AI endeavours

[odysseus2000]

The other area that is not being discussed as far as I can see is whether Quantum computers can do this kind of large language model. My guess is that the answer is no so that even though they are said to be factors of 5x faster they currently do not seem to be a thread to Nvidia.

I could also be wrong on this too. Does any one know?

Regards,

[Clitheroekid]

This report on the latest iteration of Google's Gemini includes a fascinating - and slightly alarming - video (the second one) showing its incredible ability to recognise objects and comment on them - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... onic_email

The speed at which these AI programs have developed within just a year or two is astonishing, and make me wonder if we haven't severely underestimated the effect they are likely to have on our everyday life and employment. In particular, I would think that many teachers watching the first video would be anxiously checking their pension provisions!

[Tedx]

I think it was 6 months ago when I asked 'can you imagine ChatGPT in ten years time....'

Jeez. It'll just be a huge blue semi organic throbbing synthetic brain on an altar somewhere.

And we'll all be plugged into a human battery farm.

Free your mind.

[odysseus2000]

This report on the latest iteration of Google's Gemini includes a fascinating - and slightly alarming - video (the second one) showing its incredible ability to recognise objects and comment on them - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... onic_email

The speed at which these AI programs have developed within just a year or two is astonishing, and make me wonder if we haven't severely underestimated the effect they are likely to have on our everyday life and employment. In particular, I would think that many teachers watching the first video would be anxiously checking their pension provisions!

One issue at the moment is attention deficit disorder. Many of these large language models lose their thread & make mistakes, like changing the piece positions in chess. They will also occasionally give bonkers answers. However, these issues are not seen with alpha-go which became world champion in chess & go several years ago, so it seems ADD can be fixed.

Teaching is likely one area that will be unrecognizable in a few years, which is good as the present system has not changed much since Victorian times, but almost any job that is knowledge based will move to AI imho. This is the rational behind the early developments of ubi: Universal Basic Income for folk displaced from their jobs.

This is all likely to lead to civil unrest & modern day Luddites.

If people are freed from work, what will they all do? In some future scenarios we are entering a golden age of leisure & self motivation. In others we are entering hades.

Interesting times!

Just to add to the mix we have David Grusch testifying under oath that the US has non human intelligence crafts & bodies. If a tiny fractions of the claims surrounding this are correct we have knowledge that if it had been human developed would take decades to centuries. Might be all baloney, but the US inspector general has said the allegations are credible

At the same there are also credible stories that genetically modified yeast can produce anything that currently comes from livestock farming.

AI has just found millions of new crystals previously unknown & robotic agents are creating them.

On & on new things appear very quickly.

Regards,

[Tedx]

The teacher machines will still look for 6 weeks off in the summer though.

[odysseus2000]

The teacher machines will still look for 6 weeks off in the summer though.

One of the ideas being promoted for teaching is to have an AI that stays with each human from early in their life. The AI becomes a kind of electronic guardian angel and teacher, always available to mentor and in some schemes, monitor each person for health, injury etc, creating an instant data base of that individual from early in life till end of life. Microsoft co-pilot is one primitive example.

If any of these come to be, there will be no 6 weeks off for the AI teachers and little for human teachers to do.

Regards,

[CliffEdge]

The teacher machines will still look for 6 weeks off in the summer though.

One of the ideas being promoted for teaching is to have an AI that stays with each human from early in their life. The AI becomes a kind of electronic guardian angel and teacher, always available to mentor and in some schemes, monitor each person for health, injury etc, creating an instant data base of that individual from early in life till end of life. Microsoft co-pilot is one primitive example.

If any of these come to be, there will be no 6 weeks off for the AI teachers and little for human teachers to do.

Regards,

Anything like that can eff off as far as I'm concerned, a wife is quite enough.

[odysseus2000]

One of the ideas being promoted for teaching is to have an AI that stays with each human from early in their life. The AI becomes a kind of electronic guardian angel and teacher, always available to mentor and in some schemes, monitor each person for health, injury etc, creating an instant data base of that individual from early in life till end of life. Microsoft co-pilot is one primitive example.

If any of these come to be, there will be no 6 weeks off for the AI teachers and little for human teachers to do.

