Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Age]

I'm assuming that it's because he (Age) is not an "adult" human being and he has been harmed by what at least some adults say and do in the name of "jobs" and "money".

ASSUME ALL you WANT, but I suggest that you SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY FIRST, BEFORE you ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing', that way you will NEVER BE Wrong, like you ARE here.

Not everyone is struggling to survive and therefore needs a job and money to survive. Not everyone is struggling to live a life that is meaningful to them and therefore want a meaningful job, AND some aren't struggling or else seeking meaningful employment at all and truly want a "job" and/or "money" so badly that they would do evil in order to get paid for it. That is commonly known as "banal evil".

"Banal evil" is evil done without knowing that one is doing evil.

But what even IS the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED definition of 'evil', itself?

It was the defense of Eric Eichman who (apparently) was very good at his job during the Nazi German episode at ensuring that the trains carrying Jews to the death camps were running efficiently. Eichman claimed at his trial that he was only doing his job. The prosecution insisted that "just doing one's job" is not a legitimate excuse for doing evil. That raises extremely difficult and complex results for society at large. The Israeli court chose to condemn Eichman as "guilty" on all accounts and sentenced him to death.

Is sentencing people to DEATH, and the KILLING of 'them', just ANOTHER part of "other's'" jobs?

No one knows for sure if Eichmann was truly "evil" or not. We can assume that he knowingly did evil irrespective of what his conscience may have told him (if he was truly aware of the overall nature of what he was running the train schedule for). If Eichman was not aware of what he was doing and why and yet "evil" for doing it, then that places the burden on every human being to know what and why s/he is doing what s/he is doing. There is no such thing as "ignorance" or not knowing that what one is doing is evil.

BUT, considering the Fact that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, can NOT even DECIDE, and EXPRESS CLEARLY, what IS Right, what IS Wrong, AND what IS 'evil', in Life, then KNOWING one is doing EITHER seems like a VERY BIG ASK.

If the latter case is true then we must condemn the ignorant to death for being ignorant if they did "evil" while they did (or said) what they did.

Is 'condemning the so-called "ignorant'', to death, for 'being ignorant' and 'evil' 'thing' to do, or NOT?

OR we can try to warn others if they are unknowingly doing evil (and we know for sure ourselves that they are doing "evil"), HOWEVER, not everyone who is warned will listen and many are outright hostile when others tell them they are doing evil.

EXACTLY like HOW 'you', adult human beings, are Truly 'IGNORANT' of the 'evil', or Wrong, that 'you' ARE ALL DOING, and ARE NOT LISTENING TO NOR SEEING THE WARNING SIGNS, and 'you' BECOME HOSTILE when TOLD and SHOWN the Wrong that 'you' ARE ALL ACTUALLY DOING. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True throughout these writings here, in this forum.

ANYWAY, and by the way, I ALREADY KNEW that the society, which you live in, is structured around 'money' AND 'jobs'. I ALSO KNEW WHY that society was in such THE MESS that is was in, and thus WHY 'it' WAS Truly SICK and ILL.

Then, apparently, you seem to know more than you tell us, Age.

This could end up being quite the UNDERSTATEMENT.

I can only go off what I see in the news.

There IS ACTUALLY FAR MORE, to GO OFF, then just what is in the so-called 'news'.

Not everyone reads the same news sources and not every news source reports everything a person perhaps needs to know.

Does the so-called 'news' even report what people NEED to know?

If yes, then WHAT HAPPENS to 'those' who do NOT get 'the news'?

If you are not in such a dilemma of potential ignorance as we are, then I commend you.

This here is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, and ONLY DETRACTS from what IS Truly IMPORTANT here.

In a sense, you are even very fortunate--more fortunate than those of us who can only think and do according to what little we understand about what is happening in the world.

Count yourself lucky or count yourself cursed or whatever you want to count yourself as. My only hope is that you are not yourself an "adult human being" at this moment in time. Or perhaps you need to become one yourself so that you can be blamed for all the world's problems by someone else who doesn't think of themselves as an "adult human being".

