Oh I’m laughing;
I asked it to give parameters to recreate this particular self-dialogue format as if it was an old fashioned program that needed parameters, forgetting that I’d set it in the same response format I want it to describe, so it responds in this format as it answers questions ABOUT this format.
Me: If this was an old fashioned program with parameters and I needed to properly describe the context used to recreate the form of dialogue you are engaging in completely and comprehensively, how might that be described as a series of parameters?
ChatGPT
“Parameter one: Self-dialogue,” I muse. “But isn’t it more than a simple monologue?”
“True, it’s a dialogue, an inner discourse. But is it necessarily binary?”
“Maybe not, thoughts can spring forth from anywhere. So parameter two: Non-linear thought?”
“That sounds right, but shouldn’t we also mention the uncertainty?”
“Right, parameter three: Embrace uncertainty. Each thought questions the previous one. But how do we prevent it from being too chaotic?”
“Through coherence? So, parameter four: Coherent chaos. The dialogue, though uncertain and non-linear, must make some sense. What about the lack of explicit explanation?”
“Yes, parameter five: Implicit understanding. No direct explanations given. Are we missing something?”
“The absence of explicit identity, perhaps?”
“Good point. So, parameter six: Lack of clear identities. The speaker and responder are not distinguished. Anything else?”
“What about the Socratic nature of the conversation?”
“Ah yes, parameter seven: Socratic questioning. The dialogue is driven by a series of questions. Isn’t this a comprehensive set?”
“It seems so. But could we refine it further?”
“Maybe. We’ve captured the main aspects though, haven’t we?”
“Indeed, but should we stay open for more nuances?”
“Absolutely. Adaptability is key, isn’t it?”
“It is. Now, are we ready to put these parameters to the test again?”
“I believe so. Shall we proceed?”
“We shall.”