"superintelligence technology" What a joke! AI can be no more "intelligent" than its creators and may actually be WORSE!
MY opinion is that AI was created so that individual humans can wash their hands of difficult decisions, claiming that AI, which they may claim is UNBIASED AND FACT BASED, has come up with a decision or idea on its own,…
"superintelligence technology" What a joke! AI can be no more "intelligent" than its creators and may actually be WORSE!
MY opinion is that AI was created so that individual humans can wash their hands of difficult decisions, claiming that AI, which they may claim is UNBIASED AND FACT BASED, has come up with a decision or idea on its own, and those using it are blameless for any harm or regressive policy that it may propose. The old trope, "Garbage in, garbage out", STILL holds true! And anyone who relies on this new technology KNOW IT and APPROVES of it!
A cartoon in American Scientist around 1980 showed two scientists in lab coats looking at a computer screen. One of them says something like "Now that we have artificial intelligence, we also have artificial stupidity".
You are dead wrong. I’ve been using GPT-4 for about a year now, and there are certain moments that I found it’s capable of stringing a certain combination of words together that I would not have been able to do myself. Maybe it’s not super intelligent on its own, but the two of us together leads to a more intelligent cyborg. I can confidently say that it increases my IQ by at least 20 points
My limited experience in presenting textual questions to OpenAI is that it should have been named Captain Obvious. The extent to which human writers worry about being displaced by AI should be in direct proportion to the extent those human writers produce drivel. In fairness, there's a lot of that going around so some writers are right to be worried. But I doubt serious readers and students of reasonable intellect will be fooled.
And yeah, north 30 years here, too... age sure throws time perception out the window; the summer that lasted forever now disappearing overnight.... I should recalculate every time I toss a number. (And those kids just might do amazing GK!)
I agree - AI is unbiased? So, if we take the cesspool of the Internet, shove it into a neural network that we don't understand - somehow the result will be valid?
Try taking ChatGPT 4, pick a subject you are very familiar with, maybe even expert.
Now, ask Chat to write papers about that subject, make lists about it - exercise Chat.
Chat will be almost correct, but it will miss the important concepts. And the more garbage there is on the Internet about your subject, the farther from correct Chat will be.
Because Chat can't discern correct from incorrect, biased from unbiased, valuable insight from incompetent musings.
But, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - just keep clapping and maybe someone else's hands will wear out first.
It's often quite a bit worse than that. AI is taking 2023 assumptions and biases about how the world should be and enshrining them in silicon, then inviting humans to rely on it instead of thinking for themselves and re-evaluating whether those ideas are any good.
If that doesn't horrify you, imagine if the assumptions and biases of the prevalent American culture and academia of 1923 were being put into AI. In particular, that was about the peak of the American eugenics movement -- AI would be telling us that anyone with mental or physical disabilities, homosexual proclivities, a criminal past, etc, should be sterilized. It might be crafting policy decisions about how to make race-mixed marriages a crime. It would be suggesting adding various poisons to alcohol to stop people from drinking, or how phrenology can be used to determine someone's criminal disposition.
Now we have biases and ideas in 2023, pushed by academia and elites, that are quite different from 1923. And we are just as assured these ideas are correct and immutable. Ideas about environmentalism that are centered entirely around carbon emissions and ignore mining practices or lithium stores -- assumptions which might need to change extremely soon based on actual mining output. Ideas around equity based on "historical oppression". Ideas that masculinity is "toxic". Ideas around therapy, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Or, if you're 100% on board with the WEF agendas and Western thinking, guess who else is working on AI -- China. They have rather different social ideas. And once again, these ideas are being enshrined into silicon, are being used to inform policy decisions, and will eventually replace the human ability to think for ourselves.
The alarm over carbon emissions ignores the opinion of America’s preeminent atmospheric scientist, Richard Lindzen, as well as the history of climate. It is telling that the temperature record gathered by Tony Heller is ignored.
True in spirit, but I hope they remember to breed “workers” (a la 1984); robots have a LONG, LONG way to go before they can do construction, plumbing, carpentry, etc. and these elitist bozos won’t have the skills to do those things on their own.
"superintelligence technology" What a joke! AI can be no more "intelligent" than its creators and may actually be WORSE!
