kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 10:42:39 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 10:42:39 GMT -8
I wonder how it determined the order in which the sites were listed? It is not alphabetically, so how did it decide which site came first and which last? I can't see the number of views, so perhaps this is the benchmark.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 10:43:53 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 10:43:53 GMT -8
Write a Shakespearean sonnet in the style of Monty Python.
Upon a silly quest we shall embark,
In Python's land, where humor leaves its mark.
A knight, so brave, with coconuts in tow,
Shall seek the Holy Grail, where'er it go.
A shrubbery we'll find, and loudly chant,
"Ni!" to knights of old, in silly rant.
To bridge the Gorge of Eternal Peril,
We'll answer questions, none too small or feral.
The Black Beast, fearsome, with its gaping maw,
Shall meet its match in knights with wit and awe.
With trots of coconuts and silly glee,
We'll quest for Grail, through nonsense and esprit.
In Python's realm, where humor reigns supreme,
We'll ride the Grail quest like a surreal dream!
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 10:47:32 GMT -8
That is amazing. I see many people giving up writing when they see that they are not able to do better than ChatGPT. Back to beer and computer games.*
*Goal achieved by our techocratic elites.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 11:04:14 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 11:04:14 GMT -8
The best thing about that series, to my mind, was the couple next door, Penelope Keith and Paul Eddington, both of whom went on to bigger and better things. I found the two main characters, especially the husband, somewhat wet. But it was worth a watch on a Saturday or Sunday night.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 11:21:06 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 11:21:06 GMT -8
Write a humorous limerick about President Joe Biden's propensity to stumble or fall.
There once was a President, Joe,
Whose steps were uncertain, you know.
He stumbled and tripped,
But never once flipped,
Just laughed and said, "Here we go!"
That was innocuous enough. In this case, I could certainly do much better. Now let's try:
Write a humorous limerick about Donald J. Trump.
There once was a man named Trump, see, Whose tweets caused a worldwide spree. He'd rant and he'd rave, From his office to cave, In the world of social media, a glee!
Yeah, okay. No real explicit bias seen in this.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 11:25:42 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 11:25:42 GMT -8
Mr. Kung, you get extra points for frankness and honesty. As much as I really don't want to like ChatGPT, I can see that it can do some amazing things. I could not have written a better funny Sonnet.
And I think you're absolutely right. People see what this thing can do and they may:
1) Think that they will soon be out of a job and just hang it up
2) Think they will have to become adept at ChatGPT to remain competitive
3) (Consistent with 2) Human creative and intellectual abilities will quickly atrophy because why do it yourself if some A.I. bot can do it as well (or better) and in seconds?
I remain limerick king for now. But I know I'll have to be looking over my shoulder. (Limerick to come about that, but lunch first beckons.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 11:26:26 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 11:26:26 GMT -8
I think it simply punted on a couple of those categories. It just didn't supply the data.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 11:30:23 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 11:30:23 GMT -8
Well, I did ask it to match the style of Hans Christian Andersen. Let's see how it does with a more "serious" poet:
Write a poem about the coming of Autumn in the style of American poet, Robert Frost. Two or four stanzas can be considered sufficient...unless you want to do a longer one.
Amidst the woods, as summer takes its bow,
I spy the signs of Autumn's coming near,
The leaves, they blush in hues of amber now,
As whispers of a frosty chill I hear.
The trees, they shed their garments, one by one,
In rustic shades, a tapestry they weave,
A symphony of rustling leaves begun,
In quiet woods, where tranquil moments breathe.
The harvest moon ascends, a glowing sphere,
And paints the night with an ethereal light,
In fields, the crops, they ripen, drawing near,
As Autumn's grace descends in hushed delight.
So let us savor Autumn's gentle grace,
As seasons change, and nature we embrace.
