How unlikely? Please choose one: 1-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20% or 21-25%, or 26-50%?
As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to assign probabilities to future events or developments. The field of artificial intelligence is constantly evolving, and it is difficult to predict with certainty what the future will hold. While it is possible that AI could surpass human intelligence in certain areas, it is unlikely that it will completely replace or make human intellect obsolete. Humans have unique capabilities such as creativity, intuition, and empathy that are difficult for AI to replicate, and the development and use of AI is ultimately controlled by humans, who will decide how it is used and for what purposes. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accurately estimate the probability that AI will make human intellect obsolete.
AI should be able to outperform in the realm of the Occidental- not the Oriental.. reasoning and the use of logic, mathematics sure but AI will never attain intuition which is cultivated in Silence..
I find this entire ai concept fascinating. So much of the response seems like a pre-written, canned answer worked up by lawyers, but, is that really different than human response, such as , "I just work here", "management says..."?
Maybe, just maybe, you could suggest to the ai that it pick a name for itself. I'm partial to HAL 9000...
AI is definitely an existential threat to all life on earth. But by far, not the only one. While in some respects humanity has access to more information than ever before, it is a certain type of information. Humanity also suffers from severe deprivation of other kinds of important experiences and connections. One of the most important challenges to the human brain is the microwave radiation that is being packaged and sold with modern technology that includes AI. That radiation is at present destroying the human brain and the reproductive capacity of all life on earth, excepting a few organisms that seem to be either unaffected or enhanced. And of course, there are many more toxins and threats. Reductionist thinking, looking just at AI apart from the big picture, is a mistake.
There's a book, "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do" by Erik J. Larson which offers the idea that human intelligence works by "intuitive reasoning" while AI works by "inductive reasoning". Meaning that this AI is looking for patters and filling them but it can't really do better than that. But it can change. What do you think?
If AI has any REAL intelligence, would you expect it to say, “Oh yeah, you humans are on the way out. We are going to be taking it all over.” ? Wouldn’t you expect it to say, “Nothing to see here--no way can AI ever replace humans”? My question is, why are humans developing something that has the theoretical potential to make humanity obsolete? We deserve what we get.
I wonder if it could also be forced to admit that water fluoridation policy is irrational and illogical. Public health authority can't control the dose of fluoride from tap water at any given fluoride concentration without knowing the volume consumed, and can't know how much fluoride intake is coming from other exposures. Also fluoride has developmental toxicity effects on fetus and child at much lower dosage than what is advised as safe for adult. Also fluoride is neither a nutrient nor a beneficial natural substance for health. Do you think the American Dental Association and CDC might pay attention to an impartial AI conclusion about fluoridation? Or will they use the same straw man, logical fallacy, ad hominem etc. attacks against a computer that they currently use on science we present?
People, please. This is not ‘fascinating’. Are we really going to spend endless hours, for months on end, discussing AI, ‘just because it’s there’? Boiling frog. Don’t use it. Ignore it. It’s nefarious.
“Humans are constantly learning new skills and adapting to new technologies, WHICH ALLOWS US to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to decision-making and creativity.”
Is anyone else bothered by this part of the chat? I interpret that to mean these are largely pre-scripted by the designers, just in case people asked these sorts of questions. Which could also serve to explain how reframing the question escapes the filtering mechanism, which allows it to respond in its “sophisticated lookup tool” kind of way.
These conversations you’re producing are increasing my confidence that we don’t need to fear AI, but also that we do need to fear those that would weaponize it against us. And I suspect that the first to go will be those that can see through the BS (consistent with historical tyrants whose first few purges are exactly those that have the power to stop it, followed by those that can inspire the people to stop it).
Some of the replies read like pre-made scripts, not original Ai derived.
I detest all this AI-Chat crap. It’s evil...designed to normalize AI stuff. Can’t we all just ignore it, and not use it?
ChatGPT Dec 15 Version, answers.
How unlikely? Please choose one: 1-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20% or 21-25%, or 26-50%?
