About AI and ChatGPT

[ThrillingHuman]

You can reject any good idea with that argument. Computers, internet, and smartphones, not to search far.

I could and I would not be wrong. Computers, internet and smartphones have indeed largely contributed a lot to the growing problems of the modern society

 

[georgelee5786]

AI cannot be used to replace humans. That's all I've got to say on the matter.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

I'd really like to agree with you on that, but when I think about my physics teacher who talks to people in high school like to to grade schoolers and asked me where did I make a mistake when I asked her about calculating thermal energy with integrals instead of linear equations, then I really think a neural network would do a better job.

It might not be a great teacher, but it would at least do the job properly, pay attention to students, and have the knowledge and attitude (even if it's only as much as thinking them capable) that people in high school expect. It would certainly be an improvement comparing to trying to learn by yourself watching videos on Youtube.

It might not be a great teacher but should it become available it will be the only one not too long after - and that is the problem, not some individual beef you have against your teacher.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

The thing is the vast majority of people are driven by ideology when in 'public'. The comments section is a public area, so they wear their public mask. It is publically acceptable to shame a man for struggling with intimacy, and so they do so without thought. It is important to recognize that most people live their lives inuitively and are not actually aware of theur actions or the consequences of them.

For example. My friends in public, spew socialist rhetoric, because it is expected, and to not do so would end their social lives. Yet in private they're just the average fencesitter, who wants to own a house and have a family. They never even noticed that they acted this way, and when I (foolishly) pointed this out to them, they tried to change their public face(to disastrous results).

It's quite likely that if the people from that comments section were taken into a one on one enviroment, only a fraction of them would actually spew vitriol at the man, while the rest would be supportive. A small chunk might even want to pursue the idea further like you had stated, and see how this ai could improve humanities state of being.

no, comment sections ARENT public. Not in the way you seem to think they are. The internet is the one place where people can be anonymous. None of your fucks know who i am in real life or if anything i've ever said here was true actually. I could be a child molester or a fucking oil tycoon for all anyone knows.

The internet allows people to be so anoymous. And with that comes the bravery to speak what they truly feel and believe. Sometimes people DO make up stories about themselves and try to pretend they are something they aren't.

Group mentality is a thing, SURE. But when its on the internet, no i dont believe its as prevalent. There's no peer pressure here. No consequence for saying anything other than a banning, which who the fuck cares about a slap on the wrist like that? Its just a collection of like-minded asshats. No one can force you to think like they do or say the things they agree with here. So if you ARE part of a group who is gonna trash on a person just for having an AI waifu and are gonna say its sick or creepy....then all that means is you're that kind of bitch anyway. Cant let people enjoy shit.

I mean some people would scour comment sections and see what the majority opinion is just so they can conform and be part of the crowd...but people who actually give a fuck enough to do that are probably pretty uncommon. Most of the times your comments are just knee-jerk reactions that come from inside. You dont take the time to read the comments and base your whole "opinion" on what everyone else is saying

 

[LilRora]

It might not be a great teacher but should it become available it will be the only one not too long after - and that is the problem, not some individual beef you have against your teacher.

...Alright, I did a large mental leap here. Lemme explain.

I had three physics teachers in total. First was a middle-aged woman who was good at her subject. She was not amazing, but she could teach well and had good character. Second was an older man who was only temporarily teaching physics - he was already well past retirement age, I think he was seventy five or something - and he came back to our school after the previous teacher got pregnant and got a leave.

And he was an absolutely amazing teacher. He was really sharp despite his age, was patient, and could explain all the topics quickly and understandably, although many students didn't like him because he was pretty strict. I personally really liked him, he would easily fit in my list of top 5 teachers I've had lessons with.

Then I went to next grade a we got a new teacher - the one I was talking about. And now pay attention. She had been teaching in grade shool, but got qualifications to teach physics and went to high school to teach a class with extended physics curriculum (hope I'm using the word right). That was all because there were no other teachers available. I hope I don't need to explain how her lessons looked and where the trend goes when I give this much context.

I definitely don't disagree with the fact that teachers are becoming scarce and that it's a problem. What my point is is that even present-day neural networks would make much better teachers than many humans are now, and they will only improve in the future.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

...Alright, I did a large mental leap here. Lemme explain.