Regards,

Anything like that can eff off as far as I'm concerned, a wife is quite enough.

There is already considerable backlash against the ideas, but also many who are excited by the idea.

If the technology works anyone who has it will be super human in capabilities, so that a biological human will not be competitive with an AI enhanced human in any intellectual endeavour.

This creates an interesting scenario of the haves and the have nots & the social forces from such bifurcation.

Would most people want to be governed by a human or a super human, or indeed will one need representative government?

Regards,

[BullDog]

Anything like that can eff off as far as I'm concerned, a wife is quite enough.

There is already considerable backlash against the ideas, but also many who are excited by the idea.

If the technology works anyone who has it will be super human in capabilities, so that a biological human will not be competitive with an AI enhanced human in any intellectual endeavour.

This creates an interesting scenario of the haves and the have nots & the social forces from such bifurcation.

Would most people want to be governed by a human or a super human, or indeed will one need representative government?

Regards,

When there's another 911 or Piper Alpha, the excuse will be "my AI buddy said it was a good idea....."?

[Clitheroekid]

I've read various articles about how the US, Europe and the UK are concerned about the progress of AI, and their proposals to regulate it. However, countries such as Russia and China will obviously not be bound by any such restrictions, so as I have very little understanding of the subject I'd be interested to know how risky is it for Western countries to control development of AI if no such controls are being applied elsewhere?

On the face of it this would allow `bad actors' to develop systems that could potentially be more powerful than those in the West, but is this a realistic concern? Would they be held back by the fact that their level of technology is inferior, and if so could they overcome this - ironically with the assistance of AI?

Sorry if these questions seem naive, but it seems to me that the weaponisation of AI might pose a greater threat to us than conventional military weapons.

[odysseus2000]

I've read various articles about how the US, Europe and the UK are concerned about the progress of AI, and their proposals to regulate it. However, countries such as Russia and China will obviously not be bound by any such restrictions, so as I have very little understanding of the subject I'd be interested to know how risky is it for Western countries to control development of AI if no such controls are being applied elsewhere?

On the face of it this would allow `bad actors' to develop systems that could potentially be more powerful than those in the West, but is this a realistic concern? Would they be held back by the fact that their level of technology is inferior, and if so could they overcome this - ironically with the assistance of AI?

Sorry if these questions seem naive, but it seems to me that the weaponisation of AI might pose a greater threat to us than conventional military weapons.

There is a general international political consensus that AI is dangerous and most nations are paying lip service to the ideas of controls at least for commercial systems. Probably all national militaries are developing strategic AI for last resort use or as a first strike, likely in very similar ways to how nukes were quickly acquired by the East after the West and this lead to the ideas of Mutually Assured Destruction if anyone started a nuclear war.

It is a complicated subject in that the technology both offers immense capability for good and for bad so no nation dare ignore it. The US has begun to restrict sales of compute chips to China, but these kinds of boycotts hardly ever work and China is developing its own semi-conductor industry.

There is also the question of alignment. Chat GPT (General Purpose Transformer) is a large (billions of parameters model), that is optimised with somethings of a woke bias whereas Grok (Tesla) is more centralist, but the main point is that AI can be aligned with political thought so that should it come to a conflict situation one could have say capitalist AI aligned verse communist AI aligned.

Currently the primary winner in this technology space is Nvidia with the CEO (Jensen Huang) apparently worth >$43b:

https://www.forbes.com/profile/jensen-h ... b1bc333a6c

As of now the models are relatively primitive compared to what is likely coming, although still scoring IQ of over 150, but most of them are not stable enough for critical stuff and can get many things right and then go off the rails. AI has many resembles of young intelligent children who have not yet learned how to concentrate and focus on problems, but as with children this seems to be happening albeit slowly.

The range of what AI can do is extraordinary and the more knowledge a person has, the easier it is for AI to replace them. For now dynamic process like non geofenced car driving are not yet solved, although I expect its close and will happen, but in games like Chess and Go, AI are supreme, able to simultaneously defeat multiple grand masters. AI have also worked out most of the possible protein structures and discovered many previously unknown crystals.

It is possible that Ai may reach some kind of plateau and be less effective than humans, but there is, as far as I know, no evidence or even suggestions that AI is limtied and the possibility of super human capabilities evolving currently seem very high.

