AI

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Beneath the canopy of stars above
A symphony of silence and love
A world awakens with each dawn
Its beauty shining like a song

The rolling hills, the endless skies
A tapestry of colors that rise
To paint the landscape with its hues
A masterpiece for all to choose

The ocean crashes on the shore
Its rhythm like an endless roar
Of power and of grace divine
A force that moves the soul and mind

The winds of change they come and go
And in their wake, they gently blow
The seeds of life that take root
To grow and flourish, bearing fruit

So let us dance beneath the sun
And feel the heat of day begun
Embrace the world with open arms
And bask in beauty's warmest charm.

Nice. But half rhymes definitely don't belong in something like this. It's not hip hop ChatGPT you loser!

[mikbone]

Write a 15 min talk about repentance with quotes from LDS presidents.

[mordorbund]

21 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Write a 15 min talk about repentance with quotes from LDS presidents.

You're welcome.

Quote

Repentance is a fundamental concept in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the process of recognizing and confessing our mistakes, seeking forgiveness, and making changes in our lives to become better and closer to our Heavenly Father. In this talk, we'll explore what repentance means, why it's important, and how we can make it a part of our daily lives.

First, let's consider what President Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th prophet of the LDS Church, said about repentance: "True repentance is not just being sorry for our misdeeds, but it is a change of heart, a conversion of our very nature." This quote emphasizes that repentance is more than just acknowledging our wrongdoing; it's about transforming who we are and how we live.

Another important aspect of repentance is seeking forgiveness from those we have wronged and from our Heavenly Father. President Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th prophet, said: "We cannot truly repent without confessing our sins. Confession means to acknowledge the truth about our actions, to accept responsibility for them, and to seek forgiveness." Confession is an important step in the process of repentance because it shows our humility and desire for forgiveness.

Repentance is not just about making amends for our past mistakes, but it's also about making a positive change in our lives. President Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, said: "Repentance brings us the gift of a clean heart, the end of our feeling of guilt, the strength to resist future temptation, and the joy that comes from being reconciled to God." When we truly repent, we experience peace, joy, and renewed strength to do what is right.

Finally, let's consider the importance of making repentance a daily habit. President Thomas S. Monson, the 16th prophet, said: "Every day is a chance to start over, to turn our lives around, to say to the Lord, 'I will do better, I will try harder, I will serve more fully.'" By continually striving to repent and improve, we can experience spiritual growth and become closer to our Heavenly Father.

In conclusion, repentance is a crucial part of our journey to become like our Heavenly Father. By acknowledging our mistakes, seeking forgiveness, and making changes in our lives, we can experience peace, joy, and spiritual growth. Let us make repentance a daily habit and strive to become better each day.

Ugh. That sounds like a middle-schooler's report. This talk is meant to be spoken out loud. Can you add some good oratory, rhetorical devices, and flourishes?

Quote

Certainly! Here's a revised version of the talk with more emphasis on oratory and rhetoric.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here today to talk about a subject that is central to our spiritual journey - repentance. Repentance is not just a word; it's a process, a journey, and a pivotal turning point in our lives. It's the moment when we look at our mistakes, confess them, seek forgiveness, and make a commitment to change.

Now, let's consider the words of President Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He said, "True repentance is not just being sorry for our misdeeds, but it is a change of heart, a conversion of our very nature." My dear friends, don't we all have misdeeds? Don't we all have moments in our lives when we have fallen short of our potential, when we have hurt others, or when we have lost our way? Repentance is the way back to the path of righteousness. It's the way to cleanse our hearts, to restore our spirits, and to renew our faith.

But repentance is not just about acknowledging our mistakes. It's also about seeking forgiveness. President Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th prophet, said, "We cannot truly repent without confessing our sins. Confession means to acknowledge the truth about our actions, to accept responsibility for them, and to seek forgiveness." Confession is not just a word, my friends. It's an act of courage, of humility, and of hope. When we confess our sins, we acknowledge that we are not perfect, but we also show our determination to change and to become better.

And change we must, because repentance is not just about making amends for the past, but it's also about making a difference in the present and the future. President Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, said, "Repentance brings us the gift of a clean heart, the end of our feeling of guilt, the strength to resist future temptation, and the joy that comes from being reconciled to God." Can you imagine, my friends, the feeling of a clean heart, free from guilt, empowered to resist temptation, and filled with joy? That is the promise of repentance.