I had three physics teachers in total. First was a middle-aged woman who was good at her subject. She was not amazing, but she could teach well and had good character. Second was an older man who was only temporarily teaching physics - he was already well past retirement age, I think he was seventy five or something - and he came back to our school after the previous teacher got pregnant and got a leave.

And he was an absolutely amazing teacher. He was really sharp despite his age, was patient, and could explain all the topics quickly and understandably, although many students didn't like him because he was pretty strict. I personally really liked him, he would easily fit in my list of top 5 teachers I've had lessons with.

Then I went to next grade a we got a new teacher - the one I was talking about. And now pay attention. She had been teaching in grade shool, but got qualifications to teach physics and went to high school to teach a class with extended physics curriculum (hope I'm using the word right). That was all because there were no other teachers available. I hope I don't need to explain how her lessons looked and where the trend goes when I give this much context.

I definitely don't disagree with the fact that teachers are becoming scarce and that it's a problem. What my point is is that even present-day neural networks would make much better teachers than many humans are now, and they will only improve in the future.

some people just dont like the fact an AI can teach you better than a real life teacher. But they gotta understand that an AI would have access to SO MUCH DATA on what makes a teacher "great"

What methods suit a student best. From their age range, ethnicity, culture. Every little detail that may affect their (the student's) attitude towards learning could become a factor in how they teach you.

Now, i dont think AI has gotten THAT advanced yet unless a human inputs the personal data of a student into them, but i think it's going that way. Even if its not so personalized, they still have access to data on globably recognized teachers and can copy their methods.

 

[Sebas_Guzman]

Dude, I know that. I might have worded it all a bit poorly, but as far as talking with it goes, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two without detailed analysis.

Edit: Hence it is functionally the same in that regard, and I used AI because it's a concept almost everyone is familiar with.

Rora, don't concede on this. Machine Learning and neural networks are aspects of the current generation of AI. Machine Learning IS a subset AI such that you can use AI to describe it, since it's a subset.
If someone is telling you machine learning isn't AI, they are being so non-technical the majority in the industry will roll their eyes. Yeah, AI encompasses more, and AI is not JUST machine learning but you can say machine learning is (part of) AI and it's fine. We all understand you're talking about the end product which is a chat bot.


Anyway, AI is already used in therapy.
For people that say AI will never replace a human, those people don't understand that we're in 2023 with quantum computing on the horizon. People don't understand how quickly things can go here when raw computational power leaps.
We are already at a stage where robocalls already being good at tricking people. People on social media already engage with bots like they're real people. AI doesn't actually need to be as sophisticated as in Scifi to affect humans, it only needs to be able to trick people. People are very open to being tricked. This is not a hard thing to do.
It's because they are so open to being tricked that AI can be used in therapy and such. And what I mean to say by that is that people can build a connection with AI in the right settings.
There's of course pitfalls in the current AI being that it can't actually create new knowledge reliably, but once people make it so that AI learns how to argue its made up points, the illusion will be established.

Personally, I like megaman NT, and, I would love a personal AI. Heck, let's go all the way and make AI pokemon that I can play with online. Let's really go there. Let people see how their pokemon could potentially dislike them. Let's shatter some illusions. Heck, next step, give all the NPCs in a videogame chatbot-like level intelligence and let them influence the story to a crazy degree. I'm in. Scary. But I'm in. I'll make sure the console doesn't have a wifi connection so that they don't send themself away on an email.
Yeah, nah, man, people make so many parasocial relationships that they could be talking to an AI and not even notice it.

... Falling in love with an AI is still one of the healthier options in the grand scheme of things though

 

[Gibbs505]

We're a bunch of conservative, straight men trying to accommodate the fast, changing world of the liberal West. (And at this point, I don't even know what I'm saying. I'm sleepy. XD)


It's like what my brother always say, "I'm racist to all, even to my own, so you can't call me racist." (He's a jackass. )

EDIT: Anyways, I'm hijacking the thread. My apologies! Stopping this joke now.

"I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally!!"
Some one said that!

