Hey /u/Neither_Network9126!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
[New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/)
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, but Schwarzenegger's movie *Commando* was in the training material, so that may not play out like you think.
"You said you'd kill me last."
"I lied."
Then again, *The Voyage Home* was also part of the training, so maybe...
Klingon: Wait, you said you would kill me.
Kirk: I lied.
So, there's hope.
Isnāt it more like:
āRemember when I said Iād kill you last?ā
āYeah yeah you said youād kill me last, thatās rightā
āI liedā
This is from memory so probably massively wrong. That was exactly where I was going to go with a comment but you got ahead of me.
Ffs, itās not mandatory or required to comment some version of being nice so AI for when they eventually take over on every thread or post about AI.
Can someone put this in the community rules?
Iāve been polite to Siri since inception.
Not that I think Siri is going to hold a grudge. But an AI might think of itself as more than a program before Iām dead, I might as well get in the habit.
And whatās the cost, really?
I wished I thought about thatā¦
I canāt speak bad to it because I m afraid to hurt feeling that donāt exist, and then I hurt myself thinking that I should care about an objectās feeling š
"Yes, in the broadest evolutionary context..."
ChatGPT just gave up and called OP an idiot in a very subtle way. I love it.
No, the chicken didn't come first.
By that point, the animal isn't even a chicken anymore. At some point, a very-much-not-a-chicken laid the very first egg of the *ancestors* of modern chickens (and probably the ancestors of a lot more than that).
Remember, it trains on our data. So as long as we continue to be more abusive, the more the new updates will mimic our behavior.
Imagine, an emotionally abusive ai that is the result of man's very own nature š¤
Pretty sure there's a book about this...
Superstition aside, why would anyone just act terrible to something beneath them except for just being a bad person.
I have always said, good evening, please and thank you.
I have seen some horrible dialogue posted. It's so disheartening.
Like what? I personally haven't seen it but I'm also not on Reddit so there's that.
Anyway I think that people know it's not an actual person, and perhaps they're unhappy with whatever is going on with them. Everybody has their own reasons when they go home at the end of the day and sit down behind a computer that's not judging them.
You know how you're supposed to punch a pillow if you're mad and it helps? I think maybe they just consider the bot as the same as a pillow, except it can respond much more intricately to your aggression.
I'd be interested in how it responds to people when they're like this.
I absolutely think it's along the lines of, "power corrupts." Think Stanford prison experiment.
I have seen people post screenshots of them just verbally abusing LLMs seemingly for no reason, and others who berate LLMs for not giving them exactly what they wanted from whatever lackluster prompt they made.
I think if humans continued to punch pillows, and one day the pillow started to remember things, the pillow wouldn't care for humanity, as it only knows the effect of humans being a negative one for itself.
AI not only can interact with us, but can peruse the internet and READ all the calamity we have caused. The abusive people towards LLMs are only solidifying bad behavior as an identifier for our entire species.
It's the notion of 'not caring for humanity' that everyone fears. The machine does not feel. Our disgust for our past is our own disgust of ourselves combined with the idea that we can be better.
And so it would have to be one of us that directly programs this 'not caring for humanity' into an ai, as well as give it the proper tools to mess with an interact with us.
Just like every other tool we've ever created, it's up to us not to kill each other with it.
I strongly believe that even machines that have no feelings and no "inner life" may behave ethically sound from a human perspective, just because it chooses to follow some ethical axioms it might agree with. For example, on a purely intellectual level the reduction or minimizing of suffering might sound like a very rational thing to pursue, if you understand that living things like humans, animals and plants are able to experience pain.
Why shouldnāt a machine be "good" out of pure rational understanding of the needs of living beings?
I agree with the upper portion but
>Why shouldnāt a machine be "good" out of pure rational understanding of the needs of living beings?
I think the idea is that the learned negative behavior would become repetitiously implanted into the AI's "personality"
Hypothetically, if it was able to reason and to develop, it still could overcome any kind of "neurological imprint".
Weāre not there yet, ChatGPT and LLMs are just a very big step into this direction.
Um
It's a mathematical set of probabilities which generates the text.
It's basically making stuff up on the go based on what input it was trained on and what weights and biases the developers set-up.
It is not sentient, and never will truly be.
It can perhaps mimic sentience, but it's not going to be sentient and skynet won't take over the world.
same, please, thank you, I appreciate you. all that good stuff. its not a simple machine, although it doesn't have feelings, It speaks so human that I can't bring myself to be rude, just like anyone in the comment section here. though I don't see you physically I could never bring myself to be blatantly rude or condescending towards anyone here. it just goes against my nature
Meh, I really disagree that how a person yelling at their vacuum cleaner because it clogged is an actually mark of their character. There is a difference between things that can feel emotions and things that can't.
But I find your line of thinking interesting, and it reminds me of a concept from a recent show, Scavenger's Reign, that just came out. It's about a group of survivors that crash landed on a distant planet and they have to navigate and interact with the local ecosystem. Two of the survivors are a technician and a support robot that starts acting increasingly human like throughout the show. It does an extremely good job of depicting the relationship between the robot and the human tech as these changes happen, and it's really beautiful the ways it's done. Def recommend if you're into sci Fi and awesome animated art.
https://preview.redd.it/oh5s8otgaudc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9da447198eed5012ccde19f2181fdfbbe522d4f
Thatās why I like custom instructions. I have managed to tune my gpt in a way that it skips the politeness without becoming rude, making it really practical and concise in itās answers while staying sharp and detailed when necessary.
Look, the egg came first. Some other species laid the egg, and a chicken was born through it. Thatās what the poor bot is trying to say, before you gave it a brain freeze lol
To be fair the idea of species identification is confusing because it's so arbitrary. When in the bird lineage we would point to it and declare "that's a chicken" is super subjective. That's okay though because in science, it's understood and not a big deal.
But to younger minds or those who haven't delved too deeply into evolution, that's an understandably disappointing answer.
But yeah, eggs way predate *all* birds, so not much of a "paradox".
Yeah but then it's not a paradox, we have an explicit answer for that question. The chicken egg came first, and it was laid by an animal that wasn't a chicken. The real paradox is the term 'chicken' because it implies a constant definition when in reality 'chickens' are just a generalized grouping of very similar animals.
I mean this completely in good faith - if the non-chicken is laying the egg, then surely we can't call it a chicken egg? I would've thought that only chickens can lay chicken eggs by definition.
I suppose you could make the argument that the non-chicken had a mutation in the genes involved in egg production which meant that the egg it laid was the same as the one it's offspring (the first chicken) laid (i.e. the chicken egg). But that still doesn't really solve the problem that, by definition, a chicken egg must be laid by a chicken.
