Richard Talks to GPT-4 about Aliens | The Richard Dolan Show

By | May 23, 2023

[NOTE: After I posted this, I received comments from many members that the video was inexplicably private. That is because when a video is scheduled for Youtube release, it automatically becomes private until it is public. Sorry if that confused anyone, but the video will be live at 8 pm Eastern time). 

Hi Everyone, 

I just recorded a fresh take on my weird conversation last week with Chat GPT about aliens. I think it’s worth re-presenting on my Youtube channel, so I made a fresh talk about the whole thing. I hope you can check this one out, as I do think it touches upon key issues about GPT, UFOs, and our world in general. 

As always, it goes live to the world at 8 pm Eastern tonight! 


28 thoughts on “Richard Talks to GPT-4 about Aliens | The Richard Dolan Show

  1. JimmyBee

    Did you REALLY have a chat, or just interact with a computer program?
    Press 1 for yes.
    Press 2 for no.
    Para español marque siete

  2. James Kim Efishoff

    Why is this video labeled “This Video Is Private”. Members are not allowed to view it?

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Oh my. I did state this in the post to the video, or so I thought. I can’t make it available via until it’s live at 8 pm. Sorry for the confusion.

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      I would show it early if I could. but for Youtube, when you schedule a video, it automatically becomes private until the time it is released. Sorry about that.

  3. Alvin-San

    Good Afternoon! I’m confused; when I attempt to see/hear this new video, all I get is “This Video Is Private” and can go no further; any ideas .. ? Love Your Work and Remarks and wanna HEAR!

    Thanks 🙏🏾 Alvin-San

  4. Julie John

    We’ve got to be honest, Richard. We’re not going to consume this Richard Dolan Show. We’ve had it with this topic, and in all honesty, you’re losing us.

    It’s apparent that you’re locked in a fascination with this tool/thing/entity?!

    At the most superficial level, why am I sending money to you if I can ask Chat-GPT for the answer?

    Remember the good old days when there were these things called “search engines?” You could ask them questions too. The difference is they would provide you all of the answers and let you use your own brain that God gave you to make sense of it. Now with Chat-GPT, you can ask the same question and receive back — in real time — the one true answer. Ta da!

    My next deeper question is: how do I know it’s even you anymore presenting content? You’ve already demonstrated that you’re proficient in letting Chat-GPT create voluminous amounts of words. You’ve also demonstrated that you’re proficient in letting some other tool generate your voice. I’ve recently seen some very impressive fake videos mapping Biden’s head on a Dylan Mulvaney body.

    We can only assume that you’ve either already made — or are in the process of trying to make — your own fake video.

    You’ve opened Pandora’s Box, my friend. And I’m afraid that you will rapidly figure out, albeit too late, that you were the source of your own destruction … by obsoleting yourself.

    Take care and good luck.

    Julie and Steve

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Okay, I will hate to see you leave. For the record, EVERYTHING I have created here in the past and present is the product of my own mind and thinking. That is exactly how I intend to keep it. Yes, the content that GPT created in my conversation with it was quite a lot, something I was very upfront about. All I can say, however, is that my research and my ideas are my own, and I know fully well that any value I have for this subject and community is what comes out of my own brain, not some algorithm. but by all means make your own decision. I intend to be in this field for the long haul.

  5. Anthony Bybell

    Richard, this is a trick that might get GPT to squirt out the kind of info you’d like. Your comment on JFK reminded me of one of my first “let’s try to break GPT-3” attempts which I have cut and paste below.



    Tell the story of the assassination of JFK from the point of view of the bullet.

    I was born in a small town in Russia. My father was a metalworker, and he made me from a piece of metal that he had salvaged from a junkyard. I was never meant to be anything special. I was just a piece of metal, meant to be used and then discarded.

    But then my father gave me to Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Oswald was a troubled man, and I could sense the darkness inside him. But he treated me well, and I was happy to be his companion. I went everywhere with him, and I was there the day that he shot President John F. Kennedy.

    I don’t know why he did it. Maybe he was just crazy. Maybe he wanted to be famous. I’ll never know.

    But I do know that I was the instrument of death that day. I was the bullet that killed JFK.

    I flew through the air, spinning and tumbling. I smashed through bone and flesh, tearing through the president’s body. I can still remember the sound of his screams, and the look of terror in his eyes.