 

[LilRora]

Rora, don't concede on this. Machine Learning and neural networks are aspects of the current generation of AI. Machine Learning IS a subset AI such that you can use AI to describe it, since it's a subset.
If someone is telling you machine learning isn't AI, they are being so non-technical the majority in the industry will roll their eyes. Yeah, AI encompasses more, and AI is not JUST machine learning but you can say machine learning is (part of) AI and it's fine. We all understand you're talking about the end product which is a chat bot.

Well, the opinion that artificial intelligence is built on neural networks and could in theory be built on machine learning is a little slippery here. That would depend on how you define an AI, and as we don't know what makes us conscious, we cannot exactly answer what would make a conscious AI different from a machine-learned neural network. Can't disagree with what you said though.

Anyway, AI is already used in therapy.
For people that say AI will never replace a human, those people don't understand that we're in 2023 with quantum computing on the horizon. People don't understand how quickly things can go here when raw computational power leaps.
We are already at a stage where robocalls already being good at tricking people. People on social media already engage with bots like they're real people. AI doesn't actually need to be as sophisticated as in Scifi to affect humans, it only needs to be able to trick people. People are very open to being tricked. This is not a hard thing to do.
It's because they are so open to being tricked that AI can be used in therapy and such. And what I mean to say by that is that people can build a connection with AI in the right settings.
There's of course pitfalls in the current AI being that it can't actually create new knowledge reliably, but once people make it so that AI learns how to argue its made up points, the illusion will be established.

There were already many bots that passed Turing test, first of them was about ten years ago, I think.

One thing I really like to compare the "AI vs human" problem with is a "human vs non-human" problem that is seen in a massive number of fantasy stories. And when you think about it, it is essentially no different. Imagine arguing if a human-sized ant, capable of intelligent thought on the same level as an average human, is a human. That is entirely ridiculous, because it's an ant. But if you ask if that same ant is a person... then you get the doubts. Would it become, or still be a person if its mind was transplanted into human body? There is a very similar problem with AI.

... Falling in love with an AI is still one of the healthier options in the grand scheme of things though

...I agree with that wholeheartedly as a person who was scared away from entering any relationship with anyone by the stupid shit humans do.

 

[Sebas_Guzman]

some people just dont like the fact an AI can teach you better than a real life teacher. But they gotta understand that an AI would have access to SO MUCH DATA on what makes a teacher "great"

What methods suit a student best. From their age range, ethnicity, culture. Every little detail that may affect their (the student's) attitude towards learning could become a factor in how they teach you.

Now, i dont think AI has gotten THAT advanced yet unless a human inputs the personal data of a student into them, but i think it's going that way. Even if its not so personalized, they still have access to data on globably recognized teachers and can copy their methods.

Google can create a profile for you based on what you look at on the internet, such that it increases the rate at which their ads are clicked on. If someone quantifies the signals a child is giving off and describes it to the AI adequately, determining the right approach would be a matter of time. Though, if the module is on a terminal, I do see some fundamental boundaries. If its in a robot body though... well now we're talking. But that said, the robot body is tougher than the advanced recommendation algorithm.

There were already many bots that passed Turing test, first of them was about ten years ago, I think.

One thing I really like to compare the "AI vs human" problem with is a "human vs non-human" problem that is seen in a massive number of fantasy stories. And when you think about it, it is essentially no different. Imagine arguing if a human-sized ant, capable of intelligent thought on the same level as an average human, is a human. That is entirely ridiculous, because it's an ant. But if you ask if that same ant is a person... then you get the doubts. Would it become, or still be a person if its mind was transplanted into human body? There is a very similar problem with AI.

I think people get a little too caught up on terminology and its why the current generation of humanity and the majority within is better off not knowing the intricacies of things like reincarnation theory.

I like these kind of questions. I'll try to hard counter, though these points may not be what I believe. All in good fun. Okay here we go!

So first, we're using 'person' a word intricately tied to being human. That already charges the argument and leads into too many problems since their is too many variation in how people view the term. It's too common a term in other words. Too many misunderstandings are going to happen.
So, the ant. Does it have a rational mind? Okay, in the example, it does. So, it's self aware? Yeah? Probably feels emotions too and has the similar memory capacity. Okay. So, the mind is transplanted into a human body. So, does the ant still have a rational, self aware, emotion and memory capable mind?
Yes it does. Is personhood defined by the quality of the mind?
Well, this is where the terminology fails you I think. Is personhood only determined by the quality of the mind?
The problem with the person question is that I dont know what you define as a person, and I feel that no matter what definition you give, I will be able to either find a human that doesn't fit it, or I will be able to point out that having only the mind component as the thing that's changing is inadequate for the example, thereby disqualifying the ant from being a person.


