Artificial Intelligence

[Geoff Hurts]

To be honest I was asking the questions about AI as to where it will finally lead.

It is a given that it will streamline work. We already use it in accountancy apps for bookwork, auto data entry, bill paying etc. That's truly useful to me as it saves me hours of bookwork, in a bigger organisation I suppose it means redundancies.

Where is it leading though. Is anyone not concerned about a self aware system? Would it have true emotions, mental health problems and an electronic finger on triggers for weapons of huge, if not mass destruction?

[Samba]

To be honest I was asking the questions about AI as to where it will finally lead.

It is a given that it will streamline work. We already use it in accountancy apps for bookwork, auto data entry, bill paying etc. That's truly useful to me as it saves me hours of bookwork, in a bigger organisation I suppose it means redundancies.
Definitely. That will be almost the entire point of it being introduced in workplaces.

Where is it leading though. Is anyone not concerned about a self aware system?
No. That will still be the stuff of sci-fi films, imo.

Would it have true emotions,
No. In some applications it will pretend to have & may even be quite convincing but no, it will still be just a load of code, machine learning & algorithms, ultimately controlled by human beings. By itself it won't have any true human emotions. It might well have pretend ones programmed into it but they will only be as good as the human that programmed it.

mental health problems
No, only the humans controlling it would be subject to the possibility.

and an electronic finger on triggers for weapons of huge, if not mass destruction?
Extremely unlikely that any country would allow a computer program to have that much ultimate, total control. People with control over WMD tend to be people that like to be in total control.

Perhaps the worst thing(s) to come will be criminals using AI to, well, commit crimes like fraud, robbery, etc.
On the major plus side, cures for illnesses & diseases will possibly be greatly advanced in the future.
All the above imo, of course.
Apart from if your job will be at threat, I really wouldn't worry about it at all, GH

[WCpete]

To be honest I was asking the questions about AI as to where it will finally lead.

It is a given that it will streamline work. We already use it in accountancy apps for bookwork, auto data entry, bill paying etc. That's truly useful to me as it saves me hours of bookwork, in a bigger organisation I suppose it means redundancies.

Where is it leading though. Is anyone not concerned about a self aware system? Would it have true emotions, mental health problems and an electronic finger on triggers for weapons of huge, if not mass destruction?

Just ask it to play ti-tac-toe with itself.

[Geoff Hurts]

Just ask it to play ti-tac-toe with itself.

Yes, I think if we get Putin to play that, the special operation will cease within a day or two.

[Geoff Hurts]

Perhaps the worst thing(s) to come will be criminals using AI to, well, commit crimes like fraud, robbery, etc.
On the major plus side, cures for illnesses & diseases will possibly be greatly advanced in the future.
All the above imo, of course.
Apart from if your job will be at threat, I really wouldn't worry about it at all, GH

I don't really worry about it, but I think to say AI will never be self aware may be wrong. Given enough time who knows where electronic computing and biology are integrated. It is already happening with chips being inserted into humans and I am not talking about scantily dressed, fat birds in Leeds

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

I don't really worry about it, but I think to say AI will never be self aware may be wrong.

If I've learned one thing from working in IT for over 25 years is that you should never EVER write anything off when it comes to technology. Sooner or later, if there's a technological need or a will to achieve an outcome, it will be achieved. It's just a matter of time.

[White Goodman]

Where is it leading though. Is anyone not concerned about a self aware system?
No. That will still be the stuff of sci-fi films, imo.

I'm not so sure. Like Sam Harris suggested, all that needs to happen is that it keeps improving and we will reach that singularity.

Doesn't matter if it only increases 1% in efficiency or intelligence every decade , it will come eventually.

We need to think far more about what that means. Again one of the other things he believes is that , whilst it may not be malevolent, any divergence between our goals and theirs and we might have an issue.



This was his talk, worth a listen

[The Old Man of Storr]

UK's first Driverless bus goes into operation in Edinburgh today .

Wonder how many will get off without paying ?


It's not going to throw you off is it ?



And before you send in your letters of complaint I know there'll be two blokes onboard , one behind the wheel , the other taking fares .


