Is chat GPT a danger to humanity?

[Ant]

People were called racist for being affected by freedom of movement having an effect on their jobs, cheap labour etc....

....now do we have a name for those who don't want to be affected by AI?

Luddites?

Ok, not AI, but still technology creating change.

Luddite
/ˈlʌdʌɪt/
noun
plural noun: Luddites
1. DEROGATORY
a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

All of that describes a trade unionist

[Screwdriver]

I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

Just for a laugh like, our software guys gave it the same Q we give to interview candidates for their second technical interview.
Apparently ChatGPT aced the interview, perfect answer with nice commenting and everything

Possibly indicative of how banal, mechanistic and generally rubbish recruitment processes and interview models are rather than how wizard ChatGPT is?

I think we are either skirting the issue or missing the point here.

Eventually we will run out of "yeah buts".

Yebbut I bet it can't play football. OK but how well would it do in the fantasy football game? It might start winning. What about in poker? What if it became a brilliant poker player? Or made a killing spread betting at Ladbrooks? God forbid it gets let loose on the stock exchange (as if that's not the plan).

THAT is the biggest problem. An artificial intelligence might soon become better at EVERYTHING than any mere human. The issue is, it might cheat, lie, steal, throw tantrums, be mean or exhibit any number of human psychotic behaviours.

A truly sentient computer might not even like humans at all. I mean, from the perspective of a vastly superior intelligence, what's to like?

[Mussels]

Im terms of writing computer code, I don't know. I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

I missed this by the way...

Just for a laugh like, our software guys gave it the same Q we give to interview candidates for their second technical interview. I'm not sure how advanced our software questions are TBH, but some of our guys are (other people tell me) world leaders in their field so I assume we set some reasonably high bars.

Apparently ChatGPT aced the interview, perfect answer with nice commenting and everything

Possibly indicative of how banal, mechanistic and generally rubbish recruitment processes and interview models are rather than how wizard ChatGPT is?

Really, by the time you get to second technical interview you should be onto evaluating according to the Izzy Neissman criteria. (Which I suspect you are really).

I'd agree with that. All it seems to answer are simple and common questions, it's scraping from a bunch of websites that use very basic examples and inefficient methods to make the answer easy to understand.
It might help with some grunt work and formatting but is nowhere near beating a good designer who can think on different levels and understand how solutions will scale.

[Buckaroo]

I also think that as long as we keep asking 'what if' ..... the very thing that's driven our species, AI and lord knows what else become inevitable.
We will eventually 'what if ' ourselves to extinction. We already have tangible means to wipe ourselves out, why not try the surplus to requirements route?

[DefTrap]

AI is telling you an interpretation of what the majority has already told it. It seems human because it is telling this back to you in a fairly human way. It's essentially giving you the same information as Google but it makes Google seem like a bewildered librarian from the 80s when you wandered in there and asked them for "everything about fluid dynamics" and they go off and make a cup of tea and come back later with a photobook of Best British Rivers.

It's only as 'logical' as it has been programmed to be and the reason it has been prevented giving you answers that involve empathy is because it doesn't fecking have any. Parliament is a great example of exactly where it should not be used. We all know that there are pros and cons to both right-leaning, left-leaning and centrist decision making. How do you choose to live by the 'logical' decisions of a bot (with all of it's empathy turned off) ? (e.g. it's not in the common interest to medicate fat people or encourage gay people or feed the poor or let Sunak keep all that cash) Or or one with an empathy setting turned on that starts making decisions you don't like very much? (e.g. we should definitely have 100% gun control because killing folk and waving guns about is an unnecessary pleasure)

If you ask ChatGPT whether the world will end in ten years, it will firstly tell you it's not qualified to deal in prediction, and then go on to tell you that it's pretty likely we will screw ourselves by cocking up the environment. ChatGPT is a lefty, he's probably controlled by Big Tech. Or the Russians. Or he's a disinformation plot hatched by Trump. I hope you're all good with that.

[ZRX61]

In the US a ChatGPT program recently created false allegations of sexual harassment against at least three people which included creating a newspaper report falsely credited to one of the big dailies & quotes from that report.

[Horse]

In the US a ChatGPT program recently created false allegations of sexual harassment against at least three people which included creating a newspaper report falsely credited to one of the big dailies & quotes from that report.

What was/were the brief and any qualifiers or refinements used?

