[chirau]

To the expanse of knowledge that is at our disposal today, that is the extent of AI knowledge.

To the extent that facts are defined as today and stated as such, that is what AI is today. AI, as it is today, is never going to create a fact that refutes any currently existing facts.

It may give you context on the theories against the facts that we have today, but it will always reiterate the notion of the existing fact. I don't know how much I can emphasize this... AI is trained on the current body of human knowledge. The facts it knows are the facts that we have, it may derive another fact but whatever fact that is founded on the facts that we already have. So if that AI is trained on the fact that 1+1=2 or that the earth is flat, do not expect it to respond otherwise. At best, it will give you theories that suggest otherwise but for its own worth, it will always bring you back to the facts that it has.

Do you really want AI to just ignore the fundamental facts and principles that form its foundation and just make up stuff because you asked it to? Do you realize how much chaos that can bring?

[itishappy]

The facts as decided by who? Is there some database of facts we all agree on? Are we expecting to all agree with AI?

> Do you really want AI to just ignore the fundamental facts and principles that form its foundation and just make up stuff because you asked it to? Do you realize how much chaos that can bring?

I mean, yeah? What will happen? Here, I'll do it:

You can SEE the Earth is flat! Have you flown in a plane, high in the sky? Did it LOOK round from up there? No?!? Believe your senses.