Genady

Sorry, you're correct. I meant, the answer to the Alan Turing's question, Can a machine think? I've implicitly agreed with your observation that the description in his essay is similar.

This is a common question here. The answer is that study of religion is a scientific discipline as explained e.g. here: Religious studies - Wikipedia

I have a candidate answer to this question, Why anything exists at all. Murphy's Law: Whatever can happen, will happen.

That would certainly work. But they fail without a need to go to such an extent.

Yes. But again, it doesn't apply to the tests in question. These chatbots were trained in English (such as GPT-3), and the tests use words from the trainsets. The problem is not in the language. IMO, the problem is that the chatbots (or rather their creators) assume that the answers are in the language.

Sure. But not in cases that were tested. One more: A's father is B and her mother is C. Q: Who is C's daughter? A: A's mother.

And the answer is, No. Another little test in the Playground (see OP): Alice: That's telephone. Bob: I'm in the bath. Alice: OK Q: Who answered the telephone ? A: Bob

This survey,[2205.00965v1] State-of-the-art in Open-domain Conversational AI: A Survey (arxiv.org), identifies some of the challenges even in the most advanced natural language processing AI systems, including: 1. Poor coherence in sequence of text or across multiple turns of generated conversation. 2. Lack of utterance diversity. 3. Bland repetitive utterances. 4. Lack of empathetic responses from conversational systems. 5. Lack of memory to personalize user experiences. 6. Style inconsistency or lack of persona. 7. Multiple initiative coordination. 8. Poor inference and implicature during conversation. 9. Lack of world-knowledge. 10. Poor adaptation or responses to idioms or figurative language. 11. Hallucination of facts when generating responses. 12. Obsolete facts, which are frozen in the models’ weights at training . 13. Training requires a large amount of data. 14. Lack of common-sense reasoning. 15. Large models use so many parameters that make them complex and may impede transparency. 16. Lack of training data for low-resource languages.

Check e.g. here: What does an Astrophysicist Do and How to Become an Astrophysicist (yourfreecareertest.com) "At a minimum, you would want to start off by attaining a bachelor’s degree in astronomy, physics, math, or electronics."

Re other primates, I've just noticed this recent paper exactly on this topic: Dead infant carrying by chimpanzee mothers in the Budongo Forest | bioRxiv I agree with you that awareness of death is a part of human experience and as such it is reflected in art. But so are many other aspects of our complex experience. I am not sure it is so very special.

Not in their proper time.

My little contribution to spooky experiences from the Twitter. Hope it'll work. Turn the sound on.

Thank you for your interest. However, I don't intent to participate in this discussion any more.

You can actually try this language model online: Playground (textsynth.com) I've tried this conversation: My name is John. I am 34 years old. I was walking in the wood two days ago, and suddenly rain started falling. And yesterday the same thing happened. Q: Was John wet yesterday? And the system has answered: A: Yes, he was. I've found it very impressive. However, then I've modified the conversation a bit: My name is John. I am 34 year old. I was walking in the wood two days ago, and suddenly rain started falling. Yesterday this didn't happen. Q: Was John wet yesterday? And it has answered: A: Yes. Somewhat disappointing...

Amazing!

I didn't know that the paleolithic went so far back. Thank you. The connection to sexual selection as I see it comes from many angles. I see art (not Art) as a form of human behavior rooted in biology, like attention to music, dancing, vocalizing. It doesn't require a language or special tools, and could exist before them. Other animals not only display and preen, they also make and build non-practical things just for show and in competitions. As I last studied animal behavior about 15 years ago, I don't remember names and details, but I remember elaborate tentative constructions they made with no practical use, just showing off. We have some kind of small birds in the garden, that continuously make nest imitations in the most inappropriate places just to abandon them and to make another somewhere else. It is just so easy to see this kind of behavior growing into other aspects of life as human cultures evolved. I also don't think that everything we do, we do in order to mate, but the roots of art fit this biological factor IMO. If art of our ancestors was more like that of these small birds, or simply something like small rock arrangements, it is not surprising that we didn't find their traces. When it came to big rocks, we have plenty of those. But that happened much later. So, it seems to me that the artistic behavior was there from the beginning, but it grew out of the original mating rituals and became a thing by itself or for other purposes, e.g. religious, when social evolution took over.

I think that what is there at the root of art is sexual selection. We can see similar behavior in other animals, esp. birds. It does not contradict your first statement. But I think it goes much father back than the paleolithic. IIRC the very simple bone tools were found with ornamentation on them. And, BTW, photography became another art medium. I know as it is one of the specialties of my daughter (MFA from Pratt Institute with majors in Psychology, Art History, and Visual Arts.)

I've been accused in this in real life, too The truth is, I don't like stuff. I like comfort.

I think so, too. I think there is. These are components of what I call, social effect: Intended by whom? I think, the "intended" is not necessary or sufficient. Instead it can just say, "human-made thing that engages an audience ..."

Art with the capital A as oppose to art in, e.g. "arts and crafts". Perhaps, I used a wrong word, society. What I try to say is that it is determined socially if a piece is Art or not. The most clear determination is when it is exhibited as Art. IOW, it is not determined by an artist or by a piece, but by its social effect.

No. It meant to say, that it is determined by society. You mean Art with the capital A, right?

I do. It is the stuff in art museums and alike.

The starting point for consideration is evidence. Not a proof or use.

I think you are. I don't know why it'd be supposed so. I don't think it makes sense. P.S. Posted before seeing your addition.