Bots are getting scary

[J. Jericho]

@ssmith1226 said in Bots are getting scary:

https://www.ntd.com/cnets-use-of-ai-to-write-articles-sparks-concern_895653.html

"… is that it speaks with unquestioning confidence, even when it’s wrong." I think it's safe to say we all know people like this, too. Perhaps there should be an additional category called ALOI (Artificial Lack Of Intelligence).

[J. Jericho]

I stumbled across this:

[Trumpetb]

I love that.

Petersons expertise is in philosophy and psychology and while he does stray into other areas generally, here he has stayed solidly within his area of expertise.

I found it hugely amusing and full of hope and his comments were totally on topic and pointedly correct in my opinion.

He seems to be suggesting we have something to fear from AI, I disagree.

Back in the day calculators were banned from the classroom and the examination room, for fear of removing the ability to think from students. The fears were ungrounded.

Right now we have to spend several years and over 100,000 dollars training each human student to become capable and this AI is already capable and genuinely useful.

Beyond this training a student who becomes qualified is not capable until he or she has completed maybe a decade of work and it is the experience gained in this decade of work that truly completes their training.

I dont see the AI learning through working for 10 years and gaining experience in a role.

The AI is like a student fresh from the college, you dont put such a student in charge of anything.

The AI can be looked upon simply as a better tool.

The usefulness of this AI of course only relates to general work tasks and output. Humans are capable of insightful spontaneous and innovative invention.

I dont see the AI taking over the somewhat illogical leaps of thought and intellect that human beings are capable of.

In other words I see the AI just like all other areas of computer advances, taking over the mundane work, but the application of that work, the inspired and inspirational innovation remains the sole province of humans who reside in the genius area of research and development.

An AI after all simply follows rules that humans devise, and that fundamentally limits what they can do.

Poor, Average, and High Quality scientists and engineers follow rules, genius scientists and engineers depart from those rules and break new ground and humanity develops to new heights.

How can an AI break the accepted rules unless it is programmed not to follow rules and that must defeat the AI right from the start.

I dont feel threatened or at all worried.

[ROWUK]

@trumpetb Artificial has "nothing" to do with the human state. What we learn is real. Please do not refer to AI as a "human" experience or trait.
The problem with AI is that there is no judgement. We have seen for instance, what happens to automated trading on the stock exchange floors. We also see that our credit ratings are based on the streets that we live on (not always our own credit worthiness).
What we also see is the strong tendency to believe a machine before a person. Manufacturing has been revolutionised by putting people out of work. There is more coming. Unfortunately, societies largest problem all over the world is having enough work for the populace.

Thomas Sowell has a very applicable quote:
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

It should be very clear to you that machines will never have to pay any price.

Those pushing AI forward do not have any goals of making life better for everyone - the goal is to make life better for those that can afford to play the game. We may not be able to stop it, but we certainly must vote for politicians that have OUR well being at heart instead to the populist scum from both sides of the aisle. How easily manipulated we and those ruling can be was very recently demonstrated for the whole world to see. An entire congress held hostage for several days by 19 populists. No common denominator. No effort for compromise. 19 terrorists held 400 congressmen hostage until their agenda got pushed through. With AI, it can be the same issue as AI can calculate how little is necessary to take future elections hostage. Our laws and control instances are not even close to ready.

Just imagine the AI run across twitter tweets affecting our ability to get a Tesla and what our individual configuration would be limited to. Add Alexa, Siri to the mix. Maybe we will not even be employable based on what was heard online. There is plenty to be concerned about!

[SSmith1226]

@trumpetb said in Bots are getting scary:

I dont see the AI taking over the somewhat illogical leaps of thought and intellect that human beings are capable of.

In other words I see the AI just like all other areas of computer advances, taking over the mundane work, but the application of that work, the inspired and inspirational innovation remains the sole province of humans who reside in the genius area of research and development.

An AI after all simply follows rules that humans devise, and that fundamentally limits what they can do.

Poor, Average, and High Quality scientists and engineers follow rules, genius scientists and engineers depart from those rules and break new ground and humanity develops to new heights.

How can an AI break the accepted rules unless it is programmed not to follow rules and that must defeat the AI right from the start.

I dont feel threatened or at all worried.

The following post is not meant to be argumentative or political, but explains the concern that I have that AI ultimately will be used in a counterproductive manner.
You may not feel threatened or worried, but the computer scientists and engineers developing AI are human beings, and human beings do not always use the best judgement and reasoning. As a recent example, I would point you to the scientific and genetic engineering approach to “gain of function” research, apparently supported by top scientists of many nations, including the United States, Great Britain, China, etc.

