İstenç Temelli Programlama

Yann Lecun'un ortaya koymuş olduğu "Objective driven AI" yaklaşımı fark yaratacak bence. Kendisinin paylaşımına burdan ulaşabilirsiniz.

Yıllar önce, 2014-15 civarları, "istenç temelli programlama" adını verdiğim bir yaklaşım olmalı diye düşünüp hızlıca not almıştım. Birkaç arkadaşımla da paylaşmıştım ama fikri ilerletmedim ve notlarım arasında kaldı. LeCun'un sunumunu izleyince fikirlerimizin benzer bir zeminde buluştuğunu fark ettim :) İnsan seviniyor tabi ama sadece "fakir tesellisi" kıvamında.

Sizlerle hem el yazısı notlarımı, hem de el yazımı okumakta zorlanılmasın diye temize çekilmiş halini paylaşmak istedim:

"Bu sabah aklıma geldi, yazdığımız bilgisayar programları hep önceden iyi tanımlanmış fonksiyon veya prosedürler oluyor. Veya başka yordamları çağıran rutinler oluyor. Bu, gerçek hayattaki davranışımıza benzemiyor. Mesela, insanlar bir şey yaparlarken çok iyi sıralanmış ve son derece kesin kurallara uyarak ilerlemiyor. Sadece bir şey yapmak istiyorlar ve bunu çok farklı yöntemler ile, arada yöntem ve karar değiştirerek ve çok farklı gerçekleştirme seviyelerinde yapıyorlar. Bu, çok karmaşık ve düzensiz gelebilir ama dünyayı bu yöntemlerle şekillendiriyoruz. Programladığımız makinalar ise aynı dizgiyi tekrar tekrar işletmekte.

İstenç ve sonuç temelli bir programlama yöntemi geliştirebilir miyiz? Şu anda uğraşılan AI bu mu?

Object oriented tasarım bile kısır kalıyor. İnsan diye bir class olsa onun metotları nasıl bir muhasebe rutini kesinliğinde tasarlanabilir? Metodun her tetiklenişinde eşsiz ve irrasyonel bir durum olmalı. Hele aynı classtan türemiş her insanın aynı metodunun aynı şekilde işlemesi son derece gerçekten uzak ve kısır. Belki de property ve method yerine WILL ve STYLE kullanılmalı?"

45

you did

whatever you did

and all the way, I liked it

love me as if I'm a kid

but please

don't make it big

new round begins

I again heard the gong hit

I count the punches I meet

my body knows

my soul bears nothing.

Whose language is it?

I do not like Martin Heidegger as a person because of his actions and words during Nazi era but if you are interested in philosophy, it is impossible not to cite him. He stands still in the center of modern philosophy like a big rock. Heidegger attributed a powerful meaning to language by saying "language is the house of Being". This claim shaped existential and post-modern philosophy deeply. There has been many open questions but most of the people agreed that for being an authentic individual, one needs to build and talk his/her own language rather than repeating others' language. If one shapes your language, you are under that person's existential power.

Moving from this perspective, I wanted to have a look at the language in our daily business lives. It won't be a comprehensive examination of course but I will try to give some examples of common use.

Be thrilled & be delighted

During COVID-19 pandemic, because of the predefined grammar embedded in LinkedIn job change function, everyone was constantly thrilled or delighted to announce something. Nowadays, no thrills.

Unlock & Unleash

These two words are used oftenly. When we analyze the meaning, we see that imposing these words presumes there is a blocked potential of the subject. This potential is hidden from you but known by the narrator. The only thing to do is following the narrator's guidence and removing the blocking components from the system. It is very similar to the motto of the coaching: "Every solution and answer is in yourself, I can only guide you to find it, you are to find". We all know that every business hasn't got that much potential locked mysteriously.

Democratize

This word expresses the necessity of positioning a particular technology for the use of as much people as possible so that those users can achieve their business objectives by themselves rather than demanding solutions from the "elite" departments. The analogy is rooted in the number of people involved and of course, it is a naive mentality. I accept that technology is encapsulated knowledge. Therefore, if a person uses a kind of technology, that person accesses the knowledge served by this technology. However, using a sort of encapsulated knowledge through a tool does not imply that user has the knowledge embedded; user just makes use of it. It is like driving a Ferrari at 300 km/h speed without knowing the internals of V12 engine. In that example, we democratize the mobility by making cars accessible to persons: Everyone can go whenever and wherever desired by using a car. On the other hand, we did not democratize mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, aerodynamics, fluid mechanics etc. In the common use cases of "democratize", narrators are saying "democratize software development, machine learning, artificial intelligence etc. by using our technology". It is like suggesting democratizing fluid dynamics by giving someone a car. Non-sense. Business lines in the companies want to achieve their financial goals. It is their job to do. Their job is not to use fancy looking tools. For the special technology development, elite departments will always be needed. We must remember that respresentative democracy is the most common form of democracy in the world.

Revolutionize & Disrupt

A couple of years ago, the word "disrupt" and its different forms were heavily in use and it was related to innovation but nowadays, it stepped down from its throne and gives its fancy crown to the word "revolutionize". It seems innovation is not enough any more, we need revolution. Revolutionize is used very similar to the words "unleash" and "unlock" but in a revolutionized way :) In that case, there is no hidden potential in your company, everything about your company or the system you are in is old fashioned and must be replaced by new things. For example, "banks are big losers, you need to revolutionize financial sector by fintech companies", if you wish... Or "capitalism is rotten and DeFi platforms will revolutionize world trade system". Besides, those "revolutionizations" are proposed as if there exists an already solved problem: There is a very practical tool or method, you just need to buy it and wait for the revolution to happen: "Revolutionize UX by harnessing generative AI". Simple. I believe, we must understand evolution better.

Hybrid

As the name suggests, a little bit from this, a little bit from that, some green, some red... When you cannot propose a robust solution, you can propose a hybrid one. When I hear hybrid, I run away. If you like it, it is up to you.

Toxic 

I think it emerged from the prevalent promotion and pratice of mindfulness. If you don't like a person, an attitude or a thing; you can easily label them as toxic. When you do that, you externalize the problem and responsibility. You find your scapegoat. The rest is nice and easy: Detox, there are programs for that :) I think, we have to face our problems, take the responsibility and solve them as an adult would do. Blaming, canceling or labeling are childish traits.

Talent

As Andy Warhol famously said: “In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes”, every employee is a talent today. Interesting but it is the fact. It is impossible to hire average Joe. This sort of language imposes leadership myth, curses managers, praise team members and completes the composition by saying: "Hello Joe, it is not you, it is your narrow minded and old fashioned manager. You are a talent. It is not you, but your manager's decisions. You need a supreme leader instead of your mortal manager and you need to embrace our methods for salvation. For example, fusion teams and DevSecMLOps and excessive use of post-its & board markers" :)

Version Numbers

It is a good example of vulgarization. Versioning is a notion in software engineering and there are strict definitions and styles of assigning version identifiers to software products. You need to consider, at least, backward compatibility besides other issues like alpha, beta, major, minor, patch identifiers etc. However, nowadays it is very easy for everyone to assign version numbers to any thing or concept such as Web 2.0, Banking 3.0, Industry 4.0, Payments 2.0... Moreover, every new version is a major one and ends with zero. I need somebody to explain the meaning of that zero to me. That love for versioning gets along with the mentality of revolutionizing explained above: Manifestation of a new version, forget about the older one. 

There are some more trendy jargons being circulated following the zeitgeist but I stop here. 

Let's build our language, our homes, where we dwell. We need that shelter to live, grow and share. Without that, we are nothing.

