Reverse engineering is the process of obtaining an explanation for a system, which has already been constructed and put to use. In this way, we can understand how it functions. That knowledge can be used in future creations or further studies.
To be able to reverse engineer something, it is essential that we understand what properties are necessary for its creation. Without those, the system cannot be created. A computer, for example, can only exist if it has a processor within it and enough memory.
The reverse engineering process will then consist of identifying the properties that are important for a system to exist, and then discovering what element has those properties. For example, we can look at a computer's processor and memory capabilities and use them to infer the existence of other components like hard disks or monitors.
The reverse engineering method is especially useful when studying human social systems. Humans are complex and difficult to understand, so we can use this approach to discover what properties they have in common with each other.
My answer has two parts: firstly, we will discuss the reverse engineering process and how it is used to study human social systems; secondly, you asked me why humans are so complex. I'll get to that in a moment.
First, the reverse engineering process. The first step is to understand what properties humans have in common with each other. For example, we could use negative examples to decide which human traits are not present in all humans.
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.