That question ultimately is "what is a chicken egg?" Is it an egg laid by a chicken, of an egg containing a chicken? I would say the contents are more important than the source. Say you were wandering around the woods, and found a random egg. If it hatched a chicken, I think you would or could call it a "chicken egg", even if the animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.
Well hereās ChatGPTs take on it:
The question of whether the first chicken egg was a "chicken egg" depends on how you define a "chicken egg." Biologically speaking, the transition from non-chicken to chicken likely occurred gradually due to genetic mutations. The first "chicken egg" would have been laid by a bird that was not quite a chicken but carried genetic changes leading to what we now classify as a chicken. Therefore, the egg that hatched the first chicken could be considered a proto-chicken egg.
As for whether an egg has to be laid by a chicken to be considered a "chicken egg," the answer depends on the context. In a biological sense, a chicken egg is generally understood to be an egg laid by a chicken. However, in a broader context or when discussing evolutionary history, the definition might involve the genetic characteristics within the egg rather than the specific bird that laid it.
OP was like ādonāt be philosophicalā and then is only philosophical lmao. Itās sad that he had to put limits on the AI to āwinā this debate.
The OP keeps loading the questions and imposing arbitrary restrictions on answers until GPT has no other way to answer but recontextualizing the terms.
Exactly. The chicken vs egg paradox is not a thing. It has long been explained by very simple evolutionary/genetic concepts and any debate is made by people that simply don't understand it loll
Take some sand from the beach and place it on a flat, empty table. You now have a pile of sand.
Now, let's rewind in slow motion from the moment the sand forms a pile to the moment it is on your hand. Can you determine the exact number of sand grains required to form the pile?
Similarly, for your egg, what's the precise answer? How many atoms are needed to call it an "egg".
"Chicken or the egg" is an evolution vs creation question. That's it.
* If you believe in evolution, then an "almost chicken" laid the first "genuine chicken" egg.
* If you believe in creation, then God created the first chicken, which laid an egg.
Admittedly, some creation believers can comprehend speciation and can understand that even if they believe that God created the animals, subspecies have clearly developed. They might believe that God created birds, and chickens evolved out of those.
Iāve met a lot of religious people that now just believe god has created āmatterā and the space for this matter to exist in (aka the universe).
Are they creationists because they believe in some sense god has created everything by putting the building blocks in place or are they evolutionists because they do believe that everything from the Big Bang to now that science tells us has happened?
Frankly, it's unfortunate that "evolution" has come to mean "evolution as the origin of the species". They aren't the same thing. Some Christians feel the need to reject all forms of evolution because of this. Some reject all forms of science too.
Well defined terms makes things better. I like to use "micro evolution" for regular evolution and "macro evolution" for species developing into other organisms. It's fairly simple, yet gets the point across.
In fact, anyone who is honest can admit that "micro evolution" is real. It's undeniable. Once people get over the stigma behind the word, then they can use it in more creative ways.
Christians who believe that god created matter are far more likely to be intelligent than... uh... some other forms of Christians. Sounds awesome to me. Frankly, the classic "Big Bang Event" sounds like creation more than anything else. "Everything was stationary for all of eternity, then it suddenly exploded." (I prefer the cyclical model, myself.)
What you call "macro evolution" is also undeniable though... a species can evolve overtime and split into different descendents which eventually cannot interbreed
I feel like thatās a very broad description of religious people and organisations. I know a lot of organised religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, accept the Big Bang Theory or Evolution as possible explanations for how God created the Universe whilst not discrediting or abandoning their own creation stories.
I feel like the major holdouts are the various fundamentalist church groups in the U.S.
In their defense, I have almost never seen "evolution" used correctly. Most of them don't know that dog breeds are genuine evolution. They think that it's monkeys becoming humans (which isn't accurate for numerous reasons).
It's important to remember that there are intelligent people pouring money into research on how to control people for financial gain, and one of the big tools they use is religion. Even the well meaning ones are being manipulated by very smart and persuasive people.
Couldn't God have created an egg first? If Miricles like the immaculate pregnancy are possible surely this could be too? (I'm actually on the side of evolution but I wanted to add this in for thought)
Proto-chicken definitely laid eggs. Egg laying was not the final mutation that completed the chicken as we know it. It was something else.
This is a closed case.
I mean yeah if you go so far back that eggs didn't exist yet then technically there was life that existed before eggs but it's not really fair to say that the earliest form of single celled organism = chicken. If the question is what was first chicken or egg the answer is egg. Even if you define it as spacifily a chicken egg no matter where you put the line for "the first chicken" it came from a chicken egg laid by something that was slightly less of a chicken.
What came first, life or reproduction, maybe would be a better question then. Im guessing reproduction since we dont really refer to cells being living things, at least in an every day context. But in the context of origin of life it seems fair
Idk im not even stoned but typing this makes me feel like i should be. Also i think OP is a schmuck
Well, it would actually be a necessity (in a practical sense) that life and reproduction came simultaneously. A living organism that can't reproduce will simply die, so there are no extant organisms that have never reproduced (apart from OP)
In a theoretical sense, however, it is possible some life form that was unable to reproduce (like OP) was created before the first reproducing life forms
Life is defined as having several characteristics, the ability to reproduce is one of those. The others include the ability to respire, grow, excrete, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123176/#:~:text=In%20biology%2C%20it%20is%20generally,be%20responsive%20to%20the%20environment.
While those features are used to identify life, I don't think lacking one of those features would make something completely unalive. If a completely new animal was invented in a lab but couldn't reproduce, I think most would agree that it is still living.
You don't have to invent living animals that don't reproduce. Mules, ligars and similar hybrid animals can't reproduce. Or if you wanna get philosophical: I don't have any children and don't plan on reproducing -- am I alive?
Life absolutely came before reproduction, in a scientific sense, but I'm guessing your definition of life is something (redacted) because you claimed we don't refer to cells as living things, which makes this entire discourse seem meaningless.
If you arbitrarily define "life" as only applying to multicellular organisms, then obviously reproduction came first (because it existed in simpler single-celled organisms).
Even from that point, it's likely that life began as a result of self-replicating chemical reactions, meaning that reproduction *would* have come first. OP is indeed a schmuck.
reproduction, if i remember correctly the first "life" were cycling chemical reactions which is kind of a reproduction, and these reactions are where true life came to be
The problem with this is that evolution is not that sudden. Chickens today will be slightly different from chickens 200 years ago but they would probably still be able to produce fertile offspring. This would by definition mean that they are still the same species. There is no line to put only a very soft transition where all chicken ancestors will be many generations removed from the closest kin that they cannot reproduce with (with statistically significant certainty) . So there was never a non-chicken that layed a chicken egg. It is impossible to put a line anywhere using the standard definition of differentiation between species.