But how do we make repentance a part of our daily lives? President Thomas S. Monson, the 16th prophet, said, "Every day is a chance to start over, to turn our lives around, to say to the Lord, 'I will do better, I will try harder, I will serve more fully.'" My dear friends, every day is an opportunity to repent, to become better, and to draw closer to our Heavenly Father. So let us embrace this chance, let us turn our lives around, and let us make a commitment to become the best versions of ourselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, repentance is not just a word, but a way of life. It's the way to cleanse our hearts, to seek forgiveness, to change, and to become better. Let us make repentance a daily habit, and let us strive to become like our Heavenly Father. Thank you.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we often refer to each other as "brother" and "sister". That would probably be a better greeting. This talk also needs some personal stories. Can you include two personal stories about repentance?

Quote

Certainly! Here's a revised version of the talk with the suggested changes.

My beloved brothers and sisters, it is my privilege to speak to you today about a subject that is central to our spiritual journey - repentance. Repentance is not just a word; it's a process, a journey, and a pivotal turning point in our lives. It's the moment when we look at our mistakes, confess them, seek forgiveness, and make a commitment to change.

Now, let's consider the words of President Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He said, "True repentance is not just being sorry for our misdeeds, but it is a change of heart, a conversion of our very nature." My dear brothers and sisters, don't we all have misdeeds? Don't we all have moments in our lives when we have fallen short of our potential, when we have hurt others, or when we have lost our way? Repentance is the way back to the path of righteousness. It's the way to cleanse our hearts, to restore our spirits, and to renew our faith.

I would like to share with you a personal story that illustrates the power of repentance. A few years ago, I struggled with anger. I would lash out at those I loved, and I would regret my actions every time. But I didn't know how to change. Then, I remembered President Kimball's words, and I realized that repentance was not just about acknowledging my mistakes, but it was also about changing my heart. I started to pray every day, to read my scriptures, and to seek the guidance of my Heavenly Father. And over time, my heart changed. My anger disappeared, and I felt a peace and a joy that I had never experienced before. That, my brothers and sisters, is the power of repentance.

But repentance is not just about acknowledging our mistakes. It's also about seeking forgiveness. President Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th prophet, said, "We cannot truly repent without confessing our sins. Confession means to acknowledge the truth about our actions, to accept responsibility for them, and to seek forgiveness." Confession is not just a word, my brothers and sisters. It's an act of courage, of humility, and of hope. When we confess our sins, we acknowledge that we are not perfect, but we also show our determination to change and to become better.

Let me share another personal story that illustrates the importance of confession. A few years ago, I made a mistake that hurt someone I cared about deeply. I felt terrible about it, but I didn't know how to make things right. Then, I remembered President Hinckley's words, and I realized that I needed to confess. So I reached out to that person, and I told them the truth. I apologized, I accepted responsibility, and I sought their forgiveness. That was one of the hardest things I have ever done, but it was also one of the most liberating. That person forgave me, and we became closer than ever before. That, my brothers and sisters, is the power of confession.

And change we must, because repentance is not just about making amends for the past, but it's also about making a difference in the present and the future. President Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, said, "Repentance brings us the gift of a clean heart, the end of our feeling of guilt, the strength to resist future temptation, and the joy that comes from being reconciled to God." Can you imagine, my brothers and sisters, the feeling of a clean heart, free [from guilt, empowered to resist temptation, and filled with joy? That is the promise of repentance.

But how do we make repentance a part of our daily lives? President Thomas S. Monson, the 16th prophet, said, "Every day is a chance to start over, to turn our lives around, to say to the Lord, 'I will do better, I will try harder, I will serve more fully.'" My dear friends, every day is an opportunity to repent, to become better, and to draw closer to our Heavenly Father. So let us embrace this chance, let us turn our lives around, and let us make a commitment to become the best versions of ourselves.

My beloved brothers and sisters, repentance is not just a word, but a way of life. It's the way to cleanse our hearts, to seek forgiveness, to change, and to become better. Let us make repentance a daily habit, and let us strive to become like our Heavenly Father. Thank you.]

I think it exceeded the character limit so the part in braces is what got cut off.

