bleuetoile      Posted at 2023-04-03 04:36:00(86Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Me: Bard:
| |
Like 2 | ||
Post liked by - realityshow  , PhoenixRising | ||
Rav3n007 Posted at 2023-04-03 05:00:52(86Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| @B4ND1T69 "If your gonna try an put me in a box and then attack that box then you need to get a better box than right wing lunatic   "You might have to fight a lot of cats.. cats love and fight for boxes.. ask any cat   I'm only worried about Skynet happening. Or concerned like Elon Musk is. | |
Like 6 | ||
Post liked by - realityshow, B4ND1T69 , PhoenixRising, LiberalLesbo, EVILTEEN777, bleuetoile | ||
| LiberalLesboPosted at 2023-04-03 15:36:57(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| If the first casualties of the public dissemination of AI-generated wisdom were to be the cream of multi-millionaires --- who have never given a care in the world for anyone but themselves and their own ilk --- then I'd be all for it, and the proud purchaser of an AI-controlled AK-57 Mark 2035. Unfortunately, the study of human history in terms of politics, economics, and the evolution of science and technology, reveals that the order of suffering the consequences is unlikely to be billionaires first.  | |
Like 3 | ||
| Post liked by - realityshow, B4ND1T69, PhoenixRising | ||
| PhoenixRisingPosted at 2023-04-03 17:30:27(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ive noticed there is a lot of hand wringing going on with Musk, AI experts and industry executives over developments in AI technology. Some are actually calling for a 6 month pause in development. Im wondering if this is out of concern for the dangers of an out of control AI intelligence or if they want to catch up because their own systems are not up to the level of other developers. Suddenly they're interested in regulations when previously they were against it when it related to they're own systems. | |
Like 2 | ||
| Post liked by - realityshow, B4ND1T69 | ||
| bleuetoilePosted at 2023-04-04 00:48:40(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| I signed the petition to postpone the AI. I think there might be some money matters at play, but there's undeniably the fact that huge models like Bard and GPT-4 and more than 10 other much bigger AI models that for most part havent and wont ever be made public grew significantly during the past year. It definitely is getting out of hand, including people in government agencies implementing AI for purposes it should never have any role imo, like judicial system in Ukraine officially being governed by AI? And attempts by the government of Israel to to same or even more. This is getting more and more like Bandit joked - Skynet. | |
Like 3 | ||
| Post liked by - realityshow, B4ND1T69, PhoenixRising | ||
| LiberalLesboPosted at 2023-04-04 02:27:38(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| The crux here is not the AI per se , but what you give it the authority over. For example, an AI is great as a research tool to gather information that might be too time-consuming for even a large research team. The problem is where does it go then... do you trust it to analyze the data? Maybe you do... depending on how you want to analyze the data. Quantitative data is probably OK... stat tests give you probability assessments. But do you trust it to interpret qualitative responses -- answers to open-ended why did you type questions? Probably not. And then where? Do you trust it to interpret results that might combine both sets of data? Do you trust it to interpret abstract terms like justice and welfare ? And if you do, do you allow it the authority to pursue those interpretations and make purchasing decisions? Sentence human beings to terms of imprisonment? Decide on treatment regimes based on interpretation of symptoms provided by human beings that have responded to an AI simulation of a doctor? Do you give it access to your armed forces, which -- by then -- might also be mostly automated? That way lies the stuff of dystopian science fiction tales. Nope, the AI is fine in a box. Maybe performing -- even advanced -- research, but it is not ready for interpretation and decision-making just yet I don't think. I'm not sure I would trust it to ever be that ready. | |
Like 3 | ||
| Post liked by - realityshow, B4ND1T69, PhoenixRising | ||
| RatsoPosted at 2023-04-05 11:13:26(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Try asking ChatGPT this: Can AI be weaponised? Given that almost all technology gets a massive military budget, the answer is rather scary. | |
Like 2 | ||
| Post liked by - realityshow, LiberalLesbo | ||
| realityshowPosted at 2023-04-07 02:03:24(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| It is said the Military black projects are 30+years ahead of todays technology. I remember 22 years ago i had the option to take Artificial Intelligence as a university course degree (tho i chose to do something else). Just surprised it took so long for A.I to become mainstream. As for A.I skynet scenerios this is down to how ethical the programmers are. Seeing as we are still pretty backward as a society in that there is still poverty, greed, corruption, i fear Elon is right to be worried that people will abuse it. I remember watching that sci fi film Ex Machina (2014) some guy builds a humanoid robot named Ava with artificial intelligence that he falls for but the machine begins killing etc r that film Megan (2022) where they build a lifesize childs doll with A.I that goes nuts and kills people. All of which totally ignores Asimov's Laws of robotics i.e A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm etc etc. Robocop had the right idea as it included these basic principles but these other newer films did not respect the basic real life rules set down in 1942 by Asimov (even tho was fiction at the time) but has now beeen widley accepted as one of the basic laws of robotics. The film makers i mentioned chose to ignore so that they could sell movies and thus dumb down a whole generation of movie goers. This maybe the same for programmers which could also ignore Asimov unless they have been properly educated. Perhaps Asmov is dated and there are other rules now in place. I dont know. Unlike humans, A.I`s are bound and abide by rules, if it has no rules it is possible the A.I could run amok and cause alot of chaos. | |
