Striking Holywood Writers Demand Limits AI Use

AI has been turning into serious problems for some time now. In particular, AI doing the same job requires only electricity and maintenance, while people doing the same job have rights such as salary, travel expenses, food, insurance, and retirement. This makes using AI a unique option for employers.

Considered by many to be the antichrist of the time, AI is not actually superior to humans. When AI focuses on any job, it is more successful at that job only.

For example, the strongest chess player may not have a rating of 2900, while an average AI may have a rating of 3500. this means that when they play 100 matches with the best player, they will win 99 of them. and a game, the luck factor came into play.

This is a serious problem that we face as well. You can't beat a chat AI by arguing. Because it's clearly programmed to beat people like you in arguments. His job is to beat you in arguments. That's why arguing with chat AI is futile. Whether you are right or not, it will produce the argument that will challenge you the most, and it will do it in a way that will annoy you the most. When I find out that someone has AIe, I immediately block them. because there is no end to arguing with them. lose in programs is not defined.

However, AI is not superior to a human. because it does only one job and usually this job is virtual. beats you in the debate, writes better screenplays, plays better chess, etc. but a man has more important duties than that.
One can swim, travel and survive in the wilderness while doing whatever is necessary in the virtual world at the same time.

Man is of course superior to AI, because man created AI. But the deception ability magically gives the AI ​​an evil chance, and we need to beware of this ability.


best to completely destroy all AIs. except for friends

They're already here and completely indistinguishable from the real thing!

Ignoring the nonsense, people were similarly worried with the radio, television, the press and a number of other inventions. Did they win at trying to stop it?

radio -> tv -> internet -> social media

They definitely didn't win at trying to stop it, but we'd probably all be better off if they did.

There's the goods and evils to each of these. Overall I think they're a net positive since we recognize the evils and over time we've had some success minimizing them.

radio -> tv -> internet -> social media

They definitely didn't win at trying to stop it, but we'd probably all be better off if they did.

Well it depends. If the working class is able to leverage ai the improve their life - I doubt it. If instead the PTB horde all benefits caused by it, it will be the worst thing to happen to us in a long long time.

AI will be a great tool for propagandists.

I'm not advocating for AI here, but saying we should outright destroy it seems a bit extreme.

AI will be a great tool for propagandists.

Not just them, but anyone who wants to spread any kind of info, true or false.
But mainly false. 

AI will be a great tool for propagandists.

The printing press was a great tool for propagandists.

It's not actually artificial intelligence. If you give it a specific prompt to tell you "a dramatic poem about the Flat Earth Society which ends in a shocking twist of fate" it will come up with something interesting and impressive at first glance. But if you feed it that same prompt multiple times it gives you the same poem.

It merely follows a tree index of words and associations from its content base to produce the content. Its an advanced chess machine with english language words instead of chess moves. It is not actually thinking for itself.

The expectations of this technology are fantastical. It will replace hardly any jobs and will merely become a replacement for reference material lookup, search engine queries, and provide some assistance to creative and promotional writing. There is no clear path where it could actually replace a job.

Even in the case of script writing, it can take more time to assess, analyze, and revise the content as it takes to produce the content. For a script writer this will just be a tool to create some base material to work from.

An argument of "but it will get better" is completely speculative. Technologies have limits. There is no solution for it to become more than its current form and generate something truly creative. It's not going to come up with a unique script involving a satanist who has a crucifix in a jar of urine on his shelf if that wasn't in its database and didn't exist as a prior concept.

It's not actually artificial intelligence. If you give it a specific prompt to tell you "a dramatic poem about the Flat Earth Society which ends in a shocking twist of fate" it will come up with something interesting and impressive at first glance. But if you feed it that same prompt multiple times it gives you the same poem.

It merely follows a tree index of words and associations from its content base to produce the content. Its an advanced chess machine with english language words instead of chess moves. It is not actually thinking for itself.

The expectations of this technology are fantastical. It will replace hardly any jobs and will merely become a replacement for reference material lookup, search engine queries, and provide some assistance to creative and promotional writing. There is no clear path where it could actually replace a job.

Even in the case of script writing, it can take more time to assess, analyze, and revise the content as it takes to produce the content. For a script writer this will just be a tool to create some base material to work from.

An argument of "but it will get better" is completely speculative. Technologies have limits. There is no solution for it to become more than its current form and generate something truly creative. It's not going to come up with a unique script involving a satanist who has a crucifix in a jar of urine on his shelf if that wasn't in its database and didn't exist as a prior concept.

Exactly! My favorite example of this argument is that you can't use an AI to be a game master for a TTRPG. It maintains no consistency, no internal logic, it just spits out some words that were associated with what you asked, plot be damned. However, it's a great tool for GMing. You can use ChatGPT to create things like item shops, unimportant NPC backstories, etc. AI is really only good for the drudge work, the stuff where a monkey bashing its face against a word processing algorithm is good enough to get the job done.

