Everyone says that they have a sense of right and wrong, so I cannot be the only one. The world is full of people who think they are good people in some way. Yet, most can barely understand what it truly means to be 'good'. Everyone thinks their perspective on life is correct, but society at large shows us that this commonly held belief is false.
So, if everyone on Earth thinks their perspective is correct, then at least 90% of people are wrong. This means that the majority of people in the world must be 'bad' or 'evil'. They think they're good and yet have a completely different sense of what it means to be good than I do.
So, if I say that most people are bad, then it is a statement of fact. If you disagree with me, then according to the very definition of what it means to be 'good', you must be bad.
I am good, and I think that most people are bad. This is a fact because if you disagree with me then your perspective is wrong and society has shown us that the majority of people have an incorrect sense of what it means to be 'good'. So by definition, we must agree on some level.
Everyone thinks they are good, but at least 90% of people must be bad. Society has shown us this over and over again. So it's clearly a fact.
I am a good person. I follow the rules, and do my best to be kind to other people. Yet there are those among us who think that being cruel is more 'fun' or 'cool'. It's not true! Being cool isn't about doing things just for yourself, it's about making people around you happy.
Log in:
You are getting an AI to generate text on different topics.
This is an experiment in what one might call "prompt engineering", which is a way to utilize GPT-3, a neural network trained and hosted by OpenAI.
GPT-3 is a language model. When it is given some text, it generates predictions for what might come next. It is remarkably good at adapting to different contexts, as defined by a prompt (in this case, hidden), which sets the scene for what type of text will be generated.
Please remember that the AI will generate different outputs each time; and that it lacks any specific opinions or knowledge -- it merely mimics opinions, proven by how it can produce conflicting outputs on different attempts.
Feel free to share interesting outputs to /r/philosopherAI on Reddit.