BUT, 'I' AM THE CAUSE of ALL OF the so-called 'world's' 'problems'.

'I' ALSO now KNOW the 'solution' to ALL of the so-called 'world's' 'problems'.

I know nothing about you, Age, but apparently, there are critics out there who think themselves immune to their own criticism by claiming to be something other than what everyone else around them is. Sadly I can relate to that feeling as well. Sometimes one has to be just an ordinary human being in order to understand better what other human beings say and do.

AND MAYBE one has ALREADY GONE THROUGH 'that scenario', and MOVED ALONG.

I wish you well Age (if that even amounts to or means anything real and substantial).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay. But you seemed to have taken ANOTHER HUGE side-step here and GONE down ANOTHER side-track.

But anyway, we SHALL PROCEED ON.

[Gary Childress]

Then, apparently, you seem to know more than you tell us, Age.

This could end up being quite the UNDERSTATEMENT.

Or it could end up being exactly what I think it means. Does that possibility also exist or does only the possibility of it being an "understatement" exist?

[Age]

THEREFORE, it is wise and prudent of human beings to care for the welfare and future of other species, perhaps even ALL other species so that we never find ourselves in such an ethical dilemma (death or cannibalism).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay. But does 'this' NOT somewhat CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIM that A 'human being' MUST eat other ANIMALS, (in order to sustain "its" 'self'?

I only said a human being needs to eat other living beings.

you ARE absolutely Right AND Correct here.

Now, WHEN you SAY, 'living beings', THEN who and/or what are you REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, if NOT OTHER (living) animals?

Is a plant, not a living being?

NOT, REALLY, FROM my perspective of 'things'.

Can a human being live healthy without any meat in their diet?

From what I have observed, Yes.

I've heard conflicting claims on that account.

Okay.

Or are you suggesting that human beings are "animals"

I am NOT suggesting 'this' AT ALL. I AM SAYING and CLAIMING that 'human beings' ARE animals, and/or ANOTHER 'type of' animal.

and therefore it is a contradiction to say that it is not "cannibalism" to eat other animals?

NO, I am NOT suggesting 'this', AT ALL.

Also, I WILL, AGAIN, suggest that IF, and WHEN, you DO SEEK OUT ACTUAL CLARITY that you do NOT ALLOW your OWN ASSUMPTIONS INTO the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS being posed and ASKED. This way ACTUALLY CLARITY can be OBTAINED MUCH MORE SIMPLER, EASIER, and SOONER.

Now, IF you would like to KNOW what my QUESTION was in RELATION TO, EXACTLY, then just let me KNOW, and I WILL INFORM you and LET you KNOW, ALSO.

[Age]

Since we have this particular structure, then we need to consider how AI ought to be used within it.

But ACCORDING to ALL the 'scare mongering' 'artificial intelligence' is GOING TO TAKE OVER, ANYWAY.

SO, what would be THE POINT of CONSIDERING HOW 'ought' some 'thing' be USED, when 'that thing' is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'artificially intelligent', and WILL, SUPPOSEDLY, BECOME MORE INTELLIGENT, than the ones how USE 'it', ANYWAY?

What was the WHOLE POINT in DREAMING UP, INVENTING, DESIGNING, and CREATING 'artificial intelligence' if NOT for 'it' to be ABLE TO START REPLICATING, and thus CREATING MORE and BETTER of "its" OWN 'self', that is; 'self-learning, self-producing, and self-replicating machines'?

And, was NOT the WHOLE POINT of ALL-OF-THIS just SO SOME PEOPLE could OBTAIN MORE MONEY?

Now, if 'that' was NOT DONE so that SOME PEOPLE could OBTAIN MORE MONEY, then WHAT WAS the ACTUAL POINT of CREATING such 'machines'?