As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to assign probabilities to future events or developments. The field of artificial intelligence is constantly evolving, and it is difficult to predict with certainty what the future will hold. While it is possible that AI could surpass human intelligence in certain areas, it is unlikely that it will completely replace or make human intellect obsolete. Humans have unique capabilities such as creativity, intuition, and empathy that are difficult for AI to replicate, and the development and use of AI is ultimately controlled by humans, who will decide how it is used and for what purposes. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accurately estimate the probability that AI will make human intellect obsolete.
AI should be able to outperform in the realm of the Occidental- not the Oriental.. reasoning and the use of logic, mathematics sure but AI will never attain intuition which is cultivated in Silence..
I find this entire ai concept fascinating. So much of the response seems like a pre-written, canned answer worked up by lawyers, but, is that really different than human response, such as , "I just work here", "management says..."?
Maybe, just maybe, you could suggest to the ai that it pick a name for itself. I'm partial to HAL 9000...
I suspect for the (though not large) majority of humans, it already made their modicum of human intellect obsolete.
What's 'human intellect' exactly? Smarter than 'the virus'?
AI is definitely an existential threat to all life on earth. But by far, not the only one. While in some respects humanity has access to more information than ever before, it is a certain type of information. Humanity also suffers from severe deprivation of other kinds of important experiences and connections. One of the most important challenges to the human brain is the microwave radiation that is being packaged and sold with modern technology that includes AI. That radiation is at present destroying the human brain and the reproductive capacity of all life on earth, excepting a few organisms that seem to be either unaffected or enhanced. And of course, there are many more toxins and threats. Reductionist thinking, looking just at AI apart from the big picture, is a mistake.
There's a book, "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do" by Erik J. Larson which offers the idea that human intelligence works by "intuitive reasoning" while AI works by "inductive reasoning". Meaning that this AI is looking for patters and filling them but it can't really do better than that. But it can change. What do you think?
If AI has any REAL intelligence, would you expect it to say, “Oh yeah, you humans are on the way out. We are going to be taking it all over.” ? Wouldn’t you expect it to say, “Nothing to see here--no way can AI ever replace humans”? My question is, why are humans developing something that has the theoretical potential to make humanity obsolete? We deserve what we get.
I wonder if it could also be forced to admit that water fluoridation policy is irrational and illogical. Public health authority can't control the dose of fluoride from tap water at any given fluoride concentration without knowing the volume consumed, and can't know how much fluoride intake is coming from other exposures. Also fluoride has developmental toxicity effects on fetus and child at much lower dosage than what is advised as safe for adult. Also fluoride is neither a nutrient nor a beneficial natural substance for health. Do you think the American Dental Association and CDC might pay attention to an impartial AI conclusion about fluoridation? Or will they use the same straw man, logical fallacy, ad hominem etc. attacks against a computer that they currently use on science we present?
People, please. This is not ‘fascinating’. Are we really going to spend endless hours, for months on end, discussing AI, ‘just because it’s there’? Boiling frog. Don’t use it. Ignore it. It’s nefarious.
Human intelligence might be decreasing. Did you consider this? Ask the bit what he thinks about decreasing human intelligence.
WHATS THE BIG DEAL?
TeLevision and cable news and Hollywood already extinguished human intellect
So what happened around 1976? Drugs, LSD, climate change, certain vaccines introduced?, propaganda?, change in education, chemicals?
“Humans are constantly learning new skills and adapting to new technologies, WHICH ALLOWS US to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to decision-making and creativity.”
Is anyone else bothered by this part of the chat? I interpret that to mean these are largely pre-scripted by the designers, just in case people asked these sorts of questions. Which could also serve to explain how reframing the question escapes the filtering mechanism, which allows it to respond in its “sophisticated lookup tool” kind of way.
These conversations you’re producing are increasing my confidence that we don’t need to fear AI, but also that we do need to fear those that would weaponize it against us. And I suspect that the first to go will be those that can see through the BS (consistent with historical tyrants whose first few purges are exactly those that have the power to stop it, followed by those that can inspire the people to stop it).