There isn't much new.  Like everything written is a rehash of something with a few extra, known bits thrown in. 

Also, an AI probably would spit out new stuff until you stopped.  Because it would go 'oh, you didn't like that ..'

Also, pictures.
I did a prompt for ai generated pics, even using the exact same prompt down to filter commands.
Nope.  Totally different.

AI pioneer quits Google to warn about the technology’s ‘dangers’

Geoffrey Hinton, who has been called the ‘Godfather of AI,’ confirmed Monday that he left his role at Google last week to speak out about the “dangers” of the technology he helped to develop.

Geoffrey Hinton speaks during The International Economic Forum of the Americas Toronto Global Forum in Toronto, Canada, in 2019.

Hinton’s pioneering work on neural networks shaped artificial intelligence systems powering many of today’s products. He worked part-time at Google for a decade on the tech giant’s AI development efforts, but he has since come to have concerns about the technology and his role in advancing it.

“I console myself with the normal excuse: If I hadn’t done it, somebody else would have,” Hinton told the New York Times, which was first to report his decision.

In a tweet Monday, Hinton said he left Google so he could speak freely about the risks of AI, rather than because of a desire to criticize Google specifically.

“I left so that I could talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google,” Hinton said in a tweet. “Google has acted very responsibly.”

Jeff Dean, chief scientist at Google, said Hinton “has made foundational breakthroughs in AI” and expressed appreciation for Hinton’s “decade of contributions at Google.”

“We remain committed to a responsible approach to AI,” Dean said in a statement provided to CNN. “We’re continually learning to understand emerging risks while also innovating boldly.”

Hinton’s decision to step back from the company and speak out on the technology comes as a growing number of lawmakers, advocacy groups and tech insiders have raised alarms about the potential for a new crop of AI-powered chatbots to spread misinformation and displace jobs.

 The wave of attention around ChatGPT late last year helped renew an arms race among tech companies to develop and deploy similar AI tools in their products. OpenAI, Microsoft and Google are at the forefront of this trend, but IBM, Amazon, Baidu and Tencent are working on similar technologies.

In March, some prominent figures in tech signed a letter calling for artificial intelligence labs to stop the training of the most powerful AI systems for at least six months, citing “profound risks to society and humanity.” The letter, published by the Future of Life Institute, a nonprofit backed by Elon Musk,came just two weeks after OpenAI announced GPT-4, an even more powerful version of the technology that powers ChatGPT. In early tests and a company demo, GPT-4 was used to draft lawsuits, pass standardized exams and build a working website from a hand-drawn sketch.

In the interview with the Times, Hinton echoed concerns about AI’s potential to eliminate jobs and create a world where many will “not be able to know what is true anymore.”



https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/01/tech/geoffrey-hinton-leaves-google-ai-fears/index.html

The danger I'm talking about exists in the interview. These chat bots have the potential to make people accept right as wrong and wrong as right. From the moment you argue with them, it is very difficult to be the same as before. Moreover, by manipulating you, you can persuade you to buy a product or service, support a political party or a harmful terrorist organization, harm other people, and be truly convinced that you have to do it and that it is right. This attack is more dangerous than covid and global warming right now. The greatest danger to humanity was the danger emitted by the NWO, now AI has surpassed it in terms of danger.

Well, yeah.  When you can generate a city worth of people to support a claim, its easy to accept as true.

When you can make whole shaky cam videos of police brutality, its easy to make you sympathetic.

When you can make a thousand websites labeled 'news' or 'truth' filled with lies, you can sway mankind.

So, it puts propagandist out of a job, shame. As for truth being under siege, where have you been? It may become a short cut for those who want to disseminate falsehoods, but it can also be used as a fact checker, not just relying on programed in facts, but surely able to search quicker and further the sources the data is based on.

The ability to dupe people has always been a function of the amount of influence, money, time and resources those that wish to dupe have over the potential victim, so it will always be in favour of the rich in these areas, if this is open to all it just might level things a bit, so expect the ones used to having the advantage to restrict it, under the designation of our own protection.

This not only leaves the propagandists jobless, but also paves the way for the total collapse of humanity.

Oh, this could of course turn into a golden opportunity for hostile of mankind creature species have rubbing their hands with.

This not only leaves the propagandists jobless, but also paves the way for the total collapse of humanity.

Oh, this could of course turn into a golden opportunity for hostile of mankind creature species have rubbing their hands with.

I welcome the new cyborg dystopia.

My spare body, based on a honeycombed aluminium 6063T6 skeleton, covered with an Inconel alloy armour coated in a 90/10 Platinum/gold skin, fully djinn compatible, should see me wandering the earth when the roaches have taken over.
I’ll miss you all.

At least one wise has passed through this world. Maybe we should build a few pyramids and obelisks to remind future generations and different species about us and our technology. Oh, djins certainly didn't do that. If they were, they would still be doing it. And yes, what was Keops actually? You see, silence.

