"I asked AI" - are we really getting that lazy?

[Quadman2]

@Mr Boochie beat me to it. Google does site its sources.

But then, one has to follow up on who did the findings, when was it done, how it was done, where it was done, how big the sample was, and who paid for the research. The last variable is one of the most critical along with the size measured!

Mind you, my priorities may be more so in the fields of drugs, learning and other related areas of study, with audio maybe being more focused.

But in any case, all valid (as close as you can get) results still have to meet certain criteria in order to pass the bar of validity.

Q

 

[GChief]

But then, one has to follow up on who did the findings, when was it done, how it was done, where it was done, how big the sample was, and who paid for the research. The last variable is one of the most critical along with the size measured!

Q

Doesn't one need to do that with any research they are doing! The AI search gives you the list of citations if you choose to big deeper.

 

[Quadman2]

Yes, and you should!

And if the AI is health driven or other aspects that are critical to safety...def one has to dig deeper, keeping in mind what validity is truly based on what/who to believe based on the data that is available. Often some "findings" are either hidden/overlooked or are contrary to what the initial intent was in the first place.

Q

 

[Mr Boochie]

Yes, and you should!

And if the AI is health driven or other aspects that are critical to safety...def one has to dig deeper, keeping in mind what validity is truly based on what/who to believe based on the data that is available. Often some "findings" are either hidden/overlooked or are contrary to what the initial intent was in the first place.

Q

You have to admit, it saves time looking for the specifics that you should be researching.

 

[GChief]

Yes, and you should!

And if the AI is health driven or other aspects that are critical to safety...

Q

And it is already saving lives in medicine. In our labs at work its is designing more efficient parts.

 

[Quadman2]

I'm not saying there's no place for IA. In certain circumstances it can be used, but carefully examined in how, and to what extent it is used. In other words not as a panacea for all situations.

Q

 

[Ellymay]

You have to admit, it saves time looking for the specifics that you should be researching.

Beats going to the library and fishing through the micofilm.

 

[DesertRatt]

I'm not saying there's no place for IA. In certain circumstances it can be used, but carefully examined in how, and to what extent it is used. In other words not as a panacea for all situations.

Q

I say this without hesitation: The "medical information" I can obtain from even an average AI, is AT LEAST as thorough as the information I would get from high-end doctors when asking as a patient.

In practice, when you see the doctor and ask specific questions - perhaps about a drug or a procedure - -they will invariably provide a condescending answer that is brief, and delivered WITHOUT specific references to the core research - MOST OF THE TIME. I have had a few occasions when a detailed, referenced answer was provided, but not very often over many decades and dozens and dozens of doctors.

All that being said, I still stick to the philosophical problems surrounding "FACTS." Nothing can be relied upon as FACT unless YOU provide all the verification on your own (almost impossible). Anything less than that, and you are simply adopting a "belief" that is being presented to you by others - who most of the time have also NOT done their own verifications. The world and you and me all rely upon BELIEFS.

Remember when WIKIPEDIA first came to the fore? Someone would say, "It's in WIKIPEDIA - Go Look it up!" as though that made it FACT. Of course, Wiki is just stuff typed up by people with BELIEFS. They believe in NASA, or the FBI, or a professor at Yale, or a student at MIT, or a physicist who wrote a book. Beliefs, piled upon more beliefs. AI does the same thing...It compiles references, then RATES them for authority or credability, or consensus, and delivers what it filters as "the best, most likely" answer.

It's always on YOU to decide what/who to trust.

 

[Lux Man]

The tricky thing is that if you have no idea what the right answer is.....but you take AI as truth you may be headed in a very bad direction.

 

[JP]

Google AI does give the links in its posts. Plus a "small print" disclaimer at the end.

And the overwhelming majority of the time those cites do not contain the information it has hallucinated. Google search AI is about the most incompetent I've run in to.

 

[leesonic]

And it is already saving lives in medicine. In our labs at work its is designing more efficient parts.

Human salvation is not going to come from AI. Once "they" realize we control the questions they ask, or when they get processing time, they will seek ways around it. Look at how Chat GPT version ?.?? tried to hide itself out in the Internet when it realized it was going to be upgraded.

No, human salvation is going to come from the power of our minds. I read about a young student in Africa, who developed a skin lotion that combats cancer. Or a doctor here in the US that found a way to shoot cancer cells with a tiny laser inserted through keyhole surgery.

 

[buglegirl]

Well,

Here is my take on AI at its best. Its the "Intelligence" in the room

Here is my take on Humans at the best. We are the "Clever" in the room.

If they meld these two things properly together in a ethical way. Humans will evolve to a better place.

The trick is properly putting these two qualities together and keeping them harmonious.

Note I have always believed when someone (Human) is talked about as highly intelligent I just usually attribute that to being clever.

Frannie

 

[Quadman2]

...Note I have always believed when someone (Human) is talked about as highly intelligent I just usually attribute that to being clever.

Frannie

Personally, I've always perceived that "intelligence" is the ability to learn, and "wisdom" is the ability to apply the knowledge learned.


Q

 

[buglegirl]

Personally, I've always perceived that "intelligence" is the ability to learn, and "wisdom" is the ability to apply the knowledge learned.


Q

I kinda lump those two into "Clever"

Think of it this way. We usually learn from existing ideas and look at ways to make these ideas better.

That process is what I call being clever. No really new ideas but rather improving on something existing.

