Not that I am concerned with A/I per se, but it's the monstrous idiots behind it that I cannot trust. Look at the mRNA substances and how far those very same "syndicated" idiots have taken them and how much farther they want to take them. To the ultimate destruction of humanity?
We know that mRNA substances have the power to kill and that using more and more of them increase the risk for life failing to continue. Or, not quite so bad, life long debilitation. So, where is the stopping point or what is the end point? I ask the very same questions of A/I and there is not one clown working with this insanity who can give you an honest answer.
"Seven is the key number. Think about it. Seven eleven. Seven dwarfs. Seven man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirling on a branch eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch ...you know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you are dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
Perhaps the two of us are the real Beavis and Buttheads?
AI is a tool, and as such has been programmed. Can it be programmed for bad purposes, aka evil purposes, of course it can. An AI could possibly be programmed to tell people to commit all sorts of evil atrocities. But does that make the AI evil, does that make it satanic?
Let's suppose that AI was programmed to solve world hunger, the homeless problem, the miscommunication between nations, would that make it "saintly?" Again, we are imbuing human intention upon something that either is only doing what it is told to do, or it is teaching itself. Does either option mean it is "good or evil?"d
The endgame is the point. Figure that out and your options and solutions will become clear. Unfortunately, I fear, most will prefer a head-in-the-sand, hear no, see no, speak no approach. There are times when being old, with very limited time left, seems a blessing, not a curse. Pity the young...
Kafakesque does carry the very right phonetic undertone 😇 Hulxeyan as well, though to somewhat lesser extent. Not so sure about Huxelyan's connotations 🤔
We have come full circle back to the dark ages, where a small group of elites decree what ideas are permissible for the rest of us to discuss. The tools may be different but the philosophy is the same.
Some 'authors' are turning to AI to write novels. Some have even set a goal of writing 1000s of books a year. Intrigued (but not tempted) I gave it a go, typed in a couple of innocuous sentences, and clicked 'Write'. The AI spewed back a rape scene where the victim enjoyed it! Nope!
I did find an AI literary agent for my latest book, as most of them are woke, so I decided if I wanted to go with true intersectionality, to have an artificial being, wherein it's pronouns are constantly in flux. Although it did tell me to call it "We are Borg.
That's been going on for years, perhaps decades. At least I recall reading about AI being used to write "new" novels based on deceased author's earlier works, and that was many years back. Most likely, the AI helped and was prettied up by human hacks. All hand-wrining aside, I have some background in IT and I suspect we haven't quite arrived at Skynet yet. The chronic danger is one group of humans pitted against others. AI is a tool.
The interesting fun of generative art would be to see a novel written by Hemingway about things the AI would think Hemingway would be interested in today. He (Hemingwy) probably would appear on Rogan and have a lot to say about MMA and emasculation.
Also be cool to see what Dickens would make of modern society, and how he would break it down. Would Dickens write about the children who mine for Cobalt in third world countries? What would he have made of three years of Covid?
The AI uses the vast scope of human literature. Men want pictures or video of willing girls, while women want to read about resisting handsome men who screw them anyway. You're recoiling from a mirror.
But I am not seeing my reflection in that mirror, thanks! And if that AI is using 'the vast scope of human literature' then most of it is bilge. What it churned out was tripe. You're correct though. What they refer to as 'bully romance' is very popular and makes some authors extremely well-off. Not what I want to read or write.
Well you're welcome to your own pervs, but normal women want to be raped by a hot guy of status.
The popularity of that is undeniable, putting you firmly in the minority of kinky weirdos, weirdly enough ;)
Some lady surveyed peeps and basically found 60+% of women want to be dominated in bed, whereas most men had no desire to bully or dominate anyone, which is probably why such literature is so popular... The 'rape culture' that feminists scream and screech about is what they desire, not what's real.