There are too many other glaring examples of human behavior, that reasonable people would agree are not following the “rules of society”, but never the less occurred in massive scale. Just do a “search”, which is a form of AI of: “List of genocides by death toll”
I could go on and on, but I think that these illustrate my concerns.
Unfortunately, since AI is programmed by human beings, I do feel threatened and worried. Overwhelmingly AI has been and will be used for beneficial purposes, but with human beings in charge of development and programming, it will be misused.
Perhaps at age 74, this will not be in my lifetime, but I am very concerned for the wellbeing of my children, grandchildren etc.

[Trumpetb]

@ROWUK I dont recall saying that an AI is in itself or in any way a human state. It is a machine with responses to inputs based upon complex algorithms that mimic human thought and human decision making.

In a closed system a machine can make responses that appear to be human depending upon their sophistication.

Turings Test examines this very question.

If a box exists and questions are posed to the box and the answers received from the box appear to be exactly the same as a human would give, how do we know if inside the box there is a machine or a human.

This is the essence and the problem that AI poses.

We can make a program appear to be human, and we know it is not human, but those who interact with it can be deceived into believing that it is human, Until that is they open the box and look inside.

The question of students using AI to submit papers, is nothing more than a sophisticated Turings test, the professor viewing the paper would be easily deceived that the author is a human and therein lies the issue and the challenge for professors.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it may very well be an AI that is pretending to be a duck.

I am happy that we are in agreement ROWUK

[Trumpetb]

I should add that most of the problems cited as AI failures or computer failures and the disasters that they caused turn out to be humans making bad decisions and blaming it on AI and the computers.

I do not have a fear of AI I have a concern that humans will corrupt what AI does.

Einstein famously said "I believe two things are infinite, the size of the Universe, and human stupidity - and I am not sure about the Universe"

Humans are the problem with AI not the AI itself.

So I say again I do not feel threatened or worried by AI.

But the humans who control AI, they are a different thing altogether.

[Jolter]

In case anyone is interested in getting a surface understanding of how these Large Language Models work, I found this article to be quite enlightening:

https://thegradient.pub/othello/

Disclaimer: I have some previous professional exposure to machine learning, so I understand some of the jargon here. Article might not be quite as accessible if you're not already into the statistics and math behind ML. Nonetheless, they make a very approachable thought experiment and manage to implement it in reality. The article shows us some properties of how these models are able to be so eerily good at very diverse topics, from constructing a correct computer program to playing a board game with (mostly) valid moves.

Our experiment provides evidence supporting that these language models are developing world models and relying on the world model to generate sequences.

[SSmith1226]

@jolter
The following if from the “horse’s mouth”. Below is a query that I presented to chat.openai.com, the chat bot that was cited in the first post of this discussion.

StevenP
Explain how a large language model bot works

A large language model bot, such as ChatGPT, is a type of artificial intelligence that uses machine learning to understand and generate natural language. It is trained on a massive dataset of text, such as books, articles, and websites, and uses this training data to learn the patterns and structures of human language. When given a prompt, such as a question or statement, the model uses this knowledge to generate a response that is relevant and grammatically correct. The model uses a neural network architecture called a transformer, which allows it to handle large amounts of input data and generate output text that is more human-like than previous language models.

StevenP
Explain in more detail

A large language model bot, such as ChatGPT, is a type of artificial intelligence that uses machine learning to understand and generate natural language. The model is trained on a massive dataset of text, such as books, articles, and websites, and uses this training data to learn the patterns and structures of human language.

The training process involves feeding the model a large amount of text data and adjusting the model's parameters, or "weights," to minimize the difference between the model's output and the correct output. This process is called "supervised learning" because the model is given labeled examples of input-output pairs and learns to generalize from them.

Once the model is trained, it can be used to generate text in response to a given prompt. For example, if the prompt is a question, the model will generate a grammatically correct and relevant answer. The model uses a neural network architecture called a transformer, which allows it to handle large amounts of input data and generate output text that is more human-like than previous language models. The transformer architecture is based on self-attention mechanisms, which allows the model to weigh the importance of different words in the input when generating the output.

Additionally, a GPT-like models are also fine-tuned on specific task, like question answering, summarization, translation, etc.

It's worth mentioning that, despite the impressive results, the model does not have a true understanding of the meaning of the text, it just has learned to predict the next word in a sentence based on the previous words.