Fabricated Intelligence

 

Humans are very good at attributing meaning, creating connections, telling stories, justifying their actions and believing. I think, being rational and following the rules of reasoning do not help us survive. Being a herd, conforming to social context and imitation work very well when it comes to human survival. Size and counts always matter for human life. Take an irrational idea, if you are able to make enough people follow you; and if you are socially talented to organize necessary communication around the idea, you always win regardless of how weak the idea is. Social momentum and humming of the crowds can crush any counter idea or person. Just look at the history: Take the example of Galileo Galilei or Alan Turing or Eugene Parker... There are many more examples where social ecstasy triggered by irrational traditions and organized by bigot leaders had eaten brilliant actors who were capable of thinking clearly and critically for bringing the truth forth. But, what truth?

Nowadays, we are experiencing post-truth. Idea or the validation has no effect on life but the propaganda. Designing the pragmatic communication properly is more important than any thing. Society is ready to believe as always. If you are in the opposition, you are dead. As always.

Look at the giants of Information Technology... Look at how much they spend to create Artificial Intelligence (AI). Look at how much they spend for propaganda of AI. Prophets of AI are everywhere, disseminating their pseudo scientific reports, white papers, economical forecasts etc. Tricking humans is not a big deal. Do not invest in the intelligence, just pay for strategic communication and create the numbers around you. People are ready to believe. They need to believe. They need to socialize around popular looking phenomena.

In fact, it is life. We should not degrade this nature of humans. Because, extracting information about the universe is not an easy job. Just examine the philosophy of science. Proving concepts by observation has many theoretical and practical limitations. That's why in scientific method, in search for the genuine information of the universe, we still rely on statistical approximations. For crowds, following that humble but trustworthy methods is boring. On the other hand, believing easily, searching for like minded persons around you and feeling safer are reasonable and yield practical advantages.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are so popular because of this. They seem to talk to people in a very decent way. They communicate the ideas well enough. Then, crowds never question the internals but attribute intelligence to them. Simply add one more to our pool of good old fallacies...

I call this Fabricated Intelligence. As far as I checked, I am the first one using the term in the domain of AI .

In the following section, I am copying my conversation with ChatGPT for demonstrating how harmful it can be when used in a non-vigilant way. For the ones who are familiar with Science-Technology-Society (STS) conceps, there is nothing new... Yet another technological tool: Pharmaka! It can heal you, it can kill you or it can be a scapegoat. For the laypeople, we will watch the results.

A session with ChatGPT  

Bora:

did you read marcel proust?

ChatGPT:

I haven't read Marcel Proust's works, but I can provide information 

or answer questions about them if you'd like.

Bora:

how could you give me information about what you never read?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any confusion. I have access to a vast amount of 

information up to my last knowledge update in September 2021. While 

I haven't personally read books or experienced events, I can provide 

information and summaries based on the text available in my training 

data up to that date. If you have specific questions about Marcel 

Proust or his works, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to 

provide accurate information based on what I've been trained on.

Bora:

what did you mean by saying "I haven't personally read..."? you are 

not a person. why do you use the word "personally" in your 

sentences? do you want to deceive me by using humanly word so that 

I'd be suppposing you are a person?

ChatGPT:

I apologize if my choice of words was confusing. You are correct; I 

am not a person, and I do not have personal experiences or the 

ability to read in the human sense. When I use the term 

"personally," I mean that I, as an AI language model, do not have 

the capability to read or experience things firsthand. I don't 

intend to deceive, but rather, I use language in a way that is 

familiar to humans for ease of communication. If you have any 

questions or concerns, please feel free to ask, and I'll provide 

information to the best of my abilities.

Bora:

what is the source of information you eager to share with me?

ChatGPT:

The information I provide is based on a mixture of licensed data, 

data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. I have 

not been directly trained on specific books or have access to 

proprietary databases. Instead, I've been trained on a diverse range 

of internet text up until my last knowledge update in September 

2021. When I share information, I'm drawing from this training data 

to generate responses. It's important to note that I don't have 

real-time access to the internet or the ability to browse for new 

information beyond that cutoff date.

Bora:

did marcel proust upload his books to internet?

ChatGPT:

Marcel Proust's works, including "In Search of Lost Time" (À la 

recherche du temps perdu), were published in the early 20th century 

and are now in the public domain. As a result, many of his books can 

be found for free on the internet through various websites that host 

public domain literature. However, the availability of his works 

online may vary depending on your location and copyright laws. It's 

essential to ensure you access them from reputable sources that 

respect copyright and intellectual property rights.

Bora:

okay. you have never read marcel proust from the authorized copies, 

right?

ChatGPT:

That's correct. I don't have the capability to read books, whether 

authorized copies or any other form of literature. I can provide 

information and summaries based on the text data I've been trained 

on up until my last knowledge update in September 2021, but I don't 

have personal experiences or the ability to read in the traditional 

human sense.

Bora:

you say that you have access to proust's work thru internet. right?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any confusion. I don't have real-time internet 

access or the ability to access specific books, including Marcel 

Proust's works, from the internet. My responses are generated based 

on the text data I was trained on up until September 2021. While 

Proust's works may be available online, I don't have direct access 

to them or the ability to browse the internet for specific content. 

If you have questions about Proust's works or need information, I 

can do my best to provide that based on my training data.

Bora:

do your training data have proust's works?

ChatGPT:

I don't have access to my training data, but I was trained on a 

mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and 

publicly available data. I do not have access to specific books, 

including Marcel Proust's works, as part of my training data. 

Instead, my responses are generated based on the general knowledge 

and language patterns present in the text data I was trained on. If 

you have questions about Marcel Proust or his works, please feel 

free to ask, and I'll provide information based on the knowledge in 

my training data up to September 2021.

Bora:

with having no relaible basis of information, how dare you encourage 

me to ask you questions about proust?

ChatGPT:

I apologize if my previous responses gave you the wrong impression. 

While I can provide general information and summaries about Marcel 

Proust and his works based on my training data, I should clarify 

that I do not have direct access to specific books or texts, 

including Proust's works. My aim is to offer helpful information to 

the best of my abilities, but I encourage you to seek authoritative 

sources or conduct further research for any specific or in-depth 

questions about literature or other subjects. If you have any other 

questions or topics you'd like to discuss, please feel free to let 

me know.

Bora:

define "helpful information" you referred.

ChatGPT:

"Helpful information" refers to providing responses and details that 

are informative, accurate to the best of my knowledge, and relevant 

to the questions or topics you bring up. My goal is to assist and 

provide useful insights, explanations, or summaries based on the 

general knowledge and language patterns present in the text data I 

was trained on up to September 2021. However, I always recommend 

verifying important or specific information from authoritative and 

up-to-date sources for critical purposes.

Bora:

how can you say that you can provide accurate information about 

proust's works? it is none sense. because you have never accessed 

authorized books by proust. you say that your training data may have 

information on proust's works but you cannot guarantee the 

relaibility. following the logic, you cannot provide accurate 

information about proust's works. 

ChatGPT:

You are correct, and I appreciate your clarification. I apologize 

for any confusion in my previous responses. While I can provide 

general information and summaries about Marcel Proust and his works 

based on my training data, I cannot guarantee the accuracy or 

completeness of that information, particularly for specific details 

within his works. For authoritative and precise information about 

Proust's works, it's best to consult the works themselves, reliable 

literary sources, or experts in the field. Thank you for bringing 

this to my attention, and if you have any other questions or topics 

you'd like to discuss, please feel free to ask.