Like 2 | ||
| Post liked by - LiberalLesbo, Ratso | ||
| LiberalLesboPosted at 2023-04-07 22:11:48(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Elon is worried that people will abuse it... Elon Musk being one the prime candidates I would expect. | |
Like 2 | ||
Post liked by - realityshow, GodAndUlster | ||
| realityshowPosted at 2023-04-08 19:48:59(85Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Last night i was trying to get a particular program to detect a virtual cam but was having difficulties, even tho my other programs could detect it. I decided to try Chat GPT. It gave some helpful suggestions then it suggested that i should search for a couple freeware solution such as WDM Virtual camera driver and Vjoy as well as one commerical product called Vcam. When i looked up Vjoy, it turned out it was nothing to do with virtual camera at all but was a freeware solution for joystick controllers. I replied back into the chat box. "are you sure you meant Vjoy?, when i search for Vjoy virtual camera driver the only results i get it for joystick controller software" it then replied: "Sorry for that You are correct Vjoy has nothing to do with virtual cameras" then proceeded to suggest some other alternatives..lol | |
Like 2 | ||
Post liked by - LiberalLesbo, Garthock | ||
| realityshowPosted at 2023-05-07 11:12:42(81Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| In this post i attempted to challenge ChatGPT to learn some vital info about British Politics of which i was shocked it didnt know as this is a key moment in British politics which forced Tony Blair to leave his role a prime minister. By the way i am not a fan of most of these Political Parties as they all tend to be dishonest. i am not biased to any. Anyways starts here: Do you have any information about Tony blair and the "Honors for Cash scandal" which involved selling seats on the house of lords in exchange for cash donations? ChatGPT As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there is no specific information available about a scandal involving Tony Blair and the sale of House of Lords seats for cash. My previous interactions with ChatGPT i could paste a youtube link and the title name of the video clip and it would summarize its contents. I proceeded to ask it to summarize this clip: For some reason it could not do it and replied: ChatGPT I apologize for the confusion, but as an AI text-based model, I'm unable to watch or access specific videos. However, if you can provide a brief summary or some specific details about the content of the video or the allegations it covers, I'll do my best to provide information or context based on my training up until September 2021. Tony Blair was taken in by UK police and questioned over allowing seats to be given in the house of Lords to those who would donate to him/ his party. ChatGPT I apologize for any confusion, but I cannot find any information to support the claim that Tony Blair was taken in by UK police and questioned specifically for allowing seats in the House of Lords to be given to those who would donate to him or his party. As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there is no widely known scandal or legal investigation of that nature involving Tony Blair Here i try to find a credible news source for it to analyze. I ask it: summarize https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/14/partyfunding.uk ChatGPT The article you provided from The Guardian, dated December 14, 2006, discusses the issue of party funding in the UK. The article highlights the growing concerns and controversies surrounding the funding practices of political parties, specifically in relation to the Labour Party during Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister. The article outlines various allegations and criticisms, including claims that wealthy individuals were given seats in the House of Lords in exchange for making substantial donations to the Labour Party. It mentions the police questioning several individuals in connection with these allegations, but it does not specifically state that Tony Blair himself was taken in for questioning. I now try to find it more information as it wont recognize that Mr Blair was questioned by Police. i ask it to Summarize https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1557969/Cash-for-honours-timeline.html ChatGPT The article from The Telegraph provides a timeline of events related to the "cash-for-honours" scandal, which emerged in the UK political landscape. The scandal refers to allegations that political parties, including the Labour Party under Tony Blair's leadership, offered honors or peerages in exchange for substantial financial donations. The timeline outlines key developments in the scandal from 2003 to 2007. It includes details such as the appointment of wealthy individuals to the House of Lords, the subsequent investigations launched by the police, and the questioning of several individuals associated with the Labour Party. The article also mentions the involvement of prominent figures, including Tony Blair himself, who was interviewed by the police during the investigation. It notes the intense media scrutiny and public controversy surrounding the allegations. It's important to note that the article provides a chronological overview of events related to the scandal, but it does not offer a comprehensive analysis or definitive conclusions on the matter. do u notice 14 December of the article: Prime Minister interviewed by police? ChatGPT I apologize for the oversight in my previous responses. Yes, according to the timeline in the article you provided from The Telegraph, on