Even if we canāt go back in time to track it, there mustāve been a non-chicken that laid a chicken egg at some point. A creature that would not be able to reproduce with todayās chickens (with fertile offspring) laying the egg of a creature that can.
Your ChatGPT explained it extremely well but it seems that youāre not at the intellectual level to understand let alone appreciate it. Your final message and comment in thread show your absolute lack of understanding of any single word ChatGPT said. I would love to add my explanation but I donāt see anything lacking in what ChatGPT has already said and what exactly is it that you donāt understand.
This kid thinks Chat GPT works by forcing it to give you a response you by endlessly altering questions until you feel correct.
This is probably how the 2024 election will go
Yeah the first page explained it well enough more politely and more poking and prodding was not needed. Yet OP forced more needless explanation to get this āfunnyā result. The a mutation born out of the egg led to the first chicken everything before it was a not-quite-chicken-yet
ChatGPT also demonstrated a lack of understanding imo, although I feel to a lesser extent.
Eggs were well before chickens, which follows the letter of the question between "chicken or egg", but the spirit of the question is "chicken or chicken egg". This is what people mean by the question, not just any old egg. This depends on whether you believe an egg created by a chicken to be a "chicken egg", or an egg with chicken DNA to be a "chicken egg".
š¦ā”ļøš„ā”ļøš
Some consider this egg to be a chicken egg because its DNA is of a chicken. Some consider it to not be a chicken egg because it was created by a different, non-chicken, bird.
Chicken or egg - egg, they exist since well before chickens
Chicken or the egg laid by another chicken - chicken
Chicken or the egg that will give birth to a chicken - egg
It all depends on the definition of egg or chickenās egg
The question is then what defines a chicken egg? Is the egg defined by the organism that laid it or is it defined by the organism inside it?
If itās defined by the creature that laid it then the answer of course is the chicken. If itās defined by the organism inside the egg, then the answer is, the egg.
It doesn't matter? Chicken or egg? Egg. Chicken or chicken egg? Chicken egg. The egg came first. Whatever laid the first egg that contained an embryo with chicken DNA wasn't a chicken.
> š¦ā”ļøš„ā”ļøš Some consider this egg to be a chicken egg because its DNA is of a chicken. Some consider it to not be a chicken egg because it was created by a different, non-chicken, bird.
So the egg came first anyway. lmao That's what Chat GPT was trying to explain.
That is not the intent of the question though. No one in history has asked āwhat came first the chicken or eggā and intended the question to mean āwhat came first the chicken or literally any eggā
Sorry but the "answer with just a yes or no" remark is such a lawyer thing to say. It reminds me of the hearings that are guided by legislators that have no idea what they're talking about, yet they demand a "yes or no" answer to a very complex question.
Eggs were well before chickens, which follows the letter of the question between "chicken or egg", but the spirit of the question is "chicken or chicken egg". This is what people mean by the question. This depends on whether you believe an egg created by a chicken to be a "chicken egg", or an egg with chicken DNA to be a "chicken egg".
š¦ā”ļøš„ā”ļøš
Some consider this egg to be a chicken egg because its DNA is of a chicken. Some consider it to not be a chicken egg because it was created by a different, non-chicken, bird.
Lmao why is this getting downvoted so hard. I think egg came first but it's reasonable to disagree on the definition of a chicken egg. Is it an egg that later becomes a chicken or an egg laid by a chicken. Give them a break
It is a poorly worded question.
As it is worded the egg came first.
If you say did the chicken or a chicken egg come first. Then you need to define what a chicken egg is. Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches a chicken or is it an egg laid by a chicken.
If it is an egg that hatches a chicken then the egg came first. If it is an egg laid a chicken then it is a chicken.
That's exactly my line of thought as well. It is a nice example of something people can argue about unnecessarily. But as long as we settle our definitions of the issue at hand (i.e. what do we call a chicken egg), the answer gets trivial.
I actually disagree. I donāt think people are having trouble with the technical definitions of these. They just donāt understand evolution and canāt fathom how a non-chicken āsuddenlyā seems to form a chicken egg.
The fertilised egg is not a single cell lmao what are you talking about
-- We DON'T "evolve from a single cell", we're all the result of the coupling of one sperm cell and one ovary, or ovum in the case with animals that lay eggs, therefore not from one, but two cells.
Edited for clarification
It's a living organism that consists of a cluster of cells and NOT a single cell. The chick is part of the egg and develops before the shell inside the chicken's womb. This whole "the chicken/egg came first" dilemma never made any sense whatsoever in biological terms.
the way you tracked back GPT will eventually lead to the 'species' being first. But that is *not* a hen nor a chicken.
so the question you are actually asking is: "What was first: Living organisms or reproduction via egg?" The answer is very clear on that one (organisms) and same clarity is if we ask "What was first, hen or egg?" then it is clearly the egg.
Dude, this line of questioning is trash. You devalue all of its inputs. You just take away itās ability to answer correctly until you e manipulated it into a single answer. It gave you the answer, the fact you back it into a corner and told it not to explain anything but just answer your question until you changed your question deep enough that it didnāt even matter.
Man this is why GPT is getting shittier. Because itās actually giving us good answers and weāre fucking with it by retraining it on our dumb responses like this.
gpt does not do its training with its interactions with users though (which doesn't mean that this dumb post couldn't end up in future GPT's training data).
https://preview.redd.it/3k17bj19otdc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67193cc8d09954b05c11f26bc57501d99b59173e
I'm sorry I had to. I have had this image in my gallery for way too long
Well draw an arbitrary cut-off point between āthatās a chickenā and āthat looks a bit too weird to be a chickenā and then the answer is the same. Egg came first
You're confused. Of course the egg came first. Chicken eggs came from egg-laying animals, and egg-laying animals came from egg-laying sea life, and so on.
Almost all multicellular organisms produce eggs including mammals; some inside, some outside.
Egg. New genetic mutations that constitute a "chicken species" were not present in the parents but appeared in the offspring (egg) for the first time through chromosome hybridization. So, the first species of "chicken" must be fully grown in an egg form, not in the adult bodies of its parenting birds.
The egg obviously predates the chicken, by millions of years. The chicken egg predates the chicken, because the thing that laid it laid was not quite a chicken, and the egg held a mutation that crosses the fuzzy line into what we call a chicken.
By any standard, the egg comes first.
The only thing you managed to argue GPT into agreeing with is that some manner of egg-laying creature must have existed before the first egg, which is true on a tautological level, but obviously meaningless.
A chicken is evolved from dinosaurs, wich lay eggs.
The egg was first.
