I agree to a large extent. I've been an evangelist for openness throughout my career, but I now see the trusted semi-commons as a refuge--not for scoundrels but for those still committed to an honest exchange of views. Hopefully, such mechanisms won't be echo chambers, but hope springs eternal. People don't like their orthodoxies challenged, although at least such an approach would presumably avoid the worst of the bad actors and actions.
Does anyone know the state of AI use for medical diagnosis? That would seem to be a good fit for it and could be effective in producing better treatment outcomes and lowering medical costs.
Wouldn't FB be the most vulnerable out of the five? A reveal that [major scandal] was entirely generated by AI could corrode trust in the platform and cause users to flee when the *ahem* Meta project had been just hemorrhaging money when upper management seems wed to pushing it.
But overall, I think the "we are forked" attitude is overblown. It undervalues humanity's capacity to adapt to new technologies, overlooks positive uses of the technologies, presents what I think is a simplistic vision of the human mind as easily replicated, and exemplifies an alarmist tendency in neoconservatism, where everything is Munich, everything is HAL, everything is doomed.
Here is an exchange with CHatGPT about the two sentences. I have a strange sense that she (ChatGPT) is tired of hearing about these sentences.
ME: AI researchers often discuss these two sentences: 1. "The committee denied the group a parade permit because they advocated violence." 2. "The committee denied the group a parade permit because they feared violence." Can you tell who the pronoun "they" represents in sentence 1? Who does it represent in sentence 2? Explain how you know the answer.
ChatGPT: In sentence 1, the pronoun "they" represents the group that the committee denied a parade permit to. This is because the sentence states that the reason for denying the permit was because "they advocated violence."
In sentence 2, the pronoun "they" represents the committee. This is because the sentence states that the reason for denying the permit was because "they feared violence" implying that the committee feared violence.
ME: How do you know this means the committee feared violence? It could mean the group feared violence.
CHAT: You are correct that the sentence can be interpreted in different ways and "they" in sentence 2 could refer to the group, who feared violence. The context of the statement is not clear and it's possible that it could be interpreted that the group feared violence. The given sentence by itself does not provide enough information to determine who "they" refers to with certainty.
ME: That is a good answer. Can you point to a reason why it is more likely the committee fears violence than the group?
CHAT: Without additional context, it is not possible to determine with certainty who "they" refers to in sentence 2 and whether the group or the committee fears violence. However, in a situation where a committee is responsible for granting or denying permits for events, it is more likely that the committee would be the ones fearing violence, as they are responsible for ensuring the safety of the community. The group, on the other hand, may not necessarily have the same level of concern for safety and would be more interested in organizing the parade.
ME: Good answer!
CHAT: Thank you, I'm glad you found it helpful. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
Not interesting? Hmmm Historically, they virtually define the existence of human thought, including art, science, religion, and philosophy. Maybe not important to you, but these are the questions that have defined human culture since we looked at the stars and told stories around fires.
As an aging Boomer tech writer and tester for a firm that is developing this type of technology I have resisted delving into it as being way above my pay grade. It's starting to dawn on me that, like smart phones and smart cities and smart everything else, I'd better get myself briefed on this despite being a closeted Luddite. Thanks for the newsletter!
"In an AI world, you type 'how to change a tire' and ChatGPT simply explains how to change a tire to you."
Speaking of semantics vs syntax, there's no simple way to explain how to transform an object from being a tire into being me. That's a very complex process. And how would ChatGPT know that what you wanted to change a tire into was me? The inquiry was open-ended.
Thank you, Sandy. That is a terrific article and I will be passing in along to some of my colleagues and friends.
Where things really get murky is when one asks questions like, "Does life have meaning?" "What is the proof of the existence of God?"
"Can something come from nothing," i.e., the Universe.
These, and many other questions like these are almost considered unanswerable through the lens of any human being or social structure. Some fall under the category of ontology. Some may fall under the subcategory of metaphysics. They certainly pose problems to the limits of our ability to know. So, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"would be a question that may be more appropriate for astrophysicist or cosmologists rather than philosophers or theologians. Yet these questions and answers are difficult to fathom on any level. So, I had fun asking the AI bot these q's and admired its ability to resign itself to agnosticism. Or its claim the answers to be ascertainable only through the lens of objective reality; something that is unreachable by humans.
Well said!🙂
Well said!
Good points. Perhaps new forms of trust enhancement will be developed, but the existing approaches do not breed confidence.
I agree to a large extent. I've been an evangelist for openness throughout my career, but I now see the trusted semi-commons as a refuge--not for scoundrels but for those still committed to an honest exchange of views. Hopefully, such mechanisms won't be echo chambers, but hope springs eternal. People don't like their orthodoxies challenged, although at least such an approach would presumably avoid the worst of the bad actors and actions.