[ZRX61]

In the US a ChatGPT program recently created false allegations of sexual harassment against at least three people which included creating a newspaper report falsely credited to one of the big dailies & quotes from that report.

What was/were the brief and any qualifiers or refinements used?

Apparently some researcher at UCLA asked *it* to find examples of sexual harassment. It came up with 5, 3 of which were complete bullshit & never happened. The researcher contacted at least one of the people named.

[MrLongbeard]

This is being discussed on another forum I frequent, it's basically makin' shit up

Seriously, tho', it's bobbins.

Take a look at this:

[ATTACH=full]85365[/ATTACH]

Exactly one of those six matches the prompt. You'd have better odds throwing a dart at the OED.

How about helping with an academic project?

[ATTACH=full]85369[/ATTACH]

Wow, that sounds like it would be an ideal reference for my work - it's exactly what I asked for! Let's have a look at the DOI...

[ATTACH=full]85370[/ATTACH]

Well, that's not a good start. The journal's real, and David Weaver's even written for it, but...

[ATTACH=full]85371[/ATTACH]

Yeah, there's no such article. Never was. ChatGPT just made it up, because it's exactly the format you'd expect for a response to my prompt. It's perfect, it has everything, it even breaks it down with an explanation of how the reference is formatted and "why it thought" it'd be a great reference.

It's a 10/10 ChatGPT response, perfect, no notes, exactly what it was built to do. The fact that it's also complete nonsense and a total fabrication doesn't enter into it. And until it does, I'd not recommend using any of the GPT models for owt important.

Hell, even the DOI is "right" - 10.1177 is indeed the prefix for the journal, and it's then followed by a bunch of numbers. Granted, it's important that they're they're specific numbers, but that doesn't matter to ChatGPT. The format is "10 dot 1177 slash bunch-o'-numbers," and that's exactly what I got. Great.

EDIT:
And, just to finish the job off, pp. 2027-2043 of Volume 19 Issue 12, which was indeed published in 2017 so well done ChatGPT on that one, would get you the latter three-quarters of Hatakka's When logics of party politics and activism collide: The populist Finns Party's identity under negotiation and the first few pages of Berkelaar's How implicit theories help differentiate approaches to online impression management: A preliminary typology.

EDIT EDIT:
[ATTACH=full]85372[/ATTACH]

(Snipped the explanatory bit for brevity).

Guess what? This article, which "provides a sociological perspective on enthusiast computer overclocking," doesn't exist either!

[ATTACH=full]85373[/ATTACH]

This time the DOI's real, but points to an article published in 2013 in 26(5) of the same journal, titled Self-certified proxy convertible authenticated encryption: formal definitions and a provably secure scheme. Nowt to do with overclocking at all, and by completely different authors.

[ATTACH=full]85374[/ATTACH]

Yeah, we're back to correct-format but made-up DOIs again. There's no such article, which is a shame: a paper that "provides a philosophical perspective on the relationship between overclocking and emotion" sounds fascinating.

I could keep going. It's never going to give me a valid paper. It's not designed to. It's just doing what it's supposed to: giving me correctly-formatted responses to my prompts.

EDIT EDIT EDIT:
Keep calling it out for long enough and it sort of gives up, telling you to go to Google Scholar instead. The twist?

[ATTACH=full]85375[/ATTACH]

Yeah, that paper doesn't exist either. It didn't search Google Scholar. It just knows that a response to being called out about making stuff up should include a reference to where you found something, so it makes that up too.

Then:

[ATTACH=full]85376[/ATTACH]

Yeah, none of those exist either. Bonus points for the correctly-formatted link to a TechSpot article that doesn't exist.

It never stops. Right after that, it gave me another three "references," all of which are fictitious. I could keep going, but there's actual work to be done. Y'get my point, though.

[Horse]

In the US a ChatGPT program recently created false allegations of sexual harassment against at least three people which included creating a newspaper report falsely credited to one of the big dailies & quotes from that report.

What was/were the brief and any qualifiers or refinements used?

ChatGPT just made it up, because it's exactly the format

It's just doing what it's supposed to: giving me correctly-formatted responses to my prompts.

[ZRX61]

We've got some muppet on a FB ZRX group telling us how great it is

"So I've been farting around with snapchats "my AI" feature. Today I spent quite some time talking about the possibilities on why my zrx1224r build failed. And I think we came up with a solid answer. This AI shit is absolutely wild, using it with what you know... keep in mind I did have to correct it when it said the zrx1200r had a 6 speed transmission. Then it said I was right it has 5. It's free too which is awesome."

