What do you think about AI?

friffri · 2022-12-04T21:55:24+00:00

There's a lot of buzz around AI tech recently. Machine learning did a lot of huge steps in the last years and recently it's getting in the hand of peasants....

MO

Taka Have you heard the adaptable soundtrack for Payday? It's a whole different situation.

The people made the parts and pieces, and the software figures out how dramatic the music needs to be for what is happening.

friffri

hpfs

friffri Can AI bros act normal for once? They either try to convince us that their glorified matrix multiplication machine has achieved sentience or try to clone their exes.

Taka

Imagine seeing your surgeon open ChatGPT and type in "how to do an open heart surgery" before they put you into anesthesia and then seeing Jesus when you wake up

Lumeinshin

i've been using the Bing and Google AI chats lately a bit, they've been helpful in terms of developing ideas I already have, however they arent capable of truly understanding the context. But they are far better than search engines for troubleshooting. The Bing one is quite nice because it gives you the sources it uses, so you can help filter that way as well.

I am both ultra impressed with them, but also can see where their 'intelligence' ends quite clearly, which is quite nice and makes me feel a bit more confident. What doesnt however is that a lot of people do however think they are 'true' AI rather than the language model they are.

CatboySummer

Not reading whole thread but basically some work cannot be automated and some work can. In my line of work, one of the things I do requires immediate adjustment and feedback from whoever I'm working with, so it's a two person job and cannot be easily replicated by machines because frankly it would take too much time to do what I can do in seconds. That is what it means to have a "professional" skill. People who are concerned about AI overtaking their worth should devote themselves to new skills or find out how AI can support them if need be.

I don't like AI because the common man doesn't understand what it really is, they think it's autonomous and not just an index of compiled information being spit back out. They give it sentience in their own minds, but it has none. The problem is the most people are simply too ignorant or stupid or whatever word you want to use to see beyond the illusions of the world. They are akin to spectators at a magic show who believe the lady was truly sawed in half. They cannot help but stare and gawp in amazement because they don't understand how the trick works.

Like all tools, AI should be used with moderation and only as a supplement. You cannot rely on it for everything. That is just carelessness.

gingermilk

Sorry to bomb an old thread, but you guys might find this article on how ChatGPT can be better than humans at being empathetic and providing basic therapy interesting.

Lumeinshin

gingermilk No worries about old threads, I think most threads on this site cant really be necro'd, aside from maybe ones with specific dates
Interesting article

I think part of it is that the way people interact with the GPT bots are different from regular people, theres an element of problem solving expected if the bot doesnt quite get it, so you allow yourself to rephrase things in a more clear way. Whereas you might get frustrated with a therapist quicker if they dont 'get' it.
The other part I think is just where its superior, being able to basically pick and choose from billions of posts, probably a lot of which will be people consoling eachother or providing ideas. It's pretty cool imo, if a bit spooky. It'll be keeping track of many convoluted instances that it will struggle with, just like real therapists, tho I suppose they can have an unlimited memory if kept to the same conversation history.

For technical things I've found i've had to re-refer to our own conversations a few times to get the relevant reply, so I do wonder how that is for a more emotional conversation

Fantasy

gingermilk
It's strange how people's reception of their treatment went down when they learned it was 100% from AI. Having a human touch makes it okay but without that slight touch it's a very negative thing. I wish they gave examples to show what a response touched up by a properly trained therapist looks like compared to a regular AI generated one.

gingermilk

Lumeinshin Yeah I definitely agree. In terms of more emotional conversations, it is usually hard to find someone who is patient, emotionally intelligent, and let's say affordable enough to pay attention to your vents and provide adequate feedback that would not be considered as potentially offensive or careless. On the venter's side, the sense of guilt could be overwhelming from treating the opponent like an emotional trash can. It might be frustrating to keep getting irrelevant replies, but just as you have said, we tend to be more lenient with machines who we assume to be incapable of being judgemental.

gingermilk

Fantasy This is giving me some stupid and unethical ideas. We could set up an experiment with the purpose of seeing what percent of people could distinguish between responses given by AI and certified therapists. But instead of giving them both, we should just give them AI generated ones. If people are not able to spot this deception, we could utilize the responses labeled by a majority of participators as given by therapists to further train AIs by limiting the range of possible responses and finding the optimal pattern.

tangerine

Fantasy there's something pretty patronizing about a computer giving you mental health advice

Fantasy

gingermilk
That makes me think of the experiment that Facebook did where they decided to only show people posts considered negative to see if the users got depressed. They did.