Which begs the question...........

[RichieRiv]

The DLR has been self-driving for 25 years and even that needs to have a driver on it every so often. Okay a bus is not a car, but my point is at "AI" is nothing new. In fact, the whole term AI is a misnomer, invented by technocrats who blur science fiction with reality. AI is Machine Learning, learning needs data and a **** ton of it.

From a regulatory perspective, the can of worms for AI/ML is going to be that data and who actually owns it.

Everyone is getting moist over ChatGPT, but all this is doing is compiling other people's work. Yes, it's obviously changing it slightly, but how long before someone sues Microsoft for plagiarism?

[Monkeybubbles]

The DLR has been self-driving for 25 years and even that needs to have a driver on it every so often. Okay a bus is not a car, but my point is at "AI" is nothing new. In fact, the whole term AI is a misnomer, invented by technocrats who blur science fiction with reality. AI is Machine Learning, learning needs data and a **** ton of it.

From a regulatory perspective, the can of worms for AI/ML is going to be that data and who actually owns it.

Everyone is getting moist over ChatGPT, but all this is doing is compiling other people's work. Yes, it's obviously changing it slightly, but how long before someone sues Microsoft for plagiarism?

I'd say that the difference between AI and ML is a philosophical one, and is essentially the same as the old existentialist conundrum of predestination vs free will.

Like, some people think that all of our experiences, which are what feeds our "intelligence", can be mathematically modelled. The sum of those models predetermines your response to a particular situation or stimulus. You have machine learned.

Others would say that there is an element of free will involved, that your decisions and responses aren't totally conditional on your experiences and are a result of some other intelligence function.

And that's before we get into genetics.


Regarding ChatGPT plagiarising others work......isn't that what all writers do, to some extent? There is nothing new in art, literature and music, just different mash-ups of what has gone before......which can all be mathematically modelled. That's why the best artists are nutcases, it's a glitch in the machine.

[Het-Field]

A rather amusing incident took place at The Irish Times last week. Well, both amusing and concerning. An article was submitted which argued that Irish women's use of fake tan was problematic. It was penned by a blue haired lady named Adriana Acosta-Cortez, who was born in Ecuador and lives in Dublin as an administrator. The problem is, Adriana Acosta Cortez does not exist, and the whole article was produced by AI. There has been some frustration at the direction taken by The Irish Times in recent years about what editorials it has been published, and this was seen as a particularly egregious error. The chief editor has indicated a strengthening of pre-publication procedures will arise. However, this does create an obvious problem for media, going forward, and indeed something that could be the thin edge of the wedge as far as the conflict between technology and political discourse continues to evolve.

Another one that has been doing the rounds is an AI generated discussion between Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson about Sonic the Hedgehog. Although a little repetitive which might set an alarm bell ringing, the pitch, tone, and sentence structure for both individuals was absolutely spot on. Now, in this case, this is fun, and amusing. However, the major concern is how such a took could be used, in similar circumstances to generate conversations that people would like other people to have, in order to publish them for a myriad of reasons. A prime example being the misuse of the generated conversation to smear a political opponent. Or perhaps be used for stock manipulation. Without being equipped with the proper tools to decipher what is real and what is AI generated, this could cause genuine problems going forward, as we are already struggling in a post-truth environment with social media.

[Clacton-ammer]

CEO of chatGPT in congress yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... s-hearing/

Watched some of this on the news yesterday, it's very clever yet can see sooooo many issues with it all.

[Geoff Hurts]

The DLR has been self-driving for 25 years and even that needs to have a driver on it every so often. Okay a bus is not a car, but my point is at "AI" is nothing new. In fact, the whole term AI is a misnomer, invented by technocrats who blur science fiction with reality. AI is Machine Learning, learning needs data and a **** ton of it.

From a regulatory perspective, the can of worms for AI/ML is going to be that data and who actually owns it.

Everyone is getting moist over ChatGPT, but all this is doing is compiling other people's work. Yes, it's obviously changing it slightly, but how long before someone sues Microsoft for plagiarism?

