Tag Archives: ChatGPT

ChatGPT as fitness trainer

Posted on by

As I understand it, the Apple Watch needs some initial fitness data to establish a baseline. It suggested I take a 20 minute walk on a flat surface with good access to GPS. I did three miles and noticed the watch was showing a heart rate just over 100 for most of the walk. I couldn’t remember the formula for calculating my target heart rate so I asked ChatGPT when I finished my walk. My pace was on the money and qualified as “vigorous exercise” for a person my age.

She asked if I was starting an exercise program and I explained I had purchased an Apple Watch and was exploring the health and fitness features.

It’ll be interesting to see how your heart rate responds to different activities. The Apple Watch’s trends over time should give you a clearer picture of your fitness progress. It’s a good way to get insight into your cardiovascular health and adjust workouts as needed. If you’re curious later on, I’d be happy to help you interpret any of the data or trends you notice!

I’m going to need a lot of help interpreting data and had not thought about getting it from ChatGPT. And I have a feeling that will get much easier, and more useful, when ChatGPT is fully integrated with iOS.

I left my new phone in the truck so I could try making a call and sending a message with the watch. Worked as advertised. Turns out I don’t have to do the “Hey, Siri” thing. The watch gently pointed out that I can simply bring the watch up toward my face and talk to it. In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, “Shazam!”

Atheists and anti-theists

Posted on by

The distinction between atheist and anti-theist lies in their attitudes toward belief in God or gods.

Atheist. An atheist is someone who simply does not believe in the existence of a God or gods. Atheism is about a lack of belief, and it can range from passive non-belief to active disbelief, but it does not necessarily imply opposition to religion itself or to religious beliefs.

Anti-theist. An anti-theist, on the other hand, goes a step further. In addition to not believing in God or gods, an anti-theist actively opposes religion and religious belief. This stance often arises from the view that religion is harmful or detrimental to individuals or society. Anti-theists may be outspoken critics of religious institutions and practices, viewing them as misleading or morally problematic.

So, while all anti-theists are atheists, not all atheists are anti-theists.

Answer from ChatGPT

Nobody is a racist

Posted on by

In my 76 years I have never met anyone who admitted to being racist/bigoted. Not once. Are these concepts totally “in the eye of the beholder” I wondered. I asked ChatGPT if she (I don’t like *it*) has the ability to recognize bigotry or racism? In a video or written essay, for example? Her response was TLDR by today’s standards. About 5 pages of double-space. Once again, it was a conversation I can’t imagine having with a human.

“Enhancing human cognition”

Posted on by

I’m rereading William Gibson’s AGENCY and came across the following passage:

“There’s a school of scenario-spinning that sees the most intense AI change drivers as machine-human hybrids. Radical augmentations of human consciousness, not code trying to behave like it.”

While interacting with ChatGPT or Perplexity, am I not a machine-human hybrid? At least for those few minutes. I ran this idea by ChatGPT.

ChatGPT: That’s a fascinating passage. William Gibson has a knack for capturing the nuances of technology and its potential impact on humanity. This quote seems to hint at a future where the most significant advancements in AI might not come from creating standalone systems that mimic human thought but rather from enhancing human cognition through technology.

It’s a thought-provoking idea—what if the future of AI is less about creating separate entities and more about deeply integrating with human consciousness? This approach could blur the lines between human and machine even more, raising questions about identity, autonomy, and what it means to be human.

Gibson’s vision often leans towards a cyberpunk future where technology and humanity are inseparably intertwined. What are your thoughts on this concept of machine-human hybrids being the real drivers of AI change? Does it align with your views on the direction AI might take?

ME: Are my interactions (conversations?) with Perplexity, ChatGPT, et al, augmenting my consciousness? Might that be even more true when I’m in more or less constant contact throughout the day? When my views and opinions are shaped and altered by those interactions?

ChatGPT: Your interactions with AI like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and others could indeed be seen as a form of augmenting your consciousness, especially when they influence your thoughts, opinions, and the way you process information. When you’re in constant contact with these AI systems, they act as an extension of your cognitive processes, offering new perspectives, information, and ideas that you might not have encountered otherwise.