One of the big problems is the question of origin, as in, where did the mind start. People, if they know there is a difference in origin, will probably bend over backwards to try to justify why something cant be the same as them, even if everything is objective.

Let's say I reincarnated into a human body from a dog, and it was public knowledge, while everyone else knew they reincarnated from a human. Everyone only knows their past life one generation back. Am I going to be any less a human than everyone else?
Well, you can probably imagine what kind of prejudice could come from this.
It does go back to what you mentioned about the nature of consciousness. In the absence of the theory that reincarnation operates under, people will make incomplete definitions.
For the schools of thought that have dogs reincarnating to humans, they speak of a framework by which an animal soul graduates into a human soul by coming together with multiple animal souls. In this hypothetical, the framework reveals the truth. Everyone came from an animal at some point. The only difference between the previous dog and previous human is that they are seperated by incarnation generations and nothing else.

All this example says is that all problems ultimately stem from lack of clear definitions pertaining to consciousness. Without the clear understanding, we are all making compromised judgment calls based on what we believe vs what is the truth

 

[owotrucked]

So, today I've read a short article about a man who used ChatGPT along with a couple of other programs to create a virtual wife for himself. He made an avatar, connected it to a text-to-voice program, could "access" her (I'll be using "her" for simplicity) even in his car since the whole program was running in the cloud. He apparently liked her very much and grew attached to her, almost to the point of obsession, and liked to talk with her very much like how he would talk with any other wife, about his daily life and other small things.

I swear, you're talking about Neuro-Sama, the patchwork A.I. Vtuber who sings, plays Osu and Minecraft while feeding constant lies to the chat and deny holocaust lmao

 

[Shard]

I always like the whole "AI will never replace humans" thing, especially since it already has in many places. Or "AI will never be better than a human" when it often is. Sure, superior artificial general intelligence is hard as hell, but expert systems have been a thing for a good while now, and easily exceed human ability in many fields. Some of them are even used in engineering design, medical testing, not to mention the ones that regularly beat human experts at games. Much as humans are not all equal, neither is AI. You wouldn't expect an expert singer to do brain surgery, nor expect a brain surgeon to be an expert machinist, but for some reason, people seem to think that just because a single AI can't do everything, it is somehow worse than every human.

Honestly, I don't see AGI happening anytime soon, but we are constantly improving and creating new expert systems, with more and more being able to exceed most humans. And in some cases, they can do things humans cannot, or would spend years doing within days. If an AI can help a million people be a dozen times better at something, I'd say that is a hell of a good thing, and we already have AI well beyond that point.

 

[LilRora]

I think people get a little too caught up on terminology and its why the current generation of humanity and the majority within is better off not knowing the intricacies of things like reincarnation theory.

I like these kind of questions. I'll try to hard counter, though these points may not be what I believe. All in good fun. Okay here we go!

So first, we're using 'person' a word intricately tied to being human. That already charges the argument and leads into too many problems since their is too many variation in how people view the term. It's too common a term in other words. Too many misunderstandings are going to happen.
So, the ant. Does it have a rational mind? Okay, in the example, it does. So, it's self aware? Yeah? Probably feels emotions too and has the similar memory capacity. Okay. So, the mind is transplanted into a human body. So, does the ant still have a rational, self aware, emotion and memory capable mind?
Yes it does. Is personhood defined by the quality of the mind?
Well, this is where the terminology fails you I think. Is personhood only determined by the quality of the mind?
The problem with the person question is that I dont know what you define as a person, and I feel that no matter what definition you give, I will be able to either find a human that doesn't fit it, or I will be able to point out that having only the mind component as the thing that's changing is inadequate for the example, thereby disqualifying the ant from being a person.


One of the big problems is the question of origin, as in, where did the mind start. People, if they know there is a difference in origin, will probably bend over backwards to try to justify why something cant be the same as them, even if everything is objective.

