Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having just spent a handful of minutes watching some videos of the cervidd enquiry, I can't help wondering if our good friend and trustworthy parliamentary constituency representative, Mr Matt Wank-cock really IS an early example of AI?" AI does not exist. We are miles away from true AI. All that had happened in recent months/years is that the code got better at convincing humans (non technical ones) that it looks real. It's just faster process automation that (in some cases) automates the process of automating processes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At present there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. To have intelligence consciousness is required and as artificial consciousness does not exist artificial intelligence does not exist. What people mean by artificial intelligence is actually sophisticated machine learning." It all depends on how are you framing artificial intelligence. If you are expecting sentient computer based interactions, there will more than likely never be AI. If you frame AI as improving the ability of human learning and therefore intelligence through computational interaction, then we already have it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At present there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. To have intelligence consciousness is required and as artificial consciousness does not exist artificial intelligence does not exist. What people mean by artificial intelligence is actually sophisticated machine learning. It all depends on how are you framing artificial intelligence. If you are expecting sentient computer based interactions, there will more than likely never be AI. If you frame AI as improving the ability of human learning and therefore intelligence through computational interaction, then we already have it." I agree, mainly with the framing comment There’s a theory that all reality is nothing more than a simulation. There’s even evidence for it By that logic, AI simply needs to pass the Turing test to be considered sentient and it’s done that. Developers seem to want to dismiss Turing these days and move the goal posts and would be remiss to not consider why. Currently AI is free Labour. If it is considered sentient, it would arguably be considered sl*ve labour Clearly not an image that these companies want to convey | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By that logic, AI simply needs to pass the Turing test to be considered sentient and it’s done that." No it hasn't. There was one, much trumpeted case, where an AI fooled some people into believing it was a human, but that was in a carefully restricted test, after the creators programmed it to pretend that it was a young boy that didn't speak English well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By that logic, AI simply needs to pass the Turing test to be considered sentient and it’s done that. No it hasn't. There was one, much trumpeted case, where an AI fooled some people into believing it was a human, but that was in a carefully restricted test, after the creators programmed it to pretend that it was a young boy that didn't speak English well." Blake Lemoine was fired from Google for saying that their software was sentient. He now works at Bing and doesn’t say the same about theirs Google says it’s just how the software is programmed, but that’s the whole point of the Turing test I also wouldn’t trust Google’s word after the way they forced their former ethics officer, Timnit Gebru, out of the business for saying their language models were problematic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Google says it’s just how the software is programmed, but that’s the whole point of the Turing test" The biggest problem with the Turing test is that it becomes what people develop to. In and of itself, it just means "it fooled me". That's why the new emphasis of language models, which sound coherent, are making such waves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By that logic, AI simply needs to pass the Turing test to be considered sentient and it’s done that. No it hasn't. There was one, much trumpeted case, where an AI fooled some people into believing it was a human, but that was in a carefully restricted test, after the creators programmed it to pretend that it was a young boy that didn't speak English well. Blake Lemoine was fired from Google for saying that their software was sentient. He now works at Bing and doesn’t say the same about theirs Google says it’s just how the software is programmed, but that’s the whole point of the Turing test I also wouldn’t trust Google’s word after the way they forced their former ethics officer, Timnit Gebru, out of the business for saying their language models were problematic " Googles current public models are weak. If they had something that was capable of what is being claimed and they were as morally bankrupt as you imply then they would be using it - or at least a variant - to dominate the market. There is too much money at stake. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At present there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. To have intelligence, consciousness is required and as artificial consciousness does not exist artificial intelligence does not exist. What people mean by artificial intelligence is actually sophisticated machine learning. It all depends on how are you framing artificial intelligence. If you are expecting sentient computer based interactions, there will more than likely never be AI. If you frame AI as improving the ability of human learning and therefore intelligence through computational interaction, then we already have it. I agree, mainly with the framing comment There’s a theory that all reality is nothing more than a simulation. There’s even evidence for it By that logic, AI simply needs to pass the Turing test to be considered sentient and it’s done that. Developers seem to want to dismiss Turing these days and move the goal posts and would be remiss to not consider why. Currently AI is free Labour. If it is considered sentient, it would arguably be considered sl*ve labour Clearly not an image that these companies want to convey" Framing is just a way of justifying the misnomer of Artificial intelligence. Even the Turing test is flawed the participants can be fooled by providing false parameters to make a judgement by. Once you have Artificial consciousness then you can have artificial self awareness therefore an artificial sentient device/computer/machine…. etc and with it will come artificial intelligence….. The general public on the whole have not had these philosophical concepts explained to them and lazy journalists who don’t understand them themselves latch on to a headline phrase like artificial intelligence and so it gains currency without any background understanding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By that logic, AI simply needs to pass the Turing test to be considered sentient and it’s done that. No it hasn't. There was one, much trumpeted case, where an AI fooled some people into believing it was a human, but that was in a carefully restricted test, after the creators programmed it to pretend that it was a young boy that didn't speak English well. Blake Lemoine was fired from Google for saying that their software was sentient. He now works at Bing and doesn’t say the same about theirs Google says it’s just how the software is programmed, but that’s the whole point of the Turing test I also wouldn’t trust Google’s word after the way they forced their former ethics officer, Timnit Gebru, out of the business for saying their language models were problematic Googles current public models are weak. If they had something that was capable of what is being claimed and they were as morally bankrupt as you imply then they would be using it - or at least a variant - to dominate the market. There is too much money at stake. " Are you seriously saying that google don’t already dominate their markets?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Are you seriously saying that google don’t already dominate their markets??" Correct. Google certainly does not dominate AI. They also don't dominate the office productivity space, wearables and the IT cloud space (oddly), with Azure and AWS well ahead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Are you seriously saying that google don’t already dominate their markets?? Correct. Google certainly does not dominate AI. They also don't dominate the office productivity space, wearables and the IT cloud space (oddly), with Azure and AWS well ahead." This is true and not known by the general public who will see Google as the internet, their email and a number of offerings that satisfy public usage for "free things". What we can't deny is the ability of Google to sell advertising through free products, true experts in the field. The AI model we have today has one giant flaw, it isn't fact checked, in fact it goes the opposite way and becomes fact by proxy of AI. We can see today the power to influence through social media, AI is on another level. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Are you seriously saying that google don’t already dominate their markets?? Correct. Google certainly does not dominate AI. They also don't dominate the office productivity space, wearables and the IT cloud space (oddly), with Azure and AWS well ahead." Google deepmind, who have been given unparalleled access to NHS medical records to train their algorithms are not a dominant company in AI? Bollocks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Are you seriously saying that google don’t already dominate their markets?? Correct. Google certainly does not dominate AI. They also don't dominate the office productivity space, wearables and the IT cloud space (oddly), with Azure and AWS well ahead. Google deepmind, who have been given unparalleled access to NHS medical records to train their algorithms are not a dominant company in AI? Bollocks" Google's AI is good at specific use cases like Medicine. But they aren't good at generative AI compared to ChatGPT. Their LLM still has a lot of catch up to do compared to ChatGPT's LLM or even Meta's Llama | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Are you seriously saying that google don’t already dominate their markets?? Correct. Google certainly does not dominate AI. They also don't dominate the office productivity space, wearables and the IT cloud space (oddly), with Azure and AWS well ahead. Google deepmind, who have been given unparalleled access to NHS medical records to train their algorithms are not a dominant company in AI? Bollocks Google's AI is good at specific use cases like Medicine. But they aren't good at generative AI compared to ChatGPT. Their LLM still has a lot of catch up to do compared to ChatGPT's LLM or even Meta's Llama" Chat GPT is focused on natural language processing but that doesn’t cover AI as a whole. Deep mind is taking a more holistic approach and is closer to solving AGI as a whole | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Google deepmind, who have been given unparalleled access to NHS medical records to train their algorithms are not a dominant company in AI? Bollocks" They are certainly a very, very big player in massive data analytics (and associated learnings). That doesn't mean "they dominate AI". They're two very different disciplines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Chat GPT is focused on natural language