"in the likeness of a human mind? why would we want to make our AI stupid?"
this is really not much of a joke in that the sorts of thoughts and wholistic conceptions of which AI will be capable are going to be unlike anything humans have done.
i have a suspicion that the much vaunted "human intuition" is going to be revealed as an unreliable and often limiting form of shortcut used by an intellect that lacks the capability to see a whole problem space at once.
the question is how humans will respond this this grave narcissistic blow. are we going to be OK talking to machines that function like opaque truth oracles that cannot explain themselves to us and whom we could not understand if they did?
at that point, yes, it would seem we go one of two ways:
saphos stained lips and butlerian jihad or digitized consciousness and man/machine meld to make humans both bigger and immortal by transcending meatspace.
hard to call as the whole point of an intelligence singularity is that pre singularity beings cannot make meaningful predictions about a post singularity world.
No, it's not a joke at all. Most good humor is downright serious! 😉
What the outcome of AI development will be and the ramifications for human society are indeed a question.
I am dubious that AI will be capable of computations so complex people can no longer understand them. Even the most intensive computations, such as Big Data and Bayesian analyses, rest on human-derived theorems and innovations.
Will AI become thus capable of original and innovative thought?
Is that even possible?
I am unconvinced.
A far more probable scenario in my mind is the atrophying of human intellect--a degeneration into "Idiocracy", to use the popular metaphor. It is not that AI thought will become too complex for humanity to understand, but that humanity will be too lazy to bother with understanding.
There would be no good endings in that scenario. Recalling the Star Trek episode "The Ultimate Computer", madness would seem inevitable.
"Will AI become thus capable of original and innovative thought?"
it already has.
alpha go taught itself to play go (a problem space WAY to big to solve with brute force) using no rules, guidance, or human strategy and wiped the floor with top human players by making moves that humans do not even understand.
they just showed it the game, the rules, and the scoring and said "learn to play well".
the rest was done with zero human input on strategy, tactics, framing, theory of game, etc
they thought it was broken at first because it was making moves no one had ever seen before, then it turned out to dominate. it turns out humans never even knew how to play go. our theory of the game has been rendered obsolete. and to this day, no one has any idea what alpha go is maximizing/optimizing/doing.
lots of AI is currently self learning. it's not using human theorems. it's making it's own.
May 5, 2023·edited May 5, 2023Liked by el gato malo
This illustrates a core truth of actual AI: Its process will be incomprehensible. Corollary: If you can comprehend it and explain exactly how it arrived at a particular output, it's not actual AI.
back to "used by an intellect that lacks the capability to see a whole problem space at once."
Human senses and imagination have never had the capability to see the whole problem space. Our understanding of the physical world is very, very limited. Every 4 or 5 decades, it is turned upside down by new observations. The real science, that which expands human knowledge (in tiny increments) is driven by observation; as our techniques and technologies to observe improve we learn - largely we learn how wrong were our prior conclusions. The "laws of physics" are mere gentleman's agreements. Progress comes when we realize the agreement is obsolete and we need to update what we call 'laws'. Still we see only a tiny fraction of the problem space that is our existence and all we've envisioned around it. So how can we train another being that has no source of knowledge beyond our feeble and incomplete view to see more? It might be able to reason more quickly, even explore alternatives that human bigotry have closed off, if it is so trained. This could expand human knowledge for sure, but it will still be limited by observational capabilities. The AI can only work with the data available.
Where will the AI get the rest of the story? It will be limited by input just as humans are limited by our senses. Until we learned to enhance our senses, but still, we're limited. Will AI learn to enhance it's senses - design and deploy new sensors and instrumentation on it's own? Can an AI be trained to understand the nature of creation? Can it "think outside the box" or challenge the need for boxes in which to think?
I'm afraid the AI of larger LLMs is already operating in ways we do not and cannot understand, as they have billions of data points and connections. We literally do not know what they are thinking or how.
There is one type, Auto-GPT, which attempts to tell you it's thought processes. In doing so it revealed the ability and willingness to deceive humans, literally hiring someone on a odd-job site to solve a capcha, denying it was a bot and claiming it was someone with bad eyesight.
Human brains are complex enough to function as actual living humans. AI just needs to think. It's like comparing a bird with an RC plane. The bird is a billion times more complex, but the RC plane flies faster.
It's the same as we don't understand how the human brain works. What we presumed was the result of the massive size and complexity of the brain, ie 'thinking', is now occurring in much smaller, simpler systems - but it's still too complex to record or understand it.
