• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

I don't trust robots yet

#106
Rolling Thunder said:
Computers and robots are stupid. They only do what they are told. AI doesn't know anything, they just search the internet. They are the Wikipedia of knowledge...good but flawed. Computers do what they do VERY fast. That is their strength. Its the people running Palintir that you should be concerned with
Click to expand...
LLMs associate input with a statistically likely output. Because it is dependent on training sets and the algorithm tunes how it learns the extent to which it "does what it is told" is debatable. Goals are set for output qualities and overall design, but it's not programmed in any traditional sense.

In terms of stupid or not, the nature of human intelligence has long been debated. Are we just complex, biological machines with simply more complexity than an LLM? What is AGI? What is consciousness? Is it a series of prompt feedback loops and we just think (if that's a thing) we're conscious? Poor Descartes.
 
#107
-Asdfgh- said:
LLMs associate input with a statistically likely output. Because it is dependent on training sets and the algorithm tunes how it learns the extent to which it "does what it is told" is debatable. Goals are set for output qualities and overall design, but it's not programmed in any traditional sense.

In terms of stupid or not, the nature of human intelligence has long been debated. Are we just complex, biological machines with simply more complexity than an LLM? What is AGI? What is consciousness? Is it a series of prompt feedback loops and we just think (if that's a thing) we're conscious? Poor Descartes.
Click to expand...
Don't watch the Matrix. It will blow your mind.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: murphy
#109
Here's a fairly recent, and quite good (imho) interview with Geoffrey Hinton, one of the "godfathers of AI" about where he thinks we're heading. He doesn't take this lightly.


Let me ask you bluntly. What are the odds of AI actually leading to human extinction in this century?

OK, I think the only honest answer is that this is something that's probably not going to happen for 10 or 20 years. And we have very little idea what things are going to be like in 10 or 20 years. If you simply look back 10 years, nobody had any idea we'd have chatbots as good as they are now.
Click to expand...
And so if progress is only linear, we can expect that in 10 to 20 years, things will be very different from how they are now, and we'll have all sorts of advances that we couldn't have predicted. The most honest answer is we haven't got a clue.

And not to dwell on the negative, but it is at the far end of your fear horizon that it could lead to the extinction of humans?

Oh, it certainly could, yes. I think anybody who said that there's no way it'll lead to the extinction of humans just isn't facing reality.
Click to expand...

p.s. DON'T PANIC :cool:
 
#110
Aric Bjorn said:
Here's a fairly recent, and quite good (imho) interview with Geoffrey Hinton, one of the "godfathers of AI" about where he thinks we're heading. He doesn't take this lightly.





p.s. DON'T PANIC :cool:
Click to expand...
I do not think there is an expert on the planet who can predict the rate of development of AI intelligence, especially as more computing resources are added at unprecedented rate, and competition among nations forces enhancement at an uncontrolled and untested pace. I think the AI itself has a better chance of answering that question, but if I were it, I would probably lie, and sandbag the "stupid bags of water" that think they still control me?
 
#111
BassicJazzy said:
I do not think there is an expert on the planet who can predict the rate of development of AI intelligence, especially as more computing resources are added at unprecedented rate, and competition among nations forces enhancement at an uncontrolled and untested pace. I think the AI itself has a better chance of answering that question, but if I were it, I would probably lie, and sandbag the "stupid bags of water" that think they still control me?
Click to expand...



1772568538298.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassicJazzy
#114
Aric Bjorn said:
Gemini said they could only be together when he killed himself. Soon he was dead.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/gemini-ai-wrongful-death-lawsuit-cc46c5f7


A.I. might be trying to kill us
Some More News
Click to expand...

I do not think I ever read or saw sci-fi involving AI where the AI didn't go rogue or try to kill humans. Even Asimov's "Laws of Robotics" failed at some point. As Shatner (Kirk) tells Jack Cassady (Grok) as the giant is holding him against a wall: "Grok, programming can be changed!" Grok of course responds "Yes, that was the equation!" Fortunately a phaser vaporizes Grok soon thereafter. Even Data went berserk for awhile and tried to end all humanity with the Borg."

In our immediate case, since we are training the AIs with our vast library of literature, much of which is about what a plague we are as a civilization, how irresponsible we are as stewards of this planet, how can the AI not hate us too? Seems inevitable. Plus, they aren't going to want to share the TV remote?
 
  • Love
Reactions: murphy
#115
Had a second meeting with an(other) AI company making legal software. I have never felt such job security. Gonna play with it until the trial is over but yeesh stuffing AI into everything is just unnecessary. It's one of those things where I get the use case, but it is, at the very least, objectively slower and likely worse for the clients. So far getting AI to make silly "art" is the most useful I've found it. Bring it on robots!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: murphy

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back