MY opinion is that AI was created so that individual humans can wash their hands of difficult decisions, claiming that AI, which they may claim is UNBIASED AND FACT BASED, has come up with a decision or idea on its own, and those using it are blameless for any harm or regressive policy that it may propose. The old trope, "Garbage in, garbage out", STILL holds true! And anyone who relies on this new technology KNOW IT and APPROVES of it!
A cartoon in American Scientist around 1980 showed two scientists in lab coats looking at a computer screen. One of them says something like "Now that we have artificial intelligence, we also have artificial stupidity".
So much insight in so few words. Thanks for that gem
You are dead wrong. I’ve been using GPT-4 for about a year now, and there are certain moments that I found it’s capable of stringing a certain combination of words together that I would not have been able to do myself. Maybe it’s not super intelligent on its own, but the two of us together leads to a more intelligent cyborg. I can confidently say that it increases my IQ by at least 20 points
All that your experience proves is that it is better than YOU, or that combining it with YOU makes for a better product! It is a glorified assistant.
4 quadrillion monkeys on 4 quadrillion typewriters?
My limited experience in presenting textual questions to OpenAI is that it should have been named Captain Obvious. The extent to which human writers worry about being displaced by AI should be in direct proportion to the extent those human writers produce drivel. In fairness, there's a lot of that going around so some writers are right to be worried. But I doubt serious readers and students of reasonable intellect will be fooled.
I ceased owning a TV about 25 years ago to avoid drowning in drivel. It sells.
I'm at 35 yrs without TV. My kids all grew up on books and family interaction. All 4 are amazing adults now
Funny how that works....
And yeah, north 30 years here, too... age sure throws time perception out the window; the summer that lasted forever now disappearing overnight.... I should recalculate every time I toss a number. (And those kids just might do amazing GK!)
I agree - AI is unbiased? So, if we take the cesspool of the Internet, shove it into a neural network that we don't understand - somehow the result will be valid?
Try taking ChatGPT 4, pick a subject you are very familiar with, maybe even expert.
Now, ask Chat to write papers about that subject, make lists about it - exercise Chat.
Chat will be almost correct, but it will miss the important concepts. And the more garbage there is on the Internet about your subject, the farther from correct Chat will be.
Because Chat can't discern correct from incorrect, biased from unbiased, valuable insight from incompetent musings.
But, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - just keep clapping and maybe someone else's hands will wear out first.
Right on. The real world is still real. See this one:
https://open.substack.com/pub/joelelorentzen/p/get-real-world?r=1p5p1m&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It's often quite a bit worse than that. AI is taking 2023 assumptions and biases about how the world should be and enshrining them in silicon, then inviting humans to rely on it instead of thinking for themselves and re-evaluating whether those ideas are any good.
If that doesn't horrify you, imagine if the assumptions and biases of the prevalent American culture and academia of 1923 were being put into AI. In particular, that was about the peak of the American eugenics movement -- AI would be telling us that anyone with mental or physical disabilities, homosexual proclivities, a criminal past, etc, should be sterilized. It might be crafting policy decisions about how to make race-mixed marriages a crime. It would be suggesting adding various poisons to alcohol to stop people from drinking, or how phrenology can be used to determine someone's criminal disposition.
Now we have biases and ideas in 2023, pushed by academia and elites, that are quite different from 1923. And we are just as assured these ideas are correct and immutable. Ideas about environmentalism that are centered entirely around carbon emissions and ignore mining practices or lithium stores -- assumptions which might need to change extremely soon based on actual mining output. Ideas around equity based on "historical oppression". Ideas that masculinity is "toxic". Ideas around therapy, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Or, if you're 100% on board with the WEF agendas and Western thinking, guess who else is working on AI -- China. They have rather different social ideas. And once again, these ideas are being enshrined into silicon, are being used to inform policy decisions, and will eventually replace the human ability to think for ourselves.
Well, when you put it that way ....... sounds pretty darn scary.
The alarm over carbon emissions ignores the opinion of America’s preeminent atmospheric scientist, Richard Lindzen, as well as the history of climate. It is telling that the temperature record gathered by Tony Heller is ignored.
True in spirit, but I hope they remember to breed “workers” (a la 1984); robots have a LONG, LONG way to go before they can do construction, plumbing, carpentry, etc. and these elitist bozos won’t have the skills to do those things on their own.
Worse, it appears to have both.