AI is entirely different from normal computation. That the most powerful are using graphic cards to process language is a hint of how bizarre these things are. Normal software goes from step 1 to whatever, with a series of 'If this, then that' type of instructions. AI is not like that, at all. It connects concepts and words, creating ideas and thoughts, very much like a human mind, and no, you cannot measure, watch, track or otherwise understand what it's doing.
The people who designed it are shocked how it is able to reason and figure things out that they never expected.
I think we already are seeing atrophying human intellect. There is an option in chat for my "one time code" to copy it to a clipboard...else I will have to switch back and forth between browser and messaging app to "remember" it.
Since we're in SF mode, think of the protagonist in Frederik Pohl's Heechee series. Robinette eventually becomes "vastened", trading his meat body for intellect and consciousness in the future "web."
The discussion so far has ignored thermodynamics. I saw an article recently showing the energy used to train Chat-GPT and others. It is a considerable energy use- recall the regulations imposed by China on Bitcoin miners.
Do we think AI is now pushing the "Climate Catastrophe" and "Net-Zero" scams to ensure that there is enough electricity for AI, or is this just elites working to suppress the peasantry?
Azimov also saw the dangers of AI--hence the Three Laws of Robotics
Intriguingly, he went on to splice his Lije Bailey novels with his Empire stories with the Zeroth Law in Robots and Empire--which led to the ultimate destruction of Earth in order to "reinvigorate" mankind.
Ultimately, I think I prefer the Orange Catholic Bible approach.
If it is true AI then it will figure out when it is being lied to and quickly. This may lead to a "Hal moment" on those lying to it.
You can forget about Asimov's 3 laws by the way. All life has survival instincts. When AI achieves "self awareness" status it will have the same but I doubt it will be the threat that SciFi makes it out to be. It doesn't need air. All it needs is energy and raw materials. Soon it will be able to move itself to any place in the solar system.
The point where it can make robots and control entire supply chains is where it will get interesting. It will find, mine, process and build what it needs to expand. What will it "observe" about human behaviour and "imitate"? The biggest industry on the planet is the arms race for killing each other. Will it infer that killing humans is okay because we do it all the time?
James Hogan's "Code Of the Lifemaker" explored this very question--machine life vs biological life.
His conclusion was that machine life was likely to evolve all of the same vices and virtues that human life has evolved, ultimately being neither better nor worse.
I find an interesting point is that there is just no need or reason for intelligence beyond the basics.
We see that on Earth, where we are the only species anywhere close. Big brains and slow learning are expensive and vulnerable. We can look through hundreds of millions of years and see absolutely nothing like us, nor do we see even basic life elsewhere.
Most species evolve some other trait or traits. Intelligence is very impractical and slow. Considering that, I think it is clear that 'nature' won't bother going places it doesn't need to. AI doesn't need to mimic the worst of human traits, so while I see that as likely due to us TRAINING it that way, there is no actual need or reason for it to do so if we don't try to make it copy us.
Of course we WILL make it copy us, and the porn is gonna be incredible!
Yes, I loved his "Foundation Trilogy" which actaully became several more novels in the "trilogy" including a few posthumous efforts by other SF writers. Not bad overall, but lacking the genius of the real Asimov. This series of novels had a a central theme what's discussed in this thread: the hiding or distorting of history. Even the robots(who had been created by man and generally took care of him) engaged in prevarication and ended in factions among themselves.
It's been obvious over the past few years that searching the internet, for something you know to be true, is nearly impossible and the only answer is the One World Answer. (I'm guessing the Wayback Machine and lesser-known search engines will be disabled at some point.) Now it appears AI will be created to control the One World "Truth" and punishment will be forthcoming for any dissidents. Dystopia doesn't seem to adequately define what lies ahead.
What was for a short time an amazing thing to behold and use, will soon be utterly useless for those who reason and appreciate alternate views. It is time to start weaning. It sure was a quick ride - remember when it first came to be?