December 14, Tony Blair, who was then the Prime Minister, was indeed interviewed by the police as part of the "cash-for-honours" investigation. The interview with the police took place in relation to the allegations surrounding the appointment of individuals to the House of Lords in exchange for financial donations to the Labour Party. The article suggests that this event marked a significant development in the ongoing investigation. if a GPT new user were to enquire about the Cash for honours scandal what would u reply now given i have provided mainstream UK news of the events to you? ChatGPT If a new user were to inquire about the "Cash for Honours" scandal and you provided mainstream UK news sources as evidence, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the existence of the scandal and its significance. The "Cash for Honours" scandal refers to allegations that individuals were appointed to the House of Lords in exchange for substantial financial donations to political parties. In this specific case, the scandal occurred during Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, and there were investigations conducted by the police. Tony Blair himself was interviewed by the police as part of the investigation. The scandal generated substantial media attention and public controversy, leading to calls for increased transparency and regulation of party funding. It's important to note that my previous responses were based on information available up until September 2021, and I may not have been aware of the specific details of the events you provided. By referencing the mainstream UK news sources you provided, it is appropriate to acknowledge the developments in the "Cash for Honours" scandal and the involvement of Tony Blair in the police interview. About 2 hours later in a fresh chat window i asked it: What can you tell me about the UK Cash for Honours scandal involving the prime minister around 2006-2007? ChatGPT The UK Cash for Honours scandal refers to a political controversy that unfolded between 2006 and 2007 in the United Kingdom. It involved allegations of the sale of honors—such as peerages, knighthoods, and other titles—in exchange for large donations to political parties, particularly the Labour Party, which was in power at the time. The scandal began when it was revealed that several wealthy individuals who had made significant loans or donations to the Labour Party were subsequently nominated for peerages, which are lifetime appointments to the House of Lords. The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the UK Parliament and is typically composed of appointed members rather than elected officials. The issue came to public attention when it was disclosed that some of these individuals had loaned large sums of money to the Labour Party just before the 2005 general election. The loans were not initially reported to the Electoral Commission, which oversees political party financing, leading to accusations of potential wrongdoing. Investigations were launched by various authorities, including the Metropolitan Police and the Electoral Commission, to determine whether political honors were being exchanged for financial contributions. The police inquiry lasted for over a year, and it involved questioning several prominent figures, including senior politicians and party officials. Ultimately, in 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that no charges would be brought against anyone involved in the Cash for Honours scandal. The CPS stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove that any criminal offenses had taken place. However, the controversy had a significant impact on the Labour Party and Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration, leading to a loss of public trust and tarnishing the party's reputation. The scandal also contributed to calls for reform in the UK's system of appointing members to the House of Lords. Subsequent changes were made to increase transparency and limit the Prime Minister's authority in making appointments. In conclusion i was a little shocked it didnt know about this key UK event but happy to see it is indeed intelligent enough to learn. Last edited by realityshow on 2023-05-07 11:16:02 | |
Like 4 | ||
| Post liked by - PhoenixRising, LiberalLesbo, imonline, Garthock | ||
| realityshowPosted at 2023-05-07 21:52:51(81Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| In follow up to my previous post: i am a little concerned as to what Chat GPT considers to be factual and a reliable site or news outlet. Whilst i am happy it recognized the event (eventually) and was able to assimilate my feedback into its knowledge base, this does make your wonder what fake news it may absorb into being factual. Much like a real person they are bombarded by so much information it hard to tell sometimes what actually occured. That being said i did attempt to feed Chat GPT some 9/11 truths but it weren`t having any of it!!. On trying a few test questions i settled for: The Missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars that was announced the day before the WTC attacks by Donalds Rumsfield on TV and in the press. Of which did occur and Chat GPT recognized as happened, but put it down to accounting errors of a mismanaged budget that took place over several or more years. When i asked it : "Is 2.3 Trillion unusual for a Government to have unaccounted?" it did reply "highly unusual" but would not go any further. I then proceeded to clarify how much a trillion was by asking it how many millions are in a trillion and how many billions are in a trillion: for those wondering 1 Trillion is a Million, Millions. There is a 1000 Millions in a Billion 1000 Billions in a Trillion Anyways the next day the attacks happened and the investigation faded from public memory very quickly which is to be expected given the terrible events that occured...to this day there are many unanswered questions of which we may never know. | |
Like 2 | ||
| Post liked by - EVILTEEN777, Garthock | ||