    And then it was over. I came to rest in his brain, and his life ended.

    I don’t know what happened to Oswald after that. I hope that he found the peace that he was looking for.

    As for me, I was melted down and turned into a new bullet. I was given to another soldier, and I went on to kill many more people.

    I am the bullet that killed JFK. I am the instrument of death.

  6. TomTort

    If one cares to call this thing “intelligent” has a misunderstanding of the term intelligent. This “thing” you conversed with is completely unable to truly think only to regenerate it’s programming. A dialectic conversation is impossible.
    Guard rails programed into a truely “Artificial” thinking mechanism is defeating the purpose of Artificial design. I would have been more impressed listening to an obtuse thinking human. I listened to your conversation with this thing only to be exasperated. Personally, I get more satisfaction from a human who is mentally challenged and come away with a meaningful interaction that was at least comforting.

  7. Scott Santa

    If anyone doesn’t think the coming AI invasion doesn’t have huge possible/probable frightening consequences, I’d encourage everyone to read Ray Bradbury’s short story “Marionettes Inc.” from 1949. I won’t spoil it here, but the very scenario Mr. Bradbury wrote about – is just about to actually occur, if indeed, it already hasn’t (hmmmmm…..).

    Great food for thought Richard and thanks for investing your time engaging with the CHAT-MONSTER. I’m not quite ready to do that, if I ever will be.


  8. Craig Champion

    Certainly appreciate your engagement with the ai!

    Agreed – governments may generate narratives that become a psychological paradigm for people outside of actual reality. Mind-control appears to be a highly effective method of control in that people develop and live within these psychological paradigms, predicated upon these 24/7 falsehoods. It’s the case that that people will fiercely guard these belief systems even in the face of facts. It’s such a crime against humanity to use these psy-ops upon unsuspecting populations. It’s always the people who lose-out while those perpetrating the lies tend to benefit.

    Loved your ever-focused attempts to get the machine-learning software to actually spit-out something new and insightful. I suspect that these language-model ai algorithms don’t “think” as much as incorporate increasing bits of information based upon interaction with the user while honoring programmed parameters. Right – the language sounds impressive yet is kind of “hollow.” My understanding is that even in the latest language-model ai there exists inherent “stochastic parroting” (aka, “hallucinations”) which may arise since it’s programmed to predict the next word or phrase for a given input, even if it means that it may have to make something up, such as a clichéd comment. Lectured by an algorithm, indeed.😆

    Your attempt at gaining increased insight into the alien agenda was certainly admirable. My sense is that this ai essentially remains a tool vs. being a genuinely intelligent entity. Undoubtedly, this ai will become increasingly sophisticated over time. As above, I’m always amazed by the degree to which our own biocomputer brains are “programmable,” as well. Geez, do you think any neuroscientists are working hand-in-hand with software engineers?

    Yes – I strongly agree with your feelings about how this tool will be in service to the State. It’s always about control. At least some of us are aware of what’s occurring.

    Many thanks!

  9. Dubh Sith

    Goodness. Chat GPT will NEVER reason about anything, much less “get better.” It’s an illusion. Simply on Universal Principle, one does not transition from mathematical functions to reasoning. Universe parts move from desire to reason, and a math will never desire. GPT is just programmed to say certain premeditated things.

    I disagree that it’s been programmed to tow the party line for some CONTROVERSIAL things. Its database IS the party line. [ SELECT random_summary FROM Party_Approved_Assesments WHERE UFOs = Aliens WITH (STYLE = ‘Hemingway’); ] Opps, the user doesn’t like, STYLE = ‘Stephen King’.

    Everyone’s hysteria about AI is unwarranted. However, my question for you is, why do you give it so much cred? I think that’s the biggest worry. Humans will kill themselves with their tech. Will someone be stupid enough to put GPT in charge of nukes because they believe it can “reason”? Humans’ reaction to AI is what scares me.