How humans will react is still unknown as most people have no idea what AI can do and those that have played with chats regularly cite the unreliability, but it is imho very like the internet when most thought it a fad and now it is omnipotnent in most business and social activities.

If current trends continue it is likely that many humans jobs will not be economically viable. E.g. a GP costs something like £200 k per year for 40 hours a week. An AI that has similar to better capabilities can operate 168 hours per week and cost a fraction of what a `GP costs. For now the only jobs AI can't tackle are manual ones either low skilled like labouring or high skilled like a brain surgeon, but those jobs are unlikely to be beyond AI for long.

If all of this happens the entire stucture behind most economic models falls apart and some kind of universal basic income will be needed for most folk. This may be a time of unprecedented quality of life or unprecedented despair when folk realise they can only offer much less than what AI can do.

Interesting times!

Regards,

[ReformedCharacter]

GPT Pilot - Build Full Stack Apps with a SINGLE PROMPT (Made for Devs)

More evidence that the nature of programming is undergoing something of a revolution. Admittedly, I'm not a skilled programmer, but it seems that anything I could do can now be undertaken in a few seconds or minutes by an AI. My 'skills' are now redundant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwLe6UWyaS4

RC

[CliffEdge]

I've read various articles about how the US, Europe and the UK are concerned about the progress of AI, and their proposals to regulate it. However, countries such as Russia and China will obviously not be bound by any such restrictions, so as I have very little understanding of the subject I'd be interested to know how risky is it for Western countries to control development of AI if no such controls are being applied elsewhere?

On the face of it this would allow `bad actors' to develop systems that could potentially be more powerful than those in the West, but is this a realistic concern? Would they be held back by the fact that their level of technology is inferior, and if so could they overcome this - ironically with the assistance of AI?

Sorry if these questions seem naive, but it seems to me that the weaponisation of AI might pose a greater threat to us than conventional military weapons.

There is a general international political consensus that AI is dangerous and most nations are paying lip service to the ideas of controls at least for commercial systems. Probably all national militaries are developing strategic AI for last resort use or as a first strike, likely in very similar ways to how nukes were quickly acquired by the East after the West and this lead to the ideas of Mutually Assured Destruction if anyone started a nuclear war.

It is a complicated subject in that the technology both offers immense capability for good and for bad so no nation dare ignore it. The US has begun to restrict sales of compute chips to China, but these kinds of boycotts hardly ever work and China is developing its own semi-conductor industry.

There is also the question of alignment. Chat GPT (General Purpose Transformer) is a large (billions of parameters model), that is optimised with somethings of a woke bias whereas Grok (Tesla) is more centralist, but the main point is that AI can be aligned with political thought so that should it come to a conflict situation one could have say capitalist AI aligned verse communist AI aligned.

Currently the primary winner in this technology space is Nvidia with the CEO (Jensen Huang) apparently worth >$43b:

https://www.forbes.com/profile/jensen-h ... b1bc333a6c

As of now the models are relatively primitive compared to what is likely coming, although still scoring IQ of over 150, but most of them are not stable enough for critical stuff and can get many things right and then go off the rails. AI has many resembles of young intelligent children who have not yet learned how to concentrate and focus on problems, but as with children this seems to be happening albeit slowly.

The range of what AI can do is extraordinary and the more knowledge a person has, the easier it is for AI to replace them. For now dynamic process like non geofenced car driving are not yet solved, although I expect its close and will happen, but in games like Chess and Go, AI are supreme, able to simultaneously defeat multiple grand masters. AI have also worked out most of the possible protein structures and discovered many previously unknown crystals.

It is possible that Ai may reach some kind of plateau and be less effective than humans, but there is, as far as I know, no evidence or even suggestions that AI is limtied and the possibility of super human capabilities evolving currently seem very high.

How humans will react is still unknown as most people have no idea what AI can do and those that have played with chats regularly cite the unreliability, but it is imho very like the internet when most thought it a fad and now it is omnipotnent in most business and social activities.

