e v e Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 13 minutes ago, mikbone said: computers just collate records. They don't have feelings or spirituality. Obviously, you can have feelings and spiritual reactions from data but that doesn't have anything to do with the compiling of the data. I would agree about computers. Some AI people though ascribe feelings to AI and use terms for it like hallucinating, lying etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 47 minutes ago, zil2 said: Just yesterday I was wondering if I fed some AI engine all the clues to a logic puzzle if it could figure it out. (I love doing logic puzzles - very relaxing way to clear the mind before starting something that needs focus.) I tried that a year ago, and discovered that the AI (at least ChatGPT) utterly lacks a large-scale logic algorithm. You'd think an AI would solve such a puzzle immediately, being as it is a logic-driven machine and the puzzle being nothing more than a straightforward exercise in pure deductive logic. But the AI is utterly unable to solve even a simple logic puzzle. That's not to say that the AI won't confidently answer you. It will. But the answer will be obviously and even hilariously wrong. SMH. zil2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 Just now, Vort said: I tried that a year ago, and discovered that the AI (at least ChatGPT) utterly lacks a large-scale logic algorithm. You'd think an AI would solve such a puzzle immediately, being as it is a logic-driven machine and the puzzle being nothing more than a straightforward exercise in pure deductive logic. But the AI is utterly unable to solve even a simple logic puzzle. That's not to say that the AI won't confidently answer you. It will. But the answer will be obviously and even hilariously wrong. SMH. This all goes back to what the wrongly named Artificial Intelligence really is: A language processing and pattern-matching algorithm. It has nothing at all to do with what we call or think of as intelligence. The "AI" label is a modern fraud, a convenient label that misrepresents what it names. Just marketing as usual. zil2 and mordorbund 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 14 minutes ago, Vort said: I tried that a year ago, and discovered that the AI (at least ChatGPT) utterly lacks a large-scale logic algorithm. You'd think an AI would solve such a puzzle immediately, being as it is a logic-driven machine and the puzzle being nothing more than a straightforward exercise in pure deductive logic. But the AI is utterly unable to solve even a simple logic puzzle. That's not to say that the AI won't confidently answer you. It will. But the answer will be obviously and even hilariously wrong. SMH. That was what I suspected! Thanks for saving me the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentOne Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 It might do better today than a year ago. But with Chat GPT's purpose being to produce human-sounding text, I don't know how much more training in logic they would have given it. A little more logic than it had actually would be necessary to pass for human in a lot of contexts, but maybe not enough to solve a logic puzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 The big issue with AI is the same issue we've had with computers since we first started making them: "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Computers only do what they're told to do. Even the most advanced AIs have limits on what they're able to do, especially when confronted with faulty instructions or bad reference materials. For example, a few months ago people found that Google's AI-driven image creator was forcibly programmed by some of the people at Google to *deliberately* display "diverse" imagery in response to image requests, even if those images were illogical, such as when someone asked for generic images of European kings from the Middle Ages and got a set of images that included a Native American chieftain and the female leader of a generic Middle Eastern city. Well, once word got out it didn't take long for people to start gaming the system by deliberately asking for images that would, in the context of the forcible insertion of diverse images, be racist, sexist, or bigoted. The AI was programmed in a certain way, it carried out that programming, and Google was left publicly humiliated. Having a human periodically stop and check to see if things are kosher will help prevent incidents like this from happening. Carborendum and NeuroTypical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 About 15 years ago the Church got some members involved in a crowdsourcing project called indexing. Participants were shown a digitized record like the census and extracted names, dates, and places. Once the data was confirmed the document was tagged with that data so searching for the data would yield the document. The process for confirming the data required at least three people, two to independently enter the data and a more experienced indexer to act as tie breaker in case of conflicts (or to override it if they both got it wrong). If I’m not mistaken, this data was also used to train an algorithm so we just need one person to confirm the computer got it right (back then AI was only buzzed, it wasn’t full-on drunk like today so the algorithm was referred to as machine learning). I suspect some of the blue checks on FamilySearch are also initiated by machine once a record is digitized. Humans will need to handle the legal barriers for retrieving and digitizing documents. And they’ll be needed to confirm blue checks, but I can see that fading to a 110 year rule. You can confirm the computer’s guess if you’re a direct descendant within 4 generations, but beyond that you’ll actually need some genealogy skills to confirm it. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 10 hours ago, mikbone said: I know there are legal issues, HIPPA, companies making money off genealogy, etc. Every once in a while I check the family tree / ancestry app and there will be a message from an unhinged person complaining that my mom’s info is wrong and to stop making changes. We have the documentation and pictures. Family search allows you to add “Sources” and “Memories”. Under sources you can link anything already indexed in the database. Under Memories you can provide digitized photos (unless there’s a dead pig hanging in the background apparently) and remembrances (if you’re relying on an aunt’s memories for grandma’s dates, or just fun stories). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 12 hours ago, mordorbund said: (unless there’s a dead pig hanging in the background apparently) Have You An Amusing Anecdote?® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 3 hours ago, Vort said: Have You An Amusing Anecdote?® If @mordorbund doesn't, I do! A few years ago, our online church record system started allowing members to upload their own profile pictures. There was some talk about the images being reviewed for appropriateness before they were approved. In such situations, I've been known to open the door of my mind and let out the gremlins, just to see what they end up doing. I rationalized it as a way to test the system, so that I would know if I needed to warn my membership clerk buddy to keep an eye on things or not. Anyway, for a few minutes there, I did my part to help the church understand its profile pic approval system needed work: They tell me an actual clerk or leader gets an email with an "approve" button to click these days. I'll decline to test the system again, because I don't really want to bug anyone. Vort and zil2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said: It could be argued that your "test" profile pic tells more about you than your actual photo would... NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted June 25 Author Report Share Posted June 25 2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said: Anyway, for a few minutes there, I did my part to help the church understand its profile pic approval system needed work: Are those corn dogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 5 hours ago, mikbone said: Are those corn dogs? Absolutely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 On 6/25/2024 at 12:11 PM, Vort said: Have You An Amusing Anecdote?® I’ve already given about 80% of the story. Just to flesh it out more… My grandfather was born on a sharecropping farm a little after WW1. We don’t have a birth certificate for him, nor do we have any divorce documents ending his first marriage. I tease my mom that she may have been the daughter of a bigamist (cue Groucho Marx). Anyway, she’s been submitting memories for FamulySearch and came across a picture of him and his brothers on the farm. The image was refused because it did not meet community guidelines. She continued to crop it until she realized the dead pig was no longer in frame. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaggisShuu Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 Who needs AI when you've got Utah Mormons. I started trying to piece together the bare bones of my tree a few months ago and I did quite well, it was exciting. However, once I got back 2-3 generations I found out the next 7-10 generations had been discovered and ordinances completed by people from Utah! I was simultaneously excited and disappointed by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.