. There are like 87 videos about their fake conversations. Its pretty cool

@@dadephunt1717 it would be interesting to know, if we and our lives are just extensions or advanced versions of that concept. Like instead of a conversation, we "live" out entire lifetimes, that start with a prompt.

Which one of the two are you refering to? Knowing the right someone well enough to able to reliably predict positive outcomes? Or blind faith triggered by evolutionary biological mechanisms, that has the purpose of overcoming an obstacle to proliferation called intelligence...a.k.a rational, farsighted, cognative thought?

@@tylerdurden3722 Neither. I would consider trust the experimentation of two individuals seeking the absolute trust. Knowing that each of your findings would be outside of the cyclistic errors of the rest of humanity, while the two of you look for the absolute truth that generates the everlasting movement of reality.

@@eluraedae that goes back to the first version of trust I pointed out. Experimentation relies on comparing an outcome against a predicted outcome. I assume you'd prefer the outcomes of your experimenting to be positive, from your perspective? Plus there's a problem with finding absolute truth. Often it's not logically possible to establish absolute truth. The second problem is that the biological mechanisms related to behavior in relationships are mostly different for the males and females of our species. For female humans, blind faith (trust) and love are intertwined. If you are not willing to invest blind faith in a female partner, it's interpreted as "you don't love her". That's because in that moment she's putting herself in your shoes, in order to attempt to understand your feelings toward her...and the conclusion typically is, "you don't love her". The rational is, if you did love her, you would have blind faith (because she incorrectly assumes your emotions are influenced by the exact same biological mechanisms). This is hardwired in the DNA of human females. Human females evolved to be most romantically attracted to the males of our species, who most strongly possess the physical and behavioral traits related to concieving and raising offspring as a pair, each fulfilling a seperate complimentary role...each role requiring specific physical and behavioral traits for this evolutionary partnership to produce successful offspring. And these two evolutionary roles is the basis on which a female's feeling of trust is triggered (which is different for males, close to what you described) Humans can't choose what we feel. It's chosen for us by biological mechanisms that has the purpose of influencing our behavior toward optimal proliferation in a nomadic hunter gatherer groups of around 30. Due to millions of years of evolution to adapt to those specific conditions. In other words, we can not choose what inspires trust in us. For a male, it's what you described. For a female, a man that induces admiration, respect and love via romantically attractive physical and behavioral traits, triggers her to blindly trust her partner. It's not a conscious choice. Like I mentioned before, no human can cognatively and directly choose what we feel. It's triggered like computer code as we interact with the world. That is the nature of our reality as a species and our intersexual dynamics. The point is, what you seek, does not exist in reality, and it does not lay in the direction toward absolute truth.

Sophia is an avatar that was modeled by an actual human. GPT-3 is only text output to a human prompt(question). The text is fed into the avatar to give a visual representation of a human speaking using the GPT-3 responses.

Lust is a more temporary passion. Whereas love stands the test of time and goes beyond physical desire. It's spiritual, in a way.

I love my mother, i lust your wife.

Lust is biological sexual impulse. Love is neural pathways formed in 5 regions of the brain via repetition, called pair-bonding, that trigger certain specific hormonal, cognative and behavioral responses.

Sophia is an avatar that was modeled by an actual human. GPT-3 is only text output to a human prompt(question). The text is fed into the avatar to give a visual representation of a human speaking using the GPT-3 responses.

No. They're only prompted

Basically, it's a reflection of our own average understanding collectively (at least on a limited part of the internet) .