FURTHER FOLLOWUP QUERY:

StevenP
What is the difference between you and HAL5000

HAL 9000 is a fictional artificial intelligence character that appeared in Arthur C. Clarke's novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the associated film directed by Stanley Kubrick. HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) 9000 is a sentient computer that controls the systems of the Discovery One spacecraft and interacts with the crew.

I, ChatGPT, am a large language model created by OpenAI. I am not sentient, but I am able to understand and respond to natural language text inputs. I am trained on a massive dataset of text from the internet and can generate human-like responses to prompts.

StevenP
Define sentient computer

Sentient refers to the ability to perceive or feel things. In the context of computers, sentient would refer to a computer that is able to perceive or feel things in a way that is similar to how humans do. A sentient computer would be able to understand and respond to its environment, and have some level of self-awareness. It would be able to process information, learn from experience, and make decisions based on that information. However, it's important to note that there is currently no consensus among scientists and philosophers about what it would mean for a machine to be truly sentient, and it is still a topic of research and debate.

StevenP
Does a sentient computer exist today, and if not, when is it predicted that it will exist

Currently, there is no consensus among experts that any computer or machine can be considered truly sentient. While there are advanced AI systems that can perform tasks that were once thought to require human-like intelligence, such as image and speech recognition, natural language processing, and decision making, these systems are not sentient in the way that humans are. They are able to process and analyze large amounts of data, but they do not have a subjective experience of the world or a sense of self-awareness.

There is ongoing research in the field of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI) which aims to create machines that can perform any intellectual task that a human can. But it's difficult to predict when, or if, such a machine will be developed. Some experts believe that it could happen within decades, while others believe it may never happen. The development of truly sentient computers would require a significant breakthrough in our understanding of the nature of consciousness and intelligence.

[J. Jericho]

Are we at the point at which we have conversations with programs designed to replicate the presence of humans? How profoundly does the development of this technology affect the nature of communication? Are there aspects of this path that will reveal a less than desirable journey and or destination? Will asking programs such as http://chat.openai.com/ these questions reveal reliable answers? Who's running the show, anyway? And what are their intentions? Bots are getting scary, indeed.

[SSmith1226]

@j-jericho said in Bots are getting scary:

Are we at the point at which we have conversations with programs designed to replicate the presence of humans? How profoundly does the development of this technology affect the nature of communication? Are there aspects of this path that will reveal a less than desirable journey and or destination? Will asking programs such as http://chat.openai.com/ these questions reveal reliable answers? Who's running the show, anyway? And what are their intentions? Bots are getting scary, indeed.

[J. Jericho]

[SSmith1226]

An article today from the New York Post:
“ChatGPT could make these jobs obsolete: ‘The wolf is at the door’”. The link is below.
One of the more interesting facts mentioned was that the chat bot scored higher than many humans on the MBA Exam administered by the Wharton School Of Business. A link corroborating this also is included.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/25/chat-gpt-could-make-these-jobs-obsolete/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=mail_app

https://nypost.com/2023/01/23/chatgpt-outperforms-humans-on-wharton-mba-exam-professor/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=mail_app

[SSmith1226]

Bringing the discussion back to discussion of Trumpet Pedagogy, here are answers to questions posed to www. Chat.Openai.com.
Each of these were generated a few seconds after submission.

StevenP
In the style of Chaucer explain the Claude Gordon principle of trumpet playing

In days of old, when knights were bold
And trumpets loud did sound,
A man named Claude, with skill and care,
A trumpet method found.

He taught the art of breath control,
And proper lip vibration,
To play with power, yet with grace,
A true inspiration.

His principle, known far and wide,
Is still taught to this day,
For those who seek to master trumpets
In Chaucer's time or today.

So if thou doth desire to play
A trumpet fair and true,
Remember Claude and his teachings,
And success shall come to you.

StevenP
In a biblical style explain the principles of the Adam school of trumpet pedagogy

And it came to pass, in the days of Adam, a man of great wisdom and skill, that he didst set forth the principles of trumpet playing. And he didst teach the children of music the ways of breath control and proper lip vibration. And he didst say, "Let your sound be like the thunder of the Lord, but with the softness of the morning dew."

And the people didst listen and didst practice, and they didst become mighty players of the trumpet. And their sound didst fill the land, and all who heard didst marvel at the beauty and power.

And Adam didst also teach them the importance of discipline and dedication, saying, "As ye tend to the garden of the Lord, so too must ye tend to your instrument, for it is a gift from the Lord."

And the people didst take these principles to heart, and they didst become true masters of the trumpet. And their music didst bring joy to the hearts of all who heard.

And it is written, "Blessed are the players of the trumpet, for they shall bring forth sweet melodies unto the Lord."