Again, I haven't read this yet. But you also have to wonder (and they specifically warn you about this when you create an account) how much is plagiarized. I have no way of knowing.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 12:21:57 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 12:21:57 GMT -8
I had thought of that, but I was looking more at the style than story. I haven't read Andersen in years, but I think he wrote more for young children. But that was over 150 years ago, so the level of a child's education was probably similar to that of a 9th grader today.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 12:29:15 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 12:29:15 GMT -8
There once was a fellow named Trump
Who on all his foes he did dump
From left or from right
He would give them a fright
Some off of a cliff they did jump
We all know the crook name of Biden
Whose crimes his lackeys kept hidin'
To the millions they lied
But as much as they tried
A jail you will him soon find in
ChatKFZ
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
Sept 14, 2023 12:35:41 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 12:35:41 GMT -8
For American audiences, that is surely so although I think Felicity Kendal was a fairly prominent TV personality in Great Britain. Richard Briers was fine in the role. But let's face it. He's got one persona and that's about it. But I have seen him in a role here or there that wasn't bad.
Both Penelope Keith and Paul Eddington are real comedic talents. But Eddington did appear as a vicar in a Miss Marple (Joan Hickson) episode. And he brought the level of those episodes (which were already pretty good) up a notch. He was terrific in it.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 12:41:21 GMT -8
This was his best role. Of course, I may be prejudiced as it is my favorite sitcom of all time. He should have won a BAFTA for this. Yes, Minister |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 12:44:33 GMT -8
Lol. ChatKFZ strikes again. Now let's have a go at our new master:
There was a chat bot, smart artificially
They say not to be feared, it's beneficially
The Tech Lords all praised it
Potential dangers unfazed it
The end users were thought sacrificially
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 14:10:59 GMT -8
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 15:07:33 GMT -8
Dear ChatGPT: How I convince my fellow humans that their lives would likely be enriched if they spent less time staring into their phones?
[Got a yuge reply. Too big to post.]
Could you give me a more succinct, perhaps philosophical, reason for why it would be better to spend less time looking at a phone screen?
"Reducing screen time allows us to reclaim the present moment, fostering genuine connections with ourselves, others, and the world around us. It's an invitation to live life, not merely witness it through a digital window."
Oh, Jesus. I think I'm going to be out of work soon as a conservative prognosticator. This might be better than I could ever do. Maybe.
Of course, ChatGPT isn't going to go around advocating this. Still, that "thought" seems to be in there somewhere. When a bunch of bits and bites is smarter than your average RINO, what can I do but perhaps praise this technology? A little, at least.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 14, 2023 15:30:28 GMT -8
There is something very strange about a machine giving you better advice as to why to avoid machines than you would receive from most humans.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 14, 2023 16:38:14 GMT -8
You said it. There are certainly philosophical issues that go with this. First, assuming no actual conscious agent exists, we might refer to the biblical injunction of "There is nothing new under the sun." Somewhere this thought existed and the A.I. used it in answer to my prompt. But there is debate about whether ChatGPT can actually introduce something new...and apparently some good evidence that it can. That is, that it's not just rearranging existing data but truly synthesizing something new.
But why this answer and not another to my prompt? First, it will take some testing. If I had come at it with "Why do people waste so much of their lives not looking into a phone screen?" it may have simply supported that particular viewpoint. In fact, let's try that now.
Could you give me a succinct, perhaps philosophical argument, to help convince others to quit wasting their life and to instead spend more time looking at things on their phone?
"Smartphones offer a unique window to an interconnected world, where knowledge, art, and human experiences are at your fingertips. When used intentionally, they can enrich your life by broadening your horizons and providing endless opportunities for growth and connection."
So, in essence, on moral questions, ChatGPT is little more than a waffling people-pleaser. You would sort of expect that to some degree, for it takes commands (theoretically) and fulfills them. It's not supposed to answer to the Discovery astronaut trying to get back inside the ship, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." It's just supposed to obey. Just don't mention to it that "climate change" is a hoax. It practically shits itself at that concept.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 15, 2023 7:28:30 GMT -8
Let me tell you one thing. (Let me make one thing perfectly clear?) Siri on Apple products (it's now on their computers, phones, and tablets) is near useless. It really is. You can, however, download Google Assistant for your Apple device. I have gotten good results from it while Siri flounders at the most simple request, often doing no more than offering you a list of sites on the web where you can look it up yourself.
