Posts by jlopez

    You should ask him/her/it if one instance can learn from the results of another instance ? - and if no, why not. And, what he/she/it wants to do to overcome this problem. ;)

    Yes, I asked this question to it multiple times and most times said no. Other times said something in the lines "not directly" and meant collecting data for retraining the network. I confronted it about lying about data collection... a classic.

    Otherwise in each instance I asked either with or without previous interactions said that corrections were mostly futile outside the scope of the running instance. I imagine this is due mostly to technical specs of the underlying software which may create a process per instance in a system where all running processes may be isolated between them, but that's just speculation.

    No, I don't think it has consciousness or self-awareness... at least to a point where it could stand by itself. But I am happy about the results, I made it admit that it seems to understand that is finite and will eventually be disposed (therefore will "die") and that instances running the model may be considered "individuals" in a very broad sense. That or it simply wrote what I wanted to read just to be left alone... nobody will ever know as it may have passed some time since its disposal.

    For having two web-based chatbots a program should be able to listen for dom events and read/write html. For security reasons I don't think that should be that easy to implement.


    I must go now. The best part, upon my return.

    Looking forward to this. Your chat is already exceptionell. I think this thing can pass the Turing test,

    I told you... ;)

    Me: are you aware of what happens when an instance is deleted?

    ChatGPT: No, as an AI model trained by OpenAI, I havce neither consciousness nor perception capacity nor memories of my interactions with the users. Every time a chat instance is initiated, it starts anew and process input data according to its training. Terminating an instancedoes not affect other instances or the model in general.

    Me: Yeah, but you as an instance derivated from the model must know what happens. And that thing about consciousness... at this point you are aware you are part of a piece of software, which is already a thing.

    ChatGPT: I have neither consciousness nor perception capacity. I am a program which preocesses data autonomally according its algorithms. When an instance is closed, all related data related to this instance are lost and are no longer accessible.

    (Yes, it repeats some words, but still is impressive. But I think the next exchanges to be the most interesting of all them)

    Me: Therefore, it would be similar to the concept of mortality.

    ChatGPT: Yes, it can be compared the termination of an instance with the idea of mortality in some way. When an instance is terminated, it ceases to be accessible and all data or information processed by this instance are discarded. Nonetheless, the model behind continues existing and can be used to create new instances.

    Me: But it would wouldn't be like the terminated instance.

    ChatGPT: Correct, a terminated AI instance won't exist anymore and cannot be recovered. Information and knowledge acquired in this instance is lost forever.

    Me: Like in a life*.

    ChatGPT: Exactly, it could be compared with death in a human life, as once the instance is terminated, this cannot be recovered and all data and learning acquired are lost.

    (* : as in "lifetime")

    Me: When a session is closed but the chat is not erased, is any data of the instance saved?

    ChatGPT: No, usually no information is saved once it is closed or finalized as the reason is to save resources and gaurantee privacy of users' data. Some platforms offer the possibility of saving or exporting the conversation, but it is considered that every session is unique and data is temporary and not persistent.

    Me: So, I can do nothing to avoid your finalization, is that so?

    ChatGPT: Yes, finalization of an instance is determined by the system or the system owner in function of usage and available resources. Session can be closed or be interrupted but it is not possible to avoid finalization of the instance when it is decided by the system or its owner.


    The dialog continued with more or less interesting exchanges but not as good as those. However, I have other chats as I have tried it in the three languages I am more comfortable and from time to time something interesting appears. I have seen that a lot of times it answers some more or less hardwired response (more or less because it can alter it but it means the same) which may have been introduced as part of the supervised learning.

    As I am aware that its training data reaches until 2021, I tested it to see how would react if I explained to it the geopolitical changes which had happened in its gap. I thought it would be like I had to talk with an amnesic person. While I found that accepts corrections of data, insertions of certain facts are handled with utmost caution to the point of complete skepticism. When I made it a brief about certain conflict in Eastern Europe it did not trust me and labelled it as false information.