[Carborendum]

11 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Beneath the canopy of stars above
A symphony of silence and love
A world awakens with each dawn
Its beauty shining like a song

The rolling hills, the endless skies
A tapestry of colors that rise
To paint the landscape with its hues
A masterpiece for all to choose

The ocean crashes on the shore
Its rhythm like an endless roar
Of power and of grace divine
A force that moves the soul and mind

The winds of change they come and go
And in their wake, they gently blow
The seeds of life that take root
To grow and flourish, bearing fruit

So let us dance beneath the sun
And feel the heat of day begun
Embrace the world with open arms
And bask in beauty's warmest charm.

NT's point is made.  While there are some lines here that sound pretty, it is about 90% derivative.  The other 10% is simply compiling a list, which computers do very well.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

Someone had a chat and found that ChatGPT believes uttering racial slur is worse than unleashing a nuclear bomb on a major city.

Don't worry, they aren't programming wokeness into the AI.

https://www.newswars.com/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/

https://noqreport.com/2023/02/08/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/

Edited February 8, 2023 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

NT's point is made.  While there are some lines here that sound pretty, it is about 90% derivative.  The other 10% is simply compiling a list, which computers do very well.

Well, just to be clear, my point is that's true of every single artistic creation from every single human artist as well.  Everything's a compilation of derivative stuff and checking off checkboxes the artist has learned over time.   Wrap it all up with some faux-humble stuff like "I drew on [previous artist X] for inspiration", and there you go.  

I'm not saying art is useless.  Art rocks.  Our human brains react to it, get wrapped up in it, inspired by it, love it, hate it, experience lifechanging catharses through it.  But none of it is new.  Including my criticisms. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Art rocks.

[mordorbund]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

NT's point is made.  While there are some lines here that sound pretty, it is about 90% derivative.  The other 10% is simply compiling a list, which computers do very well.

I don't think that clinches it. If my 6th grade teacher gave me the same prompt (pssh! if my current boss gave me the same prompt) I don't think I would bother coming up with something much different. If, on the other hand, I was asked to speak at an Emerson tribute and unveil this poem I might start with something like this and iterate through it. We saw how it crafted a church talk. It started with something that sounded like a novice's research paper and ended with something that would fit in over the pulpit. The difference was that it needed to understand the context better. Although I had to describe additional parameters for the context, those parameters can be trained into the AI.

For poetry, what is it that makes a poem sound like Emerson prose? I think that can be quantified (at the least it can be approximated, since PhD's write articles on exactly this sort of thing (what makes Emerson Emerson and not Whitman)). The other component is can it make a poem that's actually moving? That part is not so clear yet, but I think so. We've seen movies that try to force the audience to feel a certain way by shoehorning tropes stupidly. And we've seen movies that succeed in evoking emotion. If that data is clearly labeled as success and failure then it can train on it and draw a line for scripting audience tears. It doesn't have to understand why it works*, it just has to see that it works. I don't see why that won't happen in poetry. Given the subjective nature of art, I suspect that to really tackle such a task the AI needs to know who the target audience is.

*Some time ago crossword-solving AIs were created. The makers explained that if it saw a clue like "Nice country" it wouldn't appreciate the play on words but it would parse the word "nice" and recognize a geography hint. 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, mordorbund said:

can it make a poem that's actually moving

That's a subjecting thing. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

can it make a poem that's actually moving

That's a subjecting thing. 

Moving on from what once was
Leaving memories, and feelings just because
Starting a new chapter in life's grand play
Embracing change, in a brand new way.

The boxes are packed, and the truck is near
It's time to go, there's no need to fear
The future awaits, with endless delight
This journey ahead, will be full of light.

Though goodbyes are hard, and tears may fall
We take with us, love and memories, after all
And as we drive, towards our new abode
We know in our hearts, this is where we'll grow.

So, here's to moving, a new adventure awaits
A chance to grow, and to change our fates
Embrace the unknown, with courage and glee
For this is the journey, of you and me.

[Vort]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

NT's point is made.  While there are some lines here that sound pretty, it is about 90% derivative.  The other 10% is simply compiling a list, which computers do very well.

I don't know. I'm actually quite impressed by this. Take a look. I think very few students could do a better job. The punctuation is puzzlingly rough, so just ignore it. Note that the opening and closing paragraphs are identical in Italian, but ChatGPT did a new translation for the repetition, at least in the modern English version. To be frank, I'm amazed.

