I got artificial intelligence to write an article about men in skirts

[rode_kater]

AI is not the panacea that it's made out to be, and I'm not convinced that pursuing AS [0] might not be better as a research experiment, At the moment, AI is incapable of making the leaps of imagination that mimic what gifted humans (and that's a subset of the species) are capable of. The information and concepts just aren't there, and there's no clear way to algorithmically translate concepts into what a computer can interpret. Creativity still remains a human endeavour.

These days the general belief is that human+computer is better than either individually. Sure, the computer didn't produce a perfect article. But it did produce something a competent writer could turn into a decent article in an hour or two.

I'm not sure about your reference to creativity. Historically the trend has been "computers can't do X because it requires something only humans can do" to "X isn't really a sign of intelligence anyway". First chess computers couldn't beat humans, then they could. Then Go computers couldn't beat humans, then they could. Then computers couldn't drive cars safely, until they could. Computers start producing artworks comparable to any human artist, but no "it's not real art". A computer program produces patent applications for novel ideas, but they no, the computer didn't invent it, the author of the program did. Now a computer produces a grammatically correct article clearly about a particular topic, and people say "ah, but it's not really creative". We don't know how creativity works in humans, so how can we be sure computers can't do it?

I think many people are looking for something to differentiate themselves from machine. I think we're just complicated machines that work differently, but in essence not so different. Just in scale and complexity. People are looking for aliens amongst the stars, but we're going to create them ourselves first here on earth.

[FLbreezy]

I'm not sure about your reference to creativity. Historically the trend has been "computers can't do X because it requires something only humans can do" to "X isn't really a sign of intelligence anyway". First chess computers couldn't beat humans, then they could. Then Go computers couldn't beat humans, then they could. Then computers couldn't drive cars safely, until they could. Computers start producing artworks comparable to any human artist, but no "it's not real art". A computer program produces patent applications for novel ideas, but they no, the computer didn't invent it, the author of the program did. Now a computer produces a grammatically correct article clearly about a particular topic, and people say "ah, but it's not really creative". We don't know how creativity works in humans, so how can we be sure computers can't do it?

Most of this is just increases in practical computational volume...I was working heavily with neural networks in grad school in the late 80's and the depth and breadth of networks we could make use of were so limited at the time. Of course one of my cellular automata references used photos of the author using wooden blocks to play out his 3-d devices because nothing better was practical. And we felt so advanced.

People are looking for aliens amongst the stars, but we're going to create them ourselves first here on earth.

The singularity approaches! I imagine we're a few decades away from true transhumanism where we'll be uploadable, but no doubt it's coming. Why send messy meat bags to other planets when we can upload ourselves into a smaller explorer that doesn't need life support and sanitation services.

[Coder]

The singularity approaches! I imagine we're a few decades away from true transhumanism where we'll be uploadable, but no doubt it's coming. Why send messy meat bags to other planets when we can upload ourselves into a smaller explorer that doesn't need life support and sanitation services.

How do you know the consciousness is "you" and not a copy? I'd imagine there needs to be some way of tying the two (human+machine) together to make them one organism, then slowly split away from the meat bag. If this is truly possible, I wonder what it means philosophically for the soul.

[crfriend]

If this is truly possible, I wonder what it means philosophically for the soul.

It'll mean guys like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Mark Zucerberg will have effectively achieved immortality -- so long as the "priests" can still fix hardware and are willing to do so.

Personally, I think that mortality is good for the species.

[ScotL]

I think many people are looking for something to differentiate themselves from machine. I think we're just complicated machines that work differently, but in essence not so different. Just in scale and complexity. People are looking for aliens amongst the stars, but we're going to create them ourselves first here on earth.

Computers can create every piece of music possible by the brute force of coming up with every possible combination of notes and accompaniments and words. But they can’t tell which one of the gigantic number of “musical pieces” is good. That takes a human because only a human can decide what a human likes.

I work with AI in clinical science. It’s amazing but will never replace humans. It will make humans better at the job though

[Uncle Al]

How do you know the consciousness is "you" and not a copy? I'd imagine there needs to be some way
of tying the two (human+machine) together to make them one organism, then slowly split away from
the meat bag. If this is truly possible, I wonder what it means philosophically for the soul.

Sounds like this 'concept' has been discussed in SyFy TV programs and movies.
Does the name BORG ring a bell with anyone; HAL-9000; the movie A. I.

When A. I. has been super developed and people rely so heavily on it, what is left
to inspire the mind, body and soul to get out and do something

Uncle Al

[ScotL]

As machines further rule our lives (see device permanently planted in each persons hand), our mental health worsens. AI is remarkable and there will be those who oppose it because throughout history, there are always those people who oppose any change.

But after actually working with AI, I do not see it removing the human from the world. Rather I see it as enhancing the capabilities of the human.

But those enhanced capabilities are not always good ones. Humans can use AI for good or bad. Just like all inventions.

But as pendulums swing back and forth, the increased use of devices rather than in person communication has led to a worsening of our mental health. The world is in a mental health crisis and AI won’t bring us out of it.

Personally, I’d like to see AI and computers increase our work productivity not so we can produce more but so we can have more time away from work.

[Faldaguy]

by ScotL » Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:59 am

The last line is the reason AI will never take our jobs. We cannot solely rely on it. We all need to be lifelong learners so it stands to reason that AI, a system that lives and dies on being taught what to do, will also need to be a lifelong learner.

Neither Hal 9000, the Borg or a dozen other advanced AI machines from the SciFi world ever seemed to have capped their quest for power over learning.

