Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Flannel Jesus]

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

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

Yes, pensioners should be worried. AI can do nothing much more effectively than you can.

[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.

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.

I think that by the time it gets pervasive, people are going to stop caring. It might save a handful of jobs but not all of them. I'm not going to look at the software list when I watch a TV show or movie.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

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

Yes, pensioners should be worried. AI can do nothing much more effectively than you can.

Yet here is an important consideration. According to José Ortega y Gasset what has most marked our time (the last 150 years) has been the rise of the Mass Man. Technology, medicine, liberal politics and education have brought this Man into existence. Prior to that this Man did not have existence.

As Mass Man comes onto the scene, he determines the scene. Society and culture are now molded to his purposes, needs, wants & desires. He sees this as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. His values and ideals dominate. Nothing like this has ever happened and this is one reason why “modernity” is so extraordinary. But also fragile.

Mass Man, in a sense, does nothing — or little. Mass Man gears his life to getting & spending on the whole. Bread & circuses essentially.

In what way will all aspects of AI either supplant or — what’s the word? — enhance the extraneousness of Mass Man?

Mass Man (the common man) does not really have aspirations except horizontal ones. Vertical aspirations are elite, noble and aristocratic, aren’t they?

It is wise to at least be cognizant of the degree to which all of us have been conditioned by common value-sets.

So how will AI be used in social modification? social engineering? Certainly the enhancement of Mass Man’s horizontal aspiration, right?

[Harbal]

Mass Man, in a sense, does nothing

Perhaps he's too heavy to do anything.

[Harbal]

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

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

Yes, pensioners should be worried. AI can do nothing much more effectively than you can.

Well at least it should free up some time for me to do even less.

[phyllo]

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.

I think that by the time it gets pervasive, people are going to stop caring. It might save a handful of jobs but not all of them. I'm not going to look at the software list when I watch a TV show or movie.

If people know, then they can decide for themselves if they want to deal with the company or buy the product.

I tend to think it would have some impact given how much resistance companies had to GMO labeling. We never got that but now voluntary "Non GMO" labeling and certification is a selling point.

[phyllo]

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

Yes, pensioners should be worried. AI can do nothing much more effectively than you can.

Well at least it should free up some time for me to do even less.

You should get ChatGPT to do your forum posts.

[Harbal]

You should get ChatGPT to do your forum posts.

Why, don't you like the way I do them?

[phyllo]

AI does everything better

[seeds]

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.

I think that by the time it gets pervasive, people are going to stop caring. It might save a handful of jobs but not all of them. I'm not going to look at the software list when I watch a TV show or movie.

A pervasive acceptance (and tagging) of AI has been in play for many decades now.

According to a quick "AI assisted" search (Google), CAD ("computer aided design") pretty much began back in the 60s. Furthermore, it has always seemed to inspire the notion that something of a higher, more precision oriented (or even other worldly) level of intelligence was involved in the creation of a product.

However, it seems as though the shift from referring to it as "CAD" and now as "AI" has somehow given the impression that some sort of malevolent and self-directing entity is on the verge of literally awakening into existence in the ominous prediction of the so-called "Technological Singularity."

To which I suggest that the real malevolence lies in the sheer foolishness of humans only focusing on the good side of the double-edged sword of advancing technology, where the narrative being pushed is that this...



...is going to lead to "everyone" experiencing more of this,...



...when, in truth, there is only going to be more of this...



And this (let's keep shooting ourselves in the foot) idiocy is only getting worse with the ever-growing push to introduce such things as self-driving trucks and taxi cabs into the mix.

So, what's the solution?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, what's the solution?

The Last Resort

[Dubious]

Yet here is an important consideration. According to José Ortega y Gasset what has most marked our time (the last 150 years) has been the rise of the Mass Man. Technology, medicine, liberal politics and education have brought this Man into existence. Prior to that this Man did not have existence.

This view is so simplistic it's worthless! The so-called Mass Man has always existed wherever there is conformity to a society. When you see all the stalls in the Colosseum occupied watching executions, gladiators mutilate or kill each other and the mass killing of animals as entertainment, there you have a perfect example of Mass Man from 2000 years ago.

As Mass Man comes onto the scene, he determines the scene. Society and culture are now molded to his purposes, needs, wants & desires. He sees this as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. His values and ideals dominate. Nothing like this has ever happened and this is one reason why “modernity” is so extraordinary. But also fragile.