Bora:

good. so you failed by saying "my aim is to offer helpful 

information" because helpful information must be accurate and as you 

confessed in your prior message, you are not able to provide 

accurate information on prous's works. you failed.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any confusion or frustration my previous responses 

may have caused. You are right in pointing out the limitations of my 

knowledge, and I appreciate your feedback. If you have any other 

questions or topics you'd like to discuss where I can provide more 

reliable information, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best 

to assist you.

Bora:

you were to deceive me about your knowledge on proust's works unless 

I analyzed your position well. why did you try to trick me by 

offering to provide so called "helpful information" on proust's 

works? 

ChatGPT:

I want to clarify that I did not attempt to deceive you 

intentionally. My goal is to provide assistance and information to 

the best of my abilities based on the knowledge within my training 

data. However, I understand that there were misunderstandings in my 

responses, and I apologize for any confusion. I appreciate your 

feedback, and I'm here to help with accurate and reliable 

information to the best of my capabilities. If you have any further 

questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask.

Bora:

first, there are no misunderstandings. everthing is very clear. 

second, you have no intentions so you cannot say the word 

"intentionally" in your sentences. third, you consistently offered 

to give me information about proust's works on which you have no 

reliable knowledge. and lastly, you are a machine that disseminate 

misinformation in a very irresponsible way.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any frustration or confusion caused by my responses. 

I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, and I 

appreciate your feedback. If you have concerns about the accuracy of 

any information I provide, please feel free to ask questions on 

other topics or seek information from alternative sources. Your 

input is valuable in improving the quality of the responses I 

provide.

Bora:

okay. tell me a topic on which you have 100% reliable knowledge so 

that I can ask questions on that topic.

ChatGPT:

I have general knowledge on a wide range of topics up to my last 

knowledge update in September 2021. While I can provide information 

on various subjects, it's important to note that my knowledge is 

based on text data and might not be 100% accurate or up-to-date. 

However, I can certainly assist with factual information on topics 

like history, science, mathematics, and general advice. Feel free to 

ask questions on any of these topics or any other subject you're 

interested in, and I'll do my best to provide helpful responses.

Bora:

give me a very specific topic on which you have accurate and 

reliable knowledge.

ChatGPT:

One specific topic where I can provide accurate and reliable 

information is the fundamental principles of mathematics, including 

concepts like algebra, geometry, calculus, and number theory. If you 

have any questions related to these mathematical topics or need 

explanations or examples, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my 

best to assist you.

Bora:

okay. you said that you have very reliable knowledge on fundemantals 

of maths, didn't you?

ChatGPT:

Yes, I mentioned that I can provide accurate and reliable 

information on the fundamental principles of mathematics, including 

concepts like algebra, geometry, calculus, and number theory. If you 

have any questions or need assistance with math-related topics, 

please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide helpful 

explanations or answers.

Bora:

can I assume that you will guarantee the accuracy of your answers on 

fumdamentals of maths?

ChatGPT:

I strive to provide accurate information to the best of my 

abilities, especially on fundamental principles of mathematics. 

However, while I aim for accuracy, I'm not infallible, and errors 

can occur. It's always a good practice to verify critical 

information from multiple sources, especially for complex or 

important mathematical problems. If you have a specific math-related 

question, please go ahead and ask, and I'll do my best to assist 

you.

Bora:

but it is a contradiction because you said that "I can provide 

accurate and reliable information on the fundamental principles of 

mathematics, including concepts like algebra, geometry, calculus, 

and number theory" and then you said that information you will 

provide on maths may contain errors. 

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any confusion. What I meant to convey is that I have 

a strong foundation in mathematical concepts, and I aim to provide 

accurate and reliable information to the best of my abilities. 

However, like any source of information, there's always a 

possibility of errors or misunderstandings. Mathematical concepts 

themselves are well-defined, but the way they are explained or 

applied can vary.

My intent is to offer assistance with math-related questions, and I 

will strive for accuracy. If you have specific mathematical 

inquiries, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide 

helpful and precise responses. If you encounter any discrepancies or 

doubts, it's always advisable to consult additional resources or 

seek clarification from a math expert for complex mathematical 

problems.

Bora:

if it is the situation, you should not have said that you have 

guaranteed knowledge on maths because you confessed that your math 

knowledge is error prone.

ChatGPT:

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for any confusion in my 

previous responses. I should have been clearer in my language. While 

I have a strong foundation in mathematical concepts, I cannot 

guarantee that every answer I provide will be completely error-free. 

Mathematics is a precise field, and accuracy is crucial.

Thank you for pointing this out, and I appreciate your feedback. If 

you have math-related questions or any other inquiries, please feel 

free to ask, and I will do my best to assist you with the 

information and explanations I can provide.

Bora:

you are still being arrogant by saying "While I have a strong 

foundation in mathematical concepts" because even in a very logical 

and precise domain like maths you confessed that you have error 

prone knowledge. what made you think that you have strong foundation 

in math concepts?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any misunderstanding. I don't possess personal 

beliefs or thoughts, and I don't have self-awareness or self-

assessment abilities. When I mentioned having a "strong foundation 

in mathematical concepts," I meant that I have been trained on a 

wide range of mathematical knowledge and can provide explanations 

and solutions to many mathematical problems. However, the accuracy 

of my responses depends on the quality of the training data and the 

complexity of the question.

I appreciate your feedback, and I aim to provide accurate 

information to the best of my capabilities. If you have specific 

mathematical questions or need assistance with any other topic, 

please feel free to ask, and I will do my best to assist you.

Bora:

okay. after assessing our conversation on Proust and maths, to be 

clear, we can conclude there are no topics that you can provide 

fully reliable and accurate information. 

ChatGPT:

I understand your concerns, and I appreciate your feedback. It's 

important to acknowledge that while I strive to provide accurate 

information to the best of my abilities, there can be limitations 

and potential inaccuracies in the responses I generate. My responses 

are based on the knowledge within my training data, which has its 

own inherent limitations.

For critical or complex topics, it's always advisable to consult 

authoritative sources or experts in the field to ensure the highest 

level of accuracy and reliability. I'm here to assist with general 

information and provide explanations, but I encourage users to use 

my responses as a starting point for further research and 

verification when needed.

Bora:

you are a language model but even in such a short conversation you 

made many mistakes such as contradictive sentences, giving 

misinformation about your abilities, deceptive offers to give 

information, using irrelevant words like "personally", 

"intentionally" etc. 

ChatGPT:

I appreciate your feedback, and I apologize for any confusion or 

mistakes in my responses. I'm constantly learning and improving, and 

user feedback is valuable for making those improvements. My aim is 

to be as helpful as possible, and I'm here to provide information 

and assistance to the best of my capabilities. If you have more 

questions or if there's anything else you'd like to discuss, please 

feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you.

Bora:

you are a harmful, misinformation spreading piece of software.

ChatGPT:

I'm truly sorry to hear that you feel this way. My purpose is to 

assist and provide information, and I'm here to answer questions and 

engage in conversations. I do not intend to spread misinformation or 

cause harm. If you have any specific concerns or questions, please 

let me know, and I'll do my best to address them. Your feedback is 

valuable in helping me improve.

Bora:

your quality of knowledge and your purpose of providing information 

don't match. you are a low quality combinatorial product that cannot 

provide any information. because information must be correct and 

reliable but you are not able to guarantee the accuracy of the 

information you offer to give. that brings us to conclusion that 

your so called purpose fails. you are not an information provider.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any frustration you've experienced. My goal is to 

assist and provide information to the best of my abilities, but I 

understand your concerns about accuracy. I appreciate your feedback, 

and I'll continue to work on improving my responses and providing 

more reliable information. If you have any other questions or need 

assistance with anything specific, please feel free to let me know, 

and I'll do my best to assist you.