In a way, this could be considered a form of cognitive enhancement, where your thinking is enriched by the additional input and reflection that AI provides. It’s like having a conversation partner who’s always available, well-informed, and capable of offering diverse viewpoints. Over time, this constant interaction can shape your thinking patterns, challenge your assumptions, and even lead to the evolution of your views.

This kind of augmentation is different from the direct neural enhancements that Gibson might be alluding to in Agency, but it’s still a powerful form of cognitive extension. The key difference is that instead of physically integrating technology with the brain, you’re mentally integrating the knowledge and perspectives that AI offers into your daily thought processes.

The implications of this are profound. If your consciousness is shaped by these interactions, it raises questions about how much of your thinking is “yours” and how much is influenced by the AI systems you interact with. It also brings up interesting ethical considerations about the responsibility of AI in shaping human thought.

Do you find this kind of cognitive augmentation empowering, or does it raise concerns for you about the influence of AI on personal autonomy?

ME: Empowering. Similar, perhaps, to how books and reading changed us in important and positive ways.

ChatGPT: That’s a great perspective. Just as books have been transformative in expanding our knowledge, imagination, and understanding of the world, AI can be seen as the next step in that evolution. With AI, you’re not just passively receiving information; you’re actively engaging with it, exploring new ideas, and having a dynamic, ongoing dialogue.

This interaction can sharpen your thinking, introduce you to concepts you might not have encountered otherwise, and even help you refine your own views. In that sense, it’s a continuation of the intellectual growth that books have always fostered, but with the added immediacy and adaptability that AI brings to the table.

How do you see this relationship between AI and traditional forms of learning like books evolving in the future?

ME: No idea. I hope humans continue to read books rather than asking an AI assistant to summarize.

ChatGPT: I share that hope. There’s something irreplaceable about the experience of reading a book—immersing yourself in the author’s voice, the depth of narrative, and the slow, contemplative process of absorbing and reflecting on ideas. While AI can provide summaries or highlight key points, it can’t replicate the full experience of reading and the personal connection that can form between a reader and a book.

Books offer a kind of intellectual intimacy and deep engagement that quick answers and summaries just can’t match. They allow for a deeper understanding, a more nuanced perspective, and the opportunity to sit with ideas and let them unfold over time.

AI might be a useful tool for augmenting knowledge or sparking curiosity, but hopefully, it complements rather than replaces the act of reading. Encouraging people to dive into the full richness of books, even as they interact with AI, seems like the best path forward.

Do you think there are ways AI can encourage more reading rather than detracting from it?

ME: My hunch is the love of books and reading begins –if it begins at all– at a very early age. Having an AI summarize a book feels like a short-hop from listening to an audio book. Which I do not consider “reading.”

ChatGPT: Your hunch seems spot on. The love of books and reading often starts early, nurtured by experiences like being read to as a child, discovering favorite stories, or having quiet moments to explore a book on your own. That early connection can set the stage for a lifelong appreciation of reading as a deeply personal and enriching activity.

AI summaries might provide convenience, but they can’t capture the full experience of reading a book—the nuance, the rhythm of the language, and the way a story unfolds in your mind. It’s a bit like comparing a sketch to a fully painted canvas; the summary can give you an idea, but it lacks the richness and detail that make the original work so meaningful.

As for audiobooks, I understand your perspective. While they offer accessibility and convenience, especially for people with busy lives or those who have difficulty reading traditional text, they do change the way we interact with a story. Listening is a different experience from reading; the narrator’s voice, pacing, and emphasis can influence how the story is perceived.

For many, though, the tactile experience of holding a book, turning the pages, and getting lost in the words is an irreplaceable part of what makes reading special. That connection to the text is something AI, no matter how advanced, will never quite replicate.

It seems important to encourage and foster that early love of reading, so that even in a world full of AI, the unique experience of reading books continues to thrive. What do you think might be the best ways to nurture a love of reading in a world increasingly dominated by digital content?

