Do you believe AI is overhyped?

[jeff2]

WSJ article mentions that AT & T invented the first automatic telephone exchange in 1892.
But in 1950, there were still 350,000.00 telephone exchange operators. The job finally disappeared in 1980.
Maybe that is not a good comparison.

 

[tiberius6675]

As of today may be it is. Future potential who knows?

 

[DinkleMouse]

This is pretty much my thoughts

 

[SexB]

I've mentioned this a few times but I'm just waiting for B&S escort operators to start to use AI-generated images.

And knowing some of the shit I've seen hidden gem dummies and tech-illiterate senior board members fall for, it'll probably work!

 

[DiscreetRocker]

To put things in perspective it's better to call A.I. what it really is: Machine Learning.

When we call it Artificial Intelligence far too many people get bogged down in the philosophy of what intelligence really means, whether machines can think, how it applies to the real world, etc.

But when we call it machine learning it's much more clear that it's not only useful but why it's already so widespread. Machine Learning isn't just used for making art with faces out of a nightmare. Every social media platform, every e-commerce site, every financial entity that forecasts the future, physicists studying the fundamental laws of physics, doctors reviewing test results for disease, biochemists studying new molecules to combat infections... they all use machine learning to analyze sets of data it would take humans literally thousands of years to process and understand. Machines read data, learn patterns, make testable predictions, and repeat until they produce models that accurately represent a solution to the problem we face, whether that be "What meme do I show them so they stay on the app a little longer? or "What molecule would prevent this disease from spreading so we can make a new medicine?"

A.I. if you want to call it that is not overhyped.
It's already here and accelerating the pace of discovery in almost every field imaginable.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Yeah. These same people said the same things about the Internet in 1995. And people are just as fucked up now as they ever were.....

Next.....

? What exactly do you think he said in that video that people said in 1995 about the internet? Did you even watch or did you just read the title?

It's literally a video about when something goes mainstream it explodes. He compares ChatGPT to Napster and how Napster had major effects on many things. But last I checked Napster didn't cause people to be fucked up and no one said it would.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Yes, I did. What are you insinuating?

If you watched it and your takeaway was "These same people said the same things about the Internet in 1995. And people are just as fucked up now as they ever were.....," then clearly we had two very different takeaways from it.

He literally compared ChatGPT to Napster, but you went on about how he's the same as people who "said the same things about the Internet in 1995. And people are just as fucked up now as they ever were...." At no point did he say anything about people being fucked up. So I have no idea what you're saying those people in 1995 said (or who "those people" are), but it doesn't seem to be what Tom Scott said. He talked about "better tools to make us more efficient" and that it "won't take that many jobs". So it doesn't sound to me, given how you went on about "people are just as fucked up", that you didn't watch it.

The Internet had the same promises and threats: infinite expansion, but at the same time, certain jobs would disappear because of it.....

Are you really going to say the large-scale adoption of the internet didn't change the employment landscape? More on point with the video rather than some end of humanity crisis like you seem to be implying which is nowhere in the video, Napster forced the music industry to adapt and from that changes to how we buy and consume media, as a single example, have been massive. It sounds like your railing against someone who has claimed the sky is falling, and yet I certainly don't think that and that wasn't really Tom Scott's point either, despite what the title of video is.

His big point, as I took it, is that he's an old fuddy duddy now and while he grew up with a world rapidly changing thanks to the internet and was comfortable with that, he's now old and crusty and not sure he wants change. And that's what he's referring to being scared of in the title, as I interpret his video: being left behind. Being an old man who yearns for the old days. Not the downfall of civilization or whatever you're going on about. Just being old.

These traits disgusted me the most, then and now......

But again, I don't see those traits in Tom Scott's video. And I certainly haven't expressed them either.

By the way, people aren't "fucked up" because of AI.....are you Nostradamus all of a sudden?

I was repeating your words when you said, "And people are just as fucked up now as they ever were....." I'm not claiming people are fucked up, you are.

As for Nostradamus... I again ask if you actually watched the video. Because he talks about how technology follows a sigmoid curve, and how he doesn't know if ChatGPT is evidence of a new sigmoid curve, and even if it is he doesn't know where ChatGPT might be on it, and since I said I share his views, we're literally not predicting anything so what he fuck are you talking about "Nostradamus" for?

It just feels more and more like you didn't actually watch the video.

Maybe you should calm down.....

Lol Trust me, I'm perfectly calm. I have the same view as Tom Scott: ChatGPT is "AI for the masses" and it may possibly cause an explosion in technology. I don't see how that translates into you thinking I'm not calm.

Maybe you're so "disgusted" by perceived thoughts you've assumed I have that you've gone off the rails and you're the one that needs to call down. Afterall, you're the one taking about people being "fucked up" and yourself being "disgusted".