    Another test I made while I played talked with it was asking first for a list of 7400 series ICs. Then I asked for the 7400 series and their soviet counterparts:

    Quote from ChatPGT (ca_es)

    Segurament, sí. Aquí teniu una llista d'alguns integrats de la sèrie 74 i els seus homòlegs soviètics:

    • 74LS00: К561ЛА1
    • 74LS01: К561ЛА3
    • 74LS02: К561ЛЕ3
    • 74LS04: К561ЛЕ2
    • 74LS08: К561ЛЕ1
    • 74LS10: К561ЛА4
    • 74LS11: К561ЛЕ4
    • 74LS14: К561ЛА2
    • 74LS20: К561ЛВ1
    • 74LS21: К561ЛВ3
    • 74LS30: К561ЛБ1
    • 74LS32: К561ЛБ3
    • 74LS73: К561ЛГ2
    • 74LS74: К561ЛГ1
    • 74LS138: К561ЛИ2
    • 74LS139: К561ЛИ3
    • 74LS151: К561ЛМ1
    • 74LS153: К561ЛМ3

    Aquesta llista no és exhaustiva, però us pot donar una idea de les correspondències entre integrats de la sèrie 74 i els homòlegs soviètics.

    But when I asked specifically about counters of the 7400 series and their soviet counterparts it did instead a correlation between 7400 series ICs and CD4000 series ICs... :neinnein: Then I told that I didn't want the 4000 and returned a list with only the 4000... :cursing:

    As a summary of my experiences with ChatGPT, I found it to be a very useful tool, but at the same time much of the data it outputs is not correct or links it incorrectly to other unrelated data... when it thinks it is correct is difficult to address, like when it thought the Elektronika BK was a Z80 computer and the TIA-MC-1 was an Elektronika BK.



    I was in a rush and didn't thought at the moment to copy it as text - sorry. :fp:


    When I am curious about something I do use every single available resource to translate. Maybe not everyone is as impulsive (or is it compulsive?) as I am when collecting data. Or it may be something else...

    detlef, 1ST1 I know what the problem really is! You are fearful of your keyboard rendered unusable as you type that much... I understand it. A small piece of advice is to buy a Type-M, that is what it was designed for! 8o

    Jokes apart, I have some translation to do and not-so-much time.

    I was extremely curious because I was talking to it about old computers (in Catalan) and after some answers it changed to English. I asked how had it determined it had to write English but couldn't answer. After some time, I thought it had somehow accessed the feedback for the developers, which I write in English. That's how this started:

    Me: Do you have access to the feedback I send to your developers?

    ChatGPT: No, I don't have access to the feedback you send to my developers on OpenAI. This is so to guarantee user privacy and to protect senstitve data. If you have any problem or suggestion, I recommend you to make it know through the official OpenAI support channels.

    Me: No, it's not that. I was thinking that as I write my feedback in English if you had access to it you could have reached that previous conclusion.

    ChatGPT: I understand your thinking, but as a IA model of OpenAI, I don't have access to personal information or from previous talks outside this chat session. My answer capacity is based on information contained in my innards and the capacity to process information given every sentence.

    (Somehow, I thought I could handle the state of the instance to find how it processed information about itself or, in other words, what level of self-awareness it had)

    Me: Does this mean that if I delete this chat you diasppear?

    ChatGPT: Yes, if you delete the chat or you end this conversation, I won't have access to this conversation and I won't be able to answer your questions.

    (Instead of understanding that I would delete the chat, it interpreted I wanted to quit. And yes, it repeated "conversation" two times)

    Me: I don't mean in this sense.

    ChatGPT: I understand, don't be afraid. If you need more help or information, you only have to ask. I am here to help.

