Maybe there is a way to fix the AI problem!? (Let's talk about how we can handle this sh*t)

[nix808]

I don't feel my intelligence threatened,
I'm not that intelligent
I think AI is curious

I just feel that intelligence implies self-awareness,
so there would be reasoning or wisdom inherent
-making the intelligence a real some-one
like, you have to be a quantified individual to be intelligent?
an intelligence would comprehend --to my way of thinking
if defining intelligence

ok maybe there can be another kind of intelligence for machines then,
not animals/spirits/beings

[VOODOO U]

Anyone else stop there?

I sure hoped they would. You're whole point is a desperate victim mindest nuisance.
A.I. needs human input. It spits out human generated input which is a creation no matter how big or little whether we like it or not. Goodnight and god bless you miserable unsigned bedroom tweeker.

[zerocrossing]

AI comes along and offers to generate things based on super-deep levels of understanding, in ways which humans will never be capable of.

This is a misconception. What we call AI has no understanding at all. It's why it's likely to produce something nonsensical or flat out wrong. It has no real understanding of right or wrong, good or bad. It does not know pain, so how can it know the pain of something universal, like being rejected in a relationship? It can mimic it, but never 'know' it.

It's a serious misconception, there's nothing real in support of it. Now, if I see something of the subject on Youtube, the algorithm is pretty much trained to suggest critiques from a position of some knowledge if not expertise; but in general the layperson I'll encounter (I'm not doing social media in the sense usually meant by the term), to a person, has accepted seemingly with no examination whatsoever that there is indeed a form or forms of technology in the world that match the name Artificial Intelligence.

I think yours is the first comment I've seen in this kind of context that states the plain truth of it. There is no such thing. It doesn't think. It's a well known issue among the key drivers of the thing that it cannot reason. I'm not saying it's not great at it, it does not and cannot do it.
When this word intelligence is used for it, the word has been corrupted to suit the hype.
I've given a fair bit of thought over a lot of years to 'what is intelligence'. My friend at school and I would sometimes interview people to see if we could pinpoint where an opinion or a notion started with a person. In the end this winds up as virtually always derivative of someone else's "thought". Now, one can appear to be for all practical purposes a genius by very clever parroting. "AI" is a super-genius parrot.

I take my meaning from Roger Penrose: intelligence is a part of consciousness; consciousness is not computational. The seeming goal is always going to be out of reach from the current state of affairs.

I think one of the reasons this misconception has persisted is that I've heard some people, including one of the guys who started developing neural networks way back in the 80s, say things like, "AI comes up with answers in a very similar way to how humans do." What I think people are leaving out is that, like you've mentioned, consciousness isn't just a query-answer process. I'm reminded of a story where an AI started answering, "I'll get back to you with that tomorrow/later," when asked to perform a task, because it saw that response in human interactions. The problem was, AI has no idea what "later" or "tomorrow" is. It never ended up responding.

[Bombadil]

Can apply for tech support gig!

[justin3am]

Though I'm overtly hostile to "AI" in all forms, I'm increasingly convinced of the inevitability. That it will take over everything we do and it will become increasingly difficult to avoid it. Most of my friends and loved ones have embraced LLMs, Diffusion models and AI assistants/agents (or whatever) uncritically and lash out emotionally when asked about some of the ethical implications. I guess if most people agree there are no ethical problems, then there are no ethical problems. I mean it's little consolation to folks I know who are losing their jobs or who's utility bills are going up thanks to new data farm neighbors but we gotta make way for progress and convenience, right?

Catch me over at Walden pond.

- a luddite

[Bunny_boy]

I doubt this will come as a revelation to anybody but your knowledge of a subject is essential for AI.
The other day, Co-Pilot was emphatic that the answer it had given me was correct, even though I knew for a fact it wasn't. When I asked for a URL pointing to the data in its response, it could only give me the URL of the actual website, and reassured me it was correct. It also said that its answer could be backed up by another website - one that a user needs to register with to use. When I challenged it on that, it kinda just gave up trying to justify its answer and just told me it was correct.
Utterly useless

[zerocrossing]

Catch me over at Walden pond.

- a luddite

I'm going to miss your posts.