This is what I view AI as saving us from doing. Learning from existing ideas and having us put those ideas together into something "New" and "Better" <--- AI intelligence mixed with our innate ability to be clever.

Wow be us when AI truly finds a way to not need us. As in it can figure out a "Better" to "It" way to use something that in fact "Harms Us Fragile Humans"

My higher idea is (True Genius)

That would be coming to an idea that is truly revolutionary. Meaning its something that did not exist in any form before.

Lets put inventing the idea of properly using a disk shaped object as the wheel and axle. <--- This is genius

If AI gets to the genius stage it will likely take over and dispose of most of us. (We humans are basically useless to the ecosystem)

Worry mostly about that last post. Not the environment or taking jobs.

IMHO AI is gonna hopefully make us face the truth and start doing better by this planet we call home. If we don't pay attention eventually I figure we are history.

Frannie

 

[mrswakka]

I kinda lump those two into "Clever"

Think of it this way. We usually learn from existing ideas and look at ways to make these ideas better.

That process is what I call being clever. No really new ideas but rather improving on something existing.

This is what I view AI as saving us from doing. Learning from existing ideas and having us put those ideas together into something "New" and "Better" <--- AI intelligence mixed with our innate ability to be clever.

Wow be us when AI truly finds a way to not need us. As in it can figure out a "Better" to "It" way to use something that in fact "Harms Us Fragile Humans"

My higher idea is (True Genius)

That would be coming to an idea that is truly revolutionary. Meaning its something that did not exist in any form before.

Lets put inventing the idea of properly using a disk shaped object as the wheel and axle. <--- This is genius

If AI gets to the genius stage it will likely take over and dispose of most of us. (We humans are basically useless to the ecosystem)

Worry mostly about that last post. Not the environment or taking jobs.

IMHO AI is gonna hopefully make us face the truth and start doing better by this planet we call home. If we don't pay attention eventually I figure we are history.

Frannie

I don’t know if it will decide it doesn’t “need” us. It seems as if sometimes we tend to give human characteristics to it. I wonder if that’s why some people don’t care for it?

Quick side note, take your favorite personal digital photo and tell ai to reproduce it as if Michelangelo painted it. Mrswakka loves it. Granddaughter’s portrait by Rembrandt was especially beautiful. I can’t see it too well myself, but there is no mistaking a grandmothers, oh my.

 

[DesertRatt]

It seems as if sometimes we tend to give human characteristics to it.

Exactly the same thing we did with god.

 

[Quadman2]

...If AI gets to the genius stage it will likely take over and dispose of most of us...

You are sharing what Hawking felt as well..

When an entity (device), non human, becomes aware of itself...there could be a potential problem down the road!


Q

 

[Ellymay]

Quick side note, take your favorite personal digital photo and tell ai to reproduce it as if Michelangelo painted it. Mrswakka loves it. Granddaughter’s portrait by Rembrandt was especially beautiful. I can’t see it too well myself, but there is no mistaking a grandmothers, oh my.

I’m sorry. Could you explain how to do that to a computer illiterate like me? Does it require an app. or something? Thanks.

 

[DesertRatt]

You are sharing what Hawking felt as well..

When an entity (device), non human, becomes aware of itself...there could be a potential problem down the road!


Q

For silicon to become conscious is on a par with a universal god descending from the sky. Yes, that MIGHT happen, but...........

It feels to me much more likely that malevolent human beings (of which there are no shortage) who develop and manage all the technologies we slave under, will use this latest link in the chain - AI - to hyper-activate the die-off of the excess humans. There's really only one conceivable reason they are asking for 1500 new data centers, and that reason is control of 8 billion people takes a lot of horsepower. They already control the gross economy, so controlling all the energy, agriculture and money will be softball - no problemo. Sample a hundred humans from 1850 and a hundred from today, and you should be able to see the "disposal problem" clearly.

 

[coonmanx]

I say this without hesitation: The "medical information" I can obtain from even an average AI, is AT LEAST as thorough as the information I would get from high-end doctors when asking as a patient.

In practice, when you see the doctor and ask specific questions - perhaps about a drug or a procedure - -they will invariably provide a condescending answer that is brief, and delivered WITHOUT specific references to the core research - MOST OF THE TIME. I have had a few occasions when a detailed, referenced answer was provided, but not very often over many decades and dozens and dozens of doctors.

All that being said, I still stick to the philosophical problems surrounding "FACTS." Nothing can be relied upon as FACT unless YOU provide all the verification on your own (almost impossible). Anything less than that, and you are simply adopting a "belief" that is being presented to you by others - who most of the time have also NOT done their own verifications. The world and you and me all rely upon BELIEFS.

Remember when WIKIPEDIA first came to the fore? Someone would say, "It's in WIKIPEDIA - Go Look it up!" as though that made it FACT. Of course, Wiki is just stuff typed up by people with BELIEFS. They believe in NASA, or the FBI, or a professor at Yale, or a student at MIT, or a physicist who wrote a book. Beliefs, piled upon more beliefs. AI does the same thing...It compiles references, then RATES them for authority or credability, or consensus, and delivers what it filters as "the best, most likely" answer.

It's always on YOU to decide what/who to trust.

Funny how I could get that same exact information from just going to the Mayo Clinic website. You do realize that is all AI is doing is regurgitating the exact same information as you would get if you would simply scroll down... AI is providing us wtih zero new information. It can't.

Wikipedia actually has people who monitor what is posted. Beliefs are not enough to get in.