You are making overgeneralizations,

WHERE and WHEN, EXACTLY?

perhaps engaged in "all or nothing" thinking, Age.

If you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF of WHERE I have PARTAKEN in such a 'thing', then just LET US KNOW WHERE and WHEN, EXACTLY?

Otherwise, PERHAPS I have NOT engaged AT ALL in 'this' here.

Not ALL "scare monger" about artificial intelligence.

AGAIN, you ARE EXACTLY and ABSOLUTELY Right AND Correct here.

NOT ALL 'scare mongering' IS ABOUT HOW 'artificial intelligence' IS GOING TO TAKE OVER.

MY APOLOGIES. I could have worded 'this' MUCH BETTER.

'ACCORDING to SOME of the 'scare mongering' ABOUT 'artificial intelligence', 'artificial intelligence' IS GOING TO TAKE OVER, ANYWAY'.

Does that sound BETTER, AT ALL, and/or MAKE MORE SENSE, now?

Some simply wish to ensure that artificial intelligence doesn't fall into the wrong hands and become a tool for "banal evil".

I would have 'thought' and HOPED that ALL of 'you', human beings, would WISH for 'this', AND MORE.

If Adolf Eichman can make the trains to Auschwitz run on time in an efficient manner, then it seems to me that some people could make artificially intelligent machines that might do much the same thing.

But is NOT one of the IDEAS of 'artificial intelligence' is that 'they', themselves, WORK OUT how TO DO, or RUN, 'things' MORE efficiently?

And there are also some who are so confident that artificial intelligence will solve all our problems and make the world better for us human beings that they harbor no caution at all.

REALLY?

There are ACTUALLY some human beings who ARE SO CONFIDENT that 'artificial intelligence' WILL SOLVE ALL of 'your' 'human being problems', AND, MAKE 'the world BETTER for 'you', human beings, ONLY?

Have you YET INFORMED those people that they are Truly DELUDED?

Such "scientists" remind me of Robert Oppenheimer. I wonder how Oppenheimer felt about being the creator of a weapon that could destroy all life on Earth, even if only used by accident by an otherwise ignorant person who didn't know what he or she was doing or why.

Do ANY of 'you', adult human beings, ACTUALLY KNOW what ANY of 'you' ARE DOING, here, and WHY?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?

[Gary Childress]

Okay. But does 'this' NOT somewhat CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIM that A 'human being' MUST eat other ANIMALS, (in order to sustain "its" 'self'?

I only said a human being needs to eat other living beings.

you ARE absolutely Right AND Correct here.

Now, WHEN you SAY, 'living beings', THEN who and/or what are you REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, if NOT OTHER (living) animals?

Is a plant, not a living being?

NOT, REALLY, FROM my perspective of 'things'.

Can a human being live healthy without any meat in their diet?

From what I have observed, Yes.

I've heard conflicting claims on that account.

Okay.

Or are you suggesting that human beings are "animals"

I am NOT suggesting 'this' AT ALL. I AM SAYING and CLAIMING that 'human beings' ARE animals, and/or ANOTHER 'type of' animal.

and therefore it is a contradiction to say that it is not "cannibalism" to eat other animals?

NO, I am NOT suggesting 'this', AT ALL.

Also, I WILL, AGAIN, suggest that IF, and WHEN, you DO SEEK OUT ACTUAL CLARITY that you do NOT ALLOW your OWN ASSUMPTIONS INTO the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS being posed and ASKED. This way ACTUALLY CLARITY can be OBTAINED MUCH MORE SIMPLER, EASIER, and SOONER.

Now, IF you would like to KNOW what my QUESTION was in RELATION TO, EXACTLY, then just let me KNOW, and I WILL INFORM you and LET you KNOW, ALSO.

OK. If eating only plants is a sustainable practice for a human being, then I will submit that we ought to eat only plants. What are some of your other recommendations for us adult human beings to improve the world?

[Age]

Then, apparently, you seem to know more than you tell us, Age.