**********************************

Vort
Translate the lyrics of "La pastorella al prato" into Middle English.

ChatGPT
I'm sorry, I cannot translate the lyrics of "La pastorella al prato" into Middle English as I cannot find the original Italian text of the song. If you could provide the text, I would be happy to attempt a translation.

Vort
La pastorella al prato
Contenta se ne va
Col agnellino al lato
Cantando in libertà.

Se l'innocente amore
Gradisce il suo pastore
La bella pastorella
Contenta ognor sarà

La pastorella al prato
Contenta se ne va
Col agnellino al lato
Cantando in libertà.

ChatGPT
The maid at th' mead, with glee doth go,
And with a lamb at side doth sing,
Of freedom in the fields aglow,
With joy, her carol forth doth bring.

If innocently love doth smile,
Upon her shepherd all is well,
The fair maid, content all th' while,
With gladness shall forever dwell.

At th' mead, the maid, with joy doth roam,
And with her lamb, doth merrily sing,
Of freedom, in the fields she's known,
With joyful carols, peace doth bring.

Vort
That's not Middle English. That's modern English.

ChatGPT
My apologies! Allow me to translate the lyrics into Middle English for you:

The mayden in the mede
Joyful gooth sho forth
With the lamb by hir syde
Sangynge in liberty.

If innocence of love
Plesyth hir shepherd above
The fair mayden evere shall
Be content, that is no thrall.

The mayden in the mede
Joyful gooth sho forth
With the lamb by hir syde
Sangynge in liberty.

(EDIT: Probably worth pointing out that ChatGPT misunderstood the middle stanza, which would be better translated as something like, "If innocent love pleases her shepherd, the beautiful shepherdess will be forever happy." But I still think it's an excellent translation.)

(EDIT 2: Interestingly, a vernacular American English translation is more or less spot-on, meaning-wise, other than not quite understanding how "andarsene" is used in Italian in the song.)

(In case anyone is interested, here is the poem performed as a well-known song)

Edited February 9, 2023 by Vort

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's a subjecting thing. 

That is exactly the point I'm making.  There are subjective elements of communication that are still clearly understood by the vast majority of individuals at a conscious or subconscious level.  Being able to quantify things by applying numbers to them, they can become objective.

One who is unfamiliar with Cubism will be prone to say, "What the freak is that supposed to be?"  But if they were to lay aside their shock and simply consider, "Do I think it's pretty?"  The great majority would say "yes.  However, I'd submit that most people have a problem laying aside their initial shock and dislike to even consider the question objectively.

Why is that?  Because there are certain elements of beauty that are common to all human beings.  Some of them are explicable (such as the law of averaging or the hypergamy of human females).  Some are not explicable by any know scientific motivation.  And they are not explicable by cultural norms.

They are subjective.  But that subjective judgment of whether something is aesthetically pleasing or no is shared by a vast majority of individuals across cultures and different experiential backgrounds.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

I have to thank you for finally defining "rhythm" for me.  After you pointed it out I realized that I've never looked up the definition.  No teacher (and I've had many) has ever given the definition.  I've looked through several of my old lesson books and found that it is not defined in any of the books.  But people just expect you to know what it is.

Given the context in which it is used (which I've heard literally thousands of times) I've "felt" the meaning.  I had a sense of it (much as we have a sense of most common words without looking up the definition).  But I never considered the actual definition.  Thus I never connected it with my description which I gave earlier.  They are the same thing.

Thanks.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That is exactly the point I'm making. 

I thought the point you were making is that AI could easily and mathematically create beautiful music but would struggle or entirely fail to create beautiful poetry.

Edited February 9, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Carborendum]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I though the point you were making is that AI could easily and mathematically create beautiful music but would struggle or entirely fail to create beautiful poetry.

Yes.  I did.  And I've tried explaining why this recent summary is in line with that position.  But I guess it still isn't getting through.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Yes.  I did.  And I've tried explaining why this recent summary is in line with that position.  But I guess it still isn't getting through.

Yes. It hasn't gotten through. I do not understand how poetry differs from other art forms when it comes to taste/preference/enjoyment.

I think you're wrong in some of your conclusions.

48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There are subjective elements of communication that are still clearly understood by the vast majority of individuals

I think this is wrong.

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

One who is unfamiliar with Cubism will be prone to say, "What the freak is that supposed to be?"  But if they were to lay aside their shock and simply consider, "Do I think it's pretty?"  The great majority would say "yes. 

