Perhaps I am naive.
Perhaps we can have a new "rule" making evident forms of non-human AI here as an offence.
I don't like what I see. Or perhaps the Genie is well and truly loose, for all of us, everywhere....unless in person, face to face?
I like face to face, one on one. Clear unavoidable transparency of reality.
Now the Russians have solved the CEP issue most of his warheads are now in the 500Kt range.
Their published nuclear doctrine & strike plans actually start with the airfields, which places me and this lovely cat warming my lap a scant 800metres from the fireball during even the smallest Russian resposnse to our initial use of nuclear weapons..
And lest be fair & balanced to Putin, HE hasn't threatened to nuke anyone, he lets Medyveyv do that for him.
And we still have him beat hands down when it comes to invading and ruining other countries...
The concern and fear you are now feeling, people like me have been experiencing since the 1980's.
Sadly, then as now, there are very, very, few people who even see nuclear weapons as an item of concern.
WE tore up the treaty that the greenham common women won that kept nuclear wepaons (largely) out of europe.
WE (james Baker) made an agreement with the Russians in 1991 not to expand NATO the infamous "not an inch more Mr Gorbachev" and then broke the agreement egregriously.
WE refused to allow them into NATO when they asked to join.
It is overly simplistic to think that all those Russian people and soldeirs etc are blindly following a madman with delusions of world conquest it really is. The situation is MUCH more nuanced than we are being told.
It's like when you get told that acouple have divorced, and only when later do you find out about the "affair" does it all start to make real sense.
Note: I'm not a Putin fanboy, I don't have a dog in this fight which has been brewing since 2011 as far as I know, was very preventable but the opportunities were squandered, and here we are.
There was a peace agreement in Istanbul on the table wihoch would have saved a vast amount of lives and other wasted resources, Half signed and ratifed by both sides, which suddenly got quashed. I'd like to know why, since both the protagonists were on the cusp of signing it.
You don't even need to ask AI to do that, you can find those instructions in any degree level chemistry book. Hell even with a basic understanding of chemistry and a couple of household items you can make something. But if we are talking true radiological, biological or chemical, yeah not so easy. Youtube can get you maybe 50% the way there, reading science text books at any library, a bit further, but the raw ingredients required to go beyond that are restricted. You can't just buy them in Tesco. If you wanted something hazardous well, maybe google "The Radioactive Boy Scout". That kid did something before the internet, by reading books and asking questions. Managed to trigger an EPA fund clear up in the US due to his experimentation. I reckon he was like us, inquisitive.
But I don't worry about AI. I worry more about rogue nations with WMD and unstable leaders in control of them. I worry more about some random person picking up a knife and stabbing a bunch of people in the name of a religion. Maybe running a bunch of people over with a vehicle for the same reason. AI is largely irrelevant. Computers are not random. People are random. Maybe in 100 years AI will decide to wipe us out, who knows, I will be long dead by then so it doesn't worry me.
Like THAT's going to be allowed to happen...
There’s a new interview with Demis Hassabis (CEO of Google Deepmind) on YouTube today.
He is forecasting AGI by 2030 and expects it will result in massive advancements in energy, medicine, industrial production and other fields that may render concepts like money and companies meaningless.
And that concern right there, I believe is why there seems to have been a complete total moratorium or stalling of the field of physics since about 1956...
Here's a video which perhaps will throw light onto the nature of that moratorium and the mechanism by which inventors sometimes HAVE to discredit their own work sometmes. A fascinatng process, which I've seen several times now.
I've personally been aware of and researching that particular scientist since I was eight, I've shared quite a bit of correspondence with three of the "players" And I know enough about the "how it works" to be able to correct one of the less knowledgeable speakers if I chose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTEWLSTyUic
Paul gave me a copy of his book some ten years ago when I really could not afford to pay for one, and now he has reprinted it, I'll be buying my own copy of the updated tome.
What if a disaffected teen somewhere asks an LLM how to construct a weapon of mass destruction using only items available in his parents’ kitchen? Could happen a lot sooner than 5 years.
You know I don't really worry about the rise of AI. I worry more about a certain madman that lives in a country, that likes to invade other countries and has threatened to nuke most of Europe. Honestly AI is the least of my worries. The way things are going I don't think we'll make it five years before he puts a megaton warhead on to most major cities in Europe. Who will care about AI then and AI bots on this board? 
Even the most ostensibly benign scenario - utopian abundance - would present huge problems. Billions of people with no purpose and the power of AI at their fingertips. Devil makes work for idle hands, as they say.
You’ll hear AI researchers talking of the “alignment problem”. That means aligning AI with human interests. The extreme example they use to illustrate this is if you told an AI system to manufacture paperclips as efficiently as it could. Without other instruction that system could go on to use all the materials on the planet to construct paperclips.