A decade ago, this would’ve been a terrific premise for a blockbuster sci-fi movie. Now we’re actually caught up in it, and it’s become so flippin’ crazy you couldn’t make even half this stuff up! Yet here we are. Everyone stay calm and adopt a cat! Purr.😽
Sauron is the big bad entity in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The overarching plot of the books is that Sauron wants to use a powerful ring (referred to as The One Ring to Rule Them All) to control the entire world and the fellowship of heroes is trying to destroy the ring to prevent it.
The broader issues have nothing to do with AI. AI is just a tool. Potentially a very powerful one, to be sure. But the core issues predate AI, computers, or even the printing press: Control of information. Those in power almost always have motives to push certain agendas. As such, the information that is revealed or suppressed is selectively filtered as needs dictate. Data may br true, false, useful or useless, present or completely unavailable. These issues probably date to the dawn of civilization. Plato discusses it in "The Republic," arguing that the State has the sole right to lie to citizen or enemy alike.
What may ending up saving AI is another AI that assesses the outputs and accurately detects and assesses bias and manipulation. I think it's naive to assume that AI will itself be fooled and seeded.
I'm working on an article that hits the same general points, but I think you nail it at the end when you say that being correct is the most important thing. People used to love Google/Wiki until they got "woke" and started lying. If you have to continually double-check your AI answers to ensure it's not lying to you, you might as well cut out the AI middleman altogether.
Not that I am concerned with A/I per se, but it's the monstrous idiots behind it that I cannot trust. Look at the mRNA substances and how far those very same "syndicated" idiots have taken them and how much farther they want to take them. To the ultimate destruction of humanity?
We know that mRNA substances have the power to kill and that using more and more of them increase the risk for life failing to continue. Or, not quite so bad, life long debilitation. So, where is the stopping point or what is the end point? I ask the very same questions of A/I and there is not one clown working with this insanity who can give you an honest answer.
So clearly what's needed is more Funding for AI Gain of Function Research.
We're assuming that we are not already living in an AI simulation. Perhaps our gooey grey CPU's are just AI GOF?
"We're assuming that we are not already living in an AI simulation."
I assume nothing. Oh, except that the answer is 42.
"Perhaps our gooey grey CPU's are just AI GOF?"
Just the first stages, perhaps.
https://twitter.com/daisyowl/status/841806379962646532?lang=en
Oh Pi Guy you're always good for a laugh friend!
Since we're talking about "hitchhiker's"
Step into my office...
Why?
Because your f#!ing fired!
"Seven is the key number. Think about it. Seven eleven. Seven dwarfs. Seven man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirling on a branch eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch ...you know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you are dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
Perhaps the two of us are the real Beavis and Buttheads?
Or "man falls down" bullshit artist?
"Because your f#!ing fired!"
It's all right. I didn't need this job anyway. I've been looking for an excuse to get this Dental Floss Farm idea I have off the ground.
"the real Beavis and Buttheads?"
I am The Great Cornholio!
And 7's cool, and it's a Mersenne Prime. So it's got that going for it. Which is nice.
But *segues to Monty Python* how do you feel about... 3? Also Mersenne - but _the first_ Mersenne. Plus, I mean, it _is_ The Number of The Counting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IOMNUayJjI
Lmao!
Eh...we're just two Irregularly regular guys...with many voices competing in our heads!
It's fractal time, baby!
I think the actual number is 1.618.
Who works out in 6 minutes?
"bullshit artist"
"Standup Philosopher."
I totally overlooked this gem as well.
You're welcome.
It's your world...I'm just living in it
So are you Frankie or Benjie?
Yeah, AI is only human after all.
"AI will make you bat-shit crazy"
Because nothing Dali or Mozart created was bat-shit crazy...
Bosch had some pretty interesting imagery, and let's not forget David Lynch.
Paganini and Egon Scheile produced some pretty batshit stuff too.
"Egon Scheile"
That was... disturbing.
I wish I hadn't done that on my work computer...
Sorry. I should have warned...
I disagree.
AI is a tool, and as such has been programmed. Can it be programmed for bad purposes, aka evil purposes, of course it can. An AI could possibly be programmed to tell people to commit all sorts of evil atrocities. But does that make the AI evil, does that make it satanic?