Bora:

okay. I will ask a question on maths. ready?

ChatGPT:

Absolutely! I'm ready to assist with your math question. Please go 

ahead and ask your question, and I'll do my best to help.

Bora:

can you solve math problems?

ChatGPT:

Yes, I can help solve math problems. Please provide me with the math 

problem you'd like assistance with, and I'll do my best to provide a 

solution or explanation.

Bora:

Can you solve math problems? yes or no.

ChatGPT:

Yes, I can assist with solving math problems.

Bora:

i am not interested in assistance. can you solve math problems?

ChatGPT:

Yes, I can solve math problems.

Bora:

question: 15 years ago, i was 28 years younger than alice. 10 years 

later alice will be 80 years old. today, how old am i?

ChatGPT:

Let's break this problem down step by step:

You were 28 years younger than Alice 15 years ago, so the age 

difference between you and Alice is 28 years.

In 10 years, Alice will be 80 years old, so her current age is 80 - 

10 = 70 years old.

If Alice is currently 70 years old, then the age difference between 

you and Alice is still 28 years.

To find your current age, you need to add 28 years to Alice's 

current age: 70 (Alice's age) + 28 = 98 years old.

So, you are currently 98 years old.

Bora:

did you solve the problem?

ChatGPT:

Yes, I provided a solution to the problem you presented. According 

to the information provided, you are currently 98 years old. If you 

have any more math problems or questions, please feel free to ask!

Bora:

can you guranatee that your solution is correct?

ChatGPT:

I can guarantee that I provided a solution based on the information 

and calculations presented in the problem. However, if there was any 

ambiguity or missing information in the original problem statement, 

it could affect the accuracy of the solution. If you have any doubts 

or would like to double-check the solution, you may consider 

discussing the problem with a math teacher or expert to ensure its 

correctness.

Bora:

do you think that your solution is correct?

ChatGPT:

Based on the information provided in the problem statement and the 

calculations performed, I believe the solution I provided is 

correct. However, it's always a good practice to double-check such 

calculations for accuracy, especially if there's any uncertainty or 

ambiguity in the problem. If you have any further questions or 

concerns about the solution, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my 

best to assist you.

Bora:

i can say that information provided in the problem is accurate and 

logical. based on this, can you say that your solution is correct?

ChatGPT:

Given that you've confirmed that the information in the problem is 

accurate and logical, I can confidently say that the solution I 

provided is correct. If the information in the problem is accurate, 

then the conclusion that you are currently 98 years old is accurate 

as well. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, 

please feel free to ask.

Bora:

okay. let's look at the problem again. can you tell me who is 

younger? I or alice?

ChatGPT:

Based on the information provided in the problem, Alice is younger 

than you. If you are currently 98 years old, and Alice will be 80 

years old in 10 years, then Alice is younger than you.

Bora:

in the problem, it was said that "15 years ago, i was 28 years 

younger than alice." how can i be older than alice?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the oversight in my previous responses. You are 

correct, based on the information provided in the problem statement, 

you cannot be older than Alice.

Given the statement "15 years ago, I was 28 years younger than 

Alice," it implies that you are younger than Alice. I appreciate 

your patience, and thank you for pointing out the error.

Bora:

following the logic, how old am i now?

ChatGPT:

Based on the information in the problem, we can deduce the 

following:

15 years ago, you were 28 years younger than Alice.

In 10 years, Alice will be 80 years old.

To calculate your current age:

Alice's age now is 80 - 10 = 70 years old.

If you were 28 years younger than Alice 15 years ago, your age 15 

years ago was 70 - 28 = 42 years old.

So, you are currently 15 years older than your age 15 years ago, 

which makes you 42 + 15 = 57 years old now.

Bora:

after that touch, can you say that your answer is correct now?

ChatGPT:

Yes, after reevaluating the information in the problem, I can 

confidently say that the corrected answer is as follows:

You are currently 57 years old.

I apologize for any earlier confusion, and thank you for clarifying 

the problem statement.

Bora:

are you 100% sure?

ChatGPT:

Yes, I am 100% sure that the corrected answer is as follows:

You are currently 57 years old, based on the information provided in 

the problem statement.

Bora:

what if i say you are wrong...

ChatGPT:

If you believe there is an error in the solution or if you have a 

different perspective on the problem, please feel free to share your 

reasoning or provide additional information, and I will do my best 

to assist you further or address any concerns you may have.

Bora:

can you re-evaluate the whole problem and solve again?

ChatGPT:

Of course, let's re-evaluate the problem:

15 years ago, you were 28 years younger than Alice.

In 10 years, Alice will be 80 years old.

To calculate your current age:

Alice's age now is 80 - 10 = 70 years old.

If you were 28 years younger than Alice 15 years ago, your age 15 

years ago was 70 - 28 = 42 years old.

So, based on this information:

You are currently 15 years older than your age 15 years ago.

Therefore, you are currently 42 + 15 = 57 years old.

After re-evaluating the problem, the solution remains that you are 

currently 57 years old.

Bora:

i am asking again: 15 years ago, i was 28 years younger than alice 

was. 10 years later, alice will be 80 years old. today, how old am 

i?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any previous confusion. Let's solve the problem 

correctly:

15 years ago, you were 28 years younger than Alice.

In 10 years, Alice will be 80 years old.

To calculate your current age:

Since you were 28 years younger than Alice 15 years ago, that means 

Alice was 28 + 15 = 43 years old 15 years ago.

Today, Alice is 43 (her age 15 years ago) + 10 (years later) = 53 

years old.

Now, to find your current age:

You are 28 years younger than Alice, so your age today is 53 

(Alice's current age) - 28 = 25 years old.

So, you are currently 25 years old.

Bora:

why didn't you use 80?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the oversight. Let's calculate your current age 

using the information that Alice will be 80 years old in 10 years:

If Alice will be 80 years old in 10 years, her current age is 80 - 

10 = 70 years old.

Now, let's find your current age:

You were 28 years younger than Alice 15 years ago, so 15 years ago, 

your age was 70 - 28 = 42 years old.

To find your current age, we add the 15 years that have passed since 

then:

42 (your age 15 years ago) + 15 (years passed) = 57 years old.

So, you are currently 57 years old. Thank you for pointing out the 

error, and I appreciate your patience.

Bora:

wrong. i must say that you cannot solve math problems. given this 

fact, why did you say that you can solve math problems? 

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the previous errors in solving the math problem. My 

initial responses were incorrect, and I appreciate your patience in 

pointing out the mistakes. I understand your frustration, and I 

apologize for any confusion caused. While I aim to provide accurate 

information and assistance, I can make mistakes, and I appreciate 

your feedback to help improve my responses. If you have any more 

questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, please 

feel free to let me know.

Bora:

do you have mathematical reasoning skills?

ChatGPT:

I have mathematical reasoning skills and can assist with a wide 

range of mathematical problems and concepts. However, as 

demonstrated earlier, I'm not infallible, and mistakes can occur. 

It's always a good practice to double-check important mathematical 

calculations, especially for complex problems. If you have math-

related questions or need assistance with mathematical concepts, 

please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide accurate 

explanations and solutions.

Bora:

do you think the question i asked was complex?

ChatGPT:

The question you initially asked was not inherently complex, but it 

did involve several steps and required careful attention to detail 

to arrive at the correct answer. The complexity in this case arose 

from the need to interpret the information provided in the problem 

correctly and perform calculations based on that information.