In nations like China, is it the "Mass Man" or the CCP that determines the scene?

The question has been raised before: Do you ever analyze or only accept what you read?

The Mass Man phenomena has always been with us in one form or another. Every one of them considered themselves as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. The main difference is the Masses are far greater now than they ever were before. In 1800, it's estimated there were 1 billion people on the planet. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion. To claim that Mass Man did exist prior to 150 years ago is to default to a complete misconception or outright lie!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yet here is an important consideration. According to José Ortega y Gasset what has most marked our time (the last 150 years) has been the rise of the Mass Man. Technology, medicine, liberal politics and education have brought this Man into existence. Prior to that this Man did not have existence.

This view is so simplistic it's worthless! The so-called Mass Man has always existed wherever there is conformity to a society. When you see all the stalls in the Colosseum occupied watching executions, gladiators mutilate or kill each other and the mass killing of animals as entertainment, there you have a perfect example of Mass Man from 2000 years ago.

Perhaps you are unaware of what Ortega y Gasset means when he refer to a mass man of the (recent) present. I can say with a high degree of certainly that I do not think the general analysis of O y G in Revolt of the Masses is shallow or dismissible. It is a very careful analysis. And quite worthy.

The sort of citizen brought into this world in the 19th century (largely) is a creation of evolution in politics, in social models, economics, and much else. Prior to that, the bulk of people lived those short lives of desperation and pain. Modernity created new models and new possibilities.

He writes about this at length in his book.

Additionally, he makes reference to Roman society as a comparison point, but he is not writing about ancient Rome, nor the urban center of Rome, he is writing about Europe in the recent present. And in Europe the rise of new classes occurred far more recently.

As Mass Man comes onto the scene, he determines the scene. Society and culture are now molded to his purposes, needs, wants & desires. He sees this as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. His values and ideals dominate. Nothing like this has ever happened and this is one reason why “modernity” is so extraordinary. But also fragile.

Dubious asks: In nations like China, is it the "Mass Man" or the CCP that determines the scene?

The question has been raised before: Do you ever analyze or only accept what you read?

The Mass Man phenomena has always been with us in one form or another. Every one of them considered themselves as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. The main difference is the Masses are far greater now than they ever were before. In 1800, it's estimated there were 1 billion people on the planet. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion. To claim that Mass Man did exist prior to 150 years ago is to default to a complete misconception or outright lie!

It is you who needs to consider the model you are applying. Civil society, as we understand it, is a European category largely. Not to mean completely, but largely.

Of course, jerk, I analyze what I read. It is you who seem to have a bug up your asshole and it is getting bothersome.

You are taking mass man out of the sense that Ortega y Gasset defines it and to mean general man not of the elite classes. In O y G's analysis, Mass Man is a social and political force having risen in power in the last roughly 200 years. His view, which I do accept, is that the man has arisen for the political, social and economic changes that occurred specifically in Europe.

It is also a model (for human and mass possibility) that is now being extended to the entire planet, given the influence of Europe.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Mass Man phenomena has always been with us in one form or another. Every one of them considered themselves as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. The main difference is the Masses are far greater now than they ever were before. In 1800, it's estimated there were 1 billion people on the planet. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion. To claim that Mass Man did exist prior to 150 years ago is to default to a complete misconception or outright lie!

My suggestion for you would be to become more familiar with his work before you jump to these conclusions. Again, it is beginning to get irritating.

[iambiguous]

Jorge Luis Borges once wrote that to live in a time of great peril and promise is to experience both tragedy and comedy, with “the imminence of a revelation” in understanding ourselves and the world. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. Optimism because intelligence is the means by which we solve problems. Concern because we fear that the most popular and fashionable strain of A.I. — machine learning — will degrade our science and debase our ethics by incorporating into our technology a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge.

Here, in regard to either flesh and blood human intelligence or artificial machine intelligence, I come back to dasein. And, in particular, in regard to moral and political value judgments in the is/ought world.

Really, what's the difference between them if neither of them in a No God world is able...either philosophically or scientifically...to establish a moral assessment that could actually be demonstrated to encompass behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

Chomsky will no doubt suggest that capitalism reflects "a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge" as it pertains to rational and virtuous behaviors. Whereas the Libertarians and the Objectivists among us, while agreeing that philosophically, politically, morally there is an optimal frame of mind, will insist instead that this is precisely what capitalism encompasses.

So, Mr. Flesh and Blood human being or Mr. Chatbot...which is it?