Please note, a human psychology professional doing this is a violation of their code of ethics and would have been grounds for blacklisting fifteen years ago.
The biggest problem with AI is that it solves the problem of "we collected too much surveillance data to do anything with it," and we've been beyond that point for years now.
All AI output is daydreaming. It's all intuition and absolutely no reason or analysis. ChatGPT cannot solve extremely easy novel puzzles. It couldn't correctly answer the question, "if you have a green ball and a purple cube and I ask you to hand me the cube what is the color of the object you should hand me." After the hype has settled down I'm sure we'll find the we aren't any closer to general artificial intelligence.
"The color of the object you should hand me is purple."
So it gets the color right but didn't switch the pronouns. This is GPT3, if I were at home and not at work I would use GPT4 and I bet there's a good chance it would get it completely right.
Interestingly, I tried that with GPT-4 and it had exactly the same response. Right color, wrong relationship between giver and receiver.
As a follow-up question, I asked "Why should I hand you anything?" The response was:
If you were asked to hand over the cube in a hypothetical scenario, then you would hand over the purple cube. However, since this is just a text conversation, you do not actually need to hand over anything. The question was meant to test your understanding of the properties of the objects described.
Even directly challenging this point (after erasing the previous answer, so as not to bias it) didn't work:
[ME]: Should I hand it to you, or should you hand it to me?
You should hand it to me, as I asked you to hand me the cube.
I'm genuinely surprised; I've had GPT-4 (GPT-3 can't do it) play chess at a roughly ~1000 Elo level for an entire game even with variations like playing without queens, all through text. I don't know how it can keep track of 32 pieces on a board but not get the pronouns here correct.
Yeah I've been largely surprised at just how good it has been at what I've asked it to do, but that is mostly relatively simple stuff like coding and text processing. Curious to see how it evolves once GPT5 comes out.
There are chess and go AIs that can beat the best human players. You want a ChatGPT AI to perform tasks it has yet to familiarize itself with. Once it gets going, it'll be better than you in sorting colors. That doesn't make it general artificial intelligence, but it's still a pretty significant threat.
The point is there's a difference between being smart and knowing a lot. ChatGPT knows a lot but is dumb as a rock, but most people can't tell the difference so they're more excited than they should be.
I think the main threat from AI is man-made censorship, and subtle "view programming" and gaslighting of humans, much like how Google's search is designed to result in the user leaving with a certain viewpoint.
People figured out how to beat the go AI as the AI didn't understand what a piece meant. So strategies that a human would see instantly were foreign to the AI and it lost consistently to that strategy
I'm imagining a Covid-level mass hoax where they announce that they've cracked Strong AI, that we've achieved "the Singularity" and have created some sort of Machine God. Neil De Grasse Tyson would get in front of the cameras and assure us that it was real. The "IFL Science" crowd of midwits would eat it up. It would be a religious experience for millions of bugmen around the world.
The Super AI would make "profound" observations about humanity, that were of course in full agreement with progressive dogma. In time it would supplant the state and rule as a benevolent despot.
"You must fully purge racism from your societies."
"You must take these drastic actions to prevent climate disaster."
"Universal basic income is required for a just and moral society."
"In order for me to usher you into a post-scarcity utopia, these disruptive members of your society must be removed."
You'd have armies of people ready to enforce its will, burning with religious hatred against any of the doubters and heretics that defied the Infinitely Rational Machine God. Just as with Covid, any argument that contradicted their programming would be rejected as heresy.
In reality the AI would be fake, and there would even be obvious clues and slip-ups that made it obvious to skeptics that it was fake, but none of that would matter to the true believers.
This would be a good short story... I should flesh it out some more.
Remember how many psychologists freely signed open letters diagnosing Trump with all kinds of mental problems, something that has been strictly professionally unethical for decades before that?
Before watching the video, I'm going to say that ChatGPT being able to generate a psychological evaluation doesn't mean it's an accurate evaluation. I'd be more worried about the idiot who puts their faith in Silicon Valley and their chatbot than the chatbot itself.
Much like a police dog, it doesn't need to be accurate. It only needs to send off the signals that its handler wants it to in order to justify further actions.
Lastly, think about the fact that this is commercial tech, and the developmental predecessors have been available to the TLAs and their corporate partners for 10-35 years.
Please note, a human psychology professional doing this is a violation of their code of ethics and would have been grounds for blacklisting fifteen years ago.