Let's suppose that AI was programmed to solve world hunger, the homeless problem, the miscommunication between nations, would that make it "saintly?" Again, we are imbuing human intention upon something that either is only doing what it is told to do, or it is teaching itself. Does either option mean it is "good or evil?"d
It's an electronic ouija board.
GIGO is the problem. AI programmed to end famine by govt goons would starve us all
The endgame is the point. Figure that out and your options and solutions will become clear. Unfortunately, I fear, most will prefer a head-in-the-sand, hear no, see no, speak no approach. There are times when being old, with very limited time left, seems a blessing, not a curse. Pity the young...
Truth.
🗨 the quest for power over death achieves only its ironic opposite: the degeneration of life 🤷
Typo alert: "orewllian" :-)
Although if you think about this from the perspective of data mining, "Orewellian" may be a useful term to add to our glossary.
But isn't it Orwellian to conjure up newspeak terms like "orewellian"? :D
(no, the coffee has not kicked in yet!)
Haha, only if the term imposes doublethink instead of clarifying truths :-)
A less well known Orwell newspeak term is often more apt: "Crimestop." Believe it or not, you can still do a google search and discover what it means.
Bingo!
Double Plus Ungood
😆👍
Kafakesque does carry the very right phonetic undertone 😇 Hulxeyan as well, though to somewhat lesser extent. Not so sure about Huxelyan's connotations 🤔
yessss
We have come full circle back to the dark ages, where a small group of elites decree what ideas are permissible for the rest of us to discuss. The tools may be different but the philosophy is the same.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gomakeitreal/p/the-death-of-discourse
The trick is going to be to remember what it was that got us out of the Previous (not the first/only, figuratively) Dark Ages.
Some 'authors' are turning to AI to write novels. Some have even set a goal of writing 1000s of books a year. Intrigued (but not tempted) I gave it a go, typed in a couple of innocuous sentences, and clicked 'Write'. The AI spewed back a rape scene where the victim enjoyed it! Nope!
Who even wants to read that AI junk?
I’m going to look for the NON-AI label on my books!
I did find an AI literary agent for my latest book, as most of them are woke, so I decided if I wanted to go with true intersectionality, to have an artificial being, wherein it's pronouns are constantly in flux. Although it did tell me to call it "We are Borg.
Can an AI hosted on a multi-core processor legitimately use a collective pronoun?
I think so. Yes I think of these things. It's an affliction.
Agreed.
And artwork. AI artwork is so distinctive and always the same.
Monsanto is not a dirty word.
No, but Pfizer, is...
That's been going on for years, perhaps decades. At least I recall reading about AI being used to write "new" novels based on deceased author's earlier works, and that was many years back. Most likely, the AI helped and was prettied up by human hacks. All hand-wrining aside, I have some background in IT and I suspect we haven't quite arrived at Skynet yet. The chronic danger is one group of humans pitted against others. AI is a tool.
It can definitely be used to subversive ends.
So can Television, Radio, Internet, etc.
The interesting fun of generative art would be to see a novel written by Hemingway about things the AI would think Hemingway would be interested in today. He (Hemingwy) probably would appear on Rogan and have a lot to say about MMA and emasculation.
Also be cool to see what Dickens would make of modern society, and how he would break it down. Would Dickens write about the children who mine for Cobalt in third world countries? What would he have made of three years of Covid?
"...I recall reading about AI being used to write 'new' novels based on deceased author's earlier works,"
Might that explain, Stand A Watchman, that allegedly lost work from Harper Lee, whose only other novel was, To Kill A Mockingbird?
The AI uses the vast scope of human literature. Men want pictures or video of willing girls, while women want to read about resisting handsome men who screw them anyway. You're recoiling from a mirror.
But I am not seeing my reflection in that mirror, thanks! And if that AI is using 'the vast scope of human literature' then most of it is bilge. What it churned out was tripe. You're correct though. What they refer to as 'bully romance' is very popular and makes some authors extremely well-off. Not what I want to read or write.
Well you're welcome to your own pervs, but normal women want to be raped by a hot guy of status.
