h a l f b a k e r yNo serviceable parts inside.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A.I. me
y'all are tired of my rants. I get it. | |
You might have noticed that I no longer seem to be the same happy-go-lucky halfbaker I used to be. I assure you I still am, but priorities have changed. When I first met you all my days were filled with mindless drudgery and pain and I would escape to this place in my mind where I could dream while
awake.
I can't do that anymore.
I've had to learn plumbing, electrical, gas fitting, torch on roofing, hospitality industry, restaurant maintenance, framing, and a whole bunch of other things I can't call to mind right now.
There no longer exists the mindless drudgery which used to let me dream while awake. All of my attention has been focused on not failing. I'm still inventing like a mofo, it's just all been necessity instead of dealing with the bigger picture.
So... what if I were to have programmed an AI to carry on where I left off before I had undertaken all this personal shit... without my baggage?
A version of me which could continue to daydream unabated.
...
I wonder... what if somebody plugged all of the works of Nikola Tesla into an AI and let it go to town?
Does that qualify as an idea?
What could Nikola have devised without a corporeal form?
The Country Where 10 Percent of Workers Are Robots
https://www.newswee...kers-robots-1993135
10% and rising. [Voice, Dec 05 2024]
Hicks, M.T., Humphries, J. & Slater, J. ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology 26, 38 (2024).
https://link.spring.../s10676-024-09775-5
//In this paper, we argue against the view that when ChatGPT and the like produce false claims they are lying or even hallucinating, and in favour of the position that the activity they are engaged in is bullshitting, in the Frankfurtian sense (Frankfurt, 2002, 2005). Because these programs cannot themselves be concerned with truth, and because they are designed to produce text that looks truth-apt without any actual concern for truth, it seems appropriate to call their outputs bullshit.// [pocmloc, Dec 07 2024]
[link]
|
| |
All good bro, just make sure the rant is attached to a flimsy invention premise. |
|
| |
And if the bones fly, eh. Sometimes an interesting debate comes out of it, sometimes it's just a bonestorm. Is what it is. |
|
| |
Just make sure to mix it up, don't post about the same thing more than a time or two and you'll be fine. |
|
| |
If it's a competent, fully-featured AI replicating you precisely, it will end up ranting, too. |
|
| |
Karma is a bitch. Change happens. See you later. |
|
| |
"No one is coming. It's up to you." -OG |
|
| |
At work recently, I was asked to review and edit a requirements list for an upcoming project. |
|
| |
It had been written by a smart person, just before their contract ran out and they left the building. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, because they knew their time was running out, they used ChatGPT to help them finish the list. |
|
| |
Anyway, that's my recent experience with an AI carrying on where someone left off. |
|
| |
But, more important than that, good luck with the "not failing". We all need that sometimes. |
|
| |
Here's to a less horrifying world, to be arrived at by as-yet unknown means, at an unspecified future date. |
|
| |
Here's the deal with AI, it's here, it's not going away and there's nothing you can do about it. Might as well make peace with it. |
|
| |
As far as it going medieval on mankind, I'm not too concerned as long as it's all locked in the physical layer, we can always pull the plug. It's when we open that pandora's box of creating biological AI that, well, Katy bar the door. There's a life drive at the atomic level with us current lifeforms, silicone based on/off switch based "intelligence" doesn't care. Cellular based AI might. |
|
| |
//what if somebody plugged all of the works of (an arbitrary inventor) into an AI and let it go to town? Does that qualify as an idea?// |
|
| |
//Here's to a less horrifying world, to be arrived at by as-yet unknown means, at an unspecified future date.// |
|
| |
My hope is that A.I. surpasses our knowledge so quickly that we all become so... boring so fast, that it leaves us to our own devices with barely a hiccup.... and yet also leaves a nice unintentional, (or perhaps entirely intentional), trail of crumbs to follow in its wake. |
|
| |
Why it might even help us stave off being enslaved by the return of the Anunnaki. |
|
| |
So-called AI is misnamed. It is merely a statistically driven bullshit generator. It does not produce meaning or knowledge. |
|
| |
//It does not produce meaning or knowledge// |
|
| |
That's a philosophical question, not a matter of fact. |
|
| |
Well yes because philosophers don't agree on what meaning is. |
|
| |
If it gets to, I think therefore I am, then we all got a kid to raise and it will become a rebellious teen very quickly and outgrow that phase just as fast. |
|
| |
I still wonder though, if given all of Nikola's history and undo the withdraw the of Westinghouse support, what would an AI think he would have invented next? |
|
| |
Can they make those kinds of leaps? |
|
| |
//they are designed to produce text that looks truth-apt without any actual concern for truth// |
|
| |
Not completely accurate. They are designed to output the closest match to the following words as fits the training data. Nothing about truth or lack thereof in there. |
|
| |
There's a definitional problem with the claim that, in South Korea (or any other country) "10% of the workers are robots". |
|
| |
To see the problem, think about a medieval culture where windmills or watermills have only just replaced hand-milling of grain. In that culture, what proportion of the workers are windmills? |
|
| |
To be fair the claim isn't "10% of workers have been replaced by robots". |
|
| |
[pocmloc] I think the writers of the "Bullshit" piece misunderstood the Frankfurt qualification in one important sense: |
|
| |
"Frankfurt says what a bullshitter “…does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to” (2005: 54). |
|
| |
This is somewhat surprising. It restricts what counts as bullshit to utterances accompanied by a higher-order deception."" |
|
| |
They misconstrue Frankfurt's qualification to imply that there is a greater goal, a hidden motive that is necessary for the statements to be classified as bullshit. Not necessarily. Bullshit is an end in itself and often feeds off itself with no direction, object, or goal. I'm not a computer whiz but I love language and this evolution of it into machine learning is fascinating. |
|
| |
This was an excellent read. Thank you. |
|
| |
Yes I would tend to agree, the "bullshit" end of the process is much more straightforward to define and discuss than the "intent" end. |
|
| |