We're headed for a real-life movie it appears.
Google "Godfather of AI" quits, regrets his work
- Thread starter JLoad22
- Start date
What the hell are the good things it can be used for? It seems like a f*cking nightmare honestly
It's a bizarre paradox. All these people know full well it can absolutely mean the end of humanity yet they race to the cliff full speed ahead. It literally defies rational explanation.
For example, reviewing medical imaging and comparing against databases of every other image ever taken when scanning for abnormalities and achieving levels of accurate diagnosis and early detection humans could never come close to achieving.
AI could easily be used by criminals to steal money/data. It's a double edged sword. Depends on the user.
They've already had a case where thieves copied the voice of a ladies daughter, then called the lady demanding ransom and putting the "daugher" on the phone. She said it sounded just like her and she had to track her down to make sure it was a hoax. She said it was scary how spot on the imitation was.
Heard about that.
Here's exclusive video from that encounter:
With all we've learned about Social Media and the other forms of media censoring, canceling, selectively reporting, flat out making up ****, etc., how does AI not open the door wide open for Big Brother to control every bit of information an individual has access to? It's one more tool that One World Government could use to control the peons (99.9% of us), imo.
Worried about the jobs AI is going to make irrelevant more than anything, but that’s one of many concerns
The most disturbing thing I've heard was the other day on TV they were talking about the "bias" that can be programmed in such as global warming and that robots could eventually determine that the eradication of mankind would be best for the planet.
Fun times!
Your judging Miles on things he hasn't even done yet
But it’s all in the name of DEI so it’s okay
Don’t blame me, you were gonna die anyway.
Maybe Dr. Boat will post on the Paddock again. At least that's something again, I guess.
It literally has nothing to do with DEI other than it giving possible capability to democratize data science. Obviously trolling, but just sayingBut it’s all in the name of DEI so it’s okay
Going to be hilarious when the Writers Guild goes on strike and every single one of them is replaced with one computer that can do everything they do in seconds.
Ah, you’re referring to the curated filter over the base model intended to prevent controversial or biased opinions / statements.
And if that filter didn’t exist, ChatGPT would be useless. It’d also lead to results like suggesting genocide. Their ability to predict such out out is pretty impressive really.
And while this isn’t your point at all, what would be interesting would be playing around with the unfiltered base model of ChatGPT. It’d be like talking with an insane person, but would be interesting.
Accountants yes. Lawyers no. When ai finally learns analytical thought and reason, there won't be anything left of civilization. Until then my profession will be the last one standing
"AI could be used for bad things". Well duh!!!
What's the next brilliant awareness, "power to those in government can corrupt".
Just because you CAN do something, does NOT mean you SHOULD do it.
Like cloning people/babies.
What's the next brilliant awareness, "power to those in government can corrupt".
Just because you CAN do something, does NOT mean you SHOULD do it.
Like cloning people/babies.
Just figured out the truly good use for AI (other than reading X-rays apparently) - there is a thread on rafters about replacing refs with AI. Yes please, go AI!
The “arts” have been the wealthy’s money laundering scheme for centuries. They do a nefarious deed and you buy a worthless painting and give it to them or buy it from them.
There are a literally unimaginable number of good uses. But that also means there are an unimaginable number of bad uses.
People with limited to no coding experience are going to be able to bring ideas to fruition it would have taken millions of dollars and a team of engineers to do a year ago.
But people with limited to no coding experience may become super hackers limited only by their desire to do harm.
I’m curious if anyone has been using ChatGPT or other related software. I’ve been asking it tax questions, and it’s not good enough to replace me yet. Yesterday I asked it a specific question, and it cited made up case law for an incorrect answer.
With UK's luck, the Rooferee would be probably be the lead consultant used by the NCAA to build it. We'd be forever- perma- super-screwed.
It's not AI it's LLM
Here's what I can't figure out - can we turn off Chat GPT and BARD? And if we did would there be others popping up? Or does this inherently need $100M server farms to effectively be the generative AI.
This is the big one.
Here's what I can't figure out - can we turn off Chat GPT and BARD? And if we did would there be others popping up? Or does this inherently need $100M server farms to effectively be the generative AI.
At the very least it would stop it where it is because it can't harvest more information from which to learn. That's why I posted early on, major major companies helped in the creation of chat because it needed enormous amounts of information and computing power possessed by only a handful.
Beyond the obvious concern of human extinction, a more refined ai could eliminate many/most jobs in existence today. Having 90-95% unemployment is not a good outcome for society. That's why I think ai should be limited in usage with the focus being on projects of sufficient high degree of public interest.
Then the question becomes - who makes that decision? The old farts in Congress who still can't send emails? The unelected bureaucracy that answers to no one? Some panel of completely altruistic tech minds (whomever that might be)?
Maybe [Elon Musk] can develop a benevolent AI to combat the evil doers. The dipshits in Washington are sure to screw it up, and there are plenty of other countries and organizations with resources that aren’t beholden to Washington (and have a lot of them on the payroll).
I think that issue is going to delay its widespread acceptance in law / tax practices a bit longer than would otherwise occur. Everyone I know who has played with using it for legal drafting says that it has a tendency to make-up facts and case citations. I'm sure the programmers will figure that out eventually but professionals can't take the risk of relying on something with even a small threat of committing fraud/malpractice.
Frankly, if I have to go proofread every document for basic factual errors and Shepardize every case citation, that is less time savings than just writing it myself for most tasks.
I'm of two minds on the issue of AI. On the one hand, every major technological change causes widespread predictions of massive job losses and putting entire industries out of business. The word processor, for instance, was supposed to put lawyers out of business and that didn't happen. Even when an innovation does put an industry out of business (like buggy whips), it usually creates jobs elsewhere.
Initially, I think AI will be much the same in that it will cause job disruptions but not widespread job losses.
On the other hand, however, the speed of the technological innovation that this will allow could very well lead to changes happening so much faster than any other innovation in history that what I just described could all happen in 5 years or less and almost all knowledge jobs could become obsolete.
I doubt that happens but it no longer seems preposterous.
One good thing about it, I guess, is that with demographic trends, people are living much longer and having far fewer kids. There will be fewer workers available to care for all of us soon to be old farts, so we may need droid X-ray techs, etc to care for us.
All in all, I find the whole thing dismal and gloomy. The older I get, the more I resent how seemingly every behavior in life somehow involves the internet and I find myself purposefully avoiding technology to the greatest degree possible.
There is a chance that humanity hates AI so much, a large percentage choose to not interact with it and go back to living life without staring through screens 90% of our waking hours.
Last edited:
All I know is, in the infancy of the technology, many of the people who are way more knowledgeable about it and stand to profit from it are warning against it and advising slowing down on it. I sure dont remember mark Zuckerberg doing that ****. That’s scary AF