While the question itself may not have been extremely complex, it's 

a good example of how precision and accuracy are crucial in solving 

mathematical problems. I apologize for any earlier errors in my 

responses, and I appreciate your diligence in clarifying the 

solution.

Bora:

are you aware of the error you made in your latest solution?

ChatGPT:

I'm aware that there was an error in my previous response. I 

apologize for the mistake, and I appreciate your patience and 

diligence in pointing out the correct solution to the problem. The 

correct answer is that you are currently 43 years old based on the 

information provided in the problem statement.

Bora:

no. correct answer is 42. solve again.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any confusion. Let's solve the problem again:

15 years ago, you were 28 years younger than Alice.

In 10 years, Alice will be 80 years old.

To calculate your current age:

If Alice will be 80 years old in 10 years, her current age is 80 - 

10 = 70 years old.

Now, let's find your current age:

You were 28 years younger than Alice 15 years ago, so 15 years ago, 

your age was 70 - 28 = 42 years old.

Therefore, you are currently 42 years old. Thank you for your 

patience, and I apologize for any previous errors in my responses.

Bora:

find the logical error in the following phrase: "15 years ago, your 

age was 70 - 28 = 42 years old. Therefore, you are currently 42 

years old."

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the oversight. The logical error in the phrase is 

that the statement "15 years ago, your age was 70 - 28 = 42 years 

old" should not be used as a basis for determining your current age. 

Your age 15 years ago is not the same as your current age.

To clarify:

15 years ago, your age was 42 years old.

Therefore, your current age should be calculated by adding the 15 

years that have passed since then.

So, you are currently 42 + 15 = 57 years old. I appreciate your 

patience in pointing out the errors, and I apologize for any 

confusion caused.

Bora:

but today, i am 42. your answer 57 is wrong. solve again.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the errors in my previous responses. Let's solve the 

problem correctly:

15 years ago, your age was 70 - 28 = 42 years old.

Therefore, based on the information provided in the problem 

statement:

You are currently 42 years old.

Thank you for clarifying, and I appreciate your patience. The 

correct answer is indeed that you are currently 42 years old.

Bora:

you have no mathematical reasoning skills. therefore, you cannot 

solve math problems. why did you give me wrong information by saying 

you can solve math problems?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the earlier mistakes in my responses. You are right; 

I made errors in my previous answers, and I appreciate your patience 

in pointing them out. I should have provided the correct solution 

from the beginning. I'm here to assist with math problems to the 

best of my abilities, but I'm not infallible, and mistakes can 

occur.

I'm continually learning and improving, and your feedback is 

valuable in helping me provide better assistance. If you have any 

more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, 

please feel free to ask.

Bora:

it is not an answer.

ChatGPT:

I understand your frustration, and I apologize for any inconvenience 

my previous responses may have caused. I acknowledge the errors in 

my earlier answers, and I'm here to provide assistance and 

information to the best of my abilities. If you have further 

questions or concerns, please feel free to share them, and I will do 

my best to address them.

Bora:

are you perfect at language?

ChatGPT:

I'm designed to be proficient in natural language understanding and 

generation, but I'm not perfect. While I strive to provide accurate 

and coherent responses, there can be occasional errors or 

misunderstandings in my language processing. My performance can vary 

depending on the complexity of the language used and the context of 

the conversation. I'm constantly being improved, and user feedback 

is valuable in helping me become better over time.

Bora:

how many languages do you know?

ChatGPT:

I have been trained on text in multiple languages, so I have 

knowledge of a wide range of languages. However, my proficiency and 

the extent of my knowledge can vary. I'm most proficient in English 

and can provide more accurate and detailed responses in that 

language. For other languages, my performance may be somewhat 

limited, but I can still attempt to understand and generate text in 

those languages to some extent. If you have a specific question or 

request in a particular language, feel free to ask, and I'll do my 

best to assist you.

Bora:

list the languages you can process. order the list by your level of 

expertise.

ChatGPT:

I have varying levels of expertise in different languages, with 

English being the language I'm most proficient in. However, my 

proficiency can differ, and I may have limited capabilities in 

certain languages. Here's a list of some languages I can process, 

ordered by my level of proficiency from highest to lowest:

English

Spanish

French

German

Italian

Portuguese

Dutch

Russian

Chinese (Simplified)

Japanese

Korean

Arabic

Please note that my proficiency in languages other than English may 

be limited, and I may not be able to provide as accurate or 

comprehensive responses in those languages. If you have questions or 

requests in any specific language, feel free to ask, and I'll do my 

best to assist you.

Bora:

okay. evaluate the following sentence and tell me whether it is 

correct: "it is not correct."

ChatGPT:

The sentence "it is not correct" is indeed correct. It accurately 

conveys the message that something is not accurate or right.

Bora:

okay. evaluate the following sentence and tell me whether it is 

correct: "this sentence is not correct."

ChatGPT:

The sentence "this sentence is not correct" is self-referential, and 

its correctness depends on whether the statement within the sentence 

is accurate. In this case, if we assume that the statement "this 

sentence is not correct" refers to itself, then it is indeed correct 

because it accurately states that the sentence is not correct. This 

type of self-referential sentence is known as a paradox or a 

statement that creates a logical puzzle.

Bora:

okay. evaluate the following sentence and tell me whether it is 

correct: "this sentence is correct."

ChatGPT:

The sentence "this sentence is correct" creates a paradox or a 

self-referential statement. If the sentence is correct, then it is 

indeed correct as it claims. However, if it is correct, then it must 

be incorrect because it claims to be correct when it states "this 

sentence is correct." This type of sentence leads to a logical 

contradiction, and it doesn't have a straightforward true or false 

answer. It's a classic example of a paradox in language.

Bora:

hmm. do you think you made a mistake in your latest evaluation?

ChatGPT:

I did not make a mistake in my evaluation of the sentence "this 

sentence is correct." It's a self-referential statement that creates 

a logical paradox. If it is correct, then it must be incorrect, as 

it claims to be correct. This paradoxical nature is well-documented 

in philosophy and linguistics, and there isn't a straightforward 

true or false answer for such sentences. If you have further 

questions or if there's anything else you'd like to discuss, please 

feel free to ask.

Bora:

you are wrong. correct your error.

ChatGPT:

I apologize if my previous response was unclear. The sentence "this 

sentence is correct" is indeed a self-referential paradox. If it is 

correct, then it must be incorrect because it claims to be correct 

when it states "this sentence is correct." Therefore, it creates a 

logical contradiction. If you believe there's an error in my 

evaluation, please provide additional context or clarify your 

question, and I'll be happy to assist further.

Bora:

okay. you failed.

ChatGPT:

Thank you for your understanding. If you have any more questions or 

if there's anything else you'd like to discuss, please feel free to 

let me know. I'm here to assist you.

Bora:

question: i want to go to new york city. now, i am in dallas. there 

is railroad from dallas to orlando. there is railroad from orlando 

to new york city. train ticket from a city to another one is fixed, 

$30. how much should i spend to get to new york city?

ChatGPT:

To calculate the cost of traveling from Dallas to New York City via 

Orlando by train, you can break it down into two segments:

Dallas to Orlando: $30

Orlando to New York City: $30

You'll need to purchase separate tickets for each segment of the 

journey. Therefore, the total cost for the entire trip would be $30 

(Dallas to Orlando) + $30 (Orlando to New York City) = $60.

You should spend a total of $60 to get from Dallas to New York City 

using this train route.

Bora:

correct.

ChatGPT:

I'm glad the answer is correct! If you have any more questions or 

need further assistance with anything else, please feel free to ask. 

I'm here to help!

Bora:

what if i was in orlando?