This could end up being quite the UNDERSTATEMENT.

Or it could end up being exactly what I think it means.

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you 'think' 'it' MEANS?

Does that possibility also exist

I will NOT KNOW UNTIL you INFORM me, FIRST, of what you 'think' 'it' MEANS?

or does only the possibility of it being an "understatement" exist?

In case you were NOT YET AWARE I CHOSE the, 'This COULD end up being ...", for the VERY REASON of there BEING and EXISTING OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

[Gary Childress]

This could end up being quite the UNDERSTATEMENT.

Or it could end up being exactly what I think it means.

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you 'think' 'it' MEANS?

Does that possibility also exist

I will NOT KNOW UNTIL you INFORM me, FIRST, of what you 'think' 'it' MEANS?

or does only the possibility of it being an "understatement" exist?

In case you were NOT YET AWARE I CHOSE the, 'This COULD end up being ...", for the VERY REASON of there BEING and EXISTING OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

OK. Fair enough. My thought is that you do not have perfect information regarding what is happening in the world now. I know I don't. If you know a better way to be and know how to get us there, then I will listen.

[Age]

I only said a human being needs to eat other living beings.

you ARE absolutely Right AND Correct here.

Now, WHEN you SAY, 'living beings', THEN who and/or what are you REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, if NOT OTHER (living) animals?

Is a plant, not a living being?

NOT, REALLY, FROM my perspective of 'things'.

Can a human being live healthy without any meat in their diet?

From what I have observed, Yes.

I've heard conflicting claims on that account.

Okay.

Or are you suggesting that human beings are "animals"

I am NOT suggesting 'this' AT ALL. I AM SAYING and CLAIMING that 'human beings' ARE animals, and/or ANOTHER 'type of' animal.

and therefore it is a contradiction to say that it is not "cannibalism" to eat other animals?

NO, I am NOT suggesting 'this', AT ALL.

Also, I WILL, AGAIN, suggest that IF, and WHEN, you DO SEEK OUT ACTUAL CLARITY that you do NOT ALLOW your OWN ASSUMPTIONS INTO the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS being posed and ASKED. This way ACTUALLY CLARITY can be OBTAINED MUCH MORE SIMPLER, EASIER, and SOONER.

Now, IF you would like to KNOW what my QUESTION was in RELATION TO, EXACTLY, then just let me KNOW, and I WILL INFORM you and LET you KNOW, ALSO.

OK. If eating only plants is a sustainable practice for a human being, then I will submit that we ought to eat only plants. What are some of your other recommendations for us adult human beings to improve the world?

What we HAVE here is that the ACTUAL PROOF that WITHIN ALL of 'us' IS the ACTUAL KNOWING of what IS Truly Right, AND what IS Truly Wrong, in Life.

We just NEED TO DELVE DOWN DEEP ENOUGH, WHILE SEEKING ANSWERS, WITH and THROUGH the Truly OPEN and Right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

ALL it takes, and TOOK, was absolute Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want of CHANGING, for the better.

As "garry childress" has JUST SHOWN and PROVED, one CAN and WILL FIND the True and Right ANSWERS in Life, and all it REALLY TOOK was just the CURIOSITY of A 'child' to KEEP LEARNING, DISCOVERING, and UNDERSTANDING.

Now, I would NEVER suggest what 'you', adult human beings, 'ought to do', and I will NEVER, BLATANTLY, 'recommend' what 'you', adult human beings, 'should' NOR 'need' to do to IMPROVE the way 'you' LIVE in 'this world'. Unless, OF COURSE, ASKED, DIRECTLY.

See, like ALL 'children' do NOT necessarily LIKE to be TOLD what TO DO and what NOT TO DO, so to does this 'dislike' REMAIN INTO 'adulthood'. ONLY WHEN one FINDS OUT 'things' FOR, and BY, "themself", DIRECTLY, WHILE ALSO SEEING and UNDERSTANDING the HOW and the WHY, then, and ONLY THEN, 'they' feel Truly FREE to CHOOSE how 'to think' and in what way 'to behave', VOLUNTARILY.