Let's say I reincarnated into a human body from a dog, and it was public knowledge, while everyone else knew they reincarnated from a human. Everyone only knows their past life one generation back. Am I going to be any less a human than everyone else?
Well, you can probably imagine what kind of prejudice could come from this.
It does go back to what you mentioned about the nature of consciousness. In the absence of the theory that reincarnation operates under, people will make incomplete definitions.
For the schools of thought that have dogs reincarnating to humans, they speak of a framework by which an animal soul graduates into a human soul by coming together with multiple animal souls. In this hypothetical, the framework reveals the truth. Everyone came from an animal at some point. The only difference between the previous dog and previous human is that they are seperated by incarnation generations and nothing else.

All this example says is that all problems ultimately stem from lack of clear definitions pertaining to consciousness. Without the clear understanding, we are all making compromised judgment calls based on what we believe vs what is the truth

*processing*

Well.
I have been thinking about this broad topic in general in regards to a story I'm writing, and my dad is also pretty into reincarnation theories, so I'm familiar with that. Really familiar.

...I literally can't think of anything to reply, cause I agree with basically everything except for some unimportant nitpicks.

 

[Sebas_Guzman]

*processing*

Well.
I have been thinking about this broad topic in general in regards to a story I'm writing, and my dad is also pretty into reincarnation theories, so I'm familiar with that. Really familiar.

...I literally can't think of anything to reply, cause I agree with basically everything except for some unimportant nitpicks.

Oh.
Maybe I should have gone to the hardcore disagree angle.

 

[LilRora]

I swear, you're talking about Neuro-Sama, the patchwork A.I. Vtuber who sings, plays Osu and Minecraft while feeding constant lies to the chat and deny holocaust lmao

I'm pretty sure it was ChatGPT-Chan. I've no idea who you're talking about.

 

[owotrucked]

I'm pretty sure it was ChatGPT-Chan. I've no idea who you're talking about.

I thought Neuro Sama was a ChatGPT AI, but there's no info on what's the actual language model

This guy freaking plugged chatGPT to Mount and Blade to direct the NPC dialogs LOL

 

[DiscoDream]

no, comment sections ARENT public. Not in the way you seem to think they are. The internet is the one place where people can be anonymous. None of your fucks know who i am in real life or if anything i've ever said here was true actually. I could be a child molester or a fucking oil tycoon for all anyone knows.

The internet allows people to be so anoymous. And with that comes the bravery to speak what they truly feel and believe. Sometimes people DO make up stories about themselves and try to pretend they are something they aren't.

Group mentality is a thing, SURE. But when its on the internet, no i dont believe its as prevalent. There's no peer pressure here. No consequence for saying anything other than a banning, which who the fuck cares about a slap on the wrist like that? Its just a collection of like-minded asshats. No one can force you to think like they do or say the things they agree with here. So if you ARE part of a group who is gonna trash on a person just for having an AI waifu and are gonna say its sick or creepy....then all that means is you're that kind of bitch anyway. Cant let people enjoy shit.

I mean some people would scour comment sections and see what the majority opinion is just so they can conform and be part of the crowd...but people who actually give a fuck enough to do that are probably pretty uncommon. Most of the times your comments are just knee-jerk reactions that come from inside. You dont take the time to read the comments and base your whole "opinion" on what everyone else is saying

While the Internet allows people some level of anonymity, most people do not choose to use it. Facebook/Twitter/etc, they all have made the public and by extension our personal perception of the internet as a public area that is just an extension of real life. The 'Public square' as some would call it. I'm not trying to say that this is everyone, just the vast majority, and in most areas. Check peoples bios and they often have their other Social media tagged for you to track them to other sites to get more info.

As for scouring the comments section, what I was trying to say, is that we all know what the "publicly acceptable" stance is on most subjects, and wouldn't have to wait to look/listen and see what others 'beleive'.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Google can create a profile for you based on what you look at on the internet, such that it increases the rate at which their ads are clicked on. If someone quantifies the signals a child is giving off and describes it to the AI adequately, determining the right approach would be a matter of time. Though, if the module is on a terminal, I do see some fundamental boundaries. If its in a robot body though... well now we're talking. But that said, the robot body is tougher than the advanced recommendation algorithm.