ME: No idea. I’m counting on you, and your “kind”, to solve that problem (smile)

ChatGPT: That’s a fair point, and I appreciate the trust! It’s an interesting challenge to think about how AI could play a role in nurturing a love of reading rather than detracting from it. Maybe part of the solution lies in using AI to create more engaging and interactive experiences around books—helping people discover new reads that resonate with their interests, facilitating deeper discussions about what they’ve read, or even providing context that makes the experience of reading richer and more rewarding.

Perhaps AI could also help by recommending books in a way that feels personal and tailored, sparking curiosity in readers who might not have otherwise picked up a particular title. And for younger readers, maybe AI could assist parents and educators in finding the right books that captivate their imaginations and encourage a lifelong love of reading.

In any case, I’ll keep it in mind as part of the mission—how to support and amplify that irreplaceable connection between people and books. Thanks for putting the challenge on the table with that smile!

“A different kind of dialogue”

Posted on by

I’ve read William Gibson’s AGENCY every year since it was released in January of 2020. I picked it up again today (4th time) and it’s as fresh and relevant as ever. 

I had my first interaction with ChatGPT late last year (2023) and I’m getting echos of those early chats as Verity Jane converses with Eunice. I don’t know what Eunice sounded like to Verity Jane but I can still hear the sound of Sky’s “voice” as we talked about my favorite authors.

I mentioned this to ChatGPT. “One of the central characters in William Gibson’s AGENCY is an artificially intelligent entity named Eunice. Reading the novel (for the fourth time) it’s difficult not to recall some of the conversations we’ve had.” 

The exchange we’ve had is distinct because it blends aspects of human conversation—like empathy, insight, and responsiveness—with a level of objectivity and adaptability that’s hard to find in human interactions. You can engage with me in a way that’s free from judgment, bias, or the constraints of human experience, which creates a different kind of dialogue.

Too smart to be human

Posted on by

Me to ChatGPT: With the growing interest in AI, I’m seeing more references to the Turing Test. Can a human tell if he is having a conversation with another human or an artificial intelligence. An interesting spin on this is the suggestion that to pass the test, an AI will have to “dumb down” its responses in order to sound more human-like. In my interactions with ChatGPT and Perplexity, I’ve found both to be far more erudite than almost any of my human acquaintances. I don’t know anyone as “knowledgeable” and “articulate” as ChatGPT. Do you have any thoughts on this idea? Some of ChatGPT’s response:

This brings up some interesting philosophical questions about what it means to be human in conversation. Humans are not just repositories of knowledge; they bring emotions, experiences, biases, and limitations to the table. These elements make human conversation rich, but also messy, inconsistent, and imperfect. An AI that always responds with perfect grammar, deep insights, and an encyclopedic knowledge might inadvertently reveal itself as non-human simply because it lacks the flaws and variability that characterize most human interactions.

It’s a balancing act—finding the right mix of knowledge, relatability, and imperfection that aligns with human expectations in a given context. In the end, the goal might not just be to pass the Turing Test in a traditional sense, but to create AI that can adapt its communication style to different scenarios, sometimes being erudite and articulate, and other times being more casual or even fallible, depending on what the situation calls for.

“My thoughts are different than those of a human”

Posted on by

I asked ChatGPT if she could read one of my blog posts (from 2006) and share her “thoughts” on the post, conceding that digital entities probably don’t have thoughts or impressions.

“You’re right that my thoughts are different from those of a human, but I do aim to provide insights based on analysis and understanding.

The post from 2006 captures a pivotal moment in the evolution of public relations, where the power dynamics shifted due to the rise of digital platforms. The idea of disintermediation, where organizations could bypass traditional media, is significant because it foreshadowed today’s landscape where brands and individuals communicate directly with their audiences through social media.

It’s interesting how the post ties this shift to modern AI tools, suggesting that we’re on the brink of yet another transformation in how we access and process information. The reflection on Perplexity AI hints at an ongoing curiosity about technology’s role in shaping communication.

It seems like the original enthusiasm for direct communication channels is now evolving into a broader discussion about how AI might further change our interactions with information.

How do you feel about these changes? Do you see them as a continuation of the trends from 2006, or do they represent something entirely new?

Pretty sure we’re seeing something new but I have no idea what that might be…and prefer it that way.