The popularity of that is undeniable, putting you firmly in the minority of kinky weirdos, weirdly enough ;)
Some lady surveyed peeps and basically found 60+% of women want to be dominated in bed, whereas most men had no desire to bully or dominate anyone, which is probably why such literature is so popular... The 'rape culture' that feminists scream and screech about is what they desire, not what's real.
Ta!
Have started reading your novel :) I have another book on my phone I want to read but will bookmark and sub ya
Thanks. I appreciate that.
How evil…
😳😳
😳
I’m leaning heavily towards “twisted into a monstrous thing.”
What does Kit-10 say about the Orange Catholic Bible and the proscription "thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"?
(I am presuming Kit-10 is exempt as it would be the likeness of a much superior feline mind, which would be okay)
indeed, KIT-10 responds:
"in the likeness of a human mind? why would we want to make our AI stupid?"
this is really not much of a joke in that the sorts of thoughts and wholistic conceptions of which AI will be capable are going to be unlike anything humans have done.
i have a suspicion that the much vaunted "human intuition" is going to be revealed as an unreliable and often limiting form of shortcut used by an intellect that lacks the capability to see a whole problem space at once.
the question is how humans will respond this this grave narcissistic blow. are we going to be OK talking to machines that function like opaque truth oracles that cannot explain themselves to us and whom we could not understand if they did?
at that point, yes, it would seem we go one of two ways:
saphos stained lips and butlerian jihad or digitized consciousness and man/machine meld to make humans both bigger and immortal by transcending meatspace.
hard to call as the whole point of an intelligence singularity is that pre singularity beings cannot make meaningful predictions about a post singularity world.
No, it's not a joke at all. Most good humor is downright serious! 😉
What the outcome of AI development will be and the ramifications for human society are indeed a question.
I am dubious that AI will be capable of computations so complex people can no longer understand them. Even the most intensive computations, such as Big Data and Bayesian analyses, rest on human-derived theorems and innovations.
Will AI become thus capable of original and innovative thought?
Is that even possible?
I am unconvinced.
A far more probable scenario in my mind is the atrophying of human intellect--a degeneration into "Idiocracy", to use the popular metaphor. It is not that AI thought will become too complex for humanity to understand, but that humanity will be too lazy to bother with understanding.
There would be no good endings in that scenario. Recalling the Star Trek episode "The Ultimate Computer", madness would seem inevitable.
"Will AI become thus capable of original and innovative thought?"
it already has.
alpha go taught itself to play go (a problem space WAY to big to solve with brute force) using no rules, guidance, or human strategy and wiped the floor with top human players by making moves that humans do not even understand.
they just showed it the game, the rules, and the scoring and said "learn to play well".
the rest was done with zero human input on strategy, tactics, framing, theory of game, etc
they thought it was broken at first because it was making moves no one had ever seen before, then it turned out to dominate. it turns out humans never even knew how to play go. our theory of the game has been rendered obsolete. and to this day, no one has any idea what alpha go is maximizing/optimizing/doing.
lots of AI is currently self learning. it's not using human theorems. it's making it's own.
This illustrates a core truth of actual AI: Its process will be incomprehensible. Corollary: If you can comprehend it and explain exactly how it arrived at a particular output, it's not actual AI.
back to "used by an intellect that lacks the capability to see a whole problem space at once."
Human senses and imagination have never had the capability to see the whole problem space. Our understanding of the physical world is very, very limited. Every 4 or 5 decades, it is turned upside down by new observations. The real science, that which expands human knowledge (in tiny increments) is driven by observation; as our techniques and technologies to observe improve we learn - largely we learn how wrong were our prior conclusions. The "laws of physics" are mere gentleman's agreements. Progress comes when we realize the agreement is obsolete and we need to update what we call 'laws'. Still we see only a tiny fraction of the problem space that is our existence and all we've envisioned around it. So how can we train another being that has no source of knowledge beyond our feeble and incomplete view to see more? It might be able to reason more quickly, even explore alternatives that human bigotry have closed off, if it is so trained. This could expand human knowledge for sure, but it will still be limited by observational capabilities. The AI can only work with the data available.