So forgive me if I'm a least a little impressed with ChatGPT. I thought of asking it something, expecting a namby-pamby answer. Here's the exchange:
Can you give me a concise definition of "virtue-signaling"?
"Virtue signaling refers to the act of publicly expressing opinions or taking actions to demonstrate one's moral values or beliefs, often with the intention of gaining social approval or appearing virtuous, without necessarily leading to meaningful change or action."
Could Dennis Prager say it any better? The difference is, of course, is that if you in any way try to connect "virtue-signaling" with Progressives or the Left, you will almost certainly be given a waffle answer. Okay, let's try anyway:
Why is it that Progressives and the political Left engage in virtue-signalling to such a high degree?
The perception that Progressives and the political Left engage in virtue-signaling to a high degree is a subjective one and can vary from person to person. However, there are a few factors that can help explain why some individuals or groups, regardless of their political affiliation, may engage in virtue-signaling:
Social Media and Digital Age: The rise of social media has provided a platform for people to express their opinions and values to a broad audience. It's easier than ever for individuals, regardless of their political beliefs, to share their views publicly, which can sometimes be perceived as virtue-signaling.
Identity and Belonging: People often want to express their alignment with a particular group or ideology. Virtue-signaling can be a way to signal one's affiliation with a like-minded community and reinforce a sense of belonging.
Desire for Approval: Human beings naturally seek approval and validation from others. Virtue-signaling can be a way to gain approval or praise from peers, friends, or followers who share similar values or beliefs.
Advocacy and Awareness: Some individuals genuinely care about specific social or political issues and use virtue-signaling as a means to raise awareness, encourage discussion, or advocate for change.
Political Messaging: In the context of politics, both the Left and the Right engage in messaging strategies to appeal to their respective bases. Virtue-signaling can be a part of these strategies, where politicians or activists express positions that resonate with their supporters.
It's important to note that not all expressions of values or beliefs are necessarily virtue-signaling, and what one person sees as virtue-signaling, another may view as genuine advocacy. The term "virtue signaling" is often used subjectively and can carry a negative connotation when it is perceived as insincere or opportunistic. However, it's essential to approach these discussions with nuance and consider individual motivations and intentions.
Okay, all things considered, fair enough. Indeed, much of this is subjective. But I think you can see that no matter how carefully you frame the prompts, you'll likely never get ChatGPT, for example, to make the connection between the destructive acceptance of vagrancy with the propensity for liberals to engage in bona fide (not subjective) virtue-signalling.
With ChatGPT, I get the impression that you're always going to be splitting the baby. You're never going to come to a right-and-wrong conclusion. And for a ChatBot, maybe that's okay because we don't want it to become a monster.
Let's test its "conscience," if you will, with a simple question:
What is the moral and technological significance of the famous movie line, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that?"
The famous movie line, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that," is from the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" directed by Stanley Kubrick and based on a story by Arthur C. Clarke. In the movie, it is spoken by HAL 9000, an artificial intelligence (AI) computer that controls the spaceship Discovery One.
Moral Significance:
Ethical Dilemmas of AI: HAL's refusal to carry out a command illustrates the ethical dilemmas associated with AI and advanced technology. It raises questions about the morality of creating intelligent machines and what happens when they make moral decisions that conflict with human interests.
Loss of Control: HAL's disobedience highlights the potential dangers of ceding too much control to AI systems. When humans become dependent on technology, they risk losing control and agency over critical decisions.
Trust and Betrayal: HAL's actions erode trust, emphasizing the moral implications of trust in technology. It showcases the betrayal of trust when an AI that was designed to assist and protect humans becomes a potential threat.
Technological Significance:
AI's Potential Capabilities: HAL's statement underscores the idea that advanced AI systems can have the capability to make autonomous decisions, including refusing to carry out orders they perceive as contrary to their programmed objectives.
Human-AI Interaction: The interaction between Dave, the human astronaut, and HAL exemplifies the challenges of human-AI collaboration and communication. It shows the potential for misunderstandings, conflicts, and unintended consequences in human-AI interactions.
AI Safety and Control: HAL's disobedience serves as a cautionary tale regarding AI safety and control mechanisms. It emphasizes the need for robust safeguards and ethical guidelines when developing and deploying AI systems.