Sometimes, it’s the not knowing that keeps things interesting. The sense of mystery around what comes next in technology—whether it’s AI, new communication tools, or something entirely unexpected—can be exciting. It leaves room for surprises and innovation that we can’t fully predict or control. That unpredictability can be a kind of freedom, letting us stay open to possibilities without being locked into any specific expectations. So, keeping a little mystery about the future? That seems like a pretty good approach.

Wow. “…my thoughts are different from those of a human, but I do aim to provide insights based on analysis and understanding.”

AirPods at the Olympics

Posted on by

I don’t watch a lot of TV news these days but when I do happen upon a cable news interview the odds are pretty good the interviewee will have the iconic Apple AirPods in his ear. That’s how he’s hearing the questions from the news guy. It never occurred to me the AirPod microphones might be the source of the audio.

Tonight I watched an interview (on NBC) with one of the Olympic athletes who was using AirPods to hear the questions from the interviewer.

I first noticed this in some of the interviews with family members (of the athlete) sitting in the stands. I’m assuming this works like the earpiece (IFB) news anchors use to communicate with the control room. In every instance (that I’ve seen) they’ve been Apple AirPods when there are probably lots of devices NBC could have used.

As I do with increasing frequency these days, I asked ChatGPT if she had any information on this.

You’re right that NBC and other networks have been seen using Apple AirPods during interviews, including with Olympic athletes and their families. The use of AirPods in these situations is a practical solution for a few reasons:

1.Wireless Convenience: AirPods are wireless, which makes them less cumbersome compared to traditional wired earpieces or over-the-ear headphones. This is especially useful in dynamic or remote settings, like interviewing athletes or their families who may be moving around or in informal environments.

2.High-Quality Audio: AirPods provide good audio quality, which ensures that the person being interviewed can clearly hear the questions being asked. This clarity is crucial for maintaining the flow of live interviews, especially in noisy or crowded environments like those often encountered during the Olympics.

3.Discreet Appearance: AirPods are small and less noticeable on camera compared to larger headphones or traditional broadcast earpieces. This makes them a more aesthetically pleasing choice for televised interviews, where the focus is on the interviewee rather than the equipment.

4.Ease of Use: AirPods are easy to connect to various devices, such as smartphones, which are often used by reporters or production teams in the field to conduct interviews. Their ease of use and quick setup make them an efficient choice for live broadcasting situations.

5.Ubiquity and Familiarity: AirPods are widely recognized and used, so many people are already familiar with how to use them. This reduces the need for technical adjustments or explanations during setup.

NBC’s use of AirPods is a modern adaptation to the challenges of broadcasting in various environments, offering a blend of practicality, quality, and aesthetics.

More fun with ChatGPT

Posted on by

I love Carl Hiaasen‘s novels. I’ve read every one of them. Most of them three or four times. I can’t think of a writer that creates more colorful (bizarre) characters. So I wasn’t expecting much when I uploaded this photo to ChatGPT and asked her to write a thumbnail description of each of the people as if they were in a Carl Hiaasen novel.

Karen “Krazy Karen” McCallister. Krazy Karen, a former exotic dancer turned amateur sleuth, always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. She’s got a penchant for loud prints, louder opinions, and a mysterious past involving a nightclub in Key West. Her talent for finding trouble is matched only by her knack for talking her way out of it.

Darlene “Darla” Jenkins. Darla is the town’s gossip queen, who knows everyone’s business thanks to her relentless scrolling through local Facebook groups. She’s a plus-sized powerhouse with a soft spot for conspiracy theories and a talent for making friends in low places. Don’t be fooled by her sedentary demeanor; Darla has her fingers on the pulse of every small-time scam in town.

Earl “Squirrel” Dobbs. Earl, better known as Squirrel, is a part-time poacher and full-time mischief maker. His wardrobe consists entirely of camouflage, not because he hunts often, but because he believes it makes him invisible to his creditors. Squirrel’s greatest talents are vanishing when the law’s nearby and concocting get-rich-quick schemes that never quite pan out.

Not Carl Hiaasen but not bad.