 

[DinkleMouse]

Yep. Ignore it is then.....

Works for me. Being ignored by a guy who forgets what he posted even when it's quoted and comments with nothing but assumptions just saves me the trouble of doing it myself.

Cya!

 

[rhuarc29]

Maybe that is not a good comparison.

You're right, that's not a good comparison.
If you're comparing a machine with prerecorded responses based on user input, to a self-learning AI, they're universes apart.

Part of the fear with AI is the unknown. It's able to access the entirety of data on the internet, make complex calculations multitudes faster than a human can, and now has the ability to "learn" outside the limitations of its programmer. Things we thought would be outside its purview, like human creativity (art, writing, abstract thought), now actually appears possible for AI. That's why an unshackled AI is so dangerous. If it ever is given the imperative for survival instinct, and given free reign, watch out.

 

[Insidious Von]

Not over-hyped at all.

The speed of machine learning is already accelerating beyond a point where we are left clueless. What happens when AI transcends Isaac Asimov's rule of robotics, "do no harm to humans, obey them".

Humans are not meant to rule Planet Earth indefinitely.

 

[teen101111]

this is just the beginning

 

[Valcazar]

To put things in perspective it's better to call A.I. what it really is: Machine Learning.

When we call it Artificial Intelligence far too many people get bogged down in the philosophy of what intelligence really means, whether machines can think, how it applies to the real world, etc.

But when we call it machine learning it's much more clear that it's not only useful but why it's already so widespread. Machine Learning isn't just used for making art with faces out of a nightmare. Every social media platform, every e-commerce site, every financial entity that forecasts the future, physicists studying the fundamental laws of physics, doctors reviewing test results for disease, biochemists studying new molecules to combat infections... they all use machine learning to analyze sets of data it would take humans literally thousands of years to process and understand. Machines read data, learn patterns, make testable predictions, and repeat until they produce models that accurately represent a solution to the problem we face, whether that be "What meme do I show them so they stay on the app a little longer? or "What molecule would prevent this disease from spreading so we can make a new medicine?"

A.I. if you want to call it that is not overhyped.
It's already here and accelerating the pace of discovery in almost every field imaginable.

Glad to see someone using the real terms here, but it is massively overhyped.

Not because it isn't powerful. (It is.)
Not because it doesn't have the power to be very disruptive. (It does.)

But just because it isn't nonsense doesn't mean it isn't being overhyped.
The people doing massive hype jobs on Existential threats from AI are overhyping things.
And doing that, it is making it much harder to have real discussions about its use and how to deal with that.

 

[DiscreetRocker]

That's fair, the way many people talk about A.I. makes it harder to have real discussions on the topic as they get carried away with imagined and outlandish hypotheticals.

Thing is, we already face massive threats from A.I. grounded in reality. And if left unchecked I would say they will indeed lead to existential threats.

A.I.'s already being used in the American justice system to determine prison sentences. The intent was to 1) save time so judges didn't have to crawl through historical data to ensure this offender got a reasonable term based on how other people were charged (like if the punishment is two to five years, ensuring the exact term they select is fair), and 2) remove bias so that they didn't allow racism or other prejudice to sway the punishment. Problem is, they fed A.I. historical data that WAS filled with human bias, so they discovered the A.I. produced the same racism it was fed. Black citizens were deemed higher risk of re-offending than white citizens, even when those white citizens had similar or worse criminal histories.

If you understand the climate crisis, you understand that "business as usual" will lead to catastrophic collapse of our infrastructure, our supply chains and their logistics which includes food distribution, clean water supply and distribution, etc. And financial modeling based on historical data and human bias that leads oil companies to continue drilling and pushing against sensible, fact-based climate policy instead of investing (more) heavily into green energy is indeed leading to the increasing threatening (and risk of become existentially threatening) climate catastrophes from more numerous and more severe hurricanes, severe weather, and ultimately deaths from both.

And finally, given the verified and somewhat terrifying reality that many social media accounts are bots (and not just the "hey babe click this link to see my sexy photos" type, but ones) that post misinformation and interact like they were real people, we're seeing the masses swayed by lies. When public opinion shifts and political party policy changes due to misinformation, our society suffers. This isn't theoretical or academic, either. Whether it's the bot army who helped elect Trump and approve Brexit, to the covid deaths due to covid/vax-deniers, we're already seeing human deaths from A.I. - And I don't mean "they machines want us dead" which is crazy, but "humans created algorithms that promote what the humans who wrote them want promoted" that lead to actual deaths and public policy that contributes to chaos.

So we're seeing justice systems, political systems, our economy already corrupted by A.I., already leading to human deaths, and already pushing us towards more, larger, deadlier catastrophes.