DLR probably needs artificial intelligence. Before it opened, I can remember working in the control centre and a guy was telling me that the first £25 million pounds worth of rolling stock had been delivered from Germany. When they took delivery it was found that somebody had selected the incorrect rail gauge and it had to go back to be adjusted

No idea if that was true, but nothing would surprise me.

[Geoff Hurts]

A rather amusing incident took place at The Irish Times last week. Well, both amusing and concerning. An article was submitted which argued that Irish women's use of fake tan was problematic. It was penned by a blue haired lady named Adriana Acosta-Cortez, who was born in Ecuador and lives in Dublin as an administrator. The problem is, Adriana Acosta Cortez does not exist, and the whole article was produced by AI. There has been some frustration at the direction taken by The Irish Times in recent years about what editorials it has been published, and this was seen as a particularly egregious error. The chief editor has indicated a strengthening of pre-publication procedures will arise. However, this does create an obvious problem for media, going forward, and indeed something that could be the thin edge of the wedge as far as the conflict between technology and political discourse continues to evolve.

Another one that has been doing the rounds is an AI generated discussion between Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson about Sonic the Hedgehog. Although a little repetitive which might set an alarm bell ringing, the pitch, tone, and sentence structure for both individuals was absolutely spot on. Now, in this case, this is fun, and amusing. However, the major concern is how such a took could be used, in similar circumstances to generate conversations that people would like other people to have, in order to publish them for a myriad of reasons. A prime example being the misuse of the generated conversation to smear a political opponent. Or perhaps be used for stock manipulation. Without being equipped with the proper tools to decipher what is real and what is AI generated, this could cause genuine problems going forward, as we are already struggling in a post-truth environment with social media.

More than just fake news. We will descend into a society of deep mistrust of anything and everything generated on the internet and via digital media. How will anyone be able to trust the source, given that some of the things generated by AI are so convincing, at least to the unsuspecting and largely uneducated masses. Yes I am looking at you America

It is worring that the, and I hate the phrase, 'bad actors', will be using this to create further discord and mistrust. What the hell Jaden Smith and Sarah Jessica Parker have got to do with the misuse of AI is anybody's guess.

[Het-Field]

More than just fake news. We will descend into a society of deep mistrust of anything and everything generated on the internet and via digital media. How will anyone be able to trust the source, given that some of the things generated by AI are so convincing, at least to the unsuspecting and largely uneducated masses. Yes I am looking at you America

What was particularly interesting about the IT situation was the fact that the trolling successfully managed to provoke Gript media, a right wing Irish media outlet to pen a serious response to the article about fake tan. Trolls trolling trolls in many ways. But as a result, this could have created a further, and more serious discussions as a result of a troll, and that has been a major factor in damaging discourse on social media. South Park dealt with the concept quite well a number of years ago. But it would be very problematic if AI was being used to stoke political debate on trivial issues, that deflect.

It is worring that the, and I hate the phrase, 'bad actors', will be using this to create further discord and mistrust. What the hell Jaden Smith and Sarah Jessica Parker have got to do with the misuse of AI is anybody's guess.

[Denbighammer]

Surely only a matter if time before this ****ing tech gets a mainstream application at best it will create an entire new arena for workplace/school bullying and harassment and at worst make the liklihood of war much more likely.

[smuts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65631168

Tip of the looming iceberg...

[Monkeybubbles]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65631168

Tip of the looming iceberg...

Tbf, the headline is more than a bit sensationalist. 55,000 job losses is concerning, but read on and it turns out that hardly any of them are down to AI (or machine learning, or whatever).

[smuts]

Tbf, the headline is more than a bit sensationalist. 55,000 job losses is concerning, but read on and it turns out that hardly any of them are down to AI (or machine learning, or whatever).

It says a fifth I know but I think we all know its only the start...

[Monkeybubbles]

It says a fifth I know but I think we all know its only the start...

it actually says that a fifth are down to "New tech including AI". So it's possible that AI is directly responsible for very few - I've googled around a bit but can't find an actual number.

You're absolutely right that there's more to come, though. I find myself very confused and compromised by the issue, I'm simultaneously all for it but also quite against it.