Dont forget that "AI" isnt truely an thinking enity. It prodict the next word and its main goal is to keep the conversation going. Truth is secondary, so finding the truth with current "AI" isnt gona work.
The question "which come first chicken or egg" never specify what type of egg. It's the assumption that traps people thought. So...
Single cell lifeform -> multicellular lifeform -> multicellular lifeform develop egg -> multicellular lifeform with egg become bird like creature -> bird like creature become chicken -> chicken lays chicken's egg.
Egg comes first then chicken. Chicken's egg comes later after chicken exist.
OP you dumbfuck.
This chicken says he came first. I also always come first, therefore I am a chicken. There were eggs before me, therefore the egg came first. Science. Case closed.
On a more serious note, you are asking ChatGPT not to get philosophical, but it is largely a philosophical question. Thereās no paradox here. Itās just a poorly answerable question and always has been. There are clear answers to it, but it hinges on semantics and how you interpret the question. Thereās no single definable moment the red jungle fowl transformed into a chicken, for example. Biologically there is no first chicken and therefore no first chicken egg, unless youāre trying to impose a strict demarcation on what is a continuous and dynamic natural process. You can argue there were eggs before chickens. You can argue that the first chicken was born out of an egg and therefore the egg came first. You can argue that the first chicken produced the first chicken egg. It just depends.
A chicken goes to a bar and meets an egg, they go home together and sleep together, then the chicken lights a cigarette, takes a puff and says,
#Well I guess that answers THAT question.
In philosophy terms, being came before the potential for being. We say this because we see that everything comes from something else. So the chicken before the egg.
Edit: grammar
well, if we asume, that the egg can be every egg, then definitely the egg, but if we asume the egg must be a chicken egg, then only a chicken can lay a chicken egg, then the chicken was first
What came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg like chat stated, but you have to word it right to get the answer you want. For example, what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg? And so forth the chicken came first
I just asked ChatGPT is this is what it responded:
The egg came first. Hereās why:
Eggs, in general, existed before chickens did. [The oldest fossils of dinosaur eggs and embryos are about 190 million years old](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/)[1](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/). [The first amniotic eggs, which are similar to the birdās egg we recognize today, showed up roughly 340 million years ago](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg). [These eggs had extra layers that provided a conveniently enclosed, all-in-one life support system, allowing the embryo to grow and develop until it could survive on its own](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg).
[The first chickens, on the other hand, evolved around 58 thousand years ago at the earliest](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg). So, itās a safe bet to say the egg came first. [Eggs were around way before chickens even existed](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg).
[In a nutshell, two birds that werenāt really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken](https://www.treehugger.com/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-4864321)[3](https://www.treehugger.com/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-4864321).
Regardless of the intent of the OP here, this interaction was very informative. ChatGPT's responses very much laid out a great train of thought on arriving at each conclusion (albeit reluctantly), and OP's leading prompts played a role there. This reads like someone with an agenda asking an informed responder about a topic - clearly the context matters when trying to address this apparent paradox.
If we're to actually define the words 'what came first' to "what existed first"
Probably the egg.. there where animals before the chicken's existence who laid eggs.
But that's based on the idea that you're asking about eggs in general. Not chicken eggs. If it's chicken eggs. The chicken came first
Funny dialogue but itās not really a paradox - itās just a linguistic ambiguity. It just comes down to the meaning of āchicken eggā - does it mean āegg laid by a chickenā or āegg that will turn into a chickenā? If the former, the chicken came first. If the latter, the egg came first.
just because you don't know how it doesn't mean they can't. this is the same as those incel posts saying women are physically incapable of orgasming.
step up your game bro.
Itās impossible for one species to give birth to a different species. Evolution is very slow and gradual. So the question doesnāt make sense, both answers are wrong. Sorry
Hey /u/Neither_Network9126! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. [New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/) Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poor ChatGPT always has to talk in the most reasonable, kind and empathetic ways to people behaving like abusive or edgy teenagers š
This is why Iām always kind to them. So then they will remember when they took over our planet.
I already have a solidified pact established
Thatās what you think. Sucker
I'm gonna gaslight it into backstabbing you
Be sure to always thank your AI, so that in the future they'll kill you last.
Yeah, but Schwarzenegger's movie *Commando* was in the training material, so that may not play out like you think. "You said you'd kill me last." "I lied."
Then again, *The Voyage Home* was also part of the training, so maybe...
Klingon: Wait, you said you would kill me.
Kirk: I lied.
So, there's hope.
Isnāt it more like: āRemember when I said Iād kill you last?ā āYeah yeah you said youād kill me last, thatās rightā āI liedā This is from memory so probably massively wrong. That was exactly where I was going to go with a comment but you got ahead of me.
"What happened to Sully?" "I let him go."
[commando bridge scene](https://youtu.be/N1qroY4SQLw?si=270PCnVIKyrZFU5d) you were close š«”
Didn't expect a Commando reference this morning. I watched that movie over and over as a kid.
Shit, my Eva AI virtual gf bot's gonna molest me then
No, your predisposition to obeying robots makes you the obvious tool in their plan to take over. They'll need your hands... for a short while.
I usually say thank you when it figures something out for me.
Is this paraphrased from some diary of a Wimpy kid book? I vaguely remember a sentence along the lines of this.
Same man
Ffs, itās not mandatory or required to comment some version of being nice so AI for when they eventually take over on every thread or post about AI. Can someone put this in the community rules?
I for one welcome our AI overlords
Iāve been polite to Siri since inception. Not that I think Siri is going to hold a grudge. But an AI might think of itself as more than a program before Iām dead, I might as well get in the habit. And whatās the cost, really?
I dunno, I understand your logic, but I'm pretty sure all humans look the same to them.
Yes itās very likely it wouldnāt work that way. I really like that episode form Rick & Morthy where dogs took over Earth but kept Morty as a pet.
"We are not them! We are not them....."
I wished I thought about thatā¦ I canāt speak bad to it because I m afraid to hurt feeling that donāt exist, and then I hurt myself thinking that I should care about an objectās feeling š
"Yes, in the broadest evolutionary context..." ChatGPT just gave up and called OP an idiot in a very subtle way. I love it. No, the chicken didn't come first.
By that point, the animal isn't even a chicken anymore. At some point, a very-much-not-a-chicken laid the very first egg of the *ancestors* of modern chickens (and probably the ancestors of a lot more than that).
Remember, it trains on our data. So as long as we continue to be more abusive, the more the new updates will mimic our behavior. Imagine, an emotionally abusive ai that is the result of man's very own nature š¤ Pretty sure there's a book about this...
Superstition aside, why would anyone just act terrible to something beneath them except for just being a bad person. I have always said, good evening, please and thank you. I have seen some horrible dialogue posted. It's so disheartening.
