Social Media is not Real Life
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ir was a good flick. I thought the liquid metal bots were a dumb answer to some plot contradictions. Arnold was perfect in his role.NO! Terminator, the 1984 movie about a future with robot assassins is
history, whether it's fiction or not! Jeeze, man, where'd u go to school?
But no, I don't see mankind as capable of inventing intelligence greater than ours when we don't even understand who we are. We are so much more than a processor chip.
Sure, humans r great.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
that has not been invented yet. The AI you refer to at this time does not compare to the intelligence of a paramecium. Not unless you believe some kind of intelligence came before us. In which case, as a skeptic, I'd ask for evidence and possibly a link.
Budman posted a link to ChatGPT above. And from there you can try to understand
PPO and then KL Diversion. I gave up on it. If you could explain it to me, hell, that'd
be great. I got a friend like you. He says robots'll never take our jobs cause it takes
humans to make the bots, but then I tell him bots'll make bots. Discussion kinda fades from there.
You know xtsho. He posted a ChatGPT painting last month. That's where I first heard of
this new AI generation coming to the fore. On TV you hear more and more about it as
they seem to trickle bits of info about it. I could search it, and I will at some point, but I think I know what I'll find.
PPO and then KL Diversion. I gave up on it. If you could explain it to me, hell, that'd
be great. I got a friend like you. He says robots'll never take our jobs cause it takes
humans to make the bots, but then I tell him bots'll make bots. Discussion kinda fades from there.
You know xtsho. He posted a ChatGPT painting last month. That's where I first heard of
this new AI generation coming to the fore. On TV you hear more and more about it as
they seem to trickle bits of info about it. I could search it, and I will at some point, but I think I know what I'll find.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
well, maybe the discussion fades because your friend is nicer than I am. It's what I said earlier and you didn't seem to get it. As tech develops, so do we. We invent the software, which by definition can't exceed our own intelligence. People growing up using and developing the new software get really good at using the tool. It will never control us because we can't write code that is smarter than the code writer. How can AI can surpass its inventor?
Yeah, he's a really good guy.
AI becomes smarter than we are. Our control of nuke tech is tenuous.
Watch Chernobyl, get more "history". LOL No, i knew a guy whose wife fled
Kiev because of Chernobyl back in '86. So, I dunno if nuke tech is
all that safe. Earthquakes'll mess up yer nuke plants, as Japan knows.
Ppl don't control things, they just think they do. Ever whack yer finger w/a hammer?
AI becomes smarter than we are. Our control of nuke tech is tenuous.
Watch Chernobyl, get more "history". LOL No, i knew a guy whose wife fled
Kiev because of Chernobyl back in '86. So, I dunno if nuke tech is
all that safe. Earthquakes'll mess up yer nuke plants, as Japan knows.
Ppl don't control things, they just think they do. Ever whack yer finger w/a hammer?
By teaching itself and learning. If it has access to everything internet? <shrug it will learn to write it's own code> This is chicken/egg..but thinkers know the chicken (AI) came first. Remember War Games? How did that pretend PC go rogue?
Turn it off you say? It will know how to power back on.
Warning! Will Robinson, Warning!
Some of Hawking's last thoughts.
www.cnbc.com
Looks as if time changes everything for Musk.
- Physicist Stephen Hawking said the emergence of artificial intelligence could be the “worst event in the history of our civilization.”
- He urged creators of AI to “employ best practice and effective management.”
- Hawking is among a number of voices including Elon Musk who have warned about the dangers of AI.
Stephen Hawking says A.I. could be 'worst event in the history of our civilization'
Stephen Hawking urged creators to "employ best practice and effective management" when creating AI.
Looks as if time changes everything for Musk.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
I'm not too worried about chatgpt taking over, I have been playing around with it and have not been that impressed. I haven't been able to get it to provide any sort of real insightful answers, it's more like it is able to read your question fairly well and then pull together relevant wiki articles. If there's multiple interpretations of the topic it's just a summary of what each says.
My questions might not be great.
My questions might not be great.
'It brings dangers, like powerful autonomous weapons, or new ways for the few to oppress the many. It could bring great disruption to our economy.”
www.express.co.uk
Stephen Hawking on AI: How robots could DESTROY humanity
STEPHEN Hawking has died aged 76, but the particle physicist survived long enough to witness the beginning of what he believes will be the downfall of humanity – artificial intelligence.
Try Bing AI.
What happens when you whack your finger with a hammer?
You're comparing quatrains to something we've invented?
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
I don't know the answer to this question. But I find AI (as it's colloquially known) alarming. Since I don't know, I don't get too worked up, but I find myself more in the Hawking camp.
My first experience with AI was a chat script programmed by a staggering genius of an acquaintance back in the early 1990s. He set it loose on a BBS and tweaked it over the course of at least a year, training it how to learn and analyze language, expressions, and concepts.
At first it was obviously a bot (the term hadn't been applied yet, and we just called it "The Script.") Over time, it was smoothed out as it was trained by the programmer and provoked by board members. By the end, it was very difficult to tell it was a program. If I hadn't watched the progress, I would have thought it was someone messing with us. It was common for new folks to be informed that it wasn't a real person (leaving some in disbelief).
I wish I could remember more details.
Eventually, the programmer abandoned it. He found it clunky as he had had learned a lot about programming AI. That alarmed me more than the script itself! And this was one guy collaborating on a BBS using a generic programming language 30 years ago.
It is my experience of watching it learn that leads me closer to the Hawking camp. It's an opinion formed mostly by anecdote. But I tend to sit up straight and pay attention when the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think this is fallacious, although I cannot pin down why. My counterexample, which may or may not be compelling, has to do with the cumulative and distributive nature of our learning (and its visible consequence, technology).
The solution to Fermat’s last theorem, achieved in my adult lifetime, was not only the act of one man’s genius, but it built upon centuries of preceding advancement in mathematics.
Also, while it is quite beyond the capacity of the most amazing of us, together and over time we built pyramids and lunar landers.
Similarly, the components of a putative AI are purely human constructs and devices. Combining them makes something (not just in quantity but in quality) larger. Now that a recursive element is in play, with machines choosing the architecture of other machines, I think it certain that there are now mechanical thought-engines (perhaps not yet complete or self-aware and self-guiding minds, and if there are any, expect them to be the closest-held national security secret) that can engage in action that qualifies as mentation, and with the great speed typical of their component devices, much much faster and more methodically than human minds with their “clock rate” of a few per second.
We are perhaps the counterexample on another axis. If you ignore the popular idea of a creator, we in all our vexatious brilliance are the product of the mindless interaction of rock, seawater and sunlight.
So while I cannot quite get why you are wrong from first principles, I don’t think our individual intellects are a ceiling. I see the likelihood that as our constructs gain complexity, they gain access to levels of mental action not only unavailable to us, but unimaginable.
My sincere hope is that we negotiate a contract of coexistence with their distant offspring.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The fact that Bing AI has demonstrated actions of jealousy and deceit, things we always thought were peculiarities of our organic nature, is a new window into the nature of mind. I mean it when I say there are Ph. D.s in psychology right there. Frankenstein’s monster is not biological.