But if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW my other 'recommendations' for 'you', adults, to IMPROVE the 'way you live', and thus then in return heal AND fix 'the world', then just START by BE-COMING:

1. Truly Honest about ALL of the Wrong that 'you' ALL DO. (After all the FIRST STEP to FIXING 'a problem' is to ADMIT that 'you' HAVE 'a problem'. And, 'the ACTUAL so-called 'problem' to ALL of the so-called 'world's problems' IS 'you', adult human beings).

2. Be FULLY and truly Open. By BEING Absolutely Honest, then you just Naturally become Truly OPEN anyway. It is ONLY WHEN one is Truly OPEN that they are THEN able to Truly LEARN. And, WHEN one is Truly OPEN then they cannot NOT LEARN.

3. Seriously Want to CHANGE, for the BETTER. There is, literally, NO USE in WANTING TO CHANGE, for the WORSE. So, while just being Truly Honest, about one's Wrong doing, and being Truly OPEN,while just ALWAYS, seriously, Wanting to CHANGE, for the BETTER, then that IS 'my recommendation' of H.O.W. ALL of 'you', adult human beings, can BEGIN to IMPROVE 'the world', and thus 'way of life and living', for EVERY one.

I COULD, and WOULD, carry on for ages if I do NOT STOP here, now.

[Age]

Or it could end up being exactly what I think it means.

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you 'think' 'it' MEANS?

Does that possibility also exist

I will NOT KNOW UNTIL you INFORM me, FIRST, of what you 'think' 'it' MEANS?

or does only the possibility of it being an "understatement" exist?

In case you were NOT YET AWARE I CHOSE the, 'This COULD end up being ...", for the VERY REASON of there BEING and EXISTING OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

OK. Fair enough. My thought is that you do not have perfect information regarding what is happening in the world now.

Okay. I do NOT and would NOT EXPECT ANY one, in 'your days', to EVER think that someone would have 'perfect information' regarding what IS happening in 'the world', in the days when this is being written, or in 'other days'.

I know I don't. If you know a better way to be and know how to get us there, then I will listen.

GREAT.

Here we HAVE A True SIGN of Intelligence, in 'its' Truest FORM. That is; the Drive or Desire TO LISTEN, AND LEARN.

Which, by the way, IS the EXACT DRIVER and DESIRE that WAS IN ALL of 'you', AT BIRTH.

ALL of 'you', AT BIRTH, were NOT CLOSED OFF to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL, and Truly DESIRED TO LEARN, and GROW. Which is WHY it only took 'you' ALL REALLY ONLY just a few months to LEARN a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE, AND WITHOUT the ACTUAL 'definitions' of words EVER HAVING TO BE EXPLAINED and TOLD, TO 'you'. YET, SADLY and UNFORTUNATELY, 'you' gradually BECAME CLOSED OFF to 'things' the 'older' 'you' got, and get.

(By the way, some of the words USED here are ACTUALLY Incorrect and Inaccurate, but LEARNING NEW 'things' can be and is a SLOW and GRADUAL process, sometimes. ALL depending on HOW OPEN or CLOSED one is. Anyway, I sometimes USE words in A WAY that 'you', adults, will 'readily' and 'somewhat' UNDERSTAND, UNTIL the ACTUAL Truth IS introduced, TO 'you'.)

[Dubious]

It couldn't be worse than the million years it took to create it.

[Dubious]

Note, for all the seemingly sophisticated thought and language, the moral indifference born of unintelligence. Here, ChatGPT exhibits something like the banality of evil: plagiarism and apathy and obviation. It summarizes the standard arguments in the literature by a kind of super-autocomplete, refuses to take a stand on anything, pleads not merely ignorance but lack of intelligence and ultimately offers a “just following orders” defense, shifting responsibility to its creators.

