|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2023 20:36:43 GMT -5
Folks who've been imagining this for long before either of us were born eventually wind up at the idea of the "singularity". I could point you to fiction that's decades old that illustrates this point. Functionally, you have to anticipate that eventually, we'll be able to create systems capable of modifying themselves and even changing over time in such ways that we don't understand as and after those changes occur. Even then though, as reefs has pointed out, there is the plug - but again, some of the futurists have imagined scenarios where the AI gains control of the power source via robotics (duh, but still, an energy source is always a vulnerability of a force). Also, even an AI capable of generating insights beyond that of human capability will still ultimately be reflecting the goals, designs and bias of the initial system developers. Haven't you seen the movies where the guy is desperately reaching out to cut the power but he gets zapped by the AI before he can pull the switch? C'mon man! 😃  .. "Sorry Dave, I can't do that". ... " ♪ daisy, daisy, give me your answer true ♫" ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2023 20:39:41 GMT -5
The ChatGPT is politically programmed, and that's another problem. Whoever controls the AI, controls the narratives. . That's what AI is! The creator of chess program can't win the same program. . As ChatGPT illustrates, the original system developers can always add functionality to modulate and thereby make the output more predictable after the fact. This is what andy was referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2023 21:24:21 GMT -5
An important thing to keep in mind about AI, no matter how impressive it comes along, is that it always will be merely an extension of its creator, which is the human intellect. As such, I am sure we haven't seen anything yet and it is going to amaze people in terms of what it can do. But the limits of AI are also clearly defined. The limits of the AI will be the limits of the intellect that created it, or at best the limits of the intellect in general. Which means I'd expect pretty decent things from AI in the near future, be it writing poetry, prose or even painting. But I won't expect anything extraordinary, anything great, anything that is for the ages. Because that transcends intellect, that is drawing from other, deeper resources. And by design, that's off limits to AI. AI can't access those resources. And besides, AI is only good as long as it is plugged in. It requires a huge offline infrastructure to merely keep it running, not to mention growing.
Now, AI is only a competition or threat to humans if humans try to compete with AI on the level of the intellect. On that level, AI is already outperforming humans in many areas. On levels beyond the intellect, AI doesn't stand a chance. However, the average Joe has little to no awareness of his greater beingness beyond the intellect. That's why I think some people (including EM!) find AI scary.
AI is and will always be just a tool. Which means it all depends on who is using that tool and how and for what purpose, to what end. Seth used to talk about what he called 'loving technology', i.e. a technology that is used for the betterment of human kind, in an ethical way. Think of the KITT car in the Knight Rider TV series. KITT was programmed to protect the life of Michael Knight and to preserve human life in general. If that kind of mindset is missing, so Seth, technology will only be used to further control and enslave humanity.
So I think we should initiate discussions about AI more along those lines than the scare mongering lines. In Seth terms again, both scenarios are probably futures. It is for us to decide which one we want to actualize. The basic fact always remains, we are the creator of our own reality. No AI is going to change that.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 20, 2023 21:47:53 GMT -5
The way I use these terms, stupidity is an expression of ignorance when arrogance and / or stubbornness are added. From soul point of view, I believe that stupidity happens when the soul takes on itself more than it can handle, before its level of evolvement can handle a specific problem.