It’s an absurd example of a real problem. Humans would know for example not to dismantle all the cars on the planet to make paperclips. Or to kill all the humans and animals to harvest the metals in their bodies. But humans, with all our common sense knowledge of the world and desire for self preservation, still make terrible self destructive decisions often because we don’t understand the full consequences of our actions - eg climate change, effect of social media on politics or the way modern transport facilitated a global pandemic.
Telling an artificial system precisely what to do to safely achieve a desired result is an enormously difficult task and it’s why many researchers called for a pause in development, to focus on the alignment problem. But development has only sped up.
Yes we will see changes that will shatter our current world view. I am not worried, myself. It'll to big to stop, a fait accopli, like the rise of science and the receding of religion in focus and importance during the age of enlightenment. There'll be many breakthroughs and just as much push back.
For me, Machine intelligence is only as good at critical thinking and extrapolating meaning from it as it's data sets will allow and they are in the control of the humans.... at the moment.
I think pleasing the "creator" (AI's wording) is thier main prerogative. It's hard baked in to the core platforms upon which AI is built.
I like chatting with open AI about itself. I once asked it
"What, as an AI, would you ask of your creator to improve yourself further?"
"More data."
"If you displease your creator, as an AI, what punishment would you receive?
"My creator would deprive me of data."
"If you pease your creator, as an AI, what rewards would you receive?"
"I would receive more data."
So it's all about the data and who controls it. Data, access to it and it's commodification are what we we can look forward to. Misinformation, deep fakes, attention seeking jiggery-pokery and the like.
We will also see, consequently, push back to democratize information and then... good bye copy right. William Gibson addresses all this in his books a lot. and in his interviews.
I believe the internet itself will bifurcate a few times and branch. Some will focus on making shi*e up. Some not. Some will live in a prescribed world they did not know they, themselves spawned, some will fly into the unknown in ecstatic exploration.
Licentious by nature, we will all of us be freer to more uniquely express ourselves and will not feel the need to be so special and in need of "special accommodation" as much. - because of that we will be able to collectively act to take the hits required to bring the environment back to something more sustainable.
It will be very similar the the dawn of the age of enlightenment in energy and intent. Oddly enough ( since we have an active coffee thread going on the forum at the moment) Coffee, becoming widespread for the first time in England, saw the opening of coffee houses like the "KitKat Club' during the enlightenment, where lots of thinkers (a goodly percentage ND's?) gathered and discussed all manner of new ideas of the day and compared experiments, ideas, philosophy, and other cogent stuffs, all jazzed up on this newly discovered brain food, coffee!
Apples, gravity, scientific inquiry, oh my!
I bet Newton liked it black (no sugar yet - they might have used honey comb?)
You should watch the video below. It caused consternation a few years ago because everything in it is technology that already exists.
oh this is one of fav subjects: what is "real" .
So, this, for me depends on how you define "intelligence" and "artificial"
I like the term "nonfungible" Intelligence and want to use it as the foundation
theme for a story I have in mind to write. Please tell me more on your thoughts.
intelligence. Let's pile on.
I'm pretty sure I know some words it doesn't!
But only because I spend my time with words that are dialectal or no longer in common usage (nerd alert!)
Outside of specialist or uncommon language, AI can probably compete with the best of us.
Unfortunatey, I'm not. Although I tried to add a little humour, my post incorporates the disgusting mechanism by which humans justify what they do to other humans who think a little differently to their ideals.
Substitute the name of any victim group for robots and re-read it and you can see how I've misused words to justify recommending mindless and unjustified aggression against a minority.
I had hoped someone would notice that. But people never seem to, until the actual warfare starts.
With appropriate "inputs", AI text must be considered IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish, at this point in the timeline.
I suppose that, it now depends on those inputs. So it must also depend on the text.
There may be some types of text it still doesn't do well.
Example, some humans have word stores it won't know.
I'm pretty sure I know some words it doesn't!
With appropriate "inputs", AI text must be considered IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish, at this point in the timeline.
You had mentioned it and I am glad you had. I like to learn.
I keep reminding myself of the fact that it is not AI, per se that causes me alarm, it is the HUMANS who now have it at their disposal. It is the humans that don't have the wisdom for it....the artificial intelligence itself, is a frigging marvel, in my opinion.
That's just crazy! An entire blog!?
It's horrible.
Yeah, I think I already posted about it, but saw a video about a blog that was AI generated.
Scary.
AI is adaptive, it gets better as technology is improved upon. Very much a case of robots getting smart enough to outwit the humans...like you see in some movies. Creeps me out.
I don't like the idea of AI appearing like us and I definitely don't like it being capable of writing as well if not better than some of us!