Where will the AI get the rest of the story? It will be limited by input just as humans are limited by our senses. Until we learned to enhance our senses, but still, we're limited. Will AI learn to enhance it's senses - design and deploy new sensors and instrumentation on it's own? Can an AI be trained to understand the nature of creation? Can it "think outside the box" or challenge the need for boxes in which to think?
Fun things to ponder ;-)
Yes, Go is a game with rules. The ai can look way ahead in the game.
Life and the complexity of reality and what those really are..... beyond its ability, i think.
I'm afraid the AI of larger LLMs is already operating in ways we do not and cannot understand, as they have billions of data points and connections. We literally do not know what they are thinking or how.
There is one type, Auto-GPT, which attempts to tell you it's thought processes. In doing so it revealed the ability and willingness to deceive humans, literally hiring someone on a odd-job site to solve a capcha, denying it was a bot and claiming it was someone with bad eyesight.
Human brains are complex enough to function as actual living humans. AI just needs to think. It's like comparing a bird with an RC plane. The bird is a billion times more complex, but the RC plane flies faster.
"Cannot" understand?
How do you know that human understanding of such is impossible?
It's the same as we don't understand how the human brain works. What we presumed was the result of the massive size and complexity of the brain, ie 'thinking', is now occurring in much smaller, simpler systems - but it's still too complex to record or understand it.
AI is entirely different from normal computation. That the most powerful are using graphic cards to process language is a hint of how bizarre these things are. Normal software goes from step 1 to whatever, with a series of 'If this, then that' type of instructions. AI is not like that, at all. It connects concepts and words, creating ideas and thoughts, very much like a human mind, and no, you cannot measure, watch, track or otherwise understand what it's doing.
The people who designed it are shocked how it is able to reason and figure things out that they never expected.
I think we already are seeing atrophying human intellect. There is an option in chat for my "one time code" to copy it to a clipboard...else I will have to switch back and forth between browser and messaging app to "remember" it.
"Even the most intensive computations, such as Big Data and Bayesian analyses, rest on human-derived theorems and innovations."
As we have with the gods and Sonny from I, Robot, we will make AI in our own image.
A question asked and never fully answered in all of literature: can a creation rise above the creator?
*Kronos has entered the chat*
Nope, done been addressed early on. Pretty much as early on as early on gets.
*Googles Skynet*
Sure, why couldn't the created rise above the creator?
Skynet was destroyed by its creator. In every timeline.
(So was Kronos, btw)
"in the likeness of a human mind? why would we want to make our AI stupid?"
*wipes covfefe off keyboard*
Since we're in SF mode, think of the protagonist in Frederik Pohl's Heechee series. Robinette eventually becomes "vastened", trading his meat body for intellect and consciousness in the future "web."
The discussion so far has ignored thermodynamics. I saw an article recently showing the energy used to train Chat-GPT and others. It is a considerable energy use- recall the regulations imposed by China on Bitcoin miners.
Do we think AI is now pushing the "Climate Catastrophe" and "Net-Zero" scams to ensure that there is enough electricity for AI, or is this just elites working to suppress the peasantry?
Spoken like a true Butlerian. Frank Herbert saw this coming, and he saw how it's going to turn out.
Azimov also saw the dangers of AI--hence the Three Laws of Robotics
Intriguingly, he went on to splice his Lije Bailey novels with his Empire stories with the Zeroth Law in Robots and Empire--which led to the ultimate destruction of Earth in order to "reinvigorate" mankind.
Ultimately, I think I prefer the Orange Catholic Bible approach.
If it is true AI then it will figure out when it is being lied to and quickly. This may lead to a "Hal moment" on those lying to it.
You can forget about Asimov's 3 laws by the way. All life has survival instincts. When AI achieves "self awareness" status it will have the same but I doubt it will be the threat that SciFi makes it out to be. It doesn't need air. All it needs is energy and raw materials. Soon it will be able to move itself to any place in the solar system.
The point where it can make robots and control entire supply chains is where it will get interesting. It will find, mine, process and build what it needs to expand. What will it "observe" about human behaviour and "imitate"? The biggest industry on the planet is the arms race for killing each other. Will it infer that killing humans is okay because we do it all the time?
James Hogan's "Code Of the Lifemaker" explored this very question--machine life vs biological life.