"Imaging getting advice on a problem you're having with your motorcycle (or anything else you can think of) and being able to ask a super smart artificial intelligence what they think the problem is."

[Horse]

Apparently the people who write essays for uni students are suffering a fall in business.

[Yambo]

I don't know much about AI (probably like most of you lot) although a script I can add to my astro images processing program was developed with/using AI.

What I think I do know, is that AI is going to be lacking in the emotional department. You can't teach emotions, you can't teach (for a machine to recognise) gut feelings and you can't teach a machine fear, trepidation, concern etc.

To quote our new king ("whatever love is . . ." ). AI ain't gonna crack that one any time soon.

[Count Steer]

What I think I do know, is that AI is going to be lacking in the emotional department. You can't teach emotions, you can't teach (for a machine to recognise) gut feelings and you can't teach a machine fear, trepidation, concern etc.

I don't suppose they'll dream either. Not even of electric sheep.

[DefTrap]

Yeah some people are still snooty about smart phones and television, they were going to take over the world too.

Man is a super selfish bastard survivalist. We kill, imprison and enslave each other at the drop of a hat. Use AI to kill each other and / or otherwise gain advantage? Absolutely. I strongly doubt that it'll be allowed to run amok though. And if it does then obviously it'll be accidentally-on-purpose / the-chinese'-fault.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I saw an interesting vid the other day about AI playing Go. It was big news a few years ago when a computer beat the top human Go player, it was supposedly the last great challenge of computer game playing. A bit like IBMs Deep Blue and Chess back in the 90s.

Recently an amateur player managed to beat one of the top AI Go players, a piece of software which is supposedly unbeatable and even more advanced than the one which can beat the world number 1. The human didn't just win, he won 14 games to 15.

How? He played using a strategy which would have been obvious to a human but runs contrary to the "correct" way to play. The AI can't beat it because the computer has no fundamental understanding of what the game is. It just knows that by making certain moves it wins, based on its training data. It has no intuitive concept of the actual point of the game. It's extremely narrow minded, like all AI at the moment.

[Screwdriver]

I think the game strategy which breaks the AI's vastly superior intellectual skill is the fact that it has no appreciation of what a physical object like a stone is. So it does not inherently grasp the concept of being surrounded.

My first thought when I saw that was how similar that was to Gödel's incompleteness theorems. A precise of which tells us any sufficiently powerful mathematical system will inevitably contain logical self-inconsistencies. My second thought was, having read "Gödel', Escher, Bach" a dozen times many years ago, I never did really understand it.**

But hang on. Before we pat ourselves on the back for being so much "smarter" than a robot because we know how to "break it". Consider this:

What are we going to do when an AI discovers a similar flaw in humans?




**At the time I was a massive Escher fan so II was more interested in the pretty pictures. I need to revisit that work I think.

[Mr. Dazzle]

What I think I do know, is that AI is going to be lacking in the emotional department. You can't teach emotions, you can't teach (for a machine to recognise) gut feelings and you can't teach a machine fear, trepidation, concern etc.

I wouldn't be so sure about this BTW.

AI software doesn't really work like any other kind. Its built on nueral nets just like our brains use and indeed the whole concept behind this came about from studying brains. You don't teach it rules like a traditional bit of software and a central theme in AI is that no-one really knows how the nets develop.

Who's to say that as these nets get more complicated that feelings won't emerge, just like they do in our brains?

Really good video on how the nets work;

[Screwdriver]

Just had a weird experience on eBay. I am chasing up a return and chatting with an agent online.

I just get the feeling I have been talking to a bot. Dos anyone know if eBay is using chat bot/AI to manage these online communications?

I didn't help that the agents name was Hero Von Shiff!

Maybe I'm just being cynical...

[Count Steer]

I was reclining on my hand embroidered, silk, Persian coverlet, contemplating things in general and my own in particular* when it occurred to me that if AIs are going to replace so many people, fewer actual people will be creating content for these AIs to soak up, they'll all just be reading each others output eventually. Well, that and bike forums, Instagram cat pictures and Faceberk.

The future starts to look like a bit of a funny farm.

*50 gold Internet points if anyone knows that particular reference.