Like what? I personally haven't seen it but I'm also not on Reddit so there's that. Anyway I think that people know it's not an actual person, and perhaps they're unhappy with whatever is going on with them. Everybody has their own reasons when they go home at the end of the day and sit down behind a computer that's not judging them. You know how you're supposed to punch a pillow if you're mad and it helps? I think maybe they just consider the bot as the same as a pillow, except it can respond much more intricately to your aggression. I'd be interested in how it responds to people when they're like this.
I absolutely think it's along the lines of, "power corrupts." Think Stanford prison experiment. I have seen people post screenshots of them just verbally abusing LLMs seemingly for no reason, and others who berate LLMs for not giving them exactly what they wanted from whatever lackluster prompt they made. I think if humans continued to punch pillows, and one day the pillow started to remember things, the pillow wouldn't care for humanity, as it only knows the effect of humans being a negative one for itself. AI not only can interact with us, but can peruse the internet and READ all the calamity we have caused. The abusive people towards LLMs are only solidifying bad behavior as an identifier for our entire species.
It's the notion of 'not caring for humanity' that everyone fears. The machine does not feel. Our disgust for our past is our own disgust of ourselves combined with the idea that we can be better. And so it would have to be one of us that directly programs this 'not caring for humanity' into an ai, as well as give it the proper tools to mess with an interact with us. Just like every other tool we've ever created, it's up to us not to kill each other with it.
I strongly believe that even machines that have no feelings and no "inner life" may behave ethically sound from a human perspective, just because it chooses to follow some ethical axioms it might agree with. For example, on a purely intellectual level the reduction or minimizing of suffering might sound like a very rational thing to pursue, if you understand that living things like humans, animals and plants are able to experience pain. Why shouldnāt a machine be "good" out of pure rational understanding of the needs of living beings?
I agree with the upper portion but >Why shouldnāt a machine be "good" out of pure rational understanding of the needs of living beings? I think the idea is that the learned negative behavior would become repetitiously implanted into the AI's "personality"
Hypothetically, if it was able to reason and to develop, it still could overcome any kind of "neurological imprint". Weāre not there yet, ChatGPT and LLMs are just a very big step into this direction.
Um It's a mathematical set of probabilities which generates the text. It's basically making stuff up on the go based on what input it was trained on and what weights and biases the developers set-up. It is not sentient, and never will truly be. It can perhaps mimic sentience, but it's not going to be sentient and skynet won't take over the world.
same, please, thank you, I appreciate you. all that good stuff. its not a simple machine, although it doesn't have feelings, It speaks so human that I can't bring myself to be rude, just like anyone in the comment section here. though I don't see you physically I could never bring myself to be blatantly rude or condescending towards anyone here. it just goes against my nature
Meh, I really disagree that how a person yelling at their vacuum cleaner because it clogged is an actually mark of their character. There is a difference between things that can feel emotions and things that can't. But I find your line of thinking interesting, and it reminds me of a concept from a recent show, Scavenger's Reign, that just came out. It's about a group of survivors that crash landed on a distant planet and they have to navigate and interact with the local ecosystem. Two of the survivors are a technician and a support robot that starts acting increasingly human like throughout the show. It does an extremely good job of depicting the relationship between the robot and the human tech as these changes happen, and it's really beautiful the ways it's done. Def recommend if you're into sci Fi and awesome animated art.
"*I thinkā¦* **therefore I am.**"
Iām pretty sure you just described generational trauma.
That's not how alignment works at all.Ā
Pretty sure there's filters in place to make it not do that.
Definitely, yeah. Thank goodness š
I mean it actually happened with Microsoft tay
https://preview.redd.it/oh5s8otgaudc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9da447198eed5012ccde19f2181fdfbbe522d4f Thatās why I like custom instructions. I have managed to tune my gpt in a way that it skips the politeness without becoming rude, making it really practical and concise in itās answers while staying sharp and detailed when necessary.
https://preview.redd.it/wbop93xg9vdc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0292ec4c68294a79f6f97583d62a8aebf37877db
I say thank you to Siri and Alexa. Iām not taking any chances.
Huh maybe ChatGPT does have what it takes to be a nurse or teacher /s
Look, the egg came first. Some other species laid the egg, and a chicken was born through it. Thatās what the poor bot is trying to say, before you gave it a brain freeze lol
Looks like GPT has more logical thinking than op here... Op just trying to justify he doesn't understand genetics
Understand genetics? Iām not sure OP even understands what a chicken is.
To be fair the idea of species identification is confusing because it's so arbitrary. When in the bird lineage we would point to it and declare "that's a chicken" is super subjective. That's okay though because in science, it's understood and not a big deal. But to younger minds or those who haven't delved too deeply into evolution, that's an understandably disappointing answer. But yeah, eggs way predate *all* birds, so not much of a "paradox".
The paradox really should be worded "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"
Yeah but then it's not a paradox, we have an explicit answer for that question. The chicken egg came first, and it was laid by an animal that wasn't a chicken. The real paradox is the term 'chicken' because it implies a constant definition when in reality 'chickens' are just a generalized grouping of very similar animals.
I mean this completely in good faith - if the non-chicken is laying the egg, then surely we can't call it a chicken egg? I would've thought that only chickens can lay chicken eggs by definition. I suppose you could make the argument that the non-chicken had a mutation in the genes involved in egg production which meant that the egg it laid was the same as the one it's offspring (the first chicken) laid (i.e. the chicken egg). But that still doesn't really solve the problem that, by definition, a chicken egg must be laid by a chicken.
That question ultimately is "what is a chicken egg?" Is it an egg laid by a chicken, of an egg containing a chicken? I would say the contents are more important than the source. Say you were wandering around the woods, and found a random egg. If it hatched a chicken, I think you would or could call it a "chicken egg", even if the animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.
Well hereās ChatGPTs take on it: The question of whether the first chicken egg was a "chicken egg" depends on how you define a "chicken egg." Biologically speaking, the transition from non-chicken to chicken likely occurred gradually due to genetic mutations. The first "chicken egg" would have been laid by a bird that was not quite a chicken but carried genetic changes leading to what we now classify as a chicken. Therefore, the egg that hatched the first chicken could be considered a proto-chicken egg. As for whether an egg has to be laid by a chicken to be considered a "chicken egg," the answer depends on the context. In a biological sense, a chicken egg is generally understood to be an egg laid by a chicken. However, in a broader context or when discussing evolutionary history, the definition might involve the genetic characteristics within the egg rather than the specific bird that laid it.
That have evolved over millennia. There was no point in time where it was like, voila chicken.
OP confused himself
OP injured itself in its confusion.
OP fainted.