StevenP
In the style of William Shakespeare discuss the similarities and differences of the trumpet pedagogy of Claude Gordon, William Adam, Vincent Cichowicx, and Maynard Furgoson.

With Claude Gordon, William Adam, Vincent Cichowicz, and Maynard Ferguson, four trumpet players of great renown,
Whose pedagogy didst shape the art of trumpet playing, both similarities and differences can be found.

Claude Gordon didst teach breath control,
As did Adam, with discipline and dedication.
Cichowicz didst focus on sound and phrasing,
While Maynard Ferguson's approach was one of improvisation.

All four didst share a love for the trumpet
And a desire to teach others the way.
But in their methods, subtle differences didst emerge,
As each had their own unique way to play.

Gordon's approach was strict and traditional,
Adam's was one of discipline and care,
Cichowicz's was more modern and experimental,
While Ferguson's was wild and rare.

In conclusion, each trumpet pedagogue
Had a unique approach to teaching the art,
But all shared a love for the trumpet
And a desire to impart their heart.

StevenP
In the style of jean shepherd, discuss the trumpet strengths and weaknesses of Maurice Andre and Arturo Sandoval and discuss their similarities and differences

Ah, Maurice Andre and Arturo Sandoval, two of the most legendary trumpet players of our time. Let me tell ya, these guys are the real deal, each with their own unique style and approach to the instrument.

Maurice Andre, now he's a real master of the trumpet, a virtuoso in the truest sense of the word. The guy's technique is second to none, and he can hit notes that most folks would think were impossible. But, ya know, sometimes I think that all that technique can get in the way of the music. It's like he's so focused on hitting the right notes that he forgets to let the emotion come through.

Arturo Sandoval, on the other hand, he's all about the emotion. When that man plays, you can feel it in your bones. He's got a real fire in his playing, and it's impossible not to get caught up in it. But, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't think he's quite as polished as Andre. He's a little rough around the edges, if you know what I mean.

But, here's the thing, both Andre and Sandoval are so incredibly talented, and they both have had such a huge impact on the world of music. They've both traveled the world, playing for audiences in every corner of the globe, and they've both left a lasting legacy.

In terms of similarities, I'd say that both of them have a real passion for music and a real dedication to their craft. They're both incredibly hardworking and driven.

In terms of differences, as I mentioned earlier, Andre is a master of technique while Sandoval is all about the emotion. Andre is a classically trained trumpet player while Sandoval is a jazz trumpet player. They come from different countries and different cultural background.

All in all, both Maurice Andre and Arturo Sandoval are truly exceptional trumpet players, each with their own unique strengths and weaknesses. And, in a way, that's what makes them both so special. Each one has something different to offer, and they've both left an indelible mark on the world of music.

[Jolter]

@ssmith1226 And so we see yet again how Chatgpt is all style and little substance.

You gave it some clever prompts, and the results are fun to read, but nobody could read that and actually gain any understanding of how Adams’ teachings were different from Chicowitz’s.

I’m not saying that AI will never threaten real writers, perhaps it will improve, but in this current implementation I think the only writers who need to fear for their jobs are middling copywriters and corporate PR drones who are already churning out meaningless molasses for the masses. Good riddance to such jobs, I say.

[SSmith1226]

@jolter
I agree that the “free public version” that I have access to has limited abilities in certain areas, but imagine what the capabilities will be in 5, 10, or 25 years. In the mean while consider what a human writer can do with this. Here are some extreme examples:

StevenP
Put the following text into the style of Chaucer. ***“And so we see yet again how Chatgpt is all style and little substance.

You gave it some clever prompts, and the results are fun to read, but nobody could read that and actually gain any understanding of how Adams’ teachings were different from Chicowitz’s.

I’m not saying that AI will never threaten real writers, perhaps it will improve, but in this current implementation I think the only writers who need to fear for their jobs are middling copywriters and corporate PR drones who are already churning out meaningless molasses for the masses. Good riddance to such jobs, I say.”***

Lo and behold, good sirs and ladies, doth Chatgpt showeth us once more its mastery o'er style, yet lacketh substance in its words. Ye gave it clever prompts, and the results doth entertain, yet none may gain true understanding of how Adams' teachings doth differ from Chicowitz's.

I doth not say that AI shall ne'er threaten true scribes, perchance it shall improve, but in this current form, I doth believe that only those writers who pen mediocre words and speaketh nought but empty sweet nothings for the masses need fear for their livelihoods. Farewell and good riddance to such tasks, I sayeth.