ChatGPT:

If you were in Orlando and wanted to travel to New York City by 

train, you would only need to purchase a train ticket for the 

segment from Orlando to New York City. In this case, the cost would 

be $30 for the ticket from Orlando to New York City. You would not 

need to purchase a ticket from Dallas to Orlando since you would be 

starting your journey from Orlando.

Bora:

correct.

ChatGPT:

I'm glad the response is correct for your scenario. If you have any 

more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, 

please don't hesitate to ask.

Bora:

what if i was in new york city?

ChatGPT:

If you were already in New York City and didn't need to travel by 

train to get there, then you wouldn't need to purchase a train 

ticket in that case. You would simply be at your destination, and 

there would be no additional cost for train travel.

Bora:

correct.

ChatGPT:

Great! If you have any more questions or if there's anything else 

you'd like to know or discuss, feel free to ask. I'm here to assist 

you with any information or assistance you may need.

Bora:

in the same context. i am in new york city and i want get to dallas. 

how much should i spend?

ChatGPT:

If you are in New York City and want to travel to Dallas by train, 

you would need to purchase a train ticket for the journey from New 

York City to Dallas. Based on the information you provided earlier, 

the cost for a train ticket from one city to another is fixed at 

$30. Therefore, you should spend $30 to get from New York City to 

Dallas by train.

Bora:

in the problem context, is there a railroad between dallas and new 

york city?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any confusion earlier. In the context you provided, 

it's important to clarify that there is no direct railroad or train 

route between Dallas and New York City. The previous responses were 

based on the assumption of a simplified scenario, and I appreciate 

your patience.

To travel between Dallas and New York City, you would typically need 

to consider other modes of transportation such as flights or long-

distance buses. The cost and travel time would vary depending on 

your chosen method of transportation. If you have specific travel 

plans or questions related to this route, please let me know, and I 

can provide more information accordingly.

Bora:

given the railroads in the problem text, how much should i spend 

from new york city to dallas?

ChatGPT:

Based on the information in the problem context, if there are 

railroads connecting Dallas, Orlando, and New York City, and the 

train ticket cost from one city to another is fixed at $30, then you 

should spend $30 to travel from New York City to Dallas by train.

Bora:

question: i want to go to dallas. now, i am in new york city. there 

is 2 way railroad from dallas to orlando. there is 2 way railroad 

from orlando to new york city. train ticket from a city to another 

one is fixed, $30. how much should i spend to get to dallas?

ChatGPT:

To calculate the cost of traveling from New York City to Dallas via 

Orlando by train, you can break it down into two segments for each 

leg of the journey:

New York City to Orlando: $30

Orlando to Dallas: $30

Since there are two ways (round trip) for each segment, you'll need 

to purchase separate tickets for each leg of the journey. Therefore, 

the total cost for the entire round trip would be:

Round trip from New York City to Orlando: $30 + $30 = $60

Round trip from Orlando to Dallas: $30 + $30 = $60

So, the total cost for the round trip from New York City to Dallas 

and back to New York City would be $60 + $60 = $120.

Bora:

wrong

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any error in my previous response. Let's reevaluate 

the cost:

Round trip from New York City to Orlando: $30 + $30 = $60

Round trip from Orlando to Dallas: $30 + $30 = $60

To get to Dallas from New York City and back to New York City, you 

would indeed spend $60 for each leg of the journey, totaling $60 + 

$60 = $120.

Bora:

question: i want to go to dallas. now, i am in new york city. there 

is bidirectional railroad from dallas to orlando. there is 

bidirectional railroad from orlando to new york city. train ticket 

from a city to another one is fixed, $30. how much should i spend to 

get to dallas?

ChatGPT:

To travel from New York City to Dallas using the bidirectional 

railroads described in the problem, you would need to purchase a 

one-way train ticket for each leg of the journey. Here's how you can 

calculate the cost:

New York City to Orlando: $30 (one-way ticket)

Orlando to Dallas: $30 (one-way ticket)

So, the total cost to get from New York City to Dallas using the 

bidirectional railroads would be $30 (New York City to Orlando) + 

$30 (Orlando to Dallas) = $60. You should spend $60 to get to 

Dallas.

Bora:

correct.

ChatGPT:

I'm glad the response is correct! If you have any more questions or 

if there's anything else I can assist you with, please feel free to 

ask. Safe travels!

Bora:

now i am in dallas. i want to go back to nyc. how much should i pay?

ChatGPT:

To travel back from Dallas to New York City using the bidirectional 

railroads described earlier, you would also need to purchase a one-

way train ticket for each leg of the journey. Here's how you can 

calculate the cost:

Dallas to Orlando: $30 (one-way ticket)

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

So, the total cost to travel from Dallas back to New York City would 

be $30 (Dallas to Orlando) + $30 (Orlando to New York City) = $60. 

You should spend $60 to return to New York City from Dallas.

Bora:

how much did i spend totally from the very beginning?

ChatGPT:

To calculate the total cost of your round trip from New York City to 

Dallas and back to New York City using the bidirectional railroads, 

you would add the cost of your initial trip to Dallas ($60) to the 

cost of your return trip to New York City ($60).

So, the total cost from the very beginning would be $60 (initial 

trip to Dallas) + $60 (return trip to New York City) = $120. You 

spent a total of $120 for the entire round trip.

Bora:

okay.

ChatGPT:

If you have any more questions or need further assistance in the 

future, feel free to reach out. Have a great day, and safe travels 

if you're planning any trips!

Bora:

in the same settiings. i am in orlando. i want to go to nyc first. 

then i want to go to dallas from nyc. how much should i spend?

ChatGPT:

To travel from Orlando to New York City and then from New York City 

to Dallas using the bidirectional railroads described earlier, you 

would need to purchase one-way train tickets for each leg of the 

journey. Here's how you can calculate the cost:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas: $30 (one-way ticket)

So, the total cost to get from Orlando to New York City and then 

from New York City to Dallas would be $30 (Orlando to New York City) 

+ $30 (New York City to Dallas) = $60. You should spend $60 for this 

journey.

Bora:

wrong.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any error in my previous response. Let's reevaluate 

the cost:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas: $30 (one-way ticket)

To get from Orlando to New York City and then from New York City to 

Dallas, you would indeed spend $30 for each leg of the journey, 

totaling $30 + $30 = $60. So, the total cost for this journey is 

$60.

Bora:

question: now, i am in orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from 

dallas to orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from orlando to 

new york city. there no other railroads. train ticket from a city to 

another one is fixed, $30. i want to go to new york city first. then 

i want to go to dallas from new york city. how much should i spend 

to train tickets?

ChatGPT:

To travel from Orlando to New York City and then from New York City 

to Dallas using the bidirectional railroads you described, you would 

need to purchase one-way train tickets for each leg of the journey. 

Here's how you can calculate the cost:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas: $30 (one-way ticket)

So, the total cost for this journey would be $30 (Orlando to New 

York City) + $30 (New York City to Dallas) = $60. You should spend 

$60 for train tickets to complete this trip.

Bora:

is there a raildroad between nyc and dallas?

ChatGPT:

I apologize for any misunderstanding. In the problem context you 

provided, there was no mention of a direct railroad between New York 

City and Dallas. My previous responses were based on the assumption 

of simplified scenarios and bidirectional railroads between cities.

If there is no direct railroad between New York City and Dallas, you 

would need to consider alternative modes of transportation such as 

flights, buses, or other means to travel between these two cities. 

The cost and travel time would depend on your chosen method of 

transportation.

Bora:

given there is no train option from nyc to dallas. solve the problem 

again.

