AI also can't fucking do this, this is what I've been ranting about when it comes to AI. The people who push this shit the most are just liars and thieves using AI to justify themselves and and avoid responsibility for what they're doing.
I warned people AI is going to be the thing that frightens people the most into doing stupid shit and getting the governments more authoritarian than they already are. Climate change isn't working because it's so ludicrous, but too many people find AI taking over the world plausible. There's a reason so many of these phony professionals are pushing this shit so hard. It's the next global insider trading scam.
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.
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.
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.
The disturbing thing is that could well end up working because people have had their heads filled since the 80's nearly of sci-fi machinery achieving sentience and it will be the perfect scam to propel everybody headlong into a socialist dystopia willingly. This is why I think I'm possibly going to make it my mission to break this shit as fast as possible and I hope other people are planning the same thing. People are stupid and they will fall for this.
AI also can't fucking do this, this is what I've been ranting about when it comes to AI. The people who push this shit the most are just liars and thieves using AI to justify themselves and and avoid responsibility for what they're doing.
I warned people AI is going to be the thing that frightens people the most into doing stupid shit and getting the governments more authoritarian than they already are. Climate change isn't working because it's so ludicrous, but too many people find AI taking over the world plausible. There's a reason so many of these phony professionals are pushing this shit so hard. It's the next global insider trading scam.
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.
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.
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.
The disturbing thing is that could well end up working because people have had their heads filled since the 80's nearly of sci-fi machinery achieving sentience and it will be the perfect scam to propel everybody headlong into a socialist dystopia willingly. This is why I think I'm possibly going to make it my mission to break this shit as fast as possible and I hope other people are planning the same thing. People are stupid and they will fall for this.
Johnny 5 says "Kill yourself to end white supremacy!"