• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

ChatGPT : Does God Exist?

Politesse said:
He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.
Click to expand...
...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.
 
Elixir said:
Politesse said:
He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.
Click to expand...
...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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?​

 
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.
 
Politesse said:
Elixir said:
Politesse said:
He also resolutely ignored almost all of its advice.
Click to expand...
...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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I find it sad that something 1 minute old with no practical experience has more sense in it than a decades-old human.
 
Jarhyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
ChatGPT creates the content, not you.
Jarhyn said:
I don't even generally seek credit for MYSELF let alone telling or even bothering to remember where I heard it.
Click to expand...
And comics get into trouble when they do this.
Jarhyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that isn't what the article cited talks about.
Jarhyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jarhyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
ChatGPT creates the content, not you.
Click to expand...
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.
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jarhyn said:
I don't even generally seek credit for MYSELF let alone telling or even bothering to remember where I heard it.
Click to expand...
And comics get into trouble when they do this.
Click to expand...
And the people who trouble them for it are shit.
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jarhyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that isn't what the article cited talks about.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is. It's talking about crediting the experiential sources for their contributions to the current state of a semantic engine.
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jarhyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Imagine Chat in russia or china. How would its answers differ?
 
SIB said:
Imagine Chat in russia or china. How would its answers differ?
Click to expand...

It's would only be as good as the textbase used to train it. Luckily, these chatbots aren't designed to retain long term memory. Otherwise, users would fill them up with all sorts of crazy ideas. It's bad enough that they don't really understand the questions they are asked or the responses they give. They can only construct replies based on weighted correspondences between word tokens in very large text bases. I'm not sure how well the generative component would work in Russian or Chinese, since those languages have very different properties from English syntax. Chinese is far more difficult to process programmatically, but Russian language processing programs are pretty good.
 
Copernicus said:
SIB said:
Imagine Chat in russia or china. How would its answers differ?
Click to expand...

It's would only be as good as the textbase used to train it. Luckily, these chatbots aren't designed to retain long term memory. Otherwise, users would fill them up with all sorts of crazy ideas. It's bad enough that they don't really understand the questions they are asked or the responses they give. They can only construct replies based on weighted correspondences between word tokens in very large text bases. I'm not sure how well the generative component would work in Russian or Chinese, since those languages have very different properties from English syntax. Chinese is far more difficult to process programmatically, but Russian language processing programs are pretty good.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Far left or far right "silencing" them there bigots and racists. Without ever understanding what it means to "Me".
 
It's good to see that Microsoft and the news media are not buying into the hysteria over the apocalyptic threat that chatbots pose to the human race. :Sarcasm:

Meanwhile, global warming. :shrug::sleep:
 
Copernicus said:
It's good to see that Microsoft and the news media are not buying into the hysteria over the apocalyptic threat that chatbots pose to the human race. :Sarcasm:

Meanwhile, global warming. :shrug::sleep:
Click to expand...
https://futurism.com/the-byte/global-warming-worse-ai-scientists

"Scientists enlisted the help of an AI to estimate how long it would take until global warming gets really bad. The AI's assessment? We might be screwed."

Is AI bad for the climate?
Similarly, the generative AI industry is already having a disproportionate impact on the climate, and this is only the beginning. According to the International Energy Agency, AI language models and data centers are responsible for 1% of all carbon emissions in the world. Apr 23, 2023
 
I wish the media would stop acting like chatbots are synonymous with AI. The LLMs are an important advance in the technology, but they do not really advance our ability to create intelligent autonomous machines. The real advances are being made in robotics, because robots demand the same functionality as animal bodies when it comes to survival in a chaotic environment. LLM Chatbots are just much better at manipulating conversational interactions with users that simulate language understanding. They don't possess most of the cognitive functions that drive intelligent behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom