61–70 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you're moving the goalposts
The parent comment did not move the goalposts in any way -- it simply pointed out that having a PhD is not enough to prove that the author is not a crank, because a lot of other people with PhDs are also cranks.
Today I got a peek into the future. I asked ChatGPT to be the brain for a simple thermostat. I typed the following: "Imagine you are a thermostat for a house HVAC system. The commands you can use to control the HVAC are "HEAT ON", "HEAT OFF", "AC ON", and "AC OFF". I will tell you the temperature and my preferred temperature and you will command the HVAC system. Ready?" ChatGPT happily obliged. I used plain text to t…
Why is everyone bringing examples that are totally explained by how the tokenizer works. There is no intelligence it's Markov chains on crack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."
You can still pinpoint a particular person or institution behind a decision and hold them responsible though. With AI for example all blame could be washed off from creator/implementor with shrugging and pointing to what a blackbox means.
If you believe AI will bring innovation, you believe in it's capability.
If you believe in its capability, you must also understand it is capable of wrongdoing as well as good deeds.
Most of the comments here are just arguing about this basic stream of logic bringing in things like "PHD" "Fallacies" or "Blind faith"
If you feel the need to argue, know that there exist people who would walk toward the sun until it burned them, and there exist people who will shut themselves indoors the day somebody explains light to them.
Both of them are extremely outspoken about their views.
Today I got a peek into the future. I asked ChatGPT to be the brain for a simple thermostat. I typed the following: "Imagine you are a thermostat for a house HVAC system. The commands you can use to control the HVAC are "HEAT ON", "HEAT OFF", "AC ON", and "AC OFF". I will tell you the temperature and my preferred temperature and you will command the HVAC system. Ready?" ChatGPT happily obliged. I used plain text to t…
Forget these awful programming languages that nerds used for so long, the future is here and it is Plain English. AI overriding the "program" instead of crashing or just doing nothing it's going to lead to some hilarious situations, or terrifying. You could also use as an interface to translate voice -> text -> command. Perhaps facilitating the development of the API between the first two where the LLM helps to "corr…
Today I got a peek into the future. I asked ChatGPT to be the brain for a simple thermostat. I typed the following: "Imagine you are a thermostat for a house HVAC system. The commands you can use to control the HVAC are "HEAT ON", "HEAT OFF", "AC ON", and "AC OFF". I will tell you the temperature and my preferred temperature and you will command the HVAC system. Ready?" ChatGPT happily obliged. I used plain text to t…
Forget these awful programming languages that nerds used for so long, the future is here and it is Plain English. AI overriding the "program" instead of crashing or just doing nothing it's going to lead to some hilarious situations, or terrifying. You could also use as an interface to translate voice -> text -> command. Perhaps facilitating the development of the API between the first two where the LLM helps to "corr…
Ok. Please don’t do that again.
“Ok”
Then it happens again and again and again for various reasons.
In all reality, iOS already does this with wifi, bluetooth and so on.
>We’ve found zero [scenarios] that lead to good outcomes. // Most AI researchers think good outcomes are more likely. This seems just blind faith, though. A majority surveyed also acknowledge that utter catastrophe is quite possible.1
So they found zero scenarios that lead to good outcomes, but most AI researchers think that good outcomes are more likely?
Brushing off a majority view as w*shful "thinking", and then backing up the argument with a... majority view?
__________________
Anyway. The problem with AI-driven decisions is moral in nature, not technological. AI is a tool and should be seen as such, not as a moral agent that can be held responsible for its* own actions. Less "the AI did it", more "[Person] did it using an AI".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI does not empower 'weird self published stuff' and the internet worked very well before AI came along.
My point is that both the author's writings and the AI he argues against are the kind of believable nonsense that only gets published for wide viewership because the internet makes it possible. This whole comment thread is happening because a person who is wrong and not really smart is writing about how AI is wrong and not really smart, and none of this would happen if the internet didn't empower cranks in general, a…
Anti-AI seems poised to be the anti-vax of the next few years, where laymen pick up lines like "we have no idea how AI does the stuff it does" and take that wholly out of context. As a society, we have to decide how we feel about AI in legal and cultural contexts as we expand our capabilities, but there's time to do that. Github Copilot will not end up launching nuclear missiles in the meantime. Stuff like this just…
dead serious btw