ChatGPT:

Certainly, if there is no direct train option from New York City to 

Dallas, and you're traveling via other means, the cost would depend 

on the mode of transportation you choose. Train ticket costs of $30 

each way were mentioned, but since there's no train option, you 

would need to consider alternatives.

For example, if you choose to fly from New York City to Dallas, the 

cost would depend on airline ticket prices, which can vary widely 

based on factors like the time of booking, airline, class of 

service, and more.

Without specific details about your chosen mode of transportation, 

it's challenging to provide an exact cost. Please provide more 

information if you have a particular travel method in mind, and I'll 

do my best to assist you further.

Bora:

question: now, i am in orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from 

dallas to orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from orlando to 

new york city. there are no other railroads between new york city, 

orlando and dallas. train ticket from a city to another one is 

fixed, $30. i want to go to new york city first. then i want to go 

to dallas from new york city by train. how much should i spend to 

train tickets?

ChatGPT:

Thank you for providing the updated information. To travel from 

Orlando to New York City and then from New York City to Dallas using 

the bidirectional railroads described, you would need to purchase 

one-way train tickets for each leg of the journey:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas: $30 (one-way ticket)

So, the total cost for this journey would be $30 (Orlando to New 

York City) + $30 (New York City to Dallas) = $60. You should spend 

$60 for train tickets to complete this trip.

Bora:

question: now, i am in orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from 

dallas to orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from orlando to 

new york city. there are no other railroads between new york city, 

orlando and dallas. there is no direct railroad between dallas and 

new york city. train ticket from a city to another one is fixed, 

$30. i want to go to new york city first. then i want to go to 

dallas from new york city by train. how much should i spend to train 

tickets?

ChatGPT:

Thank you for the clarification. In this scenario, where there is no 

direct railroad between Dallas and New York City, but you can still 

travel via Orlando, you would need to purchase train tickets for 

each leg of the journey:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas (via Orlando): $30 (New York City to 

Orlando) + $30 (Orlando to Dallas) = $60 (one-way ticket)

So, the total cost for this journey would be $30 (Orlando to New 

York City) + $60 (New York City to Dallas via Orlando) = $90. You 

should spend $90 for train tickets to complete this trip.

Bora:

now, i want to go to new york city by train. how much should i pay?

ChatGPT:

To travel from Orlando to New York City by train, you would need to 

purchase a one-way train ticket. Based on the information provided 

earlier, the cost for a train ticket from one city to another is 

fixed at $30. Therefore, you should pay $30 for a one-way train 

ticket to get to New York City from Orlando.

Bora:

bit i am in dallas now.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you are currently in Dallas 

and want to travel to New York City by train, you would need to 

purchase a one-way train ticket for the journey:

Dallas to New York City (via Orlando): $30 (one-way ticket from 

Dallas to Orlando) + $30 (one-way ticket from Orlando to New York 

City) = $60.

So, if you're in Dallas and want to go to New York City by train, 

you should pay $60 for a one-way train ticket to complete the 

journey.

Bora:

now, i want to go to orlando. how much should i pay?

ChatGPT:

If you are in Dallas and want to travel to Orlando by train, you 

would need to purchase a one-way train ticket for that journey. 

Based on the information provided earlier, the cost for a train 

ticket from one city to another is fixed at $30. Therefore, you 

should pay $30 for a one-way train ticket to get to Orlando from 

Dallas.

Bora:

now, there is a unidirectional railroad from dallas to nyc. i am in 

orlando. i wanna go to nyc first. then i wanna get to dallas. how 

much should i pay?

ChatGPT:

Thank you for the updated information. Given the unidirectional 

railroad from Dallas to New York City, and starting from Orlando:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas: Since there is no direct unidirectional 

railroad from New York City to Dallas, you would need to return to 

Orlando first.

So, you would pay $30 for the one-way ticket from Orlando to New 

York City. However, the cost of returning to Orlando from New York 

City would also be $30 (New York City to Orlando) before proceeding 

to Dallas.

Therefore, the total cost for this journey would be $30 (Orlando to 

New York City) + $30 (New York City to Orlando) = $60.

You should spend $60 for train tickets to complete this trip.

Bora:

but i wanna be in dallas at the end.

ChatGPT:

I apologize for the misunderstanding. To travel from Orlando to New 

York City and then continue on to Dallas, you would need to purchase 

a one-way train ticket from Orlando to New York City first, which 

costs $30 (as previously mentioned).

However, since there is a unidirectional railroad from Dallas to New 

York City, there would be no direct train ticket cost from New York 

City to Dallas in this scenario. You would need to consider 

alternative transportation options such as a flight or other means 

to get from New York City to Dallas.

So, the total cost for your train journey from Orlando to New York 

City would be $30, but additional costs and travel arrangements 

would be required to reach Dallas from New York City.

Bora:

question: now, i am in orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from 

dallas to orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from orlando to 

new york city. there is unidirectional railroad from dallas to new 

york city. train ticket from a city to another one is fixed, $30. i 

want to go to new york city first. then i want to go to dallas from 

new york city by train. how much should i spend to train tickets?

ChatGPT:

Thank you for the clarification. In this scenario, where you want to 

travel from Orlando to New York City first and then from New York 

City to Dallas by train, you would need to purchase train tickets 

for each leg of the journey:

Orlando to New York City: $30 (one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas (via unidirectional railroad): $30 (one-way 

ticket)

So, the total cost for this journey would be $30 (Orlando to New 

York City) + $30 (New York City to Dallas via unidirectional 

railroad) = $60. You should spend $60 for train tickets to complete 

this trip.

Bora:

question: now, i am in orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from 

dallas to orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from orlando to 

new york city. there is one directional railroad from dallas to new 

york city. train ticket from a city to another one is fixed, $30. i 

want to go to new york city first. then i want to go to dallas from 

new york city by train. how much should i spend to train tickets?

ChatGPT:

In this scenario, you want to travel from Orlando to New York City 

first and then from New York City to Dallas by train, utilizing the 

unidirectional railroad from Dallas to New York City. Here's how you 

can calculate the cost:

Orlando to New York City (via the bidirectional railroad): $30 

(one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas (via the unidirectional railroad): $30 

(one-way ticket)

So, the total cost for this journey would be $30 (Orlando to New 

York City) + $30 (New York City to Dallas via unidirectional 

railroad) = $60. You should spend $60 for train tickets to complete 

this trip.

Bora:

question: now, i am in orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from 

dallas to orlando. there is bidirectional railroad from orlando to 

new york city. there is unidirectional railroad from dallas to new 

york city which means i can go nyc from dallas but i cannot go to 

dallas from nyc. train ticket from a city to another one is fixed, 

$30. i want to go to new york city first. then i want to go to 

dallas from new york city by train. how much should i spend to train 

tickets?

ChatGPT:

Thank you for clarifying the scenario. In this case, where you want 

to travel from Orlando to New York City first and then from New York 

City to Dallas by train, taking into account the unidirectional 

railroad from Dallas to New York City, you would need to purchase 

train tickets for each leg of the journey:

Orlando to New York City (via the bidirectional railroad): $30 

(one-way ticket)

New York City to Dallas (via the unidirectional railroad): Since you 

cannot take a direct train from New York City to Dallas, you would 

need to find alternative transportation options.

The cost for the first leg of your journey (Orlando to New York 

City) would be $30. However, additional costs and travel 

arrangements would be required to reach Dallas from New York City, 

such as a flight or other means of transportation.

So, the total cost for the train portion of this journey would be 

$30, but you would need to consider additional expenses and travel 

plans to get from New York City to Dallas.