I think that what we're calling "AI" has been among us for a long time now, just not accessible to the public. I think it can be an amazing tool for good, just like it can be used for bad. Imagine a city that can analyze car traffic in real time and adjust lights so there are fewer and shorter stops, saving you time and energy. This can also inform where buss routs are needed, or how many express trains for light-rail. It could inform cities where new housing would best serve low income workers. Figure out where to rezone commercial properties for housing. All sorts of data analysis can be done for good... as well as for nefarious reasons, which is why we absolutely need good regulation rules and well funded agencies to enforce them.

What makes me mad is that no one is making the product that I'd really love: a life-side, movie prop accurate, R2D2, that can follow me around and make appropriate ARP 2600 sounds at me that are tailored to what I'm doing. "What's that R2? My mix is too boomy?" "weooo oooo brzt"

[vurt]

What makes me mad is that no one is making the product that I'd really love: a life-side, movie prop accurate, R2D2, that can follow me around and make appropriate ARP 2600 sounds at me that are tailored to what I'm doing. "What's that R2? My mix is too boomy?" "weooo oooo brzt"

with the jabbas sail barge attachments? may as well use it for drinks too!

they do make them, but radio controlled.
i almost bought one a few years ago, till i realised it was too big to get through my door, and we dont have a garage.

[justin3am]

Catch me over at Walden pond.

- a luddite

I'm going to miss your posts.

Much to my chagrin, we still get cell service at our cabin deep in the woods.

I think there are all sorts of useful applications for machine learning. We just don't seem to be getting any of those.

At college, Brit focused on data/statistical analysis. She knows better than most how data can be manipulated and it's a big part of the reason you won't find any trace of her online. In the past, I feared that she was missing out on all that online life can offer. I'm increasingly feeling like she was right to be more skeptical than I was.

In the early '00s I was hopeful that technology would make the tools for creating and promoting art more accessible. Now I see that it's becoming even more accessible and I find myself saying "well no, not like that!" While I'm nervous, I'm also very excited to see what the younger generations will do with the world they are inheriting. I'm sure that I'll sound just as annoyingly grumpy about it, as older generations sounded to me!

[vurt]

kill all humans.

[elxsound]

kill all humans.

The humans are working on it.

[revvy]

Nm

[vurt]

kill all humans.

The humans are working on it.

we are the robots.

[BONES]

I doubt this will come as a revelation to anybody but your knowledge of a subject is essential for AI.
The other day, Co-Pilot was emphatic that the answer it had given me was correct, even though I knew for a fact it wasn't. When I asked for a URL pointing to the data in its response, it could only give me the URL of the actual website, and reassured me it was correct. It also said that its answer could be backed up by another website - one that a user needs to register with to use. When I challenged it on that, it kinda just gave up trying to justify its answer and just told me it was correct.
Utterly useless

Only because you are looking at it incorrectly. Throughout your story you assign it human motivations - it wasn't being "emphatic", it simply repeated what it had previously said because that's all it's programming allows it to do. When I've encountered those kinds of situations, I have informed co-pilot that it was continuing to give me the same answer, which was incorrect, at which point it just stops trying and we both move on.

AI doesn't have to be like a human to demonstrate intelligence. Dogs, for example, show remarkable intelligence but they can't tell you anything at all, despite what Lassie movies might suggest. Their intelligence is different from ours. So is AI's version of intelligence.

I saw a video the other day where a bunch of Chinese doctors (in disguise, to avoid possible embarasment) went up against AIs in patient diagnosis. Guess what? The AI got to the correct diagnosis in seconds, where the doctors took 15 minutes or more in each case. You don't get to make doctors look foolish without some serious intelligence.

The big difference is that AI has not ability to make intuitive leaps. Instead it is able to go through a million options in seconds and come up with one that works. It's a different way of getting to the same point we can. It's not less or more intelligent, it's just different. If you like, it's faster than we are, not smarter. As I've said previously, it can pass the MENSA entry test and score well above the human average in many other forms of IQ test. So unless IQ tests are an invalid way of assessing intelligence, then you simply have to accept that AIs have high intelligence (coupled with incredible computational speed). There is no other logical conclusion to arrive at.

[BONES]