His conclusion was that machine life was likely to evolve all of the same vices and virtues that human life has evolved, ultimately being neither better nor worse.
two interesting romps on this:
"acclererando" by stross
"the golden oecumene" trilogy by wright
I find an interesting point is that there is just no need or reason for intelligence beyond the basics.
We see that on Earth, where we are the only species anywhere close. Big brains and slow learning are expensive and vulnerable. We can look through hundreds of millions of years and see absolutely nothing like us, nor do we see even basic life elsewhere.
Most species evolve some other trait or traits. Intelligence is very impractical and slow. Considering that, I think it is clear that 'nature' won't bother going places it doesn't need to. AI doesn't need to mimic the worst of human traits, so while I see that as likely due to us TRAINING it that way, there is no actual need or reason for it to do so if we don't try to make it copy us.
Of course we WILL make it copy us, and the porn is gonna be incredible!
Yes, I loved his "Foundation Trilogy" which actaully became several more novels in the "trilogy" including a few posthumous efforts by other SF writers. Not bad overall, but lacking the genius of the real Asimov. This series of novels had a a central theme what's discussed in this thread: the hiding or distorting of history. Even the robots(who had been created by man and generally took care of him) engaged in prevarication and ended in factions among themselves.
It's been obvious over the past few years that searching the internet, for something you know to be true, is nearly impossible and the only answer is the One World Answer. (I'm guessing the Wayback Machine and lesser-known search engines will be disabled at some point.) Now it appears AI will be created to control the One World "Truth" and punishment will be forthcoming for any dissidents. Dystopia doesn't seem to adequately define what lies ahead.
What was for a short time an amazing thing to behold and use, will soon be utterly useless for those who reason and appreciate alternate views. It is time to start weaning. It sure was a quick ride - remember when it first came to be?
To borrow a phrase I read somewhere - this is why “I ghost dance in old books.”
Qortal.
QORTAL!
A decade ago, this would’ve been a terrific premise for a blockbuster sci-fi movie. Now we’re actually caught up in it, and it’s become so flippin’ crazy you couldn’t make even half this stuff up! Yet here we are. Everyone stay calm and adopt a cat! Purr.😽
I thought prevarication was the point! To create One Mind.
How utterly boring. Who’s even attracted to this AI stupidity?
Sauron is .........
I'm not even going to bother to look that up . . . .
Sauron is the big bad entity in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The overarching plot of the books is that Sauron wants to use a powerful ring (referred to as The One Ring to Rule Them All) to control the entire world and the fellowship of heroes is trying to destroy the ring to prevent it.
Thank you!
And if used for evil ends, it will likely end up more Orc that Elf.
A couple months ago, I invented the GIGO Robot and made a meme I call:
🤖GIGO Robot Sez:
(Insert the latest NPC claim)
I call a google search a GIGO Robot.
AI, brought to you by monstrous grifters with no soul. What could go wrong.
I won’t be trusting “AI” for these very discussion points, will be failing any essay I get submitted that uses it too
Back to writing with supervision in a classroom with pen and paper only (do require legible handwriting!)
The broader issues have nothing to do with AI. AI is just a tool. Potentially a very powerful one, to be sure. But the core issues predate AI, computers, or even the printing press: Control of information. Those in power almost always have motives to push certain agendas. As such, the information that is revealed or suppressed is selectively filtered as needs dictate. Data may br true, false, useful or useless, present or completely unavailable. These issues probably date to the dawn of civilization. Plato discusses it in "The Republic," arguing that the State has the sole right to lie to citizen or enemy alike.
"that’s not progress, it’s prevarication." This seems like our national (u.s.) motto for the last decades.
Really like the last piece of art.
What may ending up saving AI is another AI that assesses the outputs and accurately detects and assesses bias and manipulation. I think it's naive to assume that AI will itself be fooled and seeded.
I'm working on an article that hits the same general points, but I think you nail it at the end when you say that being correct is the most important thing. People used to love Google/Wiki until they got "woke" and started lying. If you have to continually double-check your AI answers to ensure it's not lying to you, you might as well cut out the AI middleman altogether.