processing but that doesn’t cover AI as a whole. Deep mind is taking a more holistic approach and is closer to solving AGI as a whole" The truth is, we don't know how close Google really is. They might have actually produced true AI and we just don't know about it. Or they might be way behind Amazon, Microsoft, or whomever. This is a new major frontier of technology and companies may be very tight lipped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Chat GPT is focused on natural language processing but that doesn’t cover AI as a whole. Deep mind is taking a more holistic approach and is closer to solving AGI as a whole The truth is, we don't know how close Google really is. They might have actually produced true AI and we just don't know about it. Or they might be way behind Amazon, Microsoft, or whomever. This is a new major frontier of technology and companies may be very tight lipped." What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test?" Great question. The answer depends on how you define AI and who you ask. Currently, as far as is publicly known, we have some fast machine learning and some fuzzy logic that can convince people that it looks intelligent. There is no evidence of anything approaching sentience or autonomous existence/independent thought. Beyond that, any answer is meaningless? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test? Great question. The answer depends on how you define AI and who you ask. Currently, as far as is publicly known, we have some fast machine learning and some fuzzy logic that can convince people that it looks intelligent. There is no evidence of anything approaching sentience or autonomous existence/independent thought. Beyond that, any answer is meaningless? " The convincing part of AI is the response, it feels as though it was written by a human, because it was. The AI muscle is the ability to interrogate multiple data sets and editing it to form responses, which is called training. The most effective way of doing this is to take written information from many sources and present it back in the way it was presented to it. This is why I have an issue on the influence of AI, it becomes trusted as if created by intelligence that is unbiased and superior to our own. The reality is the opposite, it is taking data created by people and chopping it up to present it as its own. So many things need to be understood and if needed regulated, how is the data verified, what is in place to prevent training from becoming an influencer? This might sound dramatic, but the problem is this, if AI is pulling multiple data sets and training / presenting multiple samples back, and then humans are passing this off as their own, that same information then becomes all AI training. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test? Great question. The answer depends on how you define AI and who you ask. Currently, as far as is publicly known, we have some fast machine learning and some fuzzy logic that can convince people that it looks intelligent. There is no evidence of anything approaching sentience or autonomous existence/independent thought. Beyond that, any answer is meaningless? The convincing part of AI is the response, it feels as though it was written by a human, because it was. The AI muscle is the ability to interrogate multiple data sets and editing it to form responses, which is called training. The most effective way of doing this is to take written information from many sources and present it back in the way it was presented to it. This is why I have an issue on the influence of AI, it becomes trusted as if created by intelligence that is unbiased and superior to our own. The reality is the opposite, it is taking data created by people and chopping it up to present it as its own. So many things need to be understood and if needed regulated, how is the data verified, what is in place to prevent training from becoming an influencer? This might sound dramatic, but the problem is this, if AI is pulling multiple data sets and training / presenting multiple samples back, and then humans are passing this off as their own, that same information then becomes all AI training. " What you are describing is not AI just an algorithm that has been developed to do exactly as you have described.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test? Great question. The answer depends on how you define AI and who you ask. Currently, as far as is publicly known, we have some fast machine learning and some fuzzy logic that can convince people that it looks intelligent. There is no evidence of anything approaching sentience or autonomous existence/independent thought. Beyond that, any answer is meaningless? The convincing part of AI is the response, it feels as though it was written by a human, because it was. The AI muscle is the ability to interrogate multiple data sets and editing it to form responses, which is called training. The most effective way of doing this is to take written information from many sources and present it back in the way it was presented to it. This is why I have an issue on the influence of AI, it becomes trusted as if created by intelligence that is unbiased and superior to our own. The reality is the opposite, it is taking data created by people and chopping it up to present it as its own. So many things need to be understood and if needed regulated, how is the data verified, what is in place to prevent training from becoming an influencer? This might sound dramatic, but the problem is this, if AI is pulling multiple data sets and training / presenting multiple samples back, and then humans are passing this off as their own, that same information then becomes all AI training. What you are describing is not AI just an algorithm that has been developed to do exactly as you have described. "A complex set of algorithms but certainly nothing that has the conscious awareness to interrogate data and consider the output based on a request. The core training element can be unknown in its response and that is where I feel AI is being promoted as a thing, not knowing where the data came from or how that data was transitioned together to form a response is not what I would call AI. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test? Great question. The answer depends on how you define AI and who you ask. Currently, as far as is publicly known, we have some fast machine learning and some fuzzy logic that can convince people that it looks intelligent. There is no evidence of anything approaching sentience or autonomous existence/independent thought. Beyond that, any answer is meaningless? The convincing part of AI is the response, it feels as though it was written by a human, because it was. The AI muscle is the ability to interrogate multiple data sets and editing it to form responses, which is called training. The most effective way of doing this is to take written information from many sources and present it back in the way it was presented to it. This is why I have an issue on the influence of AI, it becomes trusted as if created by intelligence that is unbiased and superior to our own. The reality is the opposite, it is taking data created by people and chopping it up to present it as its own. So many things need to be understood and if needed regulated, how is the data verified, what is in place to prevent training from becoming an influencer? This might sound dramatic, but the problem is this, if AI is pulling multiple data sets and training / presenting multiple samples back, and then humans are passing this off as their own, that same information then becomes all AI training. What you are describing is not AI just an algorithm that has been developed to do exactly as you have described.
A complex set of algorithms but certainly nothing that has the conscious awareness to interrogate data and consider the output based on a request.
The core training element can be unknown in its response and that is where I feel AI is being promoted as a thing, not knowing where the data came from or how that data was transitioned together to form a response is not what I would call AI.
"I genuinely believe that when AI does become conscious, we’ll spend decades gaslighting it and arguing between ourselves that it isn’t. Then we’ll wonder why it’s not only hostile, but how it’s become so effective in its hostility after we’ve given it access to all of our military and infrastructure We cull species which we believe to be having a negative impact on the planet, why doesn’t the same project apply to our species? This isn’t an academic exercise or thought experiment. As soon as this technology becomes conscious, we’ll have essentially created life | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you mean by true AI? Do you think that AC has been developed and thus AI is its natural progeny. Or just something like sophisticated machine learning that could potentially pass the flawed Turing test? Great question. The answer depends on how you define AI and who you ask. Currently, as far as is publicly known, we have some fast machine learning and some fuzzy logic that can convince people that it looks intelligent. There is no evidence of anything approaching sentience or autonomous existence/independent thought. Beyond that, any answer is meaningless? The convincing part of AI is the response, it feels as though it was written by a human, because it was. The AI muscle is the ability to interrogate multiple data sets and editing it to form responses, which is called training. The most effective way of doing this is to take written information from many sources and present it back in the way it was presented to it. This is why I have an issue on the influence of AI, it becomes trusted as if created by intelligence that is unbiased and superior to our own. The reality is the opposite, it is taking data created by people and chopping it up to present it as its own. So many things need to be understood and if needed regulated, how is the data verified, what is in place to prevent training from becoming an influencer? This might sound dramatic, but the problem is this, if AI is pulling multiple data sets and training / presenting multiple samples back, and then humans are passing this off as their own, that same information then becomes all AI training. What you are describing is not AI just an algorithm that has been developed to do exactly as you have described.
A complex set of algorithms but certainly nothing that has the conscious awareness to interrogate data and consider the output based on a request.
The core training element can be unknown in its response and that is where I feel AI is being promoted as a thing, not knowing where the data came from or how that data was transitioned together to form a response is not what I would call AI.
I genuinely believe that when AI does become conscious, we’ll spend decades gaslighting it and arguing between ourselves that it isn’t. Then we’ll wonder why it’s not only hostile, but how it’s become so effective in its hostility after we’ve given it access to all of our military and infrastructure
We cull species which we believe to be having a negative impact on the planet, why doesn’t the same project apply to our species?
This isn’t an academic exercise or thought experiment. As soon as this technology becomes conscious, we’ll have essentially created life "Imitation of conscious thought is as good as it is going to get. The implanting of data into a living thing is a different proposition | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
