"We invented a machine that thinks!"
"It's not thinking..."
"Technically true, but it can CREATE new content out of thin air."
"It steals everything it spits out by scraping the internet..."
"Okay, got me there, but think of the information access; now everyone with a phone has their own research assistant and the Library of Alexandria!"
"The machine spits out wrong answers; like every time."
"Look, fuck you, we own everything and you're buying it."
@AnarchoNinaWrites #AI can be not shitty, it just requires effort.
Like @Hoppel ...
Lol have you been listening in to my work calls somehow?
@AnarchoNinaWrites con todos sus defectos cualquier IA..."piensa" mas que muchísimos humanos¿eeeh?¿eeeh? si quieres una prueba mira a los idiotas que replican fakes news, porque confirman sus odios
@M_el_viejo Es verdad. Si le preguntas algo a ChatGPT sobre temas de derechos humanos, te das cuenta que tiene mejores respuestas y puntos de vista más amplios y tolerantes que muchos en redes. No digo que son propios, pero que lo entrenaron bien en lo que cabe.
@AnarchoNinaWrites Hm. When put like that, I have to revise my "It may be 'A', but it isn't 'I'" to "Hell, it's JUST as smart as humans, imagine that ... "
@AnarchoNinaWrites
I too have a concern about AI generated content. But how much truth is in your statements:
1. "It steals everything it spits out by scraping the internet..."
2. "Okay, got me there, but think of the information access; now everyone with a phone has their own research assistant and the Library of Alexandria!"
3. "The machine spits out wrong answers; like every time."
4. "Look, fuck you, we own everything and you're buying it."
@TopKnot
A great amount of truth, I suspect.
AI conjured up by corporations is necessarily designed to benefit their bottom lines. Thus its learning model will focus on those aspects of human character that enable continued top-down control. To wit: lying, manipulation, fear, and greed, etc.
@AnarchoNinaWrites This is delicious, follow through to the filings: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1662273759259295746?s=46&t=HEtpw9d0unt2voXOjdrpxA
@AnarchoNinaWrites Thank you. AI does not yet exist. People are just throwing the term around in ignorance.
@farbel @AnarchoNinaWrites I think human is intelligent because they are both obedient and rebellious, they can accept tasks, collaborate, and think of alternatives.
It lead to conflicts and compromises.
AI are created by corporations, if intelligent won't just stay still and do what they were tasked to do.
@farbel @AnarchoNinaWrites
General AI doesn’t exist yet. Specific AI does.
ie: One may run an investment firm by calculating multivariables to produce maximum profit for the company.
It doesn’t care or understand what the companies create or destroy, only how to maximize buying or selling profits.
The effect these transactions have on the economy, the society, or the environment are not programmed into the algorithm.
@PensiveTM @AnarchoNinaWrites The definition of AI is being changed. What you call "specific AI" would not qualify under the original definition. It certainly wouldn't pass the Turing Test.
@PensiveTM I rather think it agreed with me. Ask it for a straight up definition of AI.
@farbel
My reading from Chat was different than what you previously stated about AI.
Ask it your question for verification. I have mine already.
@PensiveTM I don't use Chat
@farbel Ok. Bye.
@farbel
Nice explainer, thanks.
So, now there are 4 categories.
Interesting.
🗸
✓
I would go further:
We don't yet understand NI.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Once we do understand NI, we will either create AI because we have the knowledge or ban it because we are terrified. Maybe both!
The fallacy here is the idea that there will necessarily be something to create. One of the biggest issues with NI is we don't even have a *definition* beyond "We know it when we see it"
In other news, "Colossus: The Forbin Project" was just a movie.
@farbel A lot of us do understand that there's a difference, but the word sounds nicer and more approachable than the other terms. It's like when we say Hollywood to refer to the US film industry, or the Crown for the UK monarchy. I hear that take often but find it so cynical
@AnarchoNinaWrites AI in a nutshell
@AnarchoNinaWrites
We all know that various news outlets will use AI because they are cheaper than reporters. As Rebecca Watson predicted, this will lead to a “firehose of misinformation” injecting nonsense into the public discourse.
@AnarchoNinaWrites @ifixcoinops 
these people bristle nay DEMAND that they be allowed to endlessly steal from real creators to grow their plagiarism machine
https://mastodon.social/@cpi/110435630017143622
1. It doesn't matter if it meets your definition of "REALLY TRULY THINKING". It already beats you at a wide range of tasks you thought of as absolutely intractable for AI five years ago.
2. Yes, it steals everything and recombines it in creative ways. Like humans do.
3. Yes, it makes up stuff and that is a part of the reason why it's dangerous.
...for some notion of "beats" that doesn't involve being Actually Better at something.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Well, if you've lost a game of chess to an AI, for example, you can pat yourself on a back saying it's not ACTUALLY better than you at chess, it's just pretending somehow. But you still lost.
And if AI will kill you in various ways you couldn't even think about - it doesn't matter if it was ACTUALLY thinking. You'd still be dead.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Hmmm.
Well... Okay, so
1. ChatGPT kinda can play chess. Not very good though. But it's not because it can't in principle, but because it's not meant for playing chess. Nobody trained it to.
2. And you know why? BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE MUCH LESS ADVANCED AI'S THAT TRAIN 30 MINUTES FROM SCRATCH WITHOUT ANY INPUT OR FEEDBACK AND THEN EASILY SMOKE HUMAN CHAMPIONS, in pretty much any game, like for decades.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites 3. ChatGPT sure can't play chess good enough. Yet. But you know what it can do? WRITE A FUCKING ACTUALLY WORKABLE CODE FOR AI THAT CAN.
