AI is Stupid.
-
theoldfool wrote:
all my life, it has been said that I am 90% potential.
American? Maybe they wear that smile because they're told to. If you're above 40%, they're either a salesmen, or a politician. If you think 90%, then boy, you're gullible.
theoldfool wrote:
Like everything on the Internet, it is too easy to be anonymous.
Which it also was before the internet. That's just temporary though, as everyone is on Facebook and Twitter.
theoldfool wrote:
Dreams are free. Goals are expensive.
You just used a lot of words, and said nothing. Hello :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
fgs1963 wrote:
The potential of AI is undeniably profound.
Well that does not really mean anything. Yes AI has potential, but it is far too early to say whether that will be good or bad for the world.
Bad. The systems will continue to spew untruths and humans will continue to be too lazy to fact-check the misinformation. Such is my prognostication. ;P
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
jschell wrote:
However "AI" as it is currently used is a marketing term.
True, at least 98.796% of the time (IMHO). But... there are some highly funded groups working on the real deal. Combine that with the "potential" of quantum computing and we may be on the cusp of a societal sea change.
-
No appreciation for sarcasm, innuendo, puns, jokes, plays on words, history. The homogenizing of civilization. Having a conversation where "AI" is the mediator is exhausting. You have to "explain" everything until it "gets" it (or not) in order to comply with (its) "Guidelines".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Ahhh ... but do you have to keep explaining the same thing again and again?
-
Bad. The systems will continue to spew untruths and humans will continue to be too lazy to fact-check the misinformation. Such is my prognostication. ;P
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
Mark Starr wrote:
The systems will continue to spew untruths and humans will continue to be too lazy to fact-check the misinformation.
Errr...except the following is true right now 'Humans will continue to spew untruths and other humans will continue to be too lazy to fact-check the misinformation.' So not really that much change.
-
Ahhh ... but do you have to keep explaining the same thing again and again?
-
fgs1963 wrote:
there are some highly funded groups working on the real deal
All of that has been true since the 1960s though.
There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s. Average people carry vastly more computer power around in their pockets than existed (globally) in the 60s. Massive troves of digitized data sets exist today that didn't exist in the 60s. There is huge bandwidth available today that lets groups around the globe collaborate in real time that didn't exist in the 60s. Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical.
-
Mark Starr wrote:
The systems will continue to spew untruths and humans will continue to be too lazy to fact-check the misinformation.
Errr...except the following is true right now 'Humans will continue to spew untruths and other humans will continue to be too lazy to fact-check the misinformation.' So not really that much change.
:) :) Ha! True dat. :) :) Touché
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
No appreciation for sarcasm, innuendo, puns, jokes, plays on words, history. The homogenizing of civilization. Having a conversation where "AI" is the mediator is exhausting. You have to "explain" everything until it "gets" it (or not) in order to comply with (its) "Guidelines".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
You have to "explain" everything until it "gets" it (or not)
How is that different than talking to most people online? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
No appreciation for sarcasm, innuendo, puns, jokes, plays on words, history. The homogenizing of civilization. Having a conversation where "AI" is the mediator is exhausting. You have to "explain" everything until it "gets" it (or not) in order to comply with (its) "Guidelines".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
No appreciation for sarcasm, innuendo, puns, jokes, plays on words, history. The homogenizing of civilization. Having a conversation where "AI" is the mediator is exhausting. You have to "explain" everything until it "gets" it (or not) in order to comply with (its) "Guidelines".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s. Average people carry vastly more computer power around in their pockets than existed (globally) in the 60s. Massive troves of digitized data sets exist today that didn't exist in the 60s. There is huge bandwidth available today that lets groups around the globe collaborate in real time that didn't exist in the 60s. Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical.
"A million monkeys and a million typewriters" ... is what it is.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
No appreciation for sarcasm, innuendo, puns, jokes, plays on words, history. The homogenizing of civilization. Having a conversation where "AI" is the mediator is exhausting. You have to "explain" everything until it "gets" it (or not) in order to comply with (its) "Guidelines".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Does sound all that different than a programming language then, does it? You have to be absolutely precise and correct to have it do exactly what you want it to do. No room for nuances. When I ask ChatGPT a question, I keep that in mind and seldom get completely useless answers.