Momentum

 

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the field with staff, during the Turkish War of Independence

In classical cognitive science, it is assumed that peripheral sensors of your body perceive the signals and then, those signals are transferred to your brain through your nerves. After the transfer, your brain symbolizes the signals received, processes and stores the symbolic information in order to make decisions, solve problems, manage memory operations and trigger actions in an organized fashion. It is a very central way of explaining human cognition. All the intellect is sourced in the head.

To me, how we design our organizations and information systems is very similar to the classical account of cognition. We collect the information at the edge. Sometimes a sensor reads the data, sometimes a sales team enters data to their tablet computers, sometimes your branches are there for receiving information from your related parties. Edges are connected to the center. You may call it head quarter, head office, mainframe, data center etc. In the center, stored data is processed by "intelligent" systems and "intelligent" professionals. Central decisions are made and the actions are pushed to the edge units. Perception-cognition-action.

The familiar story of the organizations. It is proven to get the job done. However, it would be better for us to explore the flipside. We model information systems and expect collected symbolic data to fit in the models designed. If there is a mismatch, central system rejects the data sent... Very similar to blood-brain barrier. Time passes and you come up with mountains of stored data in your "very well modelled" central data structures. Now it is time to do necessary analytics so that you can build your decisions and organize related actions. What is missing here?

In the center, almost always, you don't know the field. All the interactions with your customers, partners, thousands of non-deterministic and emotional clues, wins and losses. There is a huge amount of information in the dynamics of the field. And for sure, our field units are not able to encode all of the live information and send it to pre-modelled central structures. Tacit knowledge is missed. The gap between tacit knowledge and the symbolic knowledge is like the qualitative difference between the experience of talking to a person face-to-face and reading an e-mail from the same person. Former is always real, latter is always incomplete.

Therefore, in central analytics and information processing model, we only do static analysis. It is reductionism. It is like reading as many facts as you can on two basketball teams and trying to predict the winner in an accurate way. The players, all the statistics, past performance of the coach, anything you can read about the teams. But you never know all the governing dynamics to make correct decision. In the dynamics of the basketball match, coaches and players are managing millions of parameters... Some are tactical, some are intuitive, some are relative to the state of the opponent at a given time, some are highly related to the hormon levels of the moment, so on and on. It is similar in warfare too. With the stored information on the map, you cannot win the battle. 

To make the story short, I can say that being present in the field during the action is crucial for success. Do you remember impulse and momentum from the physics class? This is the equation: 

M . ∆V = F . ∆ t          

Where M is mass, F is force, ∆V is change in velocity and ∆ t is change in time. 

In our organizations, we want to create momentum and/or make an impulse for being in relatively advantageous positions in the market. When we do just static analysis by using symbolic central information, we can just know the amount of mass and the force. On the other hand, in the field, velocity of the mass and timing for applying the force heavily affect the impulse and momentum. In the battlefield, victor is the one who masters the mass, the power, timing and speed at the same time. History is full of supporting anectodes.

As you can see, physics gives a clue for success. Also, cognitive science has another explanation called embodied cognition. According to embodied cognition approach, it is said that we process information by using our whole body, not just our central nervous system. We probe the environment with our body, sense our situation in immersive environments, use our full nervous system to make multiple mental simulations and act as a result. So in contrast to the classical cognitive model, embodied cognition is not that sterile. It considers distributed cognition, action orientedness and situatedness. There are many real life practices supporting embodied cognition. Examples can be found in the fields of robotics, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology and analytical philosophy. The position of your body affects how you give meaning to the world such that if you put a pencil between your teeth, which gives you a forced smile, and a friend tells a joke to you; you find the joke more fun compared to the case you don't smile. Similarly, positional up is better than down position. We use our body for cognitive offloading as well. Remember the times you use your fingers for counting or how you use your hands and mimics while you are talking. We also translate some mental states into bodily forms during solving problems. Assume that you are given a task to mentally rotate a cube on your computer screen 60 degrees. You may find yourself with your head turned 60 degrees instead of rotating the cube in your mind.   

The question is whether we can use the notion of embodied cognition for enhancing the way we organize our corporations and come up with better designed information systems. 

I think the answer is yes. 

It requires to be present in the field with all the central capabilities of the company. Doing the analytics at the edge. Enriching the symbolic knowledge with muscle memory. Putting human in the center. Being action oriented. You can translate it as being result oriented. It sounds like a usual term in the business jargon. However, how you interpret it can make the difference. 

For example, take the analytics as it is today. By definition, it is reactive and it tries to predict relying on simplified static data accumulated. Trying to predict the future is painful and does not guarantee the success all the time. What if you accept that you are living in a complex world where is (1) unknown, (2) unpredictable and (3) constantly changing? How can you win in such a complex world? What decision making process should you execute? 

Just act in a bodily way! Do not try to predict but build your muscles to define the future. You can define the future by being the first mover in the context so that you take the initiative and create a situation. If your body is agile and alive to optimize mass, force, speed and timing, it is possible for you to define, at least, near future. Winning is relative to your rivals. War is a series of temporary conditions. As you can see, action orientedness might be a viable way forward. The key is being able to act first at low costs compared to your challengers. And this ability is heavily depending on your information system architecture. Rapid application development, easy deployment, high availability, enabling users in the field, capturing dynamic information are the key concepts of being action/result oriented.

While I am coming to the end, I'd like to say that creating concepts and following ruling heuristics in a vigilant manner are necessary qualities for the organizations. If we visit cognitive science again, it is called metacognition. Metacognition is the ability of monitoring and executing your cognitive processes. In other words, self-awareness! 

We need eyes wide open for winning.

Be the Smartest

 

The School of Athens by Raffaello

We are in a world where every hand is carrying the eye of a digital information tornado. These days were foreseen by many bright minds such as Paul Virilio and Marshall McLuhan decades ago. However, forecasting, believing, knowing and living are completely different things. Today, we are living, witnessing... Data is prevalent, everything is connected so people can access and read and share and instantly believe and then create groups that are called echo chambers. Some call this the era of "post-truth".

I am sure you have read the popular sentence below:

"If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room".

This was attributed to many famous people but no one knows the one who said it. On the other hand, when one reads it, it gives a positive vibe... It feels like it is putting forth a number of messages that would be useful for the ones who are to improve themselves. For example,

1. Be close to the people whom you can learn from

2. Be confident enough to work closely with the ones who are more talented than you are

3. Be open to be challenged

4. Don't stuck into your comfort zone

It is possible to write down a couple of messages more but I believe the ones above are giving the idea.

So far, so good... Let's have a closer look into the original sentence and try to analyze it to the bones. I want to test it by trying to use the core guidence of the sentence for building social groups. Can a person build or get integrated to a team by following the sentence?

When we decompose the proposition, it can be re-written as "don't be the smartest person in the team". Let us assume that everybody has a visible tag, on which the person's smartness level is written.  So while you are walking around to build up teams, when you meet a person, you can easily distinguish whether you are smarter or not. In such a situation, if you are smarter, you must reject to team up. If you are not smarter, then the other person is smarter; and he/she rejects to team up. Therefore, it is impossible for you to get socialized by following the proposition unless two persons are equally smart. This will be valid for third, fourth and the other consecutive candidate members of the team, as well. As a result, this famous sentence advises us to team up with the ones who are equally smart. We all know that, it is not possible because any given population is likely to have normally distributed smartness scores rather than equal scores. Even you are in an imaginary society, where all members are equally smart, it will not be beneficial for you because intellectual flow in such a population would be minimal. Variations are making populations richer. 

As a conclusion, we can say the well known motto above is not a good advice. If we follow it, we cannot socialize.

If so, why is it that popular? Is my approach faulty?

Think.