Though I am not sure what real purpose could be (
technically) but I’m sure it’s gonna be fun tool to be used for searching various layman topics and terms. When I opened your tool the first thought came in to search for ChatGPT and see what result it throws back.
I was expecting hundreds of thousand results in return but to my surprise it just came back with 22 results.
One noticing thing was, it associated the ChatGPT with one of the Darwins Evolution theory.
Question: does it hide text with asterisk for the safety reasons or for example out of copyright law to protect the breach of data?
In the result viewer shows data hidden with asterisks. (Many things to learn about this tool tbh)
# The State of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in 2023
Gregory F. Coppola
**************Apocalypse Like Right Now**************
April 12, 2023
# Introduction
This essay explores the case *******against******* the (Darwinian) theory of ****************************************undirected evolution****************************************. We refer to proponents of undirected evolution as ********atheists********.
The conclusions are as follows:
- the default position should be ***********agnosticism***********, not *******atheism*******, until the data suggests otherwise, following the principle of **************maximum entropy**************
- the theories of ********************undirected evolution******************** (atheism) and ******************intelligent design****************** are exhaustive
- i.e., there are only the two alternatives
- the theory of evolution is not like other theories in science
- there are major “mysteries” remaining at every level of the atheist theory
- the onus is on the atheists to fill out their theory
- the theory of evolution is a research program not a theory
- a research program cannot be falsified
- the onus is on atheists to make falsifiable predictions, or admit that they don’t have a theory
- evolution is mostly a set of “just so” stories, that superficially use the word “because” to describe the past, but don’t actually predict when evolution will take place
- we identify a fallacy, the ******************functional fallacy******************
- the belief that a deep understanding of biological processes as they function today implies an understanding of the *******genesis******* of these processes
- the everyday operation of biological functions **is** well-understood, but the genesis of these is not
# Only Two Options
We begin by discussing that there are apparently only two alternatives for the explanation of the human race.
We believe that this can be shown to be an exhaustive list.
The two alternatives are:
1. **intelligent design**
- we are a product of design by an *****************intelligent being*****************
2. **undirected evolution**
- we are a product of a series of **********undirected********** events
- proponents of this theory are called ********atheists********
We believe that the definition of **********undirected********** that fits the intuition and practical usage of this term is:
- definition of **undirected**
- arising **without** intelligence
Thus, as a matter of definition, there are the only two options:
- either we are a product of “an intelligent designer” or we are not
More precisely, consider any object $X$, which could be either:
- the universe
- the planet earth in its place in the universe
- any given species on planet earth
- humans
We say that either $X$ is a product of an “intelligent cause”, or else it is not. If $X$ is not the product of an “intelligent cause”, then it is a product of an “undirected” cause.
# A Priori, the Default Position Should Be Agnosticism
## Artificial Intelligence is a Program to do Science
There are certain areas of unclarity in the question of how science can be done.
We believe that in 2023 the philosophy of science should be informed by reference to artificial intelligence.
That is, artificial intelligence tools do *****science*****.
However, unlike humans, in order for a computer program to do science, it has to follow a specified procedure.
Thus, artificial intelligence programs force us to specify science as a procedure.
When humans do science, because the “software” for doing science exists in the human’s brain, a human being doing science does not need to *******consciously******* be able to explain optimal science.
Humans have been doing science since the first appearance of language.
But, the ability to describe science as an algorithm dates only the 21st century.
Thus, it has long been possible with **do** science, without exactly knowing what that actually means.
However, when a computer does science, because it is following a specific program, either the equations implemented in the program work, in which case artificial intelligence succeeds wildly, or they don’t, in which case the program can predict either nothing, or else nothing impressive.
Practice has shown that neural networks are trained by the maximization of certain equations.
## Maximum Entropy Training
ChatGPT is trained using cross-entropy using the principle of maximum entropy.
The principle of ***************maximum entropy*************** is:
- principle of ******************************maximum entropy******************************
- find the most uniform distribution consistent with available information
In other words, given a data set, the principle of maximum entropy dictates we should pick the probability distribution that is the ************least biased************ ****************between predicting alternatives that the dataset does not support.
## Agnosticism
In the context of the debate between intelligent design or undirected evolution, ***if there were*** no evidence to choose between alternatives, the default position should be one of agnosticism.
However, in 2023, we do have abundant data-driven reasons to doubt whether undirected evolution is possible.
# The Necessity of Falsifiability in Science
## The Burden of Proof in Science
The way that science is ********supposed******** to work is that, in order to introduce a significant new theory, the proponent of that theory should make:
- clear, falsifiable predictions
- predict more than it mis-predicts
## Research Program versus Falsifiable Theory
However, there are certain cases in the history of science, where something else is able to arise: a ******research program******.
A research program is the *project* to look for a falsifiable theory.
A research program cannot be falsified.
## Chomsky’s Minimalist Program
Chomsky wrote of his “Minimalist Program”:
> It is important to recognize that the Minimalist Program (MP) under development in this work, and since, is a program, not a theory, a fact that has often been misunderstood. (The Minimalist Program, 2015, page vii)
>
In other words, *******nothing******* can falsify the minimalist program, because it is not a specific theory.
As the old saying goes:
> It’s good work if you can get it.
>
The idea that a scientist can be at work and taken seriously without a falsifiable theory is a deeply corrosive and
[/qoute]
but I will start researching how to offer the platform through a .onion domain.. great suggestion. 