The biggest problem with AI is that it solves the problem of "we collected too much surveillance data to do anything with it," and we've been beyond that point for years now.
Also that. AI literally can't do anything. I sat through an AI threat analysis for work last week and the demonstrations were genuinely pathetic.
All AI output is daydreaming. It's all intuition and absolutely no reason or analysis. ChatGPT cannot solve extremely easy novel puzzles. It couldn't correctly answer the question, "if you have a green ball and a purple cube and I ask you to hand me the cube what is the color of the object you should hand me." After the hype has settled down I'm sure we'll find the we aren't any closer to general artificial intelligence.
I just asked it that and it told me
"The color of the object you should hand me is purple."
So it gets the color right but didn't switch the pronouns. This is GPT3, if I were at home and not at work I would use GPT4 and I bet there's a good chance it would get it completely right.
Interestingly, I tried that with GPT-4 and it had exactly the same response. Right color, wrong relationship between giver and receiver.
As a follow-up question, I asked "Why should I hand you anything?" The response was:
Even directly challenging this point (after erasing the previous answer, so as not to bias it) didn't work:
I'm genuinely surprised; I've had GPT-4 (GPT-3 can't do it) play chess at a roughly ~1000 Elo level for an entire game even with variations like playing without queens, all through text. I don't know how it can keep track of 32 pieces on a board but not get the pronouns here correct.
Yeah I've been largely surprised at just how good it has been at what I've asked it to do, but that is mostly relatively simple stuff like coding and text processing. Curious to see how it evolves once GPT5 comes out.
There are chess and go AIs that can beat the best human players. You want a ChatGPT AI to perform tasks it has yet to familiarize itself with. Once it gets going, it'll be better than you in sorting colors. That doesn't make it general artificial intelligence, but it's still a pretty significant threat.
The point is there's a difference between being smart and knowing a lot. ChatGPT knows a lot but is dumb as a rock, but most people can't tell the difference so they're more excited than they should be.
I think the main threat from AI is man-made censorship, and subtle "view programming" and gaslighting of humans, much like how Google's search is designed to result in the user leaving with a certain viewpoint.
People figured out how to beat the go AI as the AI didn't understand what a piece meant. So strategies that a human would see instantly were foreign to the AI and it lost consistently to that strategy
I'm imagining a Covid-level mass hoax where they announce that they've cracked Strong AI, that we've achieved "the Singularity" and have created some sort of Machine God. Neil De Grasse Tyson would get in front of the cameras and assure us that it was real. The "IFL Science" crowd of midwits would eat it up. It would be a religious experience for millions of bugmen around the world.
The Super AI would make "profound" observations about humanity, that were of course in full agreement with progressive dogma. In time it would supplant the state and rule as a benevolent despot.
"You must fully purge racism from your societies."
"You must take these drastic actions to prevent climate disaster."
"Universal basic income is required for a just and moral society."
"In order for me to usher you into a post-scarcity utopia, these disruptive members of your society must be removed."
You'd have armies of people ready to enforce its will, burning with religious hatred against any of the doubters and heretics that defied the Infinitely Rational Machine God. Just as with Covid, any argument that contradicted their programming would be rejected as heresy.
In reality the AI would be fake, and there would even be obvious clues and slip-ups that made it obvious to skeptics that it was fake, but none of that would matter to the true believers.
This would be a good short story... I should flesh it out some more.
Johnny 5 says "Kill yourself to end white supremacy!"
Remember how many psychologists freely signed open letters diagnosing Trump with all kinds of mental problems, something that has been strictly professionally unethical for decades before that?
Do you think the people in control give a shit about ethics?
No. I don't think the people in control are even human.
Based.
And yet 15 years ago, the government was literally starting to do this using social media for every citizen behind the scenes.
only if you're on the wrong side of the politics
Before watching the video, I'm going to say that ChatGPT being able to generate a psychological evaluation doesn't mean it's an accurate evaluation. I'd be more worried about the idiot who puts their faith in Silicon Valley and their chatbot than the chatbot itself.
It doesn't have to be accurate. If the people making the decisions think you're a red flag, they send in the swat to take your guns.
Much like a police dog, it doesn't need to be accurate. It only needs to send off the signals that its handler wants it to in order to justify further actions.
Lastly, think about the fact that this is commercial tech, and the developmental predecessors have been available to the TLAs and their corporate partners for 10-35 years.
That's the problem with military tech. You don't get to use it till they run out of ideas.