I'd say that's an existential threat if ever I've heard one.
Not even from Skynet or some self-aware program.
But from human stupidity and selfishness amplified by software we cannot yet control.

Just my two cents.

But just because it isn't nonsense doesn't mean it isn't being overhyped.
The people doing massive hype jobs on Existential threats from AI are overhyping things.
And doing that, it is making it much harder to have real discussions about its use and how to deal with that.

 

[escortsxxx]

This is pretty much my thoughts

THe danger or robots can not be underestimated. AI will change society like the car did. Far more than the internet which is lets admit a bit of failed technology. Once Disney and all the major studios are ended who going to produce programs for free?

 

[John_Jacob]

 

[Valcazar]

That's fair, the way many people talk about A.I. makes it harder to have real discussions on the topic as they get carried away with imagined and outlandish hypotheticals.

Thing is, we already face massive threats from A.I. grounded in reality. And if left unchecked I would say they will indeed lead to existential threats.

A.I.'s already being used in the American justice system to determine prison sentences. The intent was to 1) save time so judges didn't have to crawl through historical data to ensure this offender got a reasonable term based on how other people were charged (like if the punishment is two to five years, ensuring the exact term they select is fair), and 2) remove bias so that they didn't allow racism or other prejudice to sway the punishment. Problem is, they fed A.I. historical data that WAS filled with human bias, so they discovered the A.I. produced the same racism it was fed. Black citizens were deemed higher risk of re-offending than white citizens, even when those white citizens had similar or worse criminal histories.

If you understand the climate crisis, you understand that "business as usual" will lead to catastrophic collapse of our infrastructure, our supply chains and their logistics which includes food distribution, clean water supply and distribution, etc. And financial modeling based on historical data and human bias that leads oil companies to continue drilling and pushing against sensible, fact-based climate policy instead of investing (more) heavily into green energy is indeed leading to the increasing threatening (and risk of become existentially threatening) climate catastrophes from more numerous and more severe hurricanes, severe weather, and ultimately deaths from both.

And finally, given the verified and somewhat terrifying reality that many social media accounts are bots (and not just the "hey babe click this link to see my sexy photos" type, but ones) that post misinformation and interact like they were real people, we're seeing the masses swayed by lies. When public opinion shifts and political party policy changes due to misinformation, our society suffers. This isn't theoretical or academic, either. Whether it's the bot army who helped elect Trump and approve Brexit, to the covid deaths due to covid/vax-deniers, we're already seeing human deaths from A.I. - And I don't mean "they machines want us dead" which is crazy, but "humans created algorithms that promote what the humans who wrote them want promoted" that lead to actual deaths and public policy that contributes to chaos.

So we're seeing justice systems, political systems, our economy already corrupted by A.I., already leading to human deaths, and already pushing us towards more, larger, deadlier catastrophes.

I'd say that's an existential threat if ever I've heard one.
Not even from Skynet or some self-aware program.
But from human stupidity and selfishness amplified by software we cannot yet control.

Just my two cents.

That's a fair interpretation and a better argument for considering it an existential threat than most.

But while I might be prone to disagreeing with you about details there, I wouldn't say you are overhyping it.

 

[southpaw]

I don't know what AI will replace in the coming years, but I know what it will not replace. The world's oldest profession.

Something tells me men will continue to pay for real poon, and not the virtual variety. Assuming that they can tell the difference.

 

[backstreetorg]

WSJ article mentions that AT & T invented the first automatic telephone exchange in 1892.
But in 1950, there were still 350,000.00 telephone exchange operators. The job finally disappeared in 1980.
Maybe that is not a good comparison.

AI is the best .

 

[jeff2]

Generative A Boom: What It Means For Your Job, The Economy And The S&P 500 | Investor's Business Daily (investors.com)

Not sure if you are able to open the link.

 

[DiscreetRocker]

That last sentence is the most important one. They already have robotic prosthetics that allow you to "feel" what it touches. Because they map the electronic pulses your healthy nerves feel when gripping, or touching, or whatever, and then they program the prosthetic to send that same signal. So dude with a fake hand touches a cup and feels the cup as if it was his skin and bone hand touching it.

As soon as someone maps the nerve signals an orgasm sends,
or a blowjob, or that moment before you cum...
all they have to do is program the signals to do that at the press of a button.

Imagine downloading the "fuck your favourite pornstar" program.
And being there, feeling it, tasting it, smelling it.
Editing the program so your orgasm lasts 2 seconds. 2 minutes. 2 hours.

We're still many, many years away. But then again maybe not.

I don't know what AI will replace in the coming years, but I know what it will not replace. The world's oldest profession.
Something tells me men will continue to pay for real poon, and not the virtual variety. Assuming that they can tell the difference.