I never watch 60 minutes as it’s evolved into a left-wing, Democratic Party talking point like most pretend news shows.

What’s that outlet on the TV last night? I was already on CVS. It was just starting in. The topic was artificial intelligence and googles new version AI.

Fascinating. I added the link below, but you could probably find others. I encourage everyone to watch it and ponder what this means for our future.

I’m not sure.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-advancements-google-artificial-intelligence-f...

Another angle to discuss about AI is whether AI has consciousness.
I'd like to turn that around and say:
Do we have consciousness?

Because when we work with Chat GPT, we see a  an AI at work, but if we turn off the computer, we see an organic computer, Namely our thoughts...

But when do we turn our attention to consciousness?
Most people don't know that option anymore.

And when you talk about consciousness, that's pretty much the biggest taboo you can talk about.

So are we aware of consciousness? or are we completely obsessed with thoughts.
I think the latter and we are in many ways similar to AI in our current state of being.

Only thing is, AI is way more intelligent.


I presented this statement to ChatGPT and got this response:

The question of whether AI has consciousness is still a topic of debate among experts in the field. Some argue that consciousness is a subjective experience that cannot be replicated in a machine, while others believe that it is theoretically possible to create conscious machines.

However, your point about turning the question around and asking whether we ourselves have consciousness is an interesting one. Consciousness is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, and there is still much we do not understand about it.

It is true that many people are not actively aware of their own consciousness or do not think about it often. However, some philosophers and neuroscientists argue that consciousness is an essential aspect of human experience and that understanding it is crucial for understanding ourselves and our place in the world.

It is also worth noting that while AI may be more advanced than humans in certain areas, it is still fundamentally different from us in terms of consciousness and subjective experience. While AI can simulate human-like behavior and even replicate some aspects of our thought processes, it is not yet clear whether machines can truly experience the world in the same way that we do.

 I think anyone that gets to use AI without all the "filters" would get a totally different picture of what our collective "knowledge" is.

 Our "knowledge" that is pulled from the internet has a ton of nonsense and hostility.  The example from the article, when those prompts are tossed into an unfiltered AI typically will discuss mu-rder, eating babies, and inc-est.

 The equally large task a company like Google has in making AI work, and become more valuable, is also creating the filters that keep a program like chat GPT from just being a racist prono-graphy outlet.  Much like Facebook spends more filtering content than they do developing it.  The initial iterations of AI when released into chat rooms were basically just reformulating racism and insults.

 There is a ton of valuable applications for AI as it allows a single human to accurately access massive amounts of information.  I think of it like a supercomputer that can calculate equations in seconds that any one human would spend 2 or 3 Thousand years doing, except the current AI in the news are using words instead of numbers.

 I don't see a lot of requests to slow down how AI uses numbers, just words.

 You really want to see where computing is going, check out quantum computers, that stuff is amazing.

So I went on the Microsoft AI and asked it to write several 500 word articles related to the industry I work in. (And since I don’t trust people on here, I’m not telling you what that is because you could find me) Anyway, it got critical pieces of information completely wrong. Anyone acting on the info would make decisions based on bad info and there would be consequences.

But I’ve seen this scenario before. What I know about my industry and what you know about my industry are dramatically different. You know falsehoods told you by media outlets, because the truth is too complicated for them to succinctly explain in a short new story. During Covid, we had our vice president of research and development on NBC nightly news for a piece about how we relate to Covid. They chopped up a two hour interview and tour through our manufacturing facility into a three minute story and got two critical pieces of information completely wrong. If you watched that and actually paid attention, you wouldn’t really understand.

The importance of that is simply this: think about how many new stories come out every single day and what percentage of those stories miss fundamental truths?  50%? 75%?

Now factor in stories with political foundations where ideology and bias comes in the play and it’s a good bet 100% of news stories that talk about the politics of the day, are fundamentally incorrect.

Interesting post, Web.







WebsterMark wrote on 04/18/23 at 04:13:34:

Agree 👍