QTea

gingermilk Well here's hoping they give better advice than the betterhelp therapist

silicon_ivory

It's good that there's competition in AI now, especially with open source models. Heard of a study (just check those graphs) where it shows chatGPT4 dropped performance in many areas over the course of a month. Whether it was due to OpenAI placing limits on what it can say or whether it was due to genuine mistakes they made while trying to improve something, either way it shows if we want quality AI we can't rely on one organization.

Fantasy

silicon_ivory
I have read and cited this study multiple times already. Thank you for making me seem smart in front of friends and family.

magicrabbit

I'm not a fan of it, but I don't think it should be made illegal or anything
Back when things like image models were just coming out, it was a bit annoying to have to sift through dozens of AI generated girls when I just don't see the worth of an AI painting compared to a real human's artwork, but I have no problems now that the same "prompters" isolate themselves into some random corner and just prompt away creating erotic stories and art; really it's the same as always

What I do have a problem with, as many others do, are the people that have the most control over AI models
Companies inserting AI everywhere like Microsoft and Google can have greater control over censorship and people's thoughts, with prompts coming pre-adjusted with invisible keywords that make whatever Cloud model you're using be biased and lie to you in order to benefit the company hosting it

AI training using artists' works without permission is also something I don't like, there's no "progress" or "innovation," it's all corporations trying to make more profit at the expense of normal people, just as they've done for years with data collection to power their various algorithms
We can have image and language models, but the consequences of bringing even simple Artificial ""Intelligence"" like ChatGPT and other models into the economy outweigh the benefits significantly.

Lumeinshin

magicrabbit
I think its very much a pandoras box thats open, and any attempts at closing it are gonna be like adobe trying to add copyright to styles via impersonation laws, which would be infinitely worse than any AI model IMO
https://nichegamer.com/adobe-urges-lawmakers-to-penalize-individuals-who-use-ai-to-mimic-other-artist-styles/
(as an aside, jesus christ they use a lot of ads, on the browser i searched for the article on i had adblock off)
I think the only people who would benefit from any sort of limitation on imitation would be the big corps and pre-established artists, especially since mimicry is so important in developing skill in art

magicrabbit

Lumeinshin
Training AI models isn't something that can be stopped so there's no point to that, if people can make their own local models only certain cases will end up being enforced, just as most cybercrimes
So personally I'd try and push for something to penalize commercializing AI art trained without permission from those part of its dataset, since the result doesn't benefit anyone other than the individual/corporation that trained the AI in the first place, and may even hurt artists looking for employment by replacing them with more affordable machines

mechap

Work in artificial intelligence has produced computer programs that can beat the world chess champion, control autonomous vehicles, complete our email sentences, etc. More importantly, AI has also produced programs with which one can converse in natural language, including customer service (the so-called "virtual agents") and chat assistant. Our experience shows that playing chess, and carrying on a conversation, are activities that require understanding and intelligence and we may ask at which point does an entity really understand languages ? Said otherwise, does computer prowess at conversation and challenging games then show that computers can understand language and be intelligent ?
Woland pointed out that creativity is inherently the essence of genuine consciousness and understanding and AI appears to not be endowed with reason.
Assuming that computation is defined purely formal or syntactical, whereas minds have actual mental or semantic contents, and that we cannot get from syntactical to the semantic just by having the syntactical operations and nothing else, the implementation of the computer program is not by itself sufficient for consciousness or intentionality.

It seems that AI and robotics will lead to significant gains in productivity and thus overall wealth. The attempt to increase productivity has often been a feature of the economy, though the emphasis on "growth" is more or less a modern phenomenon. Productivity gains through automation typically mean that fewer humans are required for the same output. This does not necessarily imply a loss of overall employment, however, because available wealth increases and that can increase demand sufficiently to counteract the productivity gain. In the long run, higher productivity in industrial societies has led to more wealth overall.
Classic automation has replaced human muscle, whereas digital automation replaces human thought or information processing (and unlike physical machines, digital automation is very cheap to duplicate). It may induce a more radical change on the labour market. So the main question is : will the effects be different this time? Will the creation of new jobs and wealth keep up with the destruction of jobs? Do we need to make societal adjustments for fair distribution of costs and benefits?

« Previous Page Next Page »

Sheepishpatio.net is a forum running on the Flarum software, use of the forum is free. Please enjoy your time.

Friends of the site Here

If you are interested in creating imagery for the site, the resource page is Here