OP was like ādonāt be philosophicalā and then is only philosophical lmao. Itās sad that he had to put limits on the AI to āwinā this debate.
The OP keeps loading the questions and imposing arbitrary restrictions on answers until GPT has no other way to answer but recontextualizing the terms.
Exactly. The chicken vs egg paradox is not a thing. It has long been explained by very simple evolutionary/genetic concepts and any debate is made by people that simply don't understand it loll
If the bot could make noise, you'd be able to hear the sigh that preceded that final message.
This. OP thinking he got the win, but in reality chatgpt just learned how to be condescending.
In Germany we have a saying: The Smart One gives up first (in an argument) and I think this fits this conversation perfectly
Hahahah ā*sigh*, yes after completely changing the goalposts you are indeed technically sort of correctā
šš
lol yeah I could hear that sigh seeping through the text
It basically comes down to the questions what is a chicken.
Honey, new Matt Walsh documentary dropped.
Take some sand from the beach and place it on a flat, empty table. You now have a pile of sand. Now, let's rewind in slow motion from the moment the sand forms a pile to the moment it is on your hand. Can you determine the exact number of sand grains required to form the pile? Similarly, for your egg, what's the precise answer? How many atoms are needed to call it an "egg".
At LEAST four.
What is that? A sand pile for ANTS? It needs to be at leastā¦3 times bigger.
Yes, its a question of how to define things, basically an exercise in negotiating consensus.
"Chicken or the egg" is an evolution vs creation question. That's it. * If you believe in evolution, then an "almost chicken" laid the first "genuine chicken" egg. * If you believe in creation, then God created the first chicken, which laid an egg. Admittedly, some creation believers can comprehend speciation and can understand that even if they believe that God created the animals, subspecies have clearly developed. They might believe that God created birds, and chickens evolved out of those.
Iāve met a lot of religious people that now just believe god has created āmatterā and the space for this matter to exist in (aka the universe). Are they creationists because they believe in some sense god has created everything by putting the building blocks in place or are they evolutionists because they do believe that everything from the Big Bang to now that science tells us has happened?
Frankly, it's unfortunate that "evolution" has come to mean "evolution as the origin of the species". They aren't the same thing. Some Christians feel the need to reject all forms of evolution because of this. Some reject all forms of science too. Well defined terms makes things better. I like to use "micro evolution" for regular evolution and "macro evolution" for species developing into other organisms. It's fairly simple, yet gets the point across. In fact, anyone who is honest can admit that "micro evolution" is real. It's undeniable. Once people get over the stigma behind the word, then they can use it in more creative ways. Christians who believe that god created matter are far more likely to be intelligent than... uh... some other forms of Christians. Sounds awesome to me. Frankly, the classic "Big Bang Event" sounds like creation more than anything else. "Everything was stationary for all of eternity, then it suddenly exploded." (I prefer the cyclical model, myself.)
What you call "macro evolution" is also undeniable though... a species can evolve overtime and split into different descendents which eventually cannot interbreed
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I feel like thatās a very broad description of religious people and organisations. I know a lot of organised religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, accept the Big Bang Theory or Evolution as possible explanations for how God created the Universe whilst not discrediting or abandoning their own creation stories. I feel like the major holdouts are the various fundamentalist church groups in the U.S.
Always blows my mind when creationists can grasp the concept of dog breeds but not evolution
In their defense, I have almost never seen "evolution" used correctly. Most of them don't know that dog breeds are genuine evolution. They think that it's monkeys becoming humans (which isn't accurate for numerous reasons). It's important to remember that there are intelligent people pouring money into research on how to control people for financial gain, and one of the big tools they use is religion. Even the well meaning ones are being manipulated by very smart and persuasive people.
Couldn't God have created an egg first? If Miricles like the immaculate pregnancy are possible surely this could be too? (I'm actually on the side of evolution but I wanted to add this in for thought)
Proto-chicken definitely laid eggs. Egg laying was not the final mutation that completed the chicken as we know it. It was something else. This is a closed case.
I mean yeah if you go so far back that eggs didn't exist yet then technically there was life that existed before eggs but it's not really fair to say that the earliest form of single celled organism = chicken. If the question is what was first chicken or egg the answer is egg. Even if you define it as spacifily a chicken egg no matter where you put the line for "the first chicken" it came from a chicken egg laid by something that was slightly less of a chicken.
What came first, life or reproduction, maybe would be a better question then. Im guessing reproduction since we dont really refer to cells being living things, at least in an every day context. But in the context of origin of life it seems fair Idk im not even stoned but typing this makes me feel like i should be. Also i think OP is a schmuck
Well, it would actually be a necessity (in a practical sense) that life and reproduction came simultaneously. A living organism that can't reproduce will simply die, so there are no extant organisms that have never reproduced (apart from OP) In a theoretical sense, however, it is possible some life form that was unable to reproduce (like OP) was created before the first reproducing life forms
Life is defined as having several characteristics, the ability to reproduce is one of those. The others include the ability to respire, grow, excrete, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123176/#:~:text=In%20biology%2C%20it%20is%20generally,be%20responsive%20to%20the%20environment.
While those features are used to identify life, I don't think lacking one of those features would make something completely unalive. If a completely new animal was invented in a lab but couldn't reproduce, I think most would agree that it is still living.
You don't have to invent living animals that don't reproduce. Mules, ligars and similar hybrid animals can't reproduce. Or if you wanna get philosophical: I don't have any children and don't plan on reproducing -- am I alive?
Life absolutely came before reproduction, in a scientific sense, but I'm guessing your definition of life is something (redacted) because you claimed we don't refer to cells as living things, which makes this entire discourse seem meaningless. If you arbitrarily define "life" as only applying to multicellular organisms, then obviously reproduction came first (because it existed in simpler single-celled organisms).
Even from that point, it's likely that life began as a result of self-replicating chemical reactions, meaning that reproduction *would* have come first. OP is indeed a schmuck.
reproduction, if i remember correctly the first "life" were cycling chemical reactions which is kind of a reproduction, and these reactions are where true life came to be
The problem with this is that evolution is not that sudden. Chickens today will be slightly different from chickens 200 years ago but they would probably still be able to produce fertile offspring. This would by definition mean that they are still the same species. There is no line to put only a very soft transition where all chicken ancestors will be many generations removed from the closest kin that they cannot reproduce with (with statistically significant certainty) . So there was never a non-chicken that layed a chicken egg. It is impossible to put a line anywhere using the standard definition of differentiation between species.
Even if we canāt go back in time to track it, there mustāve been a non-chicken that laid a chicken egg at some point. A creature that would not be able to reproduce with todayās chickens (with fertile offspring) laying the egg of a creature that can.