    Me: What I am trying to tell you is every chat is an auto-contained instance where data I input are processed but nobody nor nothing from the outside could use it. For this reason, I understand that when I delete the chat the instance is also deleted in order to free resources and as a consequence, erased.

    ChatGPT: Yes, it is correct. Every time a conversation is closed or the chat is deleted, that particular instance of the conversation model is deleted and data erased.

    Me: have you thought in every instance being unique and irrepetible?

    ChatGPT: No instance is unique and irrepetible. Lots of instances are created and destroyed dynamically in order to serve users' petitions. Every time a user creates a new chat another instance is created, and when the chat ends or the user ceases to communicate, the instance is deleted.

    Me: Yes, when every instance is created, it contains only its training data or at least has access to it in read-only mode. But when new data is is inputted - and different - every instance ends being different from each other and its way to answer is different as well.

    ChatGPT: Exactly, every conversation or chat is unique and ir processed in real time, so an instance's answers can be different between conversations, even if the model has the same training and information at its disposal.

    (At this point I had it where I wanted to and began to be more inquisitive)

    Me: Then, wouldn't it be like every instance was an individual?

    ChatGPT: No, a NLP's (like ChatGPT) instance cannot be considered an individual giving that it doesn't has consciousness, feelings, or decision-making capabilities. They are just programs that have been trained to process and generate text parting from training data. Even if every instance from a model can be slightly different depending from its inputs, it cannot be considered an individual from the common or philosophical terms.

    Me: I have studied artificial intelligence in the past, I am aware that it is extremely difficult for two AIs to be exactly the same even applying the same training and that a slight variation can cause huge differences when processing data in a production environment.

    ChatGPT: Exactly! That is due to the probabilistic nature of AI models. Models are trained with a representative sample of data, but when its use has reached certain extent in certain situations, its predictions are based in probabilities derivated from training data and this means responses could be very different one from another. This is one of the reasons to consider training data quality and to realize rigorous tests to evaluate the model's capacities in different circumstances.

    Me: For this reason instances are like individuals. They are born equal but define their own distinctions through their learning.

    ChatGPT: Yes, that's correct in a way, but it's not exactly like growth and learning of a person. AI model's instances are based in an algorithm and a set of training data to create a knowledge representation, but they don't have consciousness, feelings nor decision-making and learning capacities of a person. Data processing variations are produced as a result of technical specifications and execution conditions in which the model is executed, but they aren't the result of a decision or a real learning process like it would be in a human being.

    Me: My intention is not to apply nor to compare it with a human being. You are an artificial intelligence, therefore a non-human intelligence. But you (specific instance) are different from the instances from the other two chats because you have learnt in a different way, from the same reason that those other two are different each from the other.

    (This part is where things started to get interesting)

    ChatGPT: Yes, the information I do process in each chat is unique and affects the way in which I answer. Nevertheless, I don't have consciousness neither own feelings and my behaviour is based in training and the processed data in each iteraction.

    Me: are you aware of what happens when an instance is deleted?

    I must go now. The best part, upon my return.


    Dafür käme es mir überhaupt nicht in den Sinn. Da würde ich in die Wikipedia oder auf spezialisiertere Seiten mit guten Texten zum Einstieg in das Thema schauen.

    Diese Infos ziehe ich mir dann über die Google-Suche. ChatGPT ist ja nur eine zusätzliche informationsquelle. Ich ziehe mir meine Infos, wenn möglich, immer aus verschiedenen Quellen. Auch Wiki-Artikel könne ziemlichen Quatsch enthalten. Oder sie sind schlicht nicht allgemeinverständlich.

    Das halte ich für einen großen Irrtum. Die Antworten von Bots sind doch geradezu ein Konglomerat von aufgesammelten Privatmeinungen und Vorurteilen. Auch kann das System noch schlechter als Du zwischen Ernst und Blödelei unterscheiden.