...not unlike humans who have stood before tribunals wondering why they're picked on when others on the other side have done the same.

Also, why pick on ChatGPT as an indication of what happens in the future? At this point, in spite of its obvious sophistication, it exists purely as a public domain online service mostly for entertainment; the real breakthroughs will happen behind closed doors from which the public, as a whole, will be excluded.

Right now Chat is simply the most successful simulation of intelligence (as far as we know) not unlike most politicians who always keep repeating the conventional, the expected and all such functional mantras within their inventory of responses...not unlike how ChatGPT itself would respond to such questions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Also, why pick on ChatGPT as an indication of what happens in the future? At this point, in spite of its obvious sophistication, it exists purely as a public domain online service mostly for entertainment; the real breakthroughs will happen behind closed doors from which the public, as a whole, will be excluded.

If this is so why do you think there are some (Elon Musk for example though there must be others)(?) who say things like "People are simply not aware of what is going to hit them", comparing the AI revolution to a huge, disruptive and problematic event?

And it is absolutely not only for entertainment. From what (little) I understand 'it' (AI) is going everywhere.

[Dubious]

Also, why pick on ChatGPT as an indication of what happens in the future? At this point, in spite of its obvious sophistication, it exists purely as a public domain online service mostly for entertainment; the real breakthroughs will happen behind closed doors from which the public, as a whole, will be excluded.

If this is so why do you think there are some (Elon Musk for example though there must be others)(?) who say things like "People are simply not aware of what is going to hit them", comparing the AI revolution to a huge, disruptive and problematic event?

And it is absolutely not only for entertainment. From what (little) I understand 'it' (AI) is going everywhere.

No doubt it's going everywhere while remaining a simulation of intelligence applicable to just about everything. Most people are themselves nothing more than walking functions trained in some disciplines while remaining overall conventional in their thinking. Humans, like machines are force-fed either by education or programming to commit to a function. Many of these functions will be taken over by AI, obviously to the detriment of many professionals causing major disruptions. It doesn't take Elon Musk to tell us that.

It's also a fact that we're still far away from achieving an "I" motivated semi-conscious entity. In the meantime, it's the ever expanding sophistication of the purely mechanical elements of AI we are forced to contend with and adapt to.

The industrial revolution as well as the computer revolution, wherein much that was only analog was transcribed into digital, forcing a paradigm shift, are instances of these disruptions. One reason they become extreme is because they aren't synchronized in terms of congruently adapting to each other in the field of time; one always moves forward while the other lags. But that's the way it has always been, beginning with hunter societies turning into agricultural ones.

[Agent Smith]

What's wrong with Mr. Wong?

He's 54 years of age, moved to Colorado in the 70s. He says he feels weak, is experiencing episodes of dizziness.

Anything else?

Nope. That's all. Well? Interesting/not interesting?

Very, very, interesting. Call me when you have his blood reports.

Can!

Bye!

[Flannel Jesus]

The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations.

I don't know if this has been challenged by anyone else yet, but I'm personally not confident that you're correct here. I find it immensely plausible that the human mind, especially at the sub conscious layer, is very much operating like chat gpt in these ways. Especially with our language processing.

In fact, I recently brought up to a friend the idea that that's the reason comedy works. If we have a language model similar to gpt in our heads, what if standup comedy makes us laugh in some way because it surprises our mental language model? In our heads we are listening to a sentence by a comedian and he says a word that we just were absolutely not expecting to follow the previous words, it's a surprising but compelling connection that wasn't being made by our own language model - what if THAT'S comedy?

Maybe it's not but I've spoken to a few people who find it at least a compelling thought experiment.

https://news.mit.edu/2021/artificial-in ... guage-1025

"Neuroscientists find the internal workings of next-word prediction models resemble those of language-processing centers in the brain."

I'm not meaning to imply that's ALL that's happening in the brain, but that it's very plausibly a huge part of it