If current trends continue it is likely that many humans jobs will not be economically viable. E.g. a GP costs something like £200 k per year for 40 hours a week. An AI that has similar to better capabilities can operate 168 hours per week and cost a fraction of what a `GP costs. For now the only jobs AI can't tackle are manual ones either low skilled like labouring or high skilled like a brain surgeon, but those jobs are unlikely to be beyond AI for long.

If all of this happens the entire stucture behind most economic models falls apart and some kind of universal basic income will be needed for most folk. This may be a time of unprecedented quality of life or unprecedented despair when folk realise they can only offer much less than what AI can do.

Interesting times!

Regards,

A calculator exceeds my ability to calculate but it's not as intelligent as me (though many on here would probably challenge that statement).

And as I've said before Chess programs etc do not play chess, but that seems to be impossible for many people to grasp.

AI is nothing more than a clever information filter.

[odysseus2000]

CliffEdge
A calculator exceeds my ability to calculate but it's not as intelligent as me (though many on here would probably challenge that statement).

And as I've said before Chess programs etc do not play chess, but that seems to be impossible for many people to grasp.

AI is nothing more than a clever information filter.

So a clever information filter is world chess champion and world Go champion too.

It is fascinating to me that AI is developing exactly as the Internet did.

In the early days of the internet folk argued that it was a fad and would never catch on.

Some fad!

Regards,

[Bubblesofearth]

A calculator exceeds my ability to calculate but it's not as intelligent as me (though many on here would probably challenge that statement).

And as I've said before Chess programs etc do not play chess, but that seems to be impossible for many people to grasp.

AI is nothing more than a clever information filter.

The human brain is essentially a processing machine. A complex one of course and still only poorly understood but there is no a priori reason that I can think of why AI could not eventually surpass it in all aspects.

Unless you are religious and believe in a soul then what is there about the brain that cannot be replicated by AI?

BoE

[doolally]

The human brain is essentially a processing machine. A complex one of course and still only poorly understood but there is no a priori reason that I can think of why AI could not eventually surpass it in all aspects.

Unless you are religious and believe in a soul then what is there about the brain that cannot be replicated by AI?

BoE

Remember that the functioning of the brain is not determined just by the brain. Its actions also depend on sight, sound, touch, smell
doolally

[Bubblesofearth]

Remember that the functioning of the brain is not determined just by the brain. Its actions also depend on sight, sound, touch, smell
doolally

Sure but those are just inputs of information. A marriage of robotics and AI?

It's a question of thinking about what is theoretically possible not what we can do today.

Personally I think the possibilities are exciting. Imagine the ability to ask questions we struggle with. Without going all HHGTTG and having mice as the part of the central processor

BoE

[ReformedCharacter]

The human brain is essentially a processing machine. A complex one of course and still only poorly understood but there is no a priori reason that I can think of why AI could not eventually surpass it in all aspects.

Unless you are religious and believe in a soul then what is there about the brain that cannot be replicated by AI?

BoE

Consciousness perhaps? But there seems to be a lack of consensus about what consciousness is.

Christof Koch: Consciousness | Lex Fridman Podcast #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo

RC

[Bubblesofearth]

Consciousness perhaps? But there seems to be a lack of consensus about what consciousness is.

Christof Koch: Consciousness | Lex Fridman Podcast #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo

RC

The nature of consciousness is one of the issues that philosophers and scientists have wrestled with for millennia. The question as to whether a machine could be conscious is central to the debate. If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain then it's hard to imagine why it could not be an emergent property of an artificial system if that system possessed the same properties that produce consciousness in the brain. The fact that we don't understand what those properties are yet doesn't mean that one day we won't and that one day we won't be able to replicate them.

BoE

[Gilgongo]

I thought this was an interesting take on the immediate prospects for AI, given the structure of its current incarnation:

"AI applications can be plotted on a 2X2 grid whose axes are "value" (how much customers will pay for them) and "risk tolerance" (how perfect the product needs to be)."

The odds are stacked against the long-term survival of high-value, risk-intolerant AI applications.

[and] no one is asking, "What will we do if" – when – "the AI bubble pops and most of this stuff disappears overnight?"

Perhaps some of these arguments might be different in a future age of quantum computing, but for the current state of the art, "What kind of bubble is AI?"

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/19/bubblenomics/#pop