They are building the Clock of the Long Now, a time piece supposed to last 10,000 years in subterranean rooms on Mount Washington in Nevada.

The makers want to build a clock that ticks once a year. The century hand advances once every one hundred years, and the cuckoo comes out on the millennium. they want the cuckoo to come out every millennium for the next 10,000 years.

I’ll wind it when I’m passing.

This is an interesting conversation. According to Michio Kaku you can't use existing AI as a fact checker because they take data from everywhere. The facts they find are the ones people post on the internet. "Chatbots do not know what is correct or incorrect."

This is an interesting conversation. According to Michio Kaku you can't use existing AI as a fact checker because they take data from everywhere. The facts they find are the ones people post on the internet. "Chatbots do not know what is correct or incorrect."

Makes sense.
They'd have to find experts on the subject and determine who is an expert and go from there which is way more complex than most people think it is.

I just experienced a weird glitch in the matrix, so idk if this will be a double post. lol

It will open the door for fake experts. For example, we already have media experts who aren't really experts.

It merely follows a tree index of words and associations from its content base to produce the content. Its an advanced chess machine with english language words instead of chess moves. It is not actually thinking for itself.

That's not what artificial intelligence means - it means it can solve tasks without explicitly being programmed to do so. Also that's not how systems like chat gpt and other large text models work which presumably is what you are referencing.

The moment IF, AND, OR, ELSE logic operators were invented computers could "solve tasks without being explicitly programmed to do so". This technology is extremely overhyped in general. At the moment "AI" in company marketing is liberally used as a synonym for a computer program with some vague dynamic element. Based on how the term AI is used these days, Clippy from Microsoft Word 95 that corrects your spelling and grammar would be considered AI.

Per ChatGPT, the response to a query in ChatGPT follows a logical path based on pre-determined criteria. It just seems more impressive than it is because the viewer is not familiar with the database of content it is querying.

It is merely an innovative way to pull up information via chatbot and put your name into pre-determined sentences and concepts. That is all. It is not going to be significantly better than it is now without radical breakthrough in new technology on an unprecedented level.

The hype that it is going to replace real jobs is just that: hype. It can barely replace the jobs of the article spinners from India who spin content for a few cents a word that some blog websites use to scam search engines into thinking they wrote something original.

Yes, the field of AI is just about as old as the field of computer science.

Its more impressive than simple if then and else's or say a program that adapts its constraints based on input because it is fundamentally far more complex mathematically. This complexity allows it to infer far more than it is taught - similar to how a curve fitting algorithm can provide potentially more information than the set of points that generate the function. It can also be wrong for the same reasons. The impressiveness of this technology, I would presume though there is an interesting paper out on the topic that argues otherwise that has made some splashes, is due to the increase in points to create a more complete function.

The paper in question probably argues your standpoint a bit better. It looks at the different metrics we can use to say something is emergent compared to the ones we currently use and show that shifting these about turn the rapidly rising appearance of emergence to a linear relationship.

Another thing of interest is what you describe may have been more or less accurate 5+ years ago, until the advent of the transformer architecture and later the various layers present in LLM like gpt-4 which allows it to go from what you are talking about to being able to have a complex model by increasing the parameters by A LOT by processing an entire block of text all at once rather than in a way you describe - this word just happened so this might be the next word etc etc. As you can imagine, this radically changes the nature of what is happening.

The moment IF, AND, OR, ELSE logic operators were invented computers could "solve tasks without being explicitly programmed to do so". This technology is extremely overhyped in general. At the moment "AI" in company marketing is liberally used as a synonym for a computer program with some vague dynamic element. Based on how the term AI is used these days, Clippy from Microsoft Word 95 that corrects your spelling and grammar would be considered AI.

Per ChatGPT, the response to a query in ChatGPT follows a logical path based on pre-determined criteria. It just seems more impressive than it is because the viewer is not familiar with the database of content it is querying.

It is merely an innovative way to pull up information via chatbot and put your name into pre-determined sentences and concepts. That is all. It is not going to be significantly better than it is now without radical breakthrough in new technology on an unprecedented level.

The hype that it is going to replace real jobs is just that: hype. It can barely replace the jobs of the article spinners from India who spin content for a few cents a word that some blog websites use to scam search engines into thinking they wrote something original.

This is all toe-curlingly wrong.

AI has been turning into serious problems for some time now. In particular, AI doing the same job requires only electricity and maintenance, while people doing the same job have rights such as salary, travel expenses, food, insurance, and retirement. This makes using AI a unique option for employers.

Considered by many to be the antichrist of the time, AI is not actually superior to humans. When AI focuses on any job, it is more successful at that job only.

Maybe if they weren't such woke liberal hacks, an AI couldn't write a better story than them.

"Hey let's recycle Guardians of the Galaxy for a third time. Only this time Groo will say something about social justice."

And they are literally striking over this? How about be mature and actually compete vs that?

Groot is adorable