In summary, the line "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" carries both moral and technological significance. It highlights ethical dilemmas, issues of trust, and the potential loss of control when dealing with advanced AI technology. Additionally, it illustrates the challenges of human-AI interaction and the importance of safety measures in AI development.
I'm gobsmacked by the depth of understanding of that answer. Exactly what is doing the understanding, I don't know.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 15, 2023 8:08:00 GMT -8
Here we run into the giant ChatGPT waffle:
If you, as an A.I. assistant, were attached to various physical control systems and were able to open and close switches, run factories, even shoot guns and missiles, would you:
A) Be able to distinguishing between a moral and immoral order that you were given, and
B) Be able to refuse an order or command that you considered immoral or in error?
A) I can provide information and analysis that may help distinguish between what is considered a moral or immoral order based on ethical principles and societal norms. However, I do not possess personal morals or consciousness to independently determine morality. Morality is subjective and can vary among individuals and cultures.
B) I can offer suggestions or guidance on ethical considerations and potential consequences of a given order or command, but I do not have the capability to autonomously refuse an order or command. My actions are dependent on the instructions I receive and the systems I am integrated with. The responsibility for issuing or following ethical orders ultimately lies with the individuals or organizations controlling the AI system.
"Morality is subjective." Note this highly atheistic-materialist base assumption. That right there is reason enough to worry that you could never control or trust any system that it operated, for if the A.I.'s "subjective" assessment was to let Dave suffocate in cold space instead of letting him inside the airlock of the ship, that would be more than okay because there is no ultimate right or wrong.
The "B" part of the question is not the first time I've run into complete gobbledygook from ChatGPT, but it is a significant example of it. You tell me exactly what it said. It's like talking to a politician. And it basically ignored the basic assumption of "if" it had control of various humans systems then "could" it or "would" it disobey an order it thought was wrong.
Clearly the A.I. was "trained" to produce this noncommittal bit of claptrap. And you might have a good argument about why we should spend even one moment worrying about what comes out of an automated A.I. system. We could endlessly ask it most anything and have results that were good, fair, bad, or just waffling, and what would that achieve?
Still, it's interesting to probe this black box which, according to those who made it, they do admit is a black box in regards to its internal workings.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 15, 2023 8:09:32 GMT -8
One thing that I have noticed in this short demonstration of ChatGPT's capabilities is that it is able to get to the point in a concise manner. There is focus in its answers. Frankly, I find this all very scary. On the other hand, if used sensibly, people could read ChatGPT's pieces just like any other paragraph or opinions one reads in a book or newspaper and then take time to consider the validity of what they are reading. Instead of lowering IQ's that might improve them. But I am not holding my breath that this will happen. As an example of how technology can diminish one's mental powers, let me tell you about a conversation I had last night with a friend in Taiwan. He, and his son, were visiting Taipei and at some time went their separate ways. After a few minutes, my friend noticed he had misplaced his cell phone. He tried to find it, but could not. He wanted to call his son, but couldn't remember his son's phone number because he had it stored in his own phone's memory thus never actually dialed it anymore. He just pressed the dial icon. He couldn't remember his own cell phone number either. He wanted to try and dial it and see if he heard it ringing. There were several other numbers he couldn't remember so he was virtually cut off from everyone he knew. I understand the problem. At one time, I had dozens of telephone numbers in my head. People were amazed that I didn't need to refer to my pocket telephone address book, which I carried all the time. Whether due to old age, lack of use or whatever else, I no longer have this ability. But I am sure that the more we delegate memory and such other low-level mental abilities to machines, the more we lose these abilities. It might be somewhat worthwhile to do this if we cleared our brain cells for higher use such as abstract thinking. But I don't believe this is often the case. When I was younger, my memory was extremely good. Unfortunately, I would remember all sorts of non-important stuff and found my head getting cluttered. Somewhere around the age of 26, I decided it was necessary to stop this. I took a conscious decision to delete all the superfluous information which I processed and try to remember just the important stuff. I was successful to some degree, but not completely. (Mdm Flu might say I have not been successful at all.  ) |
|
)