Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know if this has been challenged by anyone else yet, but I'm personally not confident that you're correct here.

The OP is an opinion-piece written for the NYT’s by Noam Chomsky. Based no doubt on his language studies, opinions and ideas. You are not the first to quote from it seeming to attribute it to me.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know if this has been challenged by anyone else yet, but I'm personally not confident that you're correct here.

The OP is an opinion-piece written for the NYT’s by Noam Chomsky. Based no doubt on his language studies, opinions and ideas. You are not the first to quote from it seeming to attribute it to me.

Sure, not your words, my mistake.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From today’s NYTs:

China Says Chatbots Must Toe the Party Line

“The Communist Party outlined draft rules that would set guardrails on the rapidly growing industry of services like ChatGPT.”

Five months after ChatGPT set off an investment frenzy over artificial intelligence, Beijing is moving to rein in China’s chatbots, a show of the government’s resolve to keep tight regulatory control over technology that could define an era.

The Cyberspace Administration of China unveiled draft rules this month for so-called generative artificial intelligence — the software systems, like the one behind ChatGPT, that can formulate text and pictures in response to a user’s questions and prompts.

According to the regulations, companies must heed the Chinese Communist Party’s strict censorship rules, just as websites and apps have to avoid publishing material that besmirches China’s leaders or rehashes forbidden history. The content of A.I. systems will need to reflect “socialist core values” and avoid information that undermines “state power” or national unity.

Companies will also have to make sure their chatbots create words and pictures that are truthful and respect intellectual property, and will be required to register their algorithms, the software brains behind chatbots, with regulators.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know if this has been challenged by anyone else yet, but I'm personally not confident that you're correct here.

The OP is an opinion-piece written for the NYT’s by Noam Chomsky. Based no doubt on his language studies, opinions and ideas. You are not the first to quote from it seeming to attribute it to me.

Sure, not your words, my mistake.

Nevertheless I am not — because I am unqualified to do so — negating what you’ve said. It is not a topic I am familiar with.

[phyllo]

Why do we want AI generated art?

Why do we want AI generated photographs?

Why do we want AI generated writing?

Why do we want AI generated music?

Or substitute the word 'need' for the word 'want'. Why do we need those things?

[Flannel Jesus]

Why do we want AI generated art?

Why do we want AI generated photographs?

Why do we want AI generated writing?

Why do we want AI generated music?

Or substitute the word 'need' for the word 'want'. Why do we need those things?

People want AI generated art for a few reasons:

1. Cheaper than similar quality art from a human artist

2. Easier and faster in some cases for a non-artist to see their imagination realized

3. They can profit from it (related to point 1, but distinct still)

That's probably not all of the reasons, but it's some of them. And I suspect all these reasons also apply to writing and music.

[phyllo]

Right. It's cheaper, faster and easier than paying and dealing with a real person.

The artist loses the income and loses the satisfaction of doing the work.

It's a win-lose situation.

[Flannel Jesus]

Right. It's cheaper, faster and easier than paying and dealing with a real person.

The artist loses the income and loses the satisfaction of doing the work.

It's a win-lose situation.

Yes, more or less.

As ai automates more jobs away, we are definitely going to have to consider what to do about it. I don't think the answer is "make AI illegal", but I do think the answer will have to involve some redistribution of wealth most likely. Obviously a lot of people don't like that, but the alternatives don't look so hot

Ironic that we thought the creative jobs like illustrating would be the most immune to automation, and yet they're getting automated long before other more easily automatable tasks (or the tasks we would have assumed would be more easy to automate, anyway)

[phyllo]

You mean after the job loses, then we will do something?

We can't do anything before it happens?

I would propose that all AI content is clearly tagged with a label : "AI GENERATED". That doesn't make it illegal. It let's people choose whether they want to 'consume' it or not.

[Flannel Jesus]

You mean after the job loses, then we will do something?

We can't do anything before it happens?

I would propose that all AI content is clearly tagged with a label : "AI GENERATED". That doesn't make it illegal. It let's people choose whether they want to 'consume' it or not.

I would love to do something before it happens!

Is your proposal to stop the job loss or just as a separate policy that doesn't stop the job loss?

[phyllo]

I expect that if people had the choice between AI generated content and human generated content, they would tend to choose the human generated content. That would reduce job loses.

But perhaps I'm not cynical enough about human beings.

[Flannel Jesus]

I expect that if people had the choice between AI generated content and human generated content, they would tend to choose the human generated content. That would reduce job loses.

But perhaps I'm not cynical enough about human beings.

How would you recommend tagging content that is not generated by ai but HELPED by ai?

That's something coming up in the art industry for example, and I don't see a way to police it. For example, a concept artist who produces at 5x the rate of other concept artists because he uses AI to help him.

So it wouldn't be exactly AI generated content, but you're still looking at a business that can hire 1/5 of the people because some of the work is helped by ai.

[Harbal]

You mean after the job loses, then we will do something?

Should I be worried; are there plans for AI to replace pensioners?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do we want AI generated art?

Why do we want AI generated photographs?

Why do we want AI generated writing?

Why do we want AI generated music?

Or substitute the word 'need' for the word 'want'. Why do we need those things?

I follow LinkedIn (unfortunately) and there is all sort of information about the use of AI for enhancing productivity. All of the tools I listed in a graphic are ones that people are using in the business world.

What they say is that AI might not replace you, but someone who is adept at using it may replace you if they are MORE PRODUCTIVE.

It seems to me that the blending of computer/phone technology, and also wearables, is where things are going. Productive people will be more and more linked in to their 'devices' and will be made into productivity tools.

So the answer to your question, in the business world, is that capital will demand workers to use AI as much as is helpful to increase productivity.

But the 'average man'? Who knows. It will all become clear when the rubber hits the road and 'it' begins to become integrated with life on all the different levels.

[phyllo]

I expect that if people had the choice between AI generated content and human generated content, they would tend to choose the human generated content. That would reduce job loses.

But perhaps I'm not cynical enough about human beings.

How would you recommend tagging content that is not generated by ai but HELPED by ai?

That's something coming up in the art industry for example, and I don't see a way to police it. For example, a concept artist who produces at 5x the rate of other concept artists because he uses AI to help him.

So it wouldn't be exactly AI generated content, but you're still looking at a business that can hire 1/5 of the people because some of the work is helped by ai.

It seems that could be tagged as well.

We have lists of ingredients in food products. So why not a requirement to list the software used to generate content.