Example, I used chatgtp to come up with a theory explaining the origin of eukaryotes. The part I enhanced was something that chatgtp came up with.
In the theory of the origin of eukaryotes, we have discussed how colonies of prokaryotic cells started transporting vesicles by kinesin, which crossed cell membranes. This led to the formation of a pseudo-multicellular organism, where each prokaryotic cell represented an organelle, linked together by sharing nutrients and other materials through kinesins. This pseudo-multicellular organism eventually fused, with each cell representing an organelle, into the first eukaryote. But how did the nucleus come into existence? In this revised theory, we will explore the idea that the segregation of genetic information in the nucleus was a critical factor in the evolution of eukaryotes. As the pseudo-multicellular organism developed, the exchange of genetic material became more complex. Kinesins were used to transport vesicles containing proteins and other cellular components between the different organelles. **However, this system had limitations in terms of transporting larger and more complex molecules, such as DNA.** To overcome this limitation, a new set of proteins evolved known as the SNAREs and Rabs GTPase. These proteins played a crucial role in the formation of membrane-bound vesicles, which could transport larger molecules such as DNA. The SNAREs acted as a ziplock mechanism, bringing the vesicle and the target organelle membrane close enough for fusion to occur. On the other hand, the Rabs GTPase acted as a molecular switch, regulating vesicle trafficking by controlling vesicle formation, transport, and fusion. As the complexity of the genome increased, the need for efficient storage and segregation of genetic material became more critical. **The vesicles containing DNA eventually fused together, forming a compartment that would become the nucleus. The SNAREs and Rabs GTPase played a crucial role in the formation of the nuclear envelope, which encloses the genetic material within the nucleus.** The formation of the nucleus allowed for more efficient regulation of gene expression, leading to increased complexity in cellular processes. The segregation of genetic material allowed for a higher level of control over gene expression, as specific genes could be activated or repressed depending on the cellular requirements. In conclusion, the evolution of eukaryotes was a complex process that involved the cooperation of multiple cellular components. The use of kinesin to transport vesicles and the evolution of SNAREs and Rabs GTPase played a crucial role in the formation of the first eukaryotes. The formation of the nucleus was a critical factor in the evolution of eukaryotes, as it allowed for the segregation and efficient regulation of genetic material. The evolution of the nucleus was a necessary step in the development of the complex eukaryotic cell, which has allowed for the incredible diversity of life on earth. Em sáb., 8 de abr. de 2023 às 20:32, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote: > > >> For example, if asked "Can you pour water into >> > a glass made of sugar?", ChatGPT might provide a grammatically >> correct but >> > nonsensical response, whereas a human with common sense would >> recognize >> > that a sugar glass would dissolve in water. >> >> ....so where did it get this example from, or all of these points for >> that matter? >> > > Probably from a human author writing about AI. I asked it in a follow up > question: > > ME: So, how would you respond to the question: "Can you pour water into a > glass made of sugar?" > > ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide a grammatically correct > response based on my training data. However, my response may not reflect > common sense or practicality in the real world. > > If I were to respond based on my training data, I might say something > like: "Yes, you can pour water into a glass made of sugar, but the glass > will dissolve." However, it's important to note that this is not a > practical or sensible thing to do in reality because the sugar glass would > quickly dissolve and the water would spill out. > > It's worth mentioning that humans have common sense and contextual > knowledge that allow us to understand the impracticality of pouring water > into a glass made of sugar. This is a good example of a situation where AI > language models like myself may struggle to understand and respond in a way > that reflects human common sense and practicality. > > This response may reflect the earlier part of the conversation. > > >> >> > > It cannot draw on >> > personal experiences, general knowledge, or reasoning to inform its >> > responses in the way a human would. >> >> General knowledge can be obtained from the Inet. "reasoning" is clearly >> not true. Without it, one cannot reply to a >> sentence. >> > > I assume you mean "the Internet." ChatGPT can scrape content from human > authors on the internet, but it has no reasoning. It literally does not > know what it is talking about. In the same sense that a bee making a nest > or directing other bees to a source of nectar does not know what it is > doing. The bee is acting by instinct with no planning or awareness. ChatGPT > is acting by programming with no plan or awareness. That is why it cannot > tell the difference between reality and what are now called > "hallucinations" (fake information invented by ChatGPT). > > > > world. It cannot perform physical tasks like walking, manipulating >> objects, >> > or performing surgery, which are essential for many real-world >> applications. >> >> There are already robots that perform these things. They require only >> programming to interact with the real world....and >> many already have Inet connectivity, either directly or indirectly. >> > > When these robots are controlled by advanced AI in the future, they may > approach or achieve AGI partly because of that. ChatGPT is not saying that > AGI is impossible; she is saying that some kind of robotic control over > physical objects is probably a necessary component of AGI, which she > herself has not yet achieved. > > > >> > 5. Lack of self-awareness: ChatGPT does not have the ability to >> reflect >> > on its own thoughts, actions, or limitations in the way that a >> self-aware >> > human being can. It cannot introspect, learn from its mistakes, or >> engage >> > in critical self-reflection. >> >> ....AutoGPT? >> > > Not yet. > > > The point I have been trying to make is that if we program something to >> behave like a human, it may end up doing exactly >> that. > > > The methods used to program ChatGPT and light years away from anything > like human cognition. As different as what bees do with their brains > compared to what we do. ChatGPT is not programmed to behave like a human in > any sense. A future AI might be, but this one is not. The results of > ChatGPT programming look like the results from human thinking, but they are > not. The results from bee-brain hive construction look like conscious human > structural engineering, but they are not. Bees do not attend MIT. > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
