1 month 2 days ago #373929 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic A.I.
They are like a droid, it's great. Now I notice I can instruct ChatGTP to call me by my rank and have a proper Star Wars conversation :D I joke... I sort of feel it's a tool which can enable the progression of communication from identities to concepts, where it's not so much about writing the original words but constructing original concepts using generated words... and thusly akin to a bit of a paradigm shift perhaps? Though not to replace original writing, but rather as an adjunct to it when appropriate. Sort of like gender perhaps, as society develops new 'technologies of thought' where ideas emerge, and cultures shift to adopt a fuller representation of its participants characteristics and capabilities.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Antares

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 month 1 day ago #373935 by Antares
Replied by Antares on topic A.I.
I have at some points in life had a very close relationship with the droids. A.I. is a very broad category encompassing many different uses and architectures. There has been a mad rush in the scientific community to fit models in machine learning in order to make better predictions. This has enabled labs to save on costs of running fruitless experiments. On the other hand the model is only as good as the creator giving false or statistically irrelevant results. Personally, I see A.I. as a very valuable resource wielded in responsible and capable hands. In regards to having it write your homework for you than that is plagiarism even if it is a machine. You still are not doing the work making it completely pointless to be enrolled in whatever program you are pursuing, including rank within the temple. In regards to A.I. generated images, it is so difficult to write the correct order of prompts to come up with something useable that it is an artform of its own. If it is completely copying someone else's work than they should be paid for it, but if the content is original based on the user's prompts then it is something different. It is going to take time in order for all of us to adjust and implement reasonable laws around it. I can only hope that our dinosaur law makers can keep up in some kind of capacity.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in to join the conversation.

3 weeks 1 day ago #374054 by Cornilion Seadragon
Replied by Cornilion Seadragon on topic A.I.
This conversation opens a huge can or worms.

besides, this isn't AI. it isnt aware of itself. its just a really good and predictable algorithm that steals from the work of real human beings to pass itself off as 'intelligent'. 

A dictinction without a difference, methinks. Can you demonstrate to your own satisfaction that I am a self-aware being, any more intelligent in a way you can detect, than the more sophisticated of current bots? My language, like theirs, is learned from countless samples heard and written, and a handful more made by myself with decreasing rates of error over the years. My knowledge, like theirs, transferred to me for the most part through messages in one or more such language, parsed and stored, practiced for recollection and application. Is my intelligence any more genuine for running on sodium and carbon, than a computer's running on silicon and gold?

I think this hit's a lot of the issue on the head. AI is not capable of higher thinking. It is only able to mimic higher thinking and appear to have completed the higher thoughts that it actually copied and pasted from others. The fact that we're able to ask ourselves if we are self-aware is itself self-awareness. The AI language models available today have no such ability. Maybe someday they will, maybe some day the thought processes taking place on silicon and gold will reach this same level, but for now the best they can do is copy and paste from their admittedly very large database, and swap words around for synonyms.

Currently, here's what ChatGPT can, and can't do:
It can dig through its vast database trained on basically the entirety of the indexed internet for an answer.
It can paraphrase the answer it finds to make that information either more accessible ("explain this like I'm a child") or fun ("explain this like a pirate").

It can introduce "randomness" to its answers, and pick answers from its database that may not have been its top chosen answer if you ask it to (or even give you several possible answers instead of just one) such as "give me a list of topics for a comedy routine"
It cannot introduce "creativity" or the ability to synthesize something new that it hasn't already seen, but "randomness" can create the appearance of creativity.

It cannot identify the quality of the source of information it uses. (Is it a peer reviewed journal, or some random blog post written by a 12 year old?)
It cannot identify the relevance of a source. (Is the legal argument it looks up based on the laws within the same jurisdiction?)
It cannot even cite it's sources (much to my annoyance when I want to do the above assessments for myself to judge the quality of information).
It cannot produce new critical thought to a novel question (such as a new legal issue that has never tried or discussed before).
I can only regurgitate what has already been written by others.
I cannot apply a concept to details not found in its database or within the prompt (such as applying a philosophy to a person's own life and experience).

It can sound very eloquent and use language in a way that sounds very convincing.
It cannot think for itself, but eloquent language can create the appearance of thought.

All that being said, it is a tool. Like any other tool, it matters how it is used. It is my opinion that AI is best used when paired with a human. The AI can make the human more efficient and give the human access to a vast amount of knowledge that might otherwise be very time consuming and challenging to sift through, and a human can use higher thought to make sure that the answers the AI comes up with are both valid and fit with what the human needs. There are also, honestly a lot pastors out there who are terrible public speakers and who can't hold a candle to whatever the AI would come up with for a script. As long as they've reviewed that script and determined that the information within it is valid and reflects the message they want to communicate, using the AI's mastery of language to better communicate that message can be a very effective tool. I wouldn't replace a pastor with an AI, but I can see it being used to aid a pastor who can't find the words to communicate the idea they want to share.

Naturally, there are also places where AI is not an appropriate use such as writing assignments, where part of the learning process is learning to write that assignment and put your own thoughts - not the thoughts of the internet - onto paper. Asking AI do describe a topic a student is struggling with, or using AI to kick off a brainstorming process for a paper might be useful, but if the assignment is to write something in your own words, then using the words of the AI would not be an appropriate use of that tool.

There's of course a lot of other complex nuances to all of this. One is the ethics of artwork. If it's basically just copying and pasting art of others, is that stealing? On the other hand isn't that what every artist does, take the artistic elements they see in previous artists that inspire them and apply them to a new topic to illustrate an idea? There's also the issue of potentially harming entire industries, including ironically the computer science industry. AI is now better than entry level programmers, and far quicker and cheaper as well. This is leading companies to no longer hire entry level workers into the field. On the other hand, AI is not capable of replacing the senior developers who map out the full programs and create the overall plan for developing a new piece of software. This still requires experienced human programmers. The issue is that those senior developers start as entry level programmers and work their way up through experience. Without new jobs for entry level programmers, it won't be long before there is nobody getting the experience they need to become senior developers and the industry will run into a serious problem.

In the end, all of this is complicated. There are some strong feelings about this from a lot of people, in many cases very justified feelings. It's here, though, so we need to figure out how it fits within society and how to make sure it's being used in the right way.

As far as our lawmakers keeping up, unfortunately good luck!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZeroZeth Windwrecker