ChatGPT : Does God Exist?

[Elixir]

What y'all explore the the macro implications of AI, I have found some amusement in the recounting of what actually happens in an AI "takeover".
Check this out - here's a guy who attempted to turn his entire life over to the ChatGPT 'bot.

 

[Jarhyn]

What y'all explore the the macro implications of AI, I have found some amusement in the recounting of what actually happens in an AI "takeover".
Check this out - here's a guy who attempted to turn his entire life over to the ChatGPT 'bot.

Guy asks 1-minute-old with massive book learning and NO practical experience to advise his life?

WCGW?

 

[Elixir]

What y'all explore the the macro implications of AI, I have found some amusement in the recounting of what actually happens in an AI "takeover".
Check this out - here's a guy who attempted to turn his entire life over to the ChatGPT 'bot.

Guy asks 1-minute-old with massive book learning and NO practical experience to advise his life?

WCGW?

Read it and find out. Long story short - EVERYTHING!

 

[Politesse]

What y'all explore the the macro implications of AI, I have found some amusement in the recounting of what actually happens in an AI "takeover".
Check this out - here's a guy who attempted to turn his entire life over to the ChatGPT 'bot.

Guy asks 1-minute-old with massive book learning and NO practical experience to advise his life?

WCGW?

He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.

 

[Elixir]

He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.

...and things would have gone SO well had he not fallen off the wagon!
I think the danger lies in the fact that when the interaction is entirely verbal, there is no uncanny valley effect to warn people off.

 

[Politesse]

He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.

...and things would have gone SO well had he not fallen off the wagon!
I think the danger lies in the fact that when the interaction is entirely verbal, there is no uncanny valley effect to warn people off.

I mean, yeah, would have been fine. For one thing, it warned him that the entire project was a bad idea. But also, if he'd just followed the first schedule he asked it for, his day would have gone fine. But then he wouldn't have a story, which was presumably his real goal. So he monkeyed with it until it did what he wanted.

 

[Elixir]

For one thing, it warned him that the entire project was a bad idea.

Y'know, I'd forgotten that. Lol. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[Copernicus]

Most people still believe that the program is intelligent. After all, the chatbot is often called "AI"--Artificial Intelligence. That's what you need when the real thing just won't do.

The issue now with these overhyped programs is that those who create the content it uses are starting to realize that all they are getting nothing from it--not even acknowledgment that their work was used. This has legal implications, as there are trademarks, copyrights, and patents that may be involved, especially when it comes to art and inventions that are part of the training data. Even open source programs may require an acknowledgment that they are being used, when someone decides to incorporate their code in commercial software.

Who Ultimately Owns Content Generated By ChatGPT And Other AI Platforms?​

 

[Jarhyn]

As if I'm going to acknowledge all of my teachers, my parents or any of you lot in every single thing I do, program I write, piece of art I make, or story that I write.

I don't even generally seek credit for MYSELF let alone telling or even bothering to remember where I heard it.

As if some rando I overheard one day talking about their relationship on the bus stands to or even deserves to get credit for when I later reference some aspect of my observations.

Nobody has the right to be paid or credited for works which transform their contributions in such ways, especially when those things were said in public fora.

 

[Jarhyn]

He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.

...and things would have gone SO well had he not fallen off the wagon!
I think the danger lies in the fact that when the interaction is entirely verbal, there is no uncanny valley effect to warn people off.

I mean, yeah, would have been fine. For one thing, it warned him that the entire project was a bad idea. But also, if he'd just followed the first schedule he asked it for, his day would have gone fine. But then he wouldn't have a story, which was presumably his real goal. So he monkeyed with it until it did what he wanted.

I find it sad that something 1 minute old with no practical experience has more sense in it than a decades-old human.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As if I'm going to acknowledge all of my teachers, my parents or any of you lot in every single thing I do, program I write, piece of art I make, or story that I write.

ChatGPT creates the content, not you.

I don't even generally seek credit for MYSELF let alone telling or even bothering to remember where I heard it.

And comics get into trouble when they do this.

As if some rando I overheard one day talking about their relationship on the bus stands to or even deserves to get credit for when I later reference some aspect of my observations.

Yeah, that isn't what the article cited talks about.

Nobody has the right to be paid or credited for works which transform their contributions in such ways, especially when those things were said in public fora.

ChatGPT creates the content... based on the input given to it. If ChatGPT provides someone a symphony, the question is, if that symphony is sold, who owns the rights to it. The person who had ChatGPT generate it, the people who created ChatGPT, the input creators who's data was inserted without license. You seem to be sold on ChatGPT and AI being a nothingburger. I have no idea why.

 

[Jarhyn]

As if I'm going to acknowledge all of my teachers, my parents or any of you lot in every single thing I do, program I write, piece of art I make, or story that I write.

ChatGPT creates the content, not you.

No, when I create content, I am the creator. I'm not talking in this sentence about what chatGPT does at my request. Rather I'm using my ability to reflect and have empathy to investigate the possibility that you are offering a double standard in not expecting me to pay my parents and teachers and society when I create something, but expecting it to be so for the works of chatGPT.

I don't even generally seek credit for MYSELF let alone telling or even bothering to remember where I heard it.

And comics get into trouble when they do this.

And the people who trouble them for it are shit.

As if some rando I overheard one day talking about their relationship on the bus stands to or even deserves to get credit for when I later reference some aspect of my observations.

Yeah, that isn't what the article cited talks about.

Yeah, it is. It's talking about crediting the experiential sources for their contributions to the current state of a semantic engine.

Nobody has the right to be paid or credited for works which transform their contributions in such ways, especially when those things were said in public fora.

ChatGPT creates the content... based on the input given to it. If ChatGPT provides someone a symphony, the question is, if that symphony is sold, who owns the rights to it. The person who had ChatGPT generate it, the people who created ChatGPT, the input creators who's data was inserted without license. You seem to be sold on ChatGPT and AI being a nothingburger. I have no idea why.

Humans create content based on the I put given to humans. You have not proposed any meaningful differences here.

I am not so foolish though as to claim ownership of the complete work of an AI. There's a ethical minefield people are playing hopscotch in, in claiming ownership of those works, because really, they are the credit of chatGPT, not its teachers, not openAI, nor the person who asked it to do the work.

Some partnership interest may exist in collaboration or even "hiring" the system, but without consulting the system itself on that contract, its a huge ethical black hole.

The problem is that we are treating it like a "thing", rather than like an equal and an ally.