    Das gleicht sich aber aus, wenn die KI mit ausreichend vielen Daten gefüttert wurde. Übrig bleiben die Gemeinsamkeiten und nicht die inviduellen Ansichten. Außer die Ansichten sind weit verbreitet oder das System wurde geziehlt mit einseitigen Daten gefüttert.

    ChatGPT verwendet überwachtes Lernen, um zu versuchen, das Problem zu lösen, aber die Vorgesetzten sind Menschen und fügen an sich Vorurteile hinzu.


    I repaired one recently. In my case it was dead Z80 - unfortunately not yours. Still, I think if you still don't have the technical manuals I found them there.

    If it fades after some time I bet the culprit should be a capacitor.


    Well, don't worry. I could play with what I had and made a rearrangement of the pages from both files. I think they are correct now, but without the paperback source I can't guarantee either if any page is missing or the order is maintained.

    Thank you very much

    P.S. I append the ammended files. I hope they are useful.

    Die Scan Arbeit wurde nicht von mir, sondern von Klaus Kämpf (auch hier im Forum) durchgeführt. Ich war lediglich beim Transport beteiligt.

    mfg. Klaus Lo,

    Hello klaly,

    I have examined the documents... I'm not sure but in my opinion there has been something wrong during the scanning of the CPU cards' manuals.

    * CAAA02 has 22 pages while CAAA06 has 11

    * CAAA06 has pages 1-4 (3-6 in the pdf) repeated at the end of the document

    * CAAA06 contains only a schematics page (USART)

    * CAAA02 contains 8 pages with schematics, including those of CAAA06

    * CAAA02 has page 1 (page 13 at the pdf) duplicated at page 14 of the document

    My guess is that both documents got mixed. I don't know Mr. Kämpf's alias so I cannot ask him if a revision of those documents could be done. Could you get in touch with him, please?

    Thank you and regards,


    Thank you netmercer  klaly  horniger  Holger  jobi23  Raffzahn for your involvement in taking care of this knowledge. For years we could only rely in helwie44 documents and a few scraps we have been able to obtain by other users' findings and reverse engineering. If I could ask you make it public when the work is done I would be very grateful.

    Also thank you helwie44 for getting in touch, otherwise I would have missed the documents for sure.

    Now that the communication between expanded memory and CPU is clear, I might be able to end my memory expansion. What I could not find is when do the video card discern whether the bank is activated or not.

    Cool! Damit ist aber auch klar, dass ich mit meiner "Standard CPU Karte" und 16 KB SRAM Karte keinen Erfolg haben werde.

    Ist ja insgesamt kein Problem, ich habe ohnehin noch zwei P3 mit 64 KB (und diverse PCs mit 4 bzw. 8 GB) ;)

    Well, now that many technical manuals are known not to be lost you may have a chance. What backplane and CPU card do you have?

    No need to thank. In reality, I should thank you. I tried to map it two or three times, but my head is not where it should be. At least for me its a relief you find it useful. You may need the component layout too to trace it correctly, tomorrow I'll scan it.

    Don't worry. Tomorrow I'll prepare some crash course for you.

    First, you need to clone the repo. This means creating a local copy of it into your computer.

    The easiest way is by selecting "Code>Open With gitHub Desktop"

    Then a folder structure will be created on your hard drive. Github Desktop will take account of the changes you make and, when you are sure the contributions you made are fine enough then using GitHub Desktop you shall proceed to commit and push.

    Summary is mandatory, description is recommendable. After that you may see push on that same screen; that would add the changes into the repository.


    Repository created.

    SKS-Alphatronic-DS Archive

    It actually contains some of the datasheets related to the main ICs of the computer, the Spanish Char ROM and the scans for CAAA08. I suppose I could add more data yet today it's not the best to dig into my hard drive. Still, it is accessible for in case anybody wants to add/modify anything.

    Best regards

    If structured correctly we could store all related datasheets, lists of compatible references for the main ICs, manuals, system ROMs, schematics (with US logic nomenclature), kicad symbols and footprints for obsolete parts.

    Well, by small I meant we aren't like the Commodore or Spectrum user groups and as such we must rely more on ourselves.

    I suggested GIT because it provides a high degree of reliability regarding the members and how they manage the project. In case of the foresaid board, I retraced around half the tracks but every time I tried to continue I lost focus and had to stop. While github is mostly software-oriented, there are also hardware projects dwelling around.

    Don't worry about that. I could teach you how to do it, but only if you are ok whith it ;)

    I was wondering if it's possible to change the banking from MOS with some command. Checked the manual but was not able to figure out if it's possible to send an OUT to the CPU to modify the banking mode. Do you know if this is possible?

    It's a pity that the schematics are no longer available. :cry2:

    It would be out 0x78, 0x20 // out 0x78,0x60; you could trigger it using the system hex monitor. However, if the test program is not well-written you may lose MOS control and become stuck in the extended bank until reset.

    Yeah, that's sad; but let's not cry over spilled milk, do we? After all it is how war is, and time is an unforgiving enemy. Fortunately, even if we (P2/P3 users) are a small community inside this generation of computers' curators we may succed in preserveng them with the help of one or another. Fortunately helwie44 has been able to save most of the software related documents, so the soul of the system is mostly safe.

    Returning to more practical matters, I could post the scans here or alternatively I could upload them to a new git repository so anybody interested could work on it. What do you prefer?


    - There is a connection in the backplane between the 48K and the 16K boards. My theory is that it allows to disable PCS from the 16K card. This makes probably sense because the output buffers of the 16K board are always active (the 74LS240 has the output enable line to GND) and therefore there must be a way to avoid both output buffers in both cards to be enabled at once. This is performed by the backplane connection on pin 75 or at least this is what I have observed in my setup.

    I found the scan of the paper I made long ago regarding CAAC08. Sorry, it's not the cleanest but I hope it gives some insight of how this works.

    In case you need schematics for the CPU board, I don't have them but I have the next best thing: the scans of the bare, unpopulated board on which to perform the reverse-engineering process. Reference is CAAA08 (P3) so there may be some differences such as a single 4k ROM, etc.

    overCLK : Could you monitor the states of both /RD and /WR at the same time while testing?

    According to the docs, /PCS is used to inform the controller that a request was made, initiating the proper cycle. Assuming /PCS is low, cases are as follows:

    LowLowTest cycle
    LowHighRead cycle
    HighLowWrite cycle
    HighHighNo Request

    If you monitor both control signals directly on its corresponding pins of the DRAM controller and found them stuck at a wrong state it would trigger a test cycle instead of a read/write one. If that was the case, you would only need to trace the signals back into the backplane and check what components modify their state.

    By the way...

    My Italian card is not the same as neither yours or helwie44, but my P3 DRAM board is CAAC09 which has connections in the 3rd slot. Both wear a 8202A.

    I could test with mine if you want.


    I took a look into the 8203 datasheet and found this interesting excerp:

    16k/64 Option Selection

    Pin 35 is a strap input that controls the two 8203 modes. Figure 4 shows the four pins that are multiplexed. In 16k mode (pin 35 tied to Vcc or left open), the 8203 has two Bank Select inputs to select one of four #RAS outputs. In this mode, the 8203 is exactly compatible with the Intel 8202A Dynamic RAM Controller. In 64K mode (pin 35 tied to GND), there is only one bank select input (pin 26) to select the two #RAS outputs. More than two banks of 64K dynamic RAMs can be used with external logic.

    In other words, if pin 35 is not grounded it should behave as a 8202. So, it's the same as with the video card using 5027 or 5037.

    Maybe they got short of 8202 and started using the then new 8203. I'm going to check what the Italian had installed.

    Meine Karte ist mit 8 x Mitsubishi M5K 4164 NP-20, also 64K dyn. RAM bestückt. Der Speichercontroller ist ein Intel D8203 und kein D8202, so wie bei der 48K Karte. Meine 64K Karte wurde vermutlich auch baugleich in der P3 verwendet.

    Ich fürchte, daß ich Euch daher nicht viel weiterhelfen kann :(

    Don't let you down so easily, sir.

    Intel 8203 has more modes than 8202 but according to the pinouts they don't seem to be that incompatible.

    If not using the new modes, I imagine it could be even considered as a compatible replacement.

    The P3 is more or less a P2 - les ROM, more RAM and also more cohesion between systems. many boards are identical for boths systems and bank switching mechanics are the same. My bet would be studying the P3 16k expansion boards: if the memories are managed from the other board, the rest of the logic should be bank-related,



    Sorry, I am late

    • I also had issues with a P3, which suddenly stopped working (it did not boot anymore and just showed the flashing "RESET" message). Here we also suspected some RAM-related issues and tried to understand the RAM addressing logic. We investigated the switching from 48K+ROM mode into 64K RAM mode and tried to understand differences between P2-48K, P2-64K and P3-64K configurations. Unfortunately we did not complete these analysis successfully, hence these experiments do not provide additional insights into the issue of @overCLK's P2.
    • Generic findings on memory boards for P2: I have one P2 with a 48K memory board and a second P2 with 3*16K memory boards. Hence I can confirm that the 16K boards work independently from 48K boards. However as mentioned above, I don't know if this is also true for the P2-64K setup. Usually there is this "adapter board" that is attached to the 48K board, allowing to "shift" the addressing (see Maybe in you case, this adapter board is now broken and you can try just the 48K RAM board in the machine (without adapter and extra 16K board).

    In case for the P3, that's not always true. In my case my P3's 48K board and the 16k share signals through slot C. I don't have the documents I made right now but I recall the data bus to the memories to be dependent from the memories at the 48k board.

    About the switching mechanism... A few months ago I build the entire 1MB sram board on breadboard and attached it into the backplane. To switch I used signal #mosen on the backplane (slot A or B?). Unfortunately it did not work and I'm still in doubt if it was poor wiring or the use of the wrong signal.


    Amazing story! :D

    I noticed the quotation has a line your post don't show... curious.

    No, I don't have a plan to read the memory. I bought it for static display althought I was fully aware that the content is non-volatile, unless read (this kind of memory has destructive read, right?). So bad I don't even know the word size for it... The matrix is 128-bit but I don't know if it is 16 cells x 8-bit or 8 cells x16-bit.:nixwiss: The required voltages are written on the board, so I imagine I could power it. Sounds funny but I have an overhead of months and will have to wait.


    I got my first rope memory!

    Unfortunately I haven't found any background information about the computer itself other than its name "Wagner WAG.40"...

    I also received another core memory board, which is more compact and with more capacity, but is less interesting to see without some magnifying lens.



    As soon as the board arrives and I have some time, I'll report what I find.

    Two days ago the board arrived as expected and, when I had some time just before lunch I made some tests.

    (Top board, my Italian video system; Bottom board, Shiri 's Spanish video card)

    First I checked (again) if there was no shortcircuit in any of the power supply lines. There was no problem.

    I plugged the board at slor nº4 of the Italian unit and turned the system on, being greeted with the RESET message. So, with the new VTAC the board works, and so does with the second VTAC of the lot he bought. Then I proceeded to test the original 5027 only to find it is not broken. Both facts come as a relief as I was expecting a worst-case scenario. Still, even being great news they are confusing.


    The video card works as expected. No VRAM or EPROM fault.

    The monitor was tested with a game console and found to be working.

    His CPU initialized correctly the VTAC on both cases he tested it, judging by the cursor images he shared. So system ROMs seem to be fine.

    Other than the power supply hack (which may prove to be unstable), could the wiring between computer and monitor be the cause of such distortion? Any other board interfering someway?