4. So if I understood you correctly, if tomorrow they decide to train ChatGPT little more on games like chess and it suddenly can play it reasonably well - you will agree that it is dangerous? Or you'll come up with excuses like that right until you're dead?
1. Citation please
2. Citation please
3. Citation please
(It's like I'm actually arguing with ChatGPT; N.B.: making shit up is not an argument)
4. Who knows? We're not even close to there, and there's no indication we will be any time soon.
For now I have enough to worry about with the programs that actually ARE killing people in real life today (e.g., Tesla's "self driving" mode) and it's not due to them being "too intelligent".
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Citation of what? Me playing with ChatGPT code generation? All three of those are well known facts you can easily google or try for yourself. You either live under a rock last 10 years, or in some sort of active denial mode. Maybe for some ideological reasons.
1 and 2. reputable sources, please. I have no idea who the fuck "androidauthority.com" (a site I've never heard of before today) is and you probably don't either.
Also the statement "The world already has several chess-optimized AI that can outperform just about any human" is highly misleading.
ALL of the main contenders for best chess program are programs written by humans using deterministic algorithms. If you're calling those "AI" then you may as well call *all* software "AI". (yes, chess programs WERE, at one time, the focus of AI research, but that was 40 years ago. Researchers eventually figured out they weren't actually learning a whole lot about "intelligence" and moved on to other topics.)
3. Yes ChatGPT can search its data and find where someone has posted a chess-playing library and has scraped the documentation for it.
That's not a remarkable accomplishment. It didn't write the library, and if no one anywhere had posted a chess library it would have been up shit creek.
Nor is there any indication that the interface provided in your screenshot is actually correct (often what one finds with these things is you have to correct various mistakes before it'll run) but even if it is, there's no indication it didn't copy it straight out of the posted documentation. Not a whole lot of actual intelligence (in any sense of the word) here.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites It can't "search its data", it's not how it works, it's not google. You can watch this after all the educational videos I sent earlier:
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Oh come on, just calculate how many branches will it take to play chess with deterministic algorithm. Please educate yourself and don't talk about things you have no idea about. You can start with this:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDNU6R1_67000Dx_ZCJB-3pi
"It can't "search its data", it's not how it works,"
actually that's pretty much exactly how it works (except that the "data" is a collection of word-sequence frequencies based on the raw data it trained on). You need to learn about large language models.
Here, have an actual research paper
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922
or, if you like, the Wikipedia summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_parrot
which is unfortunately short but has links to lots of other stuff
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Okay, so how does it contradict anything I've said?
Read all of the words, including, e.g., the 2nd sentence of the Wiki page I just gave you:
"are impressive in their ability to generate realistic-sounding language but ultimately do not truly understand the meaning of the language they are processing."[2]
and maybe re-read some of my previous replies with this in mind.
I'm also about this close -><- to blocking you.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites And? Did I say it "truly understands" shit? My point was precisely that it doesn't matter whether it "truly understand" something. Neither you nor that paper's author specify what you mean by "truly understand" anyway, because there's no way to specify that vague philosophical concept in a more or less practical or rigorous way.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites And yes, I can be that guy and say that your mind is nothing more than a pattern of electrochemical reactions in your brain. It will be as accurate as completely irrelevant to the fact that you are capable of getting a PhD in computer science, and still think that our best chess AI's are "deterministic algorithms written by humans".
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Also you are just a protein-based model produced by a primitive stochastic hill-climbing algorithm that optimized you for replicating yourself somewhere in African savannah. How can you "truly understand" things? Surely that's impossible.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites But yeah, if you interpret "data" as model's weights - then yes, you can play with semantics that way. Still it of course doesn't search it in any meaningful way, it just outputs shit based on it. And of course no, it doesn't just search for snippets of code from stackoverflow or something, it combines all sorts of patterns it learned from code syntax and user prompts in all sorts of complicated ways. Which is both impressive and dangerous.
"Please educate yourself"
fuck you. I already have a PhD in Computer Science from Stanford University, with specialties in algorithms and complexity theory.
YOU are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about, and I don't really care how many youtube videos you can pile up .. whether they're by idiots or you're misunderstanding what they're saying, it's not worth my time to go through them.
I've already tried to point out where you're going wrong but if you're not getting it, I'm done wasting time on you.
@wrog @AnarchoNinaWrites Okay, so you either lying, or Stanford has serious problem with its education quality, or more probably your specialty just has nothing in common with our topic. Still, at least watch the fucking videos, don't be that flat earth guy.
@AnarchoNinaWrites
A great summary!
@ArtBear@mastodonapp.uk
@AnarchoNinaWrites Currently it’s still more like the library of Babel … lots of nonsense that looks like it could be real but isn’t.
@AnarchoNinaWrites
That's an amazing description of "AI."
It steals the information mankind has collected and made freely available online, and big tech will try and sell that to use and moreover try and manipulate us while doing so.
Enough is enough. Rules and regulations badly needed!
@AnarchoNinaWrites @xs4me2 most of the internet is misinformation, and if it’s spits out more misinformation soon that’s all we’ll have
@Luci_brennacolleen @AnarchoNinaWrites
Im sorry, but that is a generalization I do not share.
But obviously, there is truth, opinion, useful and useless fact, lots of data, and even nonsense and lies. In short, a reflection of the human mind and of human culture.
@AnarchoNinaWrites "...it can CREATE new content out of thin air..." Some toots later in my timeline: https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/lawyer-chatgpt/
@AnarchoNinaWrites
#GIGO
Grabbing garbage posts from the internet and giving them the same weight as scholarly peer reviewed papers creates garbage out.
What else wpuld you expect?
@AnarchoNinaWrites the problem with AI is humans. Not AI.