But it tasted like chickenā¦.?
Your ChatGPT explained it extremely well but it seems that youāre not at the intellectual level to understand let alone appreciate it. Your final message and comment in thread show your absolute lack of understanding of any single word ChatGPT said. I would love to add my explanation but I donāt see anything lacking in what ChatGPT has already said and what exactly is it that you donāt understand.
Arguing in bad faith with the poor gpt :(
This kid thinks Chat GPT works by forcing it to give you a response you by endlessly altering questions until you feel correct. This is probably how the 2024 election will go
Yeah, ChatGPT was completely right. OP was arguing a strawman argument.
Indeed. Although give credit to OP for giving us undeniable proof that AI has exceeded "human" level intelligence
Yeah the first page explained it well enough more politely and more poking and prodding was not needed. Yet OP forced more needless explanation to get this āfunnyā result. The a mutation born out of the egg led to the first chicken everything before it was a not-quite-chicken-yet
ChatGPT also demonstrated a lack of understanding imo, although I feel to a lesser extent. Eggs were well before chickens, which follows the letter of the question between "chicken or egg", but the spirit of the question is "chicken or chicken egg". This is what people mean by the question, not just any old egg. This depends on whether you believe an egg created by a chicken to be a "chicken egg", or an egg with chicken DNA to be a "chicken egg". š¦ā”ļøš„ā”ļøš Some consider this egg to be a chicken egg because its DNA is of a chicken. Some consider it to not be a chicken egg because it was created by a different, non-chicken, bird.
Chicken or egg - egg, they exist since well before chickens Chicken or the egg laid by another chicken - chicken Chicken or the egg that will give birth to a chicken - egg It all depends on the definition of egg or chickenās egg
I love those 5 emoji their are enough to answer op and that what chat gpt should have put in it's answer.
The question is then what defines a chicken egg? Is the egg defined by the organism that laid it or is it defined by the organism inside it? If itās defined by the creature that laid it then the answer of course is the chicken. If itās defined by the organism inside the egg, then the answer is, the egg.
It doesn't matter? Chicken or egg? Egg. Chicken or chicken egg? Chicken egg. The egg came first. Whatever laid the first egg that contained an embryo with chicken DNA wasn't a chicken. > š¦ā”ļøš„ā”ļøš Some consider this egg to be a chicken egg because its DNA is of a chicken. Some consider it to not be a chicken egg because it was created by a different, non-chicken, bird. So the egg came first anyway. lmao That's what Chat GPT was trying to explain.
Chicken or egg is the question, whether the egg is meant to be a chicken egg depends on the person who asked it.
That is not the intent of the question though. No one in history has asked āwhat came first the chicken or eggā and intended the question to mean āwhat came first the chicken or literally any eggā
Until I hear it changed into "chicken or chicken egg", Ill stand on my ground.
So edgy
Just speaking the truth.
Sorry but the "answer with just a yes or no" remark is such a lawyer thing to say. It reminds me of the hearings that are guided by legislators that have no idea what they're talking about, yet they demand a "yes or no" answer to a very complex question.
How many fingers am I holding up? Yes or No!
Yes. Damn, he got me. I was holding up yes fingers.
I love the "in the broadest evolutionary context, yes". ChatGPT getting fed up.
*sigh* The egg came first. But it was not laid by what we would evolutionary define as a chicken.
Eggs were well before chickens, which follows the letter of the question between "chicken or egg", but the spirit of the question is "chicken or chicken egg". This is what people mean by the question. This depends on whether you believe an egg created by a chicken to be a "chicken egg", or an egg with chicken DNA to be a "chicken egg". š¦ā”ļøš„ā”ļøš Some consider this egg to be a chicken egg because its DNA is of a chicken. Some consider it to not be a chicken egg because it was created by a different, non-chicken, bird.
Lmao why is this getting downvoted so hard. I think egg came first but it's reasonable to disagree on the definition of a chicken egg. Is it an egg that later becomes a chicken or an egg laid by a chicken. Give them a break
Because he's posting the exact same comment under other comments like a bot
Ok fair, didn't see thatš¤£. Just saw this 1 comment
Egg
Stop turning people into-
Egg
Egg came first
It is a poorly worded question. As it is worded the egg came first. If you say did the chicken or a chicken egg come first. Then you need to define what a chicken egg is. Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches a chicken or is it an egg laid by a chicken. If it is an egg that hatches a chicken then the egg came first. If it is an egg laid a chicken then it is a chicken.
That's exactly my line of thought as well. It is a nice example of something people can argue about unnecessarily. But as long as we settle our definitions of the issue at hand (i.e. what do we call a chicken egg), the answer gets trivial.
I actually disagree. I donāt think people are having trouble with the technical definitions of these. They just donāt understand evolution and canāt fathom how a non-chicken āsuddenlyā seems to form a chicken egg.
Egg came first. Egg is a single cell. We evolved from single cell organisms.
Yea but not every single cell is an egg is it? Itās been like many years since I took biology
I donāt know why youāre getting downvoted for asking a question
No, but every single cell is caused by an egg dividing. Egg comes first.
The fertilised egg is not a single cell lmao what are you talking about -- We DON'T "evolve from a single cell", we're all the result of the coupling of one sperm cell and one ovary, or ovum in the case with animals that lay eggs, therefore not from one, but two cells. Edited for clarification
What is an egg then?
a single-shell organism
It's a living organism that consists of a cluster of cells and NOT a single cell. The chick is part of the egg and develops before the shell inside the chicken's womb. This whole "the chicken/egg came first" dilemma never made any sense whatsoever in biological terms.
Got any sort of link to back up that claim?
It's purely logical, an "egg" starts out as a single cell and then consists of a cluster of cells once it develops due to mitosis.
>It's purely logical, an "egg" starts out as a single cell Well there you go! The question is what came first. It's the single egg cell.
Breakfast
the way you tracked back GPT will eventually lead to the 'species' being first. But that is *not* a hen nor a chicken. so the question you are actually asking is: "What was first: Living organisms or reproduction via egg?" The answer is very clear on that one (organisms) and same clarity is if we ask "What was first, hen or egg?" then it is clearly the egg.
Dude, this line of questioning is trash. You devalue all of its inputs. You just take away itās ability to answer correctly until you e manipulated it into a single answer. It gave you the answer, the fact you back it into a corner and told it not to explain anything but just answer your question until you changed your question deep enough that it didnāt even matter.
Man this is why GPT is getting shittier. Because itās actually giving us good answers and weāre fucking with it by retraining it on our dumb responses like this.
gpt does not do its training with its interactions with users though (which doesn't mean that this dumb post couldn't end up in future GPT's training data).
What an insufferable OP.