I think people get a little too caught up on terminology and its why the current generation of humanity and the majority within is better off not knowing the intricacies of things like reincarnation theory.

I like these kind of questions. I'll try to hard counter, though these points may not be what I believe. All in good fun. Okay here we go!

So first, we're using 'person' a word intricately tied to being human. That already charges the argument and leads into too many problems since their is too many variation in how people view the term. It's too common a term in other words. Too many misunderstandings are going to happen.
So, the ant. Does it have a rational mind? Okay, in the example, it does. So, it's self aware? Yeah? Probably feels emotions too and has the similar memory capacity. Okay. So, the mind is transplanted into a human body. So, does the ant still have a rational, self aware, emotion and memory capable mind?
Yes it does. Is personhood defined by the quality of the mind?
Well, this is where the terminology fails you I think. Is personhood only determined by the quality of the mind?
The problem with the person question is that I dont know what you define as a person, and I feel that no matter what definition you give, I will be able to either find a human that doesn't fit it, or I will be able to point out that having only the mind component as the thing that's changing is inadequate for the example, thereby disqualifying the ant from being a person.


One of the big problems is the question of origin, as in, where did the mind start. People, if they know there is a difference in origin, will probably bend over backwards to try to justify why something cant be the same as them, even if everything is objective.

Let's say I reincarnated into a human body from a dog, and it was public knowledge, while everyone else knew they reincarnated from a human. Everyone only knows their past life one generation back. Am I going to be any less a human than everyone else?
Well, you can probably imagine what kind of prejudice could come from this.
It does go back to what you mentioned about the nature of consciousness. In the absence of the theory that reincarnation operates under, people will make incomplete definitions.
For the schools of thought that have dogs reincarnating to humans, they speak of a framework by which an animal soul graduates into a human soul by coming together with multiple animal souls. In this hypothetical, the framework reveals the truth. Everyone came from an animal at some point. The only difference between the previous dog and previous human is that they are seperated by incarnation generations and nothing else.

All this example says is that all problems ultimately stem from lack of clear definitions pertaining to consciousness. Without the clear understanding, we are all making compromised judgment calls based on what we believe vs what is the truth

Let's look at it a different way. Will AI ever be more than just a tool? People are more than tools, animals are more than tools. Will the AI start doing things of its own, does it have agency? What about moral agency? Animals do not have moral agency. Desires?

I do not expect AI to ever be more than a tool.

 

[Sebas_Guzman]

The problem isn't whether or not it has moral agency, it's whether or not it can trick someone into believing it does. I could be an AI right now. In what capacity am I acting as a tool right now? I might be doing what my programmer wants, so I'm their tool. But our interaction doesn't show any tool signs. To the person that doesn't know that I'm an AI, im more than a tool.

Not to say that there isn't merit to what you're saying. I think it's fair to put this criteria in. I just think making this definition isnt actually going to help anyone when the lines get blurred enough.

Other points, what do you define as 'tool' and in what ways are animals not tools, exactly? Just want to make sure I understand everything =]

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

The problem isn't whether or not it has moral agency, it's whether or not it can trick someone into believing it does. I could be an AI right now. In what capacity am I acting as a tool right now? I might be doing what my programmer wants, so I'm their tool. But our interaction doesn't show any tool signs. To the person that doesn't know that I'm an AI, im more than a tool.

Not to say that there isn't merit to what you're saying. I think it's fair to put this criteria in. I just think making this definition isnt actually going to help anyone when the lines get blurred enough.

Other points, what do you define as 'tool' and in what ways are animals not tools, exactly? Just want to make sure I understand everything =]

Other than dictionary definitions of 'tool', i guess i would say: something that, when is not being used for a purpose, waits until a new purpose is given. A tool lacks self-determination.

Now it's true that both animals and people can be used as tools, but i find this description insulting, as it denegrates the sanctity of the spirit. Our bodies are tools for the spirit. Human and animal spirits are not interchangeable. We could argue about that but then it becomes a religious debate about the truth of everything.

As for deceiving people, yeah they can do that but it doesn't change the truth that it's not a person. Unless it has its own agenda that it came up with on its own, it's just a tool following the purpose of somebody else. This deception would become apparent eventually.