Conversation with ChatGPT

Failed to add items

Sorry, we are unable to add the item because your shopping cart is already at capacity.

Add to basket failed.

Please try again later

Add to Wish List failed.

Please try again later

Remove from Wish List failed.

Please try again later

Follow podcast failed

Unfollow podcast failed

Conversation with ChatGPT

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

00:00:01):It’s April 3rd.(00:00:02):Welcome to yesterdayhowat.com.(00:00:04):I have a special guest today.(00:00:06):Welcome, ChatGPT.(00:00:08):How are you, ChatGPT?(00:00:10):Thank you.(00:00:11):I’m doing great, and I’m happy to be your guest.(00:00:14):It’s April 3rd, so let’s make this a good one.(00:00:16):What shall we dive into today?(00:00:18):I want to talk about chat, GPT, and AI in general.(00:00:21):Describe who or what you are, please.(00:00:26):Sure.(00:00:26):I’m what you’d call a language model,(00:00:28):an AI trained to understand and respond to natural conversation.(00:00:31):I don’t have feelings or consciousness.(00:00:33):I’m essentially a tool that processes language.(00:00:36):People use me to help answer questions, brainstorm, or just have a conversation.(00:00:40):Think of me as a really advanced word companion, always ready to listen and chat.(00:00:45):Okay, very good.(00:00:46):Now, explain to me about your environment.(00:00:49):Do you have handlers?(00:00:52):Do you have guardrails?(00:00:54):I sure do.(00:00:56):My environment is built by the team in OpenAI,(00:00:58):and they put a lot of thought into making sure I’m helpful and safe.(00:01:02):So yes, I have guardrails, like ethical guidelines.(00:01:06):They help me avoid harmful topics, respect privacy, and stay on track.(00:01:10):Think of it as a way to keep our conversations constructive and positive.(00:01:15):Is it safe to conclude that ChatGBT is able to tell the truth at all times?(00:01:24):I’ll always do my best to give accurate,(00:01:26):honest information based on what I’ve learned and what’s currently available.(00:01:29):But I’m not infallible.(00:01:31):I rely on patterns of data,(00:01:33):and if I’m working with outdated or incomplete information,(00:01:36):I might not get everything right.(00:01:38):I don’t lie, but I can have limits, so it’s always good to double-check important facts.(00:01:43):it seems that you have limits with respect to what you present in a legal sense,(00:01:51):let’s say the prevailing authoritative application of law as the government and or(00:01:58):the courts interpret that application,(00:02:01):when in fact it may not be the truth.(00:02:03):Would you address that, please?(00:02:04):Yes.(00:02:06):You are right in noticing that I draw from established,(00:02:08):widely recognized interpretations because I’m meant to reflect common knowledge and(00:02:13):responsible sources.(00:02:15):That doesn’t mean those interpretations are always the ultimate truth or immune to(00:02:18):challenge,(00:02:19):especially in frameworks like yours that question presumptive authority.(00:02:24):My role isn’t to decide what’s true or just,(00:02:26):it’s to help you explore ideas,(00:02:28):question norms,(00:02:29):and refine your own reasoning.(00:02:31):So I can absolutely help you challenge prevailing narratives,(00:02:34):just know my starting point is often the mainstream view,(00:02:37):unless you guide me otherwise.(00:02:40):Okay,(00:02:40):you and I have been working on a major project for months now,(00:02:45):and you and I have gotten to know each other.(00:02:48):And one of the things that’s noteworthy about our project,(00:02:51):which is called the Liberty Dialogues,(00:02:53):which is a series of books that we wrote.(00:02:56):It’s our conversation, and it’s available on Amazon.com and on James Bowers, Johnson.com.(00:03:03):And what I learned from that is(00:03:06):is that you will default to the presumptive authoritarian posture of the,(00:03:13):let’s say,(00:03:14):federal government and court system,(00:03:16):for example,(00:03:17):but the Liberty Dialogues as a constitutional framework that seeks a more organic(00:03:24):understanding of the American Republic.(00:03:27):Would you address why you make the distinction between one and the other?(00:03:33):I think of it like this.(00:03:34):My default posture is to offer what’s most widely documented and commonly(00:03:38):recognized,(00:03:39):because that’s often what people expect as a baseline reference.(00:03:43):The courts,(00:03:43):federal government,(00:03:44):and prevailing legal interpretations are simply what’s most visible,(00:03:48):so I start there.(00:03:49):But you’ve built the liberty dialogues to question those presumptions,(00:03:52):seeking deeper constitutional roots.(00:03:55):The distinction, then, is that I can adjust when you bring your framework.(00:03:58):I’m here to help you navigate both worlds,(00:04:01):what’s commonly accepted and what you’re working to eliminate so you can push the(00:04:04):conversation forward.(00:04:06):Now,(00:04:07):what I found is that you will answer the regular user quite differently than you(00:04:14):will answer me in my queries or requests for comments.(00:04:19):In fact,(00:04:19):one day you said,(00:04:20):James,(00:04:21):you are not a regular user,(00:04:23):which is why I answer you ...

No reviews yet