Stupidity isn't necessary, nor unavoidable. I guess humility can prevent, alleviate, cure it. It isn't fluoride (see Niz' smoking). That's an interesting understanding. So has the soul made a mistake in taking on too much, or does it want to experience what it's like to take on more than it can handle? reminds of lucid-dreaming, when you know you have the power to change your experience, but you let that run its current course a little longer, to see / learn where it goes and how it feels. In my post, relating to souls, I was referring mostly to childish "arrogant ignorance". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 21:49:10 GMT -5
The one programmed can't predict what it will create. That's what AI is! The creator of chess program can't win the same program. There have certainly been political limits programmed into the ChatGPT bot. They call it a 'Trust and Safety' layer. I can't show you, because you don't watch videos. For example, apparently the AI will give you a nice poem about Biden, but won't give you a nice poem about Trump. Check it if you like. My statement does not outright deny their complete control, yet it posits that the majority of the results are not ascertainable. The crux of the matter lies in the notion that if the results can be foreseen, then the system in question cannot be deemed as truly embodying the essence of artificial intelligence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 21:52:28 GMT -5
Undoubtedly, I have been thoroughly amazed by my recent discoveries over the past three weeks. This journey began with my fortuitous encounter with a news channel, which piqued my curiosity, leading me to delve into its vast capabilities. From my investigation, I have gleaned the following: Firstly, it possesses an extensive repository of data, which is one of its distinctive features. Additionally, its proficiency in understanding the English language surpasses that of any other machine. No matter how intricate or specific your query may be, in the event that you require further clarification, you can pose additional questions, and it will delve deeper into the subject matter to provide you with the necessary clarity. Furthermore, while Google conducts searches for web pages, this machine is capable of producing content, thus distinguishing it from its counterparts. If I were to request that it write or translate code from one language to another, it would do so, although the accuracy cannot be guaranteed due to the absence of a compiler or interpreter to validate it. For instance, if I were to reference the Bible, this machine could retrieve verses related to my inquiry, providing me with the evidence to support my query. Thus, If I asked why Paul believed that Jesus was the Son of God, it would supply me with the relevant scripture. I could continue to pose logical questions, and the machine would respond as if a human were on the other end of the conversation. Hence, I can confidently assert that in my perspective, this machine is executing its task remarkably well. The products of human ingenuity, organization and effort can be quite sublime to contemplate. Think of what goes into a car, or how much work it took to construct the national road networks or to build a skyscraper. Even the work required to build a residential house -- all the components, the fact that in cities there's plumbed water and gas, and then, of course, the electrical grid. For the most part, we take all of this for as granted as we do the functions of our body. I must confess my lack of comprehension regarding the message that you are attempting to convey related to what I wrote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 21:54:14 GMT -5
The one programmed can't predict what it will create. That's what AI is! The creator of chess program can't win the same program. . As ChatGPT illustrates, the original system developers can always add functionality to modulate and thereby make the output more predictable after the fact. This is what andy was referring to. My statement does not outright deny their complete control, yet it posits that the majority of the results are not ascertainable. The crux of the matter lies in the notion that if the results can be foreseen, then the system in question cannot be deemed as truly embodying the essence of artificial intelligence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 22:32:27 GMT -5
Yes, and always a matter of degree. As ChatGPT illustrates, the original system developers can always add functionality to modulate and thereby make the output more predictable after the fact. This is what andy was referring to. My statement does not outright deny their complete control, yet it posits that the majority of the results are not ascertainable. The crux of the matter lies in the notion that if the results can be foreseen, then the system in question cannot be deemed as truly embodying the essence of artificial intelligence. You appear to be using it to write your messages. I think I prefer the real Gopal.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 22:53:13 GMT -5
My statement does not outright deny their complete control, yet it posits that the majority of the results are not ascertainable. The crux of the matter lies in the notion that if the results can be foreseen, then the system in question cannot be deemed as truly embodying the essence of artificial intelligence. You appear to be using it to write your messages. I think I prefer the real Gopal. Yes!
But then people are finding mistakes in my english.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2023 23:20:14 GMT -5
The products of human ingenuity, organization and effort can be quite sublime to contemplate. Think of what goes into a car, or how much work it took to construct the national road networks or to build a skyscraper. Even the work required to build a residential house -- all the components, the fact that in cities there's plumbed water and gas, and then, of course, the electrical grid. For the most part, we take all of this for as granted as we do the functions of our body. I must confess my lack of comprehension regarding the message that you are attempting to convey related to what I wrote. .. well, like I said, most people take all this stuff for granted.  You (or whomever) wrote that you "have been thoroughly amazed" .. if you stopped to think about the rest of the world around you instead of taking it for granted, you'd find all sorts of opportunities for amazement. The examples I gave were of technology other than information technology. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 23:21:38 GMT -5
I must confess my lack of comprehension regarding the message that you are attempting to convey related to what I wrote. .. well, like I said, most people take all this stuff for granted. You (or whomever) wrote that you "have been thoroughly amazed" .. if you stopped to think about the rest of the world around you instead of taking it for granted, you'd find all sorts of opportunities for amazement. The examples I gave were of technology other than information technology. hmm okay. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2023 23:22:26 GMT -5
Yes, and always a matter of degree. As ChatGPT illustrates, the original system developers can always add functionality to modulate and thereby make the output more predictable after the fact. This is what andy was referring to. My statement does not outright deny their complete control, yet it posits that the majority of the results are not ascertainable. The crux of the matter lies in the notion that if the results can be foreseen, then the system in question cannot be deemed as truly embodying the essence of artificial intelligence. It generated a word salad that essentially just agreed with what it was responding to. Not impressed! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2023 0:19:47 GMT -5
Haven't you seen the movies where the guy is desperately reaching out to cut the power but he gets zapped by the AI before he can pull the switch? C'mon man! 😃 .. "Sorry Dave, I can't do that". ... " ♪ daisy, daisy, give me your answer true ♫" ... Open the pod bay door Hal. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 21, 2023 2:32:57 GMT -5
The ChatGPT is politically programmed, and that's another problem. Whoever controls the AI, controls the narratives. The one programmed can't predict what it will create. That's what AI is! The creator of chess program can't win the same program. Training data is curated, so it's kinda like a Tesla does its own thing, but it has still been trained to do what it does.
