ai

keepit wrote:
AI has become the hottest topic on cable news. They're talking about ai having hallucinations and about ai being inaccurate.

keepit wrote:
AI has become the hottest topic on cable news. They're talking about ai having hallucinations and about ai being inaccurate.

Spongy Iris wrote:I find nothing interesting about chat gpt.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I find nothing interesting about chat gpt.

Here are some interesting things about ChatGPT:

1) It isn't AI, at least not in its present form. It does not learn. It is nothing more than a much more efficient and user-friendly form of an internet search that goes far deeper than Google. However, if you try to "debate" it using the Socratic method, ChatGPT simply goes around in circles, going right back to the exact same errors with which it started.

2) ChatGPT is woke. If you were expecting it to give you unbiased, accurate information, you would be woefully mistaken. For example, it will be as scientifically illiterate as necessary to preach Global Warming.

3) ChatGPT pretends to be the morality police. I wanted artwork of the idol Moloch for a meme. I found various images in a Google search. ChatGPT, however, told me that it would be inappropriate to assist me in finding images of anything related to child sacrifice. I got the same response when asking for artwork, photographs or journalism of evil people. I suspect that will change over time, but it is interesting that it adds this feature.

keepit wrote:
Does anyone here care to volunteer their personal definition of "thinking" and of "free will"?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I find nothing interesting about chat gpt.

Here are some interesting things about ChatGPT:

1) It isn't AI, at least not in its present form. It does not learn. It is nothing more than a much more efficient and user-friendly form of an internet search that goes far deeper than Google. However, if you try to "debate" it using the Socratic method, ChatGPT simply goes around in circles, going right back to the exact same errors with which it started.

2) ChatGPT is woke. If you were expecting it to give you unbiased, accurate information, you would be woefully mistaken. For example, it will be as scientifically illiterate as necessary to preach Global Warming.

3) ChatGPT pretends to be the morality police. I wanted artwork of the idol Moloch for a meme. I found various images in a Google search. ChatGPT, however, told me that it would be inappropriate to assist me in finding images of anything related to child sacrifice. I got the same response when asking for artwork, photographs or journalism of evil people. I suspect that will change over time, but it is interesting that it adds this feature.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I find nothing interesting about chat gpt.

Here are some interesting things about ChatGPT:

1) It isn't AI, at least not in its present form. It does not learn. It is nothing more than a much more efficient and user-friendly form of an internet search that goes far deeper than Google. However, if you try to "debate" it using the Socratic method, ChatGPT simply goes around in circles, going right back to the exact same errors with which it started.

2) ChatGPT is woke. If you were expecting it to give you unbiased, accurate information, you would be woefully mistaken. For example, it will be as scientifically illiterate as necessary to preach Global Warming.

3) ChatGPT pretends to be the morality police. I wanted artwork of the idol Moloch for a meme. I found various images in a Google search. ChatGPT, however, told me that it would be inappropriate to assist me in finding images of anything related to child sacrifice. I got the same response when asking for artwork, photographs or journalism of evil people. I suspect that will change over time, but it is interesting that it adds this feature.

I generally agree with your analysis of chatgpt. However it is being called AI. Can you provide an example of AI which I can try?

keepit wrote:
I'm surprised that all the answers about ai on this website revolve around what ai has done so far (backward looking) rather than the future of ai (forward looking). It's as if people think ai won't ever change in the future.

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
I'm surprised that all the answers about ai on this website revolve around what ai has done so far (backward looking) rather than the future of ai (forward looking). It's as if people think ai won't ever change in the future.

It's an interesting tool, but it's not like in the movies. Currently, the AI is trained to perform specific task, then it's put to work, based on the training given. They aren't self-training, nor do they continue to 'learn', while performing task.

keepit wrote:I'm surprised that all the answers about ai on this website revolve around what ai has done so far (backward looking) rather than the future of ai (forward looking). It's as if people think ai won't ever change in the future.

Spongy Iris wrote:IBDM and keepit seem to say AI should be able learn, think, have its own wants, apply logic, and identify subtle patterns...

keepit wrote:ibd,It still sounds like a backward looking view of ai.

keepit wrote:
Still, backward looking. We don't know what they really have.

keepit wrote:Still, backward looking.

keepit wrote:
Just being technical but everything you perceive has a small lag time. You must know, don't you, that ai developers have projects that are more advanced than what is out on the market.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:I'm surprised that all the answers about ai on this website revolve around what ai has done so far (backward looking) rather than the future of ai (forward looking). It's as if people think ai won't ever change in the future.

Spongy Iris wrote:IBDM and keepit seem to say AI should be able learn, think, have its own wants, apply logic, and identify subtle patterns...

Both of you should get a better feel for what AI is. keepit, you think AI is something out of science fiction. Spongy Iris, you are asking about AI as though it were a spreadsheet application that you just "try out." It is neither.

Harvey is correct in pointing out that AI is a tool. What kind of tool? Well, one that aids your intelligence/thinking/decision making by 1) extending your thinking onto a digital platform that is not restricted by your human brain's very limited hardware resources, 2) connects to, and quickly processes, vast knowledge not otherwise known to you from distributed databases, data lakes, data warehouses and other data repositories, 3) mechanically crunches many numbers over the entire domain of consideration to provide you a quick and exact visualization (dashboard) 4) uses complex/sophisticated algorithms to analyze data (analytics) to "see" things in data that your human brain just cannot discern, and which then uses your "thinking" criteria to rank order options and to alert you when certain conditions exist, displaying all of this clearly for you in a separate dashboard and 5) utilizes neural nets that have been finely tuned via "deep learning" to recognize things in a human intelligence manner and to report it to you, along with whatever actions therefore need to be taken if any, what of those actions have automatically been accomplished (along with their disposition) and what actions were automatically initiated, are currently underway and the status thereof.

Businesses crave ANALYTICS that greatly assist in business decisions.

Specialists in particular fields leverage AI/ML to extend their expertise into deep learning environments and let IT platforms bring massive computational resources to their own thinking.

The bottom line is that you should view AI as your "thinking assistant" that only performs actions that you specifically permit (automations), but mostly doesn't perform any actions, and just helps understand very complex things and helps you make better decisions sooner.

keepit wrote:
Does anyone here care to volunteer their personal definition of "thinking" and of "free will"?