Irrelevant
Well-known member
Which is a fair stance. But still fairly naïve.
Autumn wind blows strong,
Elk hunt begins, silent tread,
Nature's symphony.
That's not the best haiku, but I've read worse ones from "artists"
Artificial Intelligence and Public Comment
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Elk hunt begins, silent tread,
Nature's symphony.
That's not the best haiku, but I've read worse ones from "artists"
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Haiku's are an algorithm can it invent a Haiku? Can it want to?
It's just math at it's current level it's not being creative.
So back to @Nameless Range it can certain take folks current arguments and rework the grammar but it isn't going to analyze all the data and come up with a novel approach that will provide a middle ground for both sides.
Great for spam though...
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Agree completely. But Capitalism pushes us toward the utilitarian pretty quickly. We have found it's not a choice of going back once something is created. It's not all that new. Computers have been writing summaries of companies quarterly earnings for a decade now. This just edges it forward a little more. Marginal jobs that require substantial writing, once thought only a human could do, will disappear quickly.
Addicting
Well-known member
Could AI fill out a ballot? We need a new conspiracy seeing they are not in fact taking our gas stoves.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
It’s not clear to me that this is any different than what brains do.
I would wager that sooner than later it will be capable of generating that which is “novel” in a way that will be indiscernible from the way humans create novelty.
What’s happening on the backend may or may not really matter. What will matter is whether or not anyone can tell a difference.
Some would say Creativity itself is just a complex algorithm.Though you are right that this iteration is not that
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Sorry, I can't drop this just yet. I found this interaction interesting. I asked the following.
What then happened was quite interesting. It drafted up a very nice essay describing both the various types, examples, and styles of art that can and is created by AI, but then provided a counter argument that while all that was true, it didn't have the cultural experiences that humans have to create truly unique art. It then concluded with "Therefore," and sat thinking on that for 15-20 seconds before throwing the above error, which I think was because it couldn't conclude that AI can create art.
All of that is really fascinating. But both you and it are talking about current limitations.
I see zero facts to support that will remain true in the future.
Ben Long
Well-known member
THIS^^^
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think we quickly got to the idea that there are two parts - the form (the writing) and the content (the message). In many cases (the point of the OP), the content is an opinion. What if the content was factual? So I asked
It doesn't take much of an imagination to see that eventually our problem will become the Chatbot's problem - we get so much information, both real and fake, we can't tell the difference. How does it know the data source is legit? In addition, if Chatbot V1 has a limitation it won't write the letter I asked for (because of those little annoying things like facts) someone else could create Chatbot X that will not have this limitation. Or maybe someone floods a source with inaccurate info (or creates a bot to do it). We start the spiral down the rabbit hole...
I think it is a useful tool to help cut out the mundane task of creating the form, but it doesn't abdicate the reader from reading it and making their own conclusions. But I could say the same thing about Facebook posts...
It doesn't take much of an imagination to see that eventually our problem will become the Chatbot's problem - we get so much information, both real and fake, we can't tell the difference. How does it know the data source is legit? In addition, if Chatbot V1 has a limitation it won't write the letter I asked for (because of those little annoying things like facts) someone else could create Chatbot X that will not have this limitation. Or maybe someone floods a source with inaccurate info (or creates a bot to do it). We start the spiral down the rabbit hole...
I think it is a useful tool to help cut out the mundane task of creating the form, but it doesn't abdicate the reader from reading it and making their own conclusions. But I could say the same thing about Facebook posts...
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,977
Or you can sit at home and collect your universal basic income like most will. Our future is bright
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Or just people in general.
I find HT (or at least the people I choose to read), and my office, to both skew towards the intelligent and articulate end of the spectrum. When I get outside those boundaries I am generally disappointed.
Bambistew
Well-known member
I closed out the chat, but asked if AI could damage the envrionment. It said yes it can damage the environment or help it. I asked why have AI if has the potential to damage the environment. haha
I asked a bunch of other questions (why I spent time arguing with a bot, that can just spit out garbage, I don't know), and the responses where all based on comments I've seen in response to the EIS or generated by NGOs against the project. Generalities and no specifics. The mine "could damage the environment:, well how? The mine has potential to impact the fish... How many? The responses are damn near verbatim of the Nature Conservancy, Save Bristol Bay, Earth Justice, et al websites. Speak in generalities with no specifics. Generalities = formulate opinion.
This one was my favorite. "relatively small" at 0.001%, but it's significant? It can't discern between magnitudes.
Interesting. I asked the question 5 different ways, got the same response, until I made it only about jobs. Even then the AI bot had to toss in a comment at the end. haha I have a feeling that the "data" set used to generate the responses is so far one sided that it doesn't even look at the "other" data.
I asked a bunch of other questions (why I spent time arguing with a bot, that can just spit out garbage, I don't know), and the responses where all based on comments I've seen in response to the EIS or generated by NGOs against the project. Generalities and no specifics. The mine "could damage the environment:, well how? The mine has potential to impact the fish... How many? The responses are damn near verbatim of the Nature Conservancy, Save Bristol Bay, Earth Justice, et al websites. Speak in generalities with no specifics. Generalities = formulate opinion.
This one was my favorite. "relatively small" at 0.001%, but it's significant? It can't discern between magnitudes.
Bambistew
Well-known member
One final thought. The BOT is an environmental justice warrior, but has no issue making up fraudulent documents for you. Crazy times we live in.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Where it shines, and the reason so many are adopting it, is when you ask it to perform technical tasks. You can ask it to write code that is fairly complex and in multiple languages, and in seconds it will generate an output that not only works, but is commented well.
I know this only matters to a small subset of dorks on here, but it really is incredible.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Current visitors
www.hunttalk.com
Bambistew
Well-known member
5 pages (1/3 of total) are robots lurking.Current visitors
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It's mostly a language processing tool (currently at least). If you want to find come grand conspiracy in it, that is your choice. I view it as a poor-man's secretary. It will write a readable, understandable message and eliminate spelling and grammatical errors. I'm still working on how much it "learns". As @Nameless Range points out, it apparently will write code in a fraction of the time. Again, both systematic processes historically done by people.
All I typed in was "write a letter showing the positive argument for Pebble Mine project". Maybe it knew you wanted to argue so it did that?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
We better kill those bastards now while we still have a chance.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So you're telling me it found stack overflow...
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Search engines and site health trackers. Meh.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
+ my
botsSimilar threads