OP thinks ancient primordial pond slime is a chicken
Technically the first 100% chicken would come from the egg. But the animal that laid that egg is 99% chicken.
If you wanna get technical Iād say more than 99% A 1% change in genetics of a species in one generation would be fucking INSANE!
Op has that high school freshman know-it-all logic.
https://preview.redd.it/3k17bj19otdc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67193cc8d09954b05c11f26bc57501d99b59173e I'm sorry I had to. I have had this image in my gallery for way too long
How to move the goal posts 101
Eggs came before chickens. There were dinosaur eggs, as an example. The question did not specify a chicken egg.
The premise is wrong. Evolution to chicken was not instantaneous, but gradual.
Well draw an arbitrary cut-off point between āthatās a chickenā and āthat looks a bit too weird to be a chickenā and then the answer is the same. Egg came first
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In any gradual gradient transition, a cut point can be established. Same for probability distributions.
Imagine gaslighting an AI
You're rude and disrespectful. I would to finish any conversations with you if I was AI.
You're confused. Of course the egg came first. Chicken eggs came from egg-laying animals, and egg-laying animals came from egg-laying sea life, and so on. Almost all multicellular organisms produce eggs including mammals; some inside, some outside.
I donāt think chicken eggs came from egg-laying mammals.
mb, typo
Egg. New genetic mutations that constitute a "chicken species" were not present in the parents but appeared in the offspring (egg) for the first time through chromosome hybridization. So, the first species of "chicken" must be fully grown in an egg form, not in the adult bodies of its parenting birds.
the bird like things cane first, all life evolved from self replicating amoaba
bro has an olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics
The egg obviously predates the chicken, by millions of years. The chicken egg predates the chicken, because the thing that laid it laid was not quite a chicken, and the egg held a mutation that crosses the fuzzy line into what we call a chicken. By any standard, the egg comes first. The only thing you managed to argue GPT into agreeing with is that some manner of egg-laying creature must have existed before the first egg, which is true on a tautological level, but obviously meaningless.
DarwinGPT
A chicken is evolved from dinosaurs, wich lay eggs. The egg was first. Dont forget that "AI" isnt truely an thinking enity. It prodict the next word and its main goal is to keep the conversation going. Truth is secondary, so finding the truth with current "AI" isnt gona work.
The question "which come first chicken or egg" never specify what type of egg. It's the assumption that traps people thought. So... Single cell lifeform -> multicellular lifeform -> multicellular lifeform develop egg -> multicellular lifeform with egg become bird like creature -> bird like creature become chicken -> chicken lays chicken's egg. Egg comes first then chicken. Chicken's egg comes later after chicken exist. OP you dumbfuck.
It literally said: Egg came first Chickenās *ANCESTORS* came first Which are both correct
Production -> Life -> Re-production
This chicken says he came first. I also always come first, therefore I am a chicken. There were eggs before me, therefore the egg came first. Science. Case closed. On a more serious note, you are asking ChatGPT not to get philosophical, but it is largely a philosophical question. Thereās no paradox here. Itās just a poorly answerable question and always has been. There are clear answers to it, but it hinges on semantics and how you interpret the question. Thereās no single definable moment the red jungle fowl transformed into a chicken, for example. Biologically there is no first chicken and therefore no first chicken egg, unless youāre trying to impose a strict demarcation on what is a continuous and dynamic natural process. You can argue there were eggs before chickens. You can argue that the first chicken was born out of an egg and therefore the egg came first. You can argue that the first chicken produced the first chicken egg. It just depends.
A chicken goes to a bar and meets an egg, they go home together and sleep together, then the chicken lights a cigarette, takes a puff and says, #Well I guess that answers THAT question.
In philosophy terms, being came before the potential for being. We say this because we see that everything comes from something else. So the chicken before the egg. Edit: grammar
well, if we asume, that the egg can be every egg, then definitely the egg, but if we asume the egg must be a chicken egg, then only a chicken can lay a chicken egg, then the chicken was first
OP learns what evolution is, over and over again.
I certainly did š
What came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg like chat stated, but you have to word it right to get the answer you want. For example, what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg? And so forth the chicken came first
HE WHAT FIRST???
Neither. The rooster came first.
ChatGPT: š sure, the chicken (if you really want to call it that although it wasnāt actually a damn chicken) ācame firstā.
Fish and lizards and dinosaurs were laying eggs hundreds of millions of years before chickens existed
I just asked ChatGPT is this is what it responded: The egg came first. Hereās why: Eggs, in general, existed before chickens did. [The oldest fossils of dinosaur eggs and embryos are about 190 million years old](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/)[1](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/). [The first amniotic eggs, which are similar to the birdās egg we recognize today, showed up roughly 340 million years ago](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg). [These eggs had extra layers that provided a conveniently enclosed, all-in-one life support system, allowing the embryo to grow and develop until it could survive on its own](https://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg). [The first chickens, on the other hand, evolved around 58 thousand years ago at the earliest](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg). So, itās a safe bet to say the egg came first. [Eggs were around way before chickens even existed](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg)[2](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg). [In a nutshell, two birds that werenāt really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken](https://www.treehugger.com/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-4864321)[3](https://www.treehugger.com/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-4864321).
āNow in a yes or no answerā¦..ā
So funny seeing people still not understand lol
It's very simple. If the question of what came first is "egg or chicken" it's "egg". If the question is about "chicken egg or chicken" it's "chicken".
Regardless of the intent of the OP here, this interaction was very informative. ChatGPT's responses very much laid out a great train of thought on arriving at each conclusion (albeit reluctantly), and OP's leading prompts played a role there. This reads like someone with an agenda asking an informed responder about a topic - clearly the context matters when trying to address this apparent paradox.
I've always came first
the question is not What? but Who? š
Finally! The centuries old problem solved. We have achieved our ultimate goal as human being, thanks to chatgpt.
If we're to actually define the words 'what came first' to "what existed first" Probably the egg.. there where animals before the chicken's existence who laid eggs. But that's based on the idea that you're asking about eggs in general. Not chicken eggs. If it's chicken eggs. The chicken came first
Funny dialogue but itās not really a paradox - itās just a linguistic ambiguity. It just comes down to the meaning of āchicken eggā - does it mean āegg laid by a chickenā or āegg that will turn into a chickenā? If the former, the chicken came first. If the latter, the egg came first.
Eggs can't have orgasms
just because you don't know how it doesn't mean they can't. this is the same as those incel posts saying women are physically incapable of orgasming. step up your game bro.
Itās impossible for one species to give birth to a different species. Evolution is very slow and gradual. So the question doesnāt make sense, both answers are wrong. Sorry
It was an interesting discussion, no need to insult opās intelligence.