Does anyone know the state of AI use for medical diagnosis? That would seem to be a good fit for it and could be effective in producing better treatment outcomes and lowering medical costs.
I believe AI chats will improve customer service. There wouldn’t be a wait and the agent wouldn’t be in Bangalore.
Both “committee” and “crowd” are singular so I’m going to assume “they” are third parties somewhere.
Wouldn't FB be the most vulnerable out of the five? A reveal that [major scandal] was entirely generated by AI could corrode trust in the platform and cause users to flee when the *ahem* Meta project had been just hemorrhaging money when upper management seems wed to pushing it.
This post inspired me to reread Krauthammer's 1997 warning about AI. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/be-afraid-9802
I'm all for looking at the downsides of this technology, which I think are considerable. I've done some of that myself recently at https://www.splicetoday.com/digital/reality-and-hype-in-the-2020s
But overall, I think the "we are forked" attitude is overblown. It undervalues humanity's capacity to adapt to new technologies, overlooks positive uses of the technologies, presents what I think is a simplistic vision of the human mind as easily replicated, and exemplifies an alarmist tendency in neoconservatism, where everything is Munich, everything is HAL, everything is doomed.
Here is an exchange with CHatGPT about the two sentences. I have a strange sense that she (ChatGPT) is tired of hearing about these sentences.
ME: AI researchers often discuss these two sentences: 1. "The committee denied the group a parade permit because they advocated violence." 2. "The committee denied the group a parade permit because they feared violence." Can you tell who the pronoun "they" represents in sentence 1? Who does it represent in sentence 2? Explain how you know the answer.
ChatGPT: In sentence 1, the pronoun "they" represents the group that the committee denied a parade permit to. This is because the sentence states that the reason for denying the permit was because "they advocated violence."
In sentence 2, the pronoun "they" represents the committee. This is because the sentence states that the reason for denying the permit was because "they feared violence" implying that the committee feared violence.
ME: How do you know this means the committee feared violence? It could mean the group feared violence.
CHAT: You are correct that the sentence can be interpreted in different ways and "they" in sentence 2 could refer to the group, who feared violence. The context of the statement is not clear and it's possible that it could be interpreted that the group feared violence. The given sentence by itself does not provide enough information to determine who "they" refers to with certainty.
ME: That is a good answer. Can you point to a reason why it is more likely the committee fears violence than the group?
CHAT: Without additional context, it is not possible to determine with certainty who "they" refers to in sentence 2 and whether the group or the committee fears violence. However, in a situation where a committee is responsible for granting or denying permits for events, it is more likely that the committee would be the ones fearing violence, as they are responsible for ensuring the safety of the community. The group, on the other hand, may not necessarily have the same level of concern for safety and would be more interested in organizing the parade.
ME: Good answer!
CHAT: Thank you, I'm glad you found it helpful. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
On the Media dedicated the full hour this week to a discussion of artificial intelligence.
I'd highly recommend listening to this if you're interested in the topic. Its a very detailed and sophisticated discussion:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-its-a-machines-world
Not interesting? Hmmm Historically, they virtually define the existence of human thought, including art, science, religion, and philosophy. Maybe not important to you, but these are the questions that have defined human culture since we looked at the stars and told stories around fires.
As an aging Boomer tech writer and tester for a firm that is developing this type of technology I have resisted delving into it as being way above my pay grade. It's starting to dawn on me that, like smart phones and smart cities and smart everything else, I'd better get myself briefed on this despite being a closeted Luddite. Thanks for the newsletter!
"In an AI world, you type 'how to change a tire' and ChatGPT simply explains how to change a tire to you."
Speaking of semantics vs syntax, there's no simple way to explain how to transform an object from being a tire into being me. That's a very complex process. And how would ChatGPT know that what you wanted to change a tire into was me? The inquiry was open-ended.
Forking good article ...
Thank you, Sandy. That is a terrific article and I will be passing in along to some of my colleagues and friends.
Where things really get murky is when one asks questions like, "Does life have meaning?" "What is the proof of the existence of God?"
"Can something come from nothing," i.e., the Universe.
These, and many other questions like these are almost considered unanswerable through the lens of any human being or social structure. Some fall under the category of ontology. Some may fall under the subcategory of metaphysics. They certainly pose problems to the limits of our ability to know. So, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"would be a question that may be more appropriate for astrophysicist or cosmologists rather than philosophers or theologians. Yet these questions and answers are difficult to fathom on any level. So, I had fun asking the AI bot these q's and admired its ability to resign itself to agnosticism. Or its claim the answers to be ascertainable only through the lens of objective reality; something that is unreachable by humans.