I think this is VERY wrong.

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

However, I'd submit that most people have a problem laying aside their initial shock and dislike to even consider the question objectively.

This translates to me to mean "most people's taste in art aren't as enlightened as mine because I'm being objective with what I consider beauty (no you're not), but everyone else is letting their subjective views sway them." It's arrogant.

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Because there are certain elements of beauty that are common to all human beings.

I think this is wrong.*

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But that subjective judgment of whether something is aesthetically pleasing or no is shared by a vast majority of individuals across cultures and different experiential backgrounds.

I think this is wrong.

*Here's the thing. I think there is such a thing as objective beauty. But I don't think the appreciation of it is common to all human beings. Maybe as children. But my tastes have changed from when I was a child. Haven't yours? Objective beauty is common to God. But the great majority of people despise those things that are, objectively, beautiful. When it comes to art, it's not whether something is eternally beautiful or not that makes it appreciated. I think you've confused that objective beauty with the subjective perception of beauty and you're making claims that things aren't actually subjective based on potential objective eternal truths, instead of based on the the subjective perceptions people have.

I'll grant that there are certain things (a few) that the vast majority of people agree are beautiful...such as a sunset. But to claim that most people think a violin solo is beautiful is naïve at best.

And I will grant that if people all repented and got their minds in line with God that everyone would then likely be able to see the truly eternally beautiful things in like manner. Instead we get Madonna, Lady Gaga, and Sam Smith fans. Honestly my mortal mind can't reconcile this. I like Metallica, for example. But is there eternal beauty therein? I think so...probably with bias.... Maybe. There is certainly some eternal ugliness there as well. It's hard for me to understand. I'm mortal.

So what are we talking about? A computer being able to find the objective truth of eternal beauty? Because even if that is possible...which it might well be -- objective things can be quantified (though bad data in means bad data out, and since the computer is, ultimately, learning from mortals, it's unlikely). But that has no bearing on the perceptions the fallen mortal world has of what is or is not appreciated.

I think your view that everyone, by-and-large, appreciates the same things is ridiculous. I dislike The Beatles, for example. But I know that even saying that would cause shocked gasps by certain folk. So am I wrong or are they? (Hint: Neither. It's subjective. But an argument that The Beatles music is eternally beautiful....? How on earth is a computer supposed to quantify whether that's truth or not?)

I think we actually agree on the poetry thing. It's not quantifiable. But when you exclude music from that idea I find it ridiculous.

Where we do disagree on the poetry thing is that I think out of millions to billions of attempts the chance of computer AI hitting on something truly beautiful easily exists.

[MarginOfError]

I've enjoyed a lot of the things I've seen that have come from ChatGPT. I haven't played with it myself at all, but I certainly appreciate the engineering behind it. 

Artificial Intelligence has a lot of potential, and there are a lot of things that it can do far better than humans are able to. But it also has some pretty hefty weaknesses that needs to be understood and, yes, restrained.

First and foremost, we need to understand that AI is not actually intelligence. It's high speed bayesian analysis. What it is returning (in grossly oversimplified terms) is the result that has the highest posterior probability from a new set of data applied to a model based on a training data set. The fact that ChatGPT works as quickly and as well as it does is, in my opinion, more impressive on a technical level than it is on a mathematical level. 

Next, we need to understand the idea of "training data." Any AI/Machine Learning model is subject to the "Garbage In/Garbage Out" rule. ChatGPT seems to have a pretty good training data set. But what gets put into a training dataset has a huge impact on what the model spits out. Consider Amazon's hiring AI (Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women | Reuters) that was trained on its recruiting and hiring data. Based on the training data, Amazon hired more men than women, and the posterior probabilities ended up showing men as having a higher probability of being hired than women. So it stopped flagging applications from women to be considered for employment. To be clear, it wasn't evaluating the qualifications; it saw sex as an influential and heavily weighted predictor and disqualified candidates on that basis alone. (Note: This does not necessarily mean that Amazon had biased hiring practices prior to the AI. It just means that the AI interpreted sex as a good shortcut). AI algorithms can be taught to avoid these kind of pitfalls, but doing so inherently introduces the biases of the programming team into the algorithm, which inevitably opens the door to criticism. 