StevenP
Put the same text into the style of JR Tolkien

Behold, the deeds of ChatGPT yet again reveals its skill in the art of words, yet the depth of its meaning is found wanting. Ye gave it clever prompts, and the results are pleasing to the ear, but none shall find true understanding of the distinctions betwixt the teachings of Adams and Chicowitz therein.

I do not say that this device of Men shall ever pose a true threat to the craft of true scribes, for perchance it shall improve. But in this present form, let only those who pen mediocre words and speak naught but empty promises to the multitude fear for their livelihood. Farewell and good riddance to such works I say.

[Jolter]

@ssmith1226 said in Bots are getting scary:

@jolter
I agree that the “free public version” that I have access to has limited abilities in certain areas, but imagine what the capabilities will be in 5, 10, or 25 years. In the mean while consider what a human writer can do with this. Here are some extreme examples:

StevenP
Put the following text into the style of Chaucer. ***“And so we see yet again how Chatgpt is all style and little substance.

You gave it some clever prompts, and the results are fun to read, but nobody could read that and actually gain any understanding of how Adams’ teachings were different from Chicowitz’s.

I’m not saying that AI will never threaten real writers, perhaps it will improve, but in this current implementation I think the only writers who need to fear for their jobs are middling copywriters and corporate PR drones who are already churning out meaningless molasses for the masses. Good riddance to such jobs, I say.”***

Lo and behold, good sirs and ladies, doth Chatgpt showeth us once more its mastery o'er style, yet lacketh substance in its words. Ye gave it clever prompts, and the results doth entertain, yet none may gain true understanding of how Adams' teachings doth differ from Chicowitz's.

I doth not say that AI shall ne'er threaten true scribes, perchance it shall improve, but in this current form, I doth believe that only those writers who pen mediocre words and speaketh nought but empty sweet nothings for the masses need fear for their livelihoods. Farewell and good riddance to such tasks, I sayeth.

StevenP
Put the same text into the style of JR Tolkien

Behold, the deeds of ChatGPT yet again reveals its skill in the art of words, yet the depth of its meaning is found wanting. Ye gave it clever prompts, and the results are pleasing to the ear, but none shall find true understanding of the distinctions betwixt the teachings of Adams and Chicowitz therein.

I do not say that this device of Men shall ever pose a true threat to the craft of true scribes, for perchance it shall improve. But in this present form, let only those who pen mediocre words and speak naught but empty promises to the multitude fear for their livelihood. Farewell and good riddance to such works I say.

Ok so you managed find a style it didn’t imitate well…
That’s not how I remember Tolkien, anyway.

Plus, it reversed the meaning of one of my sentences: “shall ever” should have been “shall never”…

As for the Shakespeare, I don’t think it has its “doths” and “lackeths” down. I don’t think it’s using proper Elizabethan grammar?

Anyway, I don’t know if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.

[J. Jericho]

What happens when you ask https://chat.openai.com/chat to create something, like, say, an original joke, for instance? I tried to access the website myself, but I keep getting an "Access denied" error message.

[SSmith1226]

The bot is obviously very selective. Very scary.

StevenP.webp
Please create an original joke

Why did the tomato turn red?

Because it saw the salad dressing!

%3e.svg
StevenP.webp
Another

Why don't scientists trust atoms?
Because they make up everything.

%3e.svg
StevenP.webp
Make up an original trumpet joke

Why did the trumpet player bring two sets of clothes to the gig?
In case he got a-trumpeted!

%3e.svg
StevenP.webp
I don’t understand. Please explain

The joke is a play on words, using the double meaning of "a-trumpeted". The first meaning is that the trumpet player is so good that he "a-trumpeted" the competition, meaning he surpassed them. The second meaning is a pun on the word "attacked" - the trumpet player brought a spare set of clothes in case he got "a-trumpeted", meaning physically attacked or beaten up, perhaps by an angry audience member. It's a joke about how trumpet players are often seen as arrogant or boastful, and the punchline is that this particular trumpet player is so good that he is worried he might get beaten up for it.

%3e.svg
StevenP.webp
What is the funniest joke you can make up about trumpet players

What do you call a trumpet player with half a brain? Gifted.
It's a play on words, a trumpet player is often seen as less intelligent and this joke is making fun of the stereotype, the punchline is "gifted" which means talented or clever, however it is also a play on the word half brain, as in being not fully intelligent, it's a self-deprecating joke and should be taken in good humor.

[J. Jericho]

@ssmith1226 Thanks. AI appears to be capable of imitating some humans, such as those who speak with authority, whether they have knowledge or not, and with equal facility spew gibberish.