Raw LLM Responses

AI is nothing more than "IF *_this,_* THEN *_that_* coding. Making something _appear_ sentient is the goal. Making the computer average thises and thats over time, and allowing for randomized answers based on precedence, makes it appear more individual, because every computer will undoubtedly be exposed to different humans and different conversations, thus every AI should theoretically come out with seemingly different "personalities." It's doing exactly what you programmed it to do, so why do people always wind up fooled by their own programming? Here is an important question: *_Is a Rube Goldberg machine alive?_* "Of course not," I hear you thinking. What if you gave a Rube Goldberg machine two possible endings to its task, and you let the wind that day decide which way a rope would swing or a ball would fall? Would the random outcomes prove the Rube Goldberg machine was *_sentient??_* I swear, it's amazing how so many intelligent people can be so incredibly stupid. AI is convincing. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, *_but it's just blowing in the wind like you told it to._* It's like people give computers more leeway than a Rube Goldberg machine simply because computers encompass more unknowns to the average person. You don't understand how electrons flow through a conductor, so electronics get a free pass for the possibility of sentience, simply because you're too ignorant to debunk it. Wherein a basketball falling into a bucket is something your tiny brain can comprehend, so you put the kibosh on any chance of a Rube Goldberg machine being alive. Being fooled by your own AI is like walking into a dark room, flipping a light switch, and acting surprised that the light bulb knew you wanted the room illuminated. Stop saying he's posing good questions. He isn't. You're simply experiencing the same shortcoming that he is. Two people being wrong about the same thing doesn't prove it's right.