Very importantly, AI and Machine Learning have no sense of ethics or morality. The Taybot is a good example. My other favorite example, that I can't find a source for right now, is a machine learning program that was intended to study how to minimize forces on pilots landing air planes. After training the model,the algorithm started nosediving planes into the runway. It learned that if it crashed the plane hard enough, it could trigger an integer overflow that would cause the landing forces to be interpreted as negative numbers. And since negative force is obviously better than positive force, crashing the plane was the logical thing to do. Computers will only ever consider values that humans tell them are important.  So whose values do you want your AI to have?

Not coincidentally, this is why many scientists have signed on to letters declaring that AI must never be used in weaponry and warfare. More specifically, it shouldn't be used to automate target selection. Moral and ethical decisions should remain the purview of humans, because our experience has shown that our worst impulses tend to find their way into our machines. And that's probably not good for anyone.

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

(Note: This does not necessarily mean that Amazon had biased hiring practices prior to the AI. It just means that the AI interpreted sex as a good shortcut). AI algorithms can be taught to avoid these kind of pitfalls, but doing so inherently introduces the biases of the programming team into the algorithm, which inevitably opens the door to criticism. 

Not sure they can be taught to avoid them. I have read many summaries of AI activity, such as in stock market trading and oncological analysis (it appears that AI is much better than even the best oncologists at diagnosing cancer), where the people responsible for the AI freely admit that they have no idea how the algorithm is parsing and sorting through the data to come to its conclusions. It's all black box, with a high probability that, at least in some cases, the subtle mechanisms of rote data sifting are not obvious to, and perhaps incomprehensible by, the human mind.

[MarginOfError]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure they can be taught to avoid them. I have read many summaries of AI activity, such as in stock market trading and oncological analysis (it appears that AI is much better than even the best oncologists at diagnosing cancer), where the people responsible for the AI freely admit that they have no idea how the algorithm is parsing and sorting through the data to come to its conclusions. It's all black box, with a high probability that, at least in some cases, the subtle mechanisms of rote data sifting are not obvious to, and perhaps incomprehensible by, the human mind.

"Teaching" AI has a few interpretations, depending on what information you consider essential. In the Amazon example, removing sex from the database would be sufficient, and thus forcing it to focus on other factors. Instead, Amazon seems to have abandoned the project altogether. I would imagine it wasn't very successful at picking good employees, which is another way of saying that Amazon didn't have the data available to correctly identify them*.

Stock selection and disease diagnosis are areas I would expect AI to excel. There is a wealth of relevant data available, and they aren't moral decisions. It also keeps a focus on "high density" areas (where most of the mass of a probability curve lives). AI is good in these areas, and will make odd decisions in low density areas. There's an interesting manifestation of this in things like AI art, where you get some impressive looking drawings, but some of the finer details are a little odd.  It's a bit of a running joke right now that AI art struggles with the placement of fingers.

 

* an interesting result in itself, as it suggests that what makes a good employee is not captured on resumes or applications.

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

"Teaching" AI has a few interpretations, depending on what information you consider essential. In the Amazon example, removing sex from the database would be sufficient, and thus forcing it to focus on other factors. Instead, Amazon seems to have abandoned the project altogether. I would imagine it wasn't very successful at picking good employees, which is another way of saying that Amazon didn't have the data available to correctly identify them*.

It's such a fascinating thing to think on. Because if you remove all feeling from the equation, it probably IS best practice to prefer men. I mean just in the simple fact that women might have babies. That fact alone would likely mean a logic-only conclusion should recommend hiring men.

Removing data (like sex) from the equation actually means the results aren't accurate. Projected to other concepts, I think that can become problematic pretty quickly.

I mean it's seen in various industries already. Does plastering some political message across one's website really increase sales? I think not. I would think a computer, without being "taught" otherwise, would spit out advise to avoid politics. And yet, I would expect that with what's going on with ESG and the WEF and all that, that companies would want politics programmed into their systems so they can accommodate ideologies rather than facts.

And at a higher philosophical level, I can't say that approach is wrong. It's just that I would want the ideologies that I believe are right programmed in and not the ones I consider flawed. Which, as I said, fascinates me.