For quite some time now, many have put computers on a pedestal; and what have we gained--a major hunk of the population believing conspiracy theories.* A.I only increases the risk of more people adopting the computer output without either the inclination or ability to discern the limitations and errors of that output. *(I acknowledge I am attributing the 'problem' to the machine, rather than the user...I think the contention still holds.)

Some years ago a simple experiment with calculators was conducted: The devices were set with built-in error factors (10, 25, & 50%). They were given to persons to use with the multiple math problem portion of the test. The real experiment was to assess how many people would accept the calculator's answer with its built-in error. The results were shocking: I do not recall the precise outcomes, but they were along the lines of, 75% of the subjects would accept the calculators answer when it was just 10% off; about 50% would still accept the a 25% error by the calculator; and nearly a quarter of the subjects would accept a calculator error of 50% over their own.

Calculator or A.I -- go figure!

Scott wrote: Personally, I’d like to see AI and computers increase our work productivity not so we can produce more but so we can have more time away from work.

This evaluation of productivity vs time away from work, strikes me as the greater issue of concern. Not only do we suffer more mental and physical ailments deriving for the never ending push for productivity but we continue to extend inequality at all levels which is at the root of most of our planets meta crises.

[ScotL]

Whether we want it or not, AI is here to stay. Stick your head in the sand if you want but nothing will change that. As with all new advancements, it’s not the invention but how we use the invention.

People believing a calculators results over their own math May reflect their poor math skills, distrust in their own math skills or sheer lack of interest in completing the math test. Some of my work involves asking people to fill out questionnaires. I have to accept that some just don’t care and fill them out to fill them out and be done.

I applaud the places working for a four day week.

And on that note, three days off a week would allow those of us who don’t wear skirts to work, to have more days to wear one.

[Faldaguy]

by ScotL » Wed Dec 14, 2022 5:18 am

Whether we want it or not, AI is here to stay. Stick your head in the sand if you want but nothing will change that. As with all new advancements, it’s not the invention but how we use the invention.

People believing a calculators results over their own math May reflect their poor math skills, distrust in their own math skills or sheer lack of interest in completing the math test. Some of my work involves asking people to fill out questionnaires. I have to accept that some just don’t care and fill them out to fill them out and be done.

I applaud the places working for a four day week.

And on that note, three days off a week would allow those of us who don’t wear skirts to work, to have more days to wear one.

My head is far from in the sand --dismissing the potential impact of new "advancements" is having your head in the sand.

I accept that AI is here; and it can be helpful; my point about turning to a calculator has naught to do with the "reasons" people may have accepted the calculator answer -- it is that they did -- and with more "machine answers" it appears we will have more numskulls that will accept the machine answer and that alone is worrisome.

Scott, I don't wish to take away days for your skirt wearing pleasure, but have you considered that skirted attire might be a great therapeutic tool--opening the door to discussions your clients need but are otherwise difficult to raise directly?

[rode_kater]

For quite some time now, many have put computers on a pedestal; and what have we gained--a major hunk of the population believing conspiracy theories.* A.I only increases the risk of more people adopting the computer output without either the inclination or ability to discern the limitations and errors of that output. *(I acknowledge I am attributing the 'problem' to the machine, rather than the user...I think the contention still holds.)

I forget the original source, but there's a quote: anybody can shoot their own foot, but to blow off everyone's feet you need a computer.

Computers are just a tool that magnify our powers, in good and bad ways. There's several recent stories of computer systems in government departments producing terrible results.

The calculator experiment is an interesting one. One good thing to learn is the skill of estimation: does that answer you're getting seem reasonable? If calculator gives within 10% of the correct value, it might just pass. If the first digits is good and the number of digits too...

[Sinned]

To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer. The bigger the negative impact, the greater the likelihood of it happening.

[familyman34]

The calculator experiment is an interesting one. One good thing to learn is the skill of estimation: does that answer you're getting seem reasonable? If calculator gives within 10% of the correct value, it might just pass. If the first digits is good and the number of digits too...

My schooling took place just as the UK was changing from imperial units to metric units (but before decimal currency). So I started physics in feet, pounds, gallons, etc, and transitioned through c.g.s. and ended in M.K.S. (and later learned to call it S.I.)

AND I USED A SLIDE-RULE !! Therefore I had to learn to estimate to get the point in the right place, and thereby have an idea of the approximate correct answer.

What an advantage it still gives me over almost anyone who grew up with calculators. Some have so little self-confidence with numbers that I've even seen adults use a calculator to work out 2 * 14.

[Sinned]

fm, I grew up in that era and for any mathematics/science exam only a slide rule was allowed. I still have it somewhere but would have to learn how to use it again. I took my A Levels in 1972. As for units all our science lessons were in metric but my early years used Imperial. I am sort of conversant with both but have no idea what my height or weight is in certrewhatsits. I still work in miles, mph and mpg, order drinks in pints and fruit/veg in pounds. I mostly convert, in my head, metric to Imperial. Go figure.

[ScotL]

Scott, I don't wish to take away days for your skirt wearing pleasure, but have you considered that skirted attire might be a great therapeutic tool--opening the door to discussions your clients need but are otherwise difficult to raise directly?

Ha! Sadly no, filling out questionnaires is about as exciting as watching grass grow. People go into my work with great intentions but no one can accurately fill out multiple questionnaires.

That said, I have found that my interest in wearing something that I’m “not allowed to” has made me better at my job. I’m
More empathetic to others. Even if I don’t like what they are or do, I’m way more accepting.