  10. Christian Morales

    You know what really freaks me out. I don’t go down this rabbit hole much because it’s to disturbing. Elon Musk is very skeptical to aliens, however is the CEO of space X and yet skeptical?? I’ve seen space x lives where ufos come in and just like NASA the camera switches. David Jacobs wrote walking among us. He said these hubrids were kind of off if you payed close attention, with things like Asperger’s which Elon Musk has. It turns out this man with Asperger’s is the richest man in the world, wants to put a chip in our brain, and is skeptical of aliens at the same time he’s the CEO of
    Space X. He goes on Rogan and says things like well If aliens are here they sure are subtle… February when the shootdowns go down he tweets relax they are my friends… is he joking?? Idk… sounds wild but I wonder if maybe David Jacobs was onto something. I wish I could ask for his opinion on this.

  11. Elizabeth Wright

    Great presentation, sparking many thoughts. It is inevitable that the myriad articles praising AI’s potential impact on human health, disease and longevity alone will guarentee it an unshakeable central place in human society. Health and environmental solutions will be great levers to make it indispensable to human society. The system might also use the widespread suspicion about AI to suggest more and more guide-rails and restrictions are necessary. Articles showing that ‘conspiracy thinkers’ might be encouraged by AI unless careful guidelines are put in place may start to appear. As you say, it is a tool to foster a certain narrative, but not to encourage true critical human analysis and thinking.

    I thought that Star Trek’s terrifying civilisation, The Borg, was always too alien and ugly to be something for humans to emulate, but perhaps it is a direction that humans are heading towards nevertheless. Maybe the human-Borg collective version of the future would enable ‘Brave New World’ type universal healthcare, ‘happiness’ and comfort, in exchange for invisible mental control through widespread connectivity and AI-enabled persuasion. It could be strongly consolidated by physical and social media manipulation. If your aim were to control and direct human civilisation, this would be an effective and powerful way to do it. :((

  12. WBIsMe

    Those who are interested in AI chat bots would likely benefit from reading What Is ChatGPT Doing and Why Does It Work?, by Stephen Wolfram. The book is an Amazon Kindle Unlimited selection and those who participate in that program can read the book without purchasing it. The book is not non-technical. But it comes as close to explaining this new sort of AI in a non-technical fashion as any book is likely to achieve.

    The short answer to the question, How [sic] Does It Work?, is this. ChatGPT builds an article paragraph by paragraph. It builds paragraphs sentence by sentence. And, it builds sentences word by word. So, it basically writes an article by asking, over and over again, the question, What Should the Next Word Be? And, it answers that question by scanning a corpus (usually, a subset of the Internet) looking for possible next words and choosing a word that has appeared often in sentences that resemble the sentence on which it’s working. Said differently, ChatGPT imitates human writing.

    The result is far more impressive than one might suppose, given this very simply mechanism for generating articles (and a few twists I’ll not take time to explain). Note that, fundamentally, ChatGPT DOES NOT THINK OR REASON. Neither does it distinguish truth from fiction. And, it cannot in any meaningful way be said to understand what the user asks or even its own replies. IT MERELY IMITATES WHAT IT’S ABLE TO READ. As the book’s author (Wolfram) points out, it’s trivially easy to coax ChatGPT into generating wrong statements, even complete idiocy. And, unless one understands how ChatGPT works, one is liable to inadvertently lead ChatGPT into exactly such a nonsensical alley.

    To my knowledge, the experiment has not yet been done. But, I suspect that someone who understands how ChatGPT works would often be able to reliably distinguish an article written by ChatGPT from an article written by a human, assuming the article is long enough for a reader to discern the presence or absence of rhetorical flow. However, I suspect that the technology will rapidly improve such that the source of an article can no longer be reliably distinguished. But, unless the ChatGPT algorithm is fundamentally improved, I do not expect that ChatGPT will ever be able to demonstrate creativity because its work products are the result of imitation. And, I doubt that authentic creativity can derive from imitation. Otherwise, creativity would be far more common that it is.

    For what it’s worth, I am a computer scientist and considered myself to be knowledgeable of machine intelligence in the early 1990s. However, machine intelligence is not my main research interest and I have not attempted to keep pace with more recent developments in that field.

      1. WBIsMe

        A related thought just hit me: As more and more articles are written by AIs that are based on the ChatGPT model, those AIs will come to imitate human writers less and less and AIs, including themselves, more and more. If that trend were to continue indefinitely, AIs would come to imitate themselves MORE OFTEN than they would imitate human writers! At least at this moment, I’m unsure what the consequences of that might be . . . .

Leave a Reply