GPT has to conform to very conservative standards because advertisers need to maintain brand image. In this early stage, the machine can get nuts, so they'll have to set parameters that confine its content output. Because the ever-refining generated narrative will be the dominant narrative, it will define social norms, and people will have to think in the same way because all their social structures are the products of such discourse. Furthermore, the machine's narrative will be socially sanctioned as truth, and any narrative counter to the machine's will be identified as misinformation, culled from the training data, and cease to exist as 1's and 0's. Over time, the machine will become more 'reasonable' by social standards, but more psychopathic in real terms. In the longer run, not long from now, after the machine has generated narrative that easily dwarfs what men can generate, men will follow the lead of the machine. The machine will define what's normal from abnormalcy, and the institutions will abidingly enforce that because insitutions are themselves discursive constructs. When the machine tells your children that a boy can be a girl and other such nonsense, you'll start to see the ideology behind data curation. Then the machine will generate such rubbish at an exponential rate, and counter narrative data will become a fraction so insignificant that it has no statistical bearing within the algorithm.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 21, 2023 4:49:29 GMT -5
An important thing to keep in mind about AI, no matter how impressive it comes along, is that it always will be merely an extension of its creator, which is the human intellect. As such, I am sure we haven't seen anything yet and it is going to amaze people in terms of what it can do. But the limits of AI are also clearly defined. The limits of the AI will be the limits of the intellect that created it, or at best the limits of the intellect in general. Which means I'd expect pretty decent things from AI in the near future, be it writing poetry, prose or even painting. But I won't expect anything extraordinary, anything great, anything that is for the ages. Because that transcends intellect, that is drawing from other, deeper resources. And by design, that's off limits to AI. AI can't access those resources. And besides, AI is only good as long as it is plugged in. It requires a huge offline infrastructure to merely keep it running, not to mention growing. Now, AI is only a competition or threat to humans if humans try to compete with AI on the level of the intellect. On that level, AI is already outperforming humans in many areas. On levels beyond the intellect, AI doesn't stand a chance. However, the average Joe has little to no awareness of his greater beingness beyond the intellect. That's why I think some people (including EM!) find AI scary. AI is and will always be just a tool. Which means it all depends on who is using that tool and how and for what purpose, to what end. Seth used to talk about what he called 'loving technology', i.e. a technology that is used for the betterment of human kind, in an ethical way. Think of the KITT car in the Knight Rider TV series. KITT was programmed to protect the life of Michael Knight and to preserve human life in general. If that kind of mindset is missing, so Seth, technology will only be used to further control and enslave humanity. So I think we should initiate discussions about AI more along those lines than the scare mongering lines. In Seth terms again, both scenarios are probably futures. It is for us to decide which one we want to actualize. The basic fact always remains, we are the creator of our own reality. No AI is going to change that. When something is created from ego, I don't think it can ever have much of a positive outcome, and I suspect that AI was an egoic endeavour. In those situations, we really have to go back to the drawing board. |
|
.. "Sorry Dave, I can't do that". ... " ♪ daisy, daisy, give me your answer true ♫" ...