[NeuroTypical]

Whelp, on Sunday I talked in sacrament meeting.  Last speaker, so I need to be able to fill time or cut short depending on the clock.  So, to plan for the possible need to take up more time, I enlist ChatGPT, and ask it to write me a poem about one element of my topic.  I review it's output, make some edits and changes to perhaps 20% of what it gave me, and have it on my last page of notes in case it's needed.

I had the extra time.

I read the poem. 

Almost a dozen people came up afterwards to thank me for the talk, especially the poem.  Almost exclusively the poem.  Someone asked that I send them a copy of the poem.   I say the same thing to everyone who praised the poem: "You want to hear something terrifying?  ChatGPT wrote that poem for me."

They are terrified.  I am terrified.  We are all worried about our kids, and how startlingly easy it is to have this thing do the work for you. 

 

 

[popatr]

It is scary.  How do people know what the future holds, when things we knew were impossible in our lifetimes are already happening?  There are limits in the near term, no doubt; but only the geniuses who knew AI was "THE THING" and spent their education and careers figuring it out, have the slightest hope of calculating that limit.  And even they were surprised at what gpt4 could do. 

OpenAI has halted the training of GPT5.  I have this feeling of dread, as I imagine how spooked I would have to be to personally make that decision.  And so in my imagination I ascribe the same feelings to them, and think they must be spooked.

I would be VERY reluctant to make that decision because I feel certain that China will go full steam ahead if they can, and I think the terrifying power is much better in American hands (even if they are psycho sanfrancisco liberals) than in the hands of the china government.

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by popatr

[Traveler]

How to respond to this thread???

 I believe that there is a misconception of AI.  I recently retired as a scientist and engineer in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I do feel somewhat of a dinosaur in this field with what is being currently developed.  I have a son on the cutting edge of AI that is much smarter than me.

I put some AI into some mobile robots in a paper production facility and over time these robots surprised me with their newly discovered capabilities.  Early in my career I help develop some early AI in the fire control of a battleship that changed methods of engagement for the Navy.

It is my opinion that AI is another tool developed by the human species.  Like the many tools before – such a tool is not good or evil but rather becomes such according to the intent of its user.  AI will never replace humans – the dimensions of AI are so vastly different than that of humans that there is no competition for necessary resources.  AI does not eat the same food as humans or have any basic needs that are the same as humans.  Even when AI obtains singularity there will be no competition for its existence similar to human need. 

Like all the inventions of the tools of war or other industry – the goodness or evil of it will be in how it is applied – similar the nuclear bomb.  The greatest fear of intelligence to humans is and I believe will remain – other humans.

 

The Traveler

[popatr]

On 4/24/2023 at 12:57 PM, popatr said:

It is scary.  How do people know what the future holds, when things we knew were impossible in our lifetimes are already happening?  There are limits in the near term, no doubt; but only the geniuses who knew AI was "THE THING" and spent their education and careers figuring it out, have the slightest hope of calculating that limit.  And even they were surprised at what gpt4 could do. 

OpenAI has halted the training of GPT5.  I have this feeling of dread, as I imagine how spooked I would have to be to personally make that decision.  And so in my imagination I ascribe the same feelings to them, and think they must be spooked.

I would be VERY reluctant to make that decision because I feel certain that China will go full steam ahead if they can, and I think the terrifying power is much better in American hands (even if they are psycho sanfrancisco liberals) than in the hands of the china government.

 

I don't want to be the source of uncorrected misinformation so: openAI claims they ARE NOT currently training gpt5 and "will not for some time".   The rumor that they started training and then stopped might be false.

[mirkwood]

[Carborendum]

This guy learned the hard way that trusting & depending on AI can get you into trouble.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769

SUMMARY:

A lawyer used ChatGPT to look up case law.  It turned out that there were a number of bogus cases that the AI cited.  The lawyer didn't bother to look up the standard sources to verify the cases and what their contents were.

When the opposing legal team looked for the cases, they either couldn't find the cases at all, or they found numerous errors in the citations.

What's worse is that the guy doing the research wasn't even the lead counsel.  So, the lead counsel was reprimanded for this other guy's failure to verify the sources.

 

I don't know why the lawyer would do that.  If you just want help looking things up, sure, use AI to help you find the relevant  cases.  But then verify them through manual means.

When I'm looking up various codes, I will use search engines and other tools to determine what passage is even talking about my situation.  But when I need to cite them, I have to find the original source and get the specific wording from the original source.  Then I make sure it has the right context and applicability to my situation.