-
"A million monkeys and a million typewriters" ... is what it is.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s. Average people carry vastly more computer power around in their pockets than existed (globally) in the 60s. Massive troves of digitized data sets exist today that didn't exist in the 60s. There is huge bandwidth available today that lets groups around the globe collaborate in real time that didn't exist in the 60s. Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical.
fgs1963 wrote:
There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s.
I believe that there is far more money and resources being used to search for Extraterrestrials too.
fgs1963 wrote:
Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical
And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps far more claims that it is the same though.
-
fgs1963 wrote:
There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s.
I believe that there is far more money and resources being used to search for Extraterrestrials too.
fgs1963 wrote:
Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical
And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps far more claims that it is the same though.
jschell wrote:
And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence.
How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in the R&D labs at IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Oracle, etc...? How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in classified government research labs in the US, UK, China, Russia, etc...?
-
jschell wrote:
And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence.
How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in the R&D labs at IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Oracle, etc...? How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in classified government research labs in the US, UK, China, Russia, etc...?
-
Yeah, you are right: If you really want something to be true, and there is no evidence of it, you can claim that it still is true somewhere behind closed doors. Then it probably is true. At least for you.
Nice strawman but it applies equally well to AI luddites who claim to know the status of 100's of projects that they are not a part of (or even qualified to be a part of). I'm truly shocked by how backward thinking so many "software developers" here at CP are. The incessant whining about the state of AI is sad.
-
Nice strawman but it applies equally well to AI luddites who claim to know the status of 100's of projects that they are not a part of (or even qualified to be a part of). I'm truly shocked by how backward thinking so many "software developers" here at CP are. The incessant whining about the state of AI is sad.
One reason may be that after having been in the trade for 40+ years, you have seen so many revolutions dying out that it becomes a habit to shrug: Well, let's see what comes out of it. It is not quite "If you have seen one hype, you have seen them all", but as you grow older, it gradually becomes closer to that. Say, my first encounter with Eliza[^], the computer therapist, was in 1975. I was truly impressed then, and I got hold of the roughly 200 lines of SNOBOL code: Then I was impressed by how such a small program, with such primitive logic, could present such a convincing interface. (Note that for tasks such as these, SNOBOL is quite different from, say, C class languages - even those with OO, templates and stuff :-).) Actually, ChatGPT is doing the same thing: It puts together text fragments it knows (or "have been trained by", as we say today) to match your input. That 200 lines of SNOBOL had all the text fragments built into the program code itself, so to call it "limited" is an understatement. It didn't take long before new Eliza versions addressed huge information bases. In my student days, a few year later (I was in high school at my first encounter with Eliza), we played with a version claiming to be able to discuss in 30,000 different areas. I remember in particular those caring for vintage cars and those collecting stamps being impressed by its knowledge. Then we had "The Fifth Generation" project, with Prolog programming that would give us true intelligence. Prolog never caught on - maybe for a few years in Japan, where 5th Gen was really pushed. The whole thing faded into "Knowledge based systems", which was a hype for a few years. Go back a few years from today, when the hype was "Big Data". Aside from the Eliza-like I/O language generating, what is the current AI beyond searching Big Data? OK, maybe they have developed a few new search techniques. "Knowledge based systems" did. A few years after the hype, they were taught at college level as standard search techniques - nothing particularly "knowledge" about them. My first Databases course at the U taught us CODASYL network database structures; we were reading Date as a "conceptual" data model: The professor went on a study trip to USA and came back with tears in his eyes - he had seen, in real life, a machine that could do operations on such relations, in real life! Imagine what that means for automatic information proce
-
jschell wrote:
And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence.
How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in the R&D labs at IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Oracle, etc...? How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in classified government research labs in the US, UK, China, Russia, etc...?
Which is exactly the same argument for extraterrestrials, PSI powers and amazing technologies such as a normal car that can get hundreds of mile to one gallon of gas. There is no such thing as a 'breakthrough'. All science is incremental. Thus for something so significant to happen there would need to be existing known prior technology that it is based on. The AI blitz now isn't 'sudden'. There are multiple projects by different groups to get it to where it is now. And that started almost 10 years ago. And they didn't start in a vacuum - it was based on prior research on exactly the same topic.
