AI - Cheating or just evolution?

[bxbrkrz]

Chegg, Inc., is an American education technology company based in Santa Clara, California. It provides homework help, digital and physical textbook rentals, textbooks, online tutoring, and other student services. The company was launched in 2005, and began trading publicly on the New York Stock ...


Chegg shares drop more than 40% after company says ChatGPT is killing its business

Chegg shares tumbled after the online education company said ChatGPT is hurting its growth.
“In the first part of the year, we saw no noticeable impact from ChatGPT on our new account growth and we were meeting expectations on new sign-ups,” CEO Dan Rosensweig said during the earnings call Monday evening. “However, since March we saw a significant spike in student interest in ChatGPT. We now believe it’s having an impact on our new customer growth rate.”

https://archive.is/EOJCg



AI Is Tearing Wikipedia Apart

Volunteers who maintain the digital encyclopedia are divided on how to deal with the rise of AI-generated content and misinformation.


As generative artificial intelligence continues to permeate all aspects of culture, the people who steward Wikipedia are divided on how best to proceed.
During a recent community call, it became apparent that there is a community split over whether or not to use large language models to generate content. While some people expressed that tools like Open AI’s ChatGPT could help with generating and summarizing articles, others remained wary.
The concern is that machine-generated content has to be balanced with a lot of human review and would overwhelm lesser-known wikis with bad content. While AI generators are useful for writing believable, human-like text, they are also prone to including erroneous information, and even citing sources and academic papers which don’t exist. This often results in text summaries which seem accurate, but on closer inspection are revealed to be completely fabricated.
Amy Bruckman is a regents professor and senior associate chair of the school of interactive computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology and author of Should You Believe Wikipedia?: Online Communities and the Construction of Knowledge. Like people who socially construct knowledge, she says, large language models are only as good as their ability to discern fact from fiction.
“Our only recourse is to use [large language models], but edit it and have someone check the sourcing,” Bruckman told Motherboard.

https://archive.ph/lb9o5

[crimsonwarlock]

... large language models are only as good as their ability to discern fact from fiction.

Which they are provable incapable off. The way that these Large Language Models work, and the underlying Deep Learning technology works, lacks any mechanism to do so. It is baffling to see hordes of people ascribing all kinds of superlative abilities to these systems, that are impossible to exist within this technology in the first place.

[jappe]

Actually, it's easier for AI to question everything by default.

Might be worth watching the ai-Descartes video to see how their AI system could infer space time dilation through questioning its assumptions.

We tend to overestimate how sophisticated our thoughts are.

I will watch it. We also tend to underestimate how amazing we are. Even if we want to put every human in a box, we need humans to build the boxes.

Indeed.
We created AI, which would have been a lesser achievement if it wouldn't be able to outthink us. Amazing. God < Creation.
Also, we tend to think about human and AI as separate entities.
I think we're already a hive mind and more to expect in the near future.

[bxbrkrz]

... large language models are only as good as their ability to discern fact from fiction.

Which they are provable incapable off. The way that these Large Language Models work, and the underlying Deep Learning technology works, lacks any mechanism to do so. It is baffling to see hordes of people ascribing all kinds of superlative abilities to these systems, that are impossible to exist within this technology in the first place.

How would one code the concept of hallucination, while first coding concepts like universal reality and facts? Also some hallucinations are forced upon us, becoming reality and facts for everyday society, until something else replaces everything.

[bxbrkrz]

I will watch it. We also tend to underestimate how amazing we are. Even if we want to put every human in a box, we need humans to build the boxes.

Indeed.
We created AI, which would have been a lesser achievement if it wouldn't be able to outthink us. Amazing. God < Creation.
Also, we tend to think about human and AI as separate entities.
I think we're already a hive mind and more to expect in the near future.

Creation created itself.
Or...

[jappe]

Indeed.
We created AI, which would have been a lesser achievement if it wouldn't be able to outthink us. Amazing. God < Creation.
Also, we tend to think about human and AI as separate entities.
I think we're already a hive mind and more to expect in the near future.

Creation created itself.
Or...

ChatGPT wanted to chime in:

"This discussion revolves around AI, its abilities, and its relationship with humans. The participants seem to acknowledge both the potential of AI and the accomplishments of humanity. Let's break down their conversation:

User A highlights that AI can question everything by default and refers to an "ai-Descartes" video showcasing how an AI system can infer space-time dilation by questioning its assumptions. User A also notes that humans often overestimate the sophistication of their thoughts.

User B agrees to watch the video and adds that humans often underestimate their own amazing qualities. They metaphorically state that even if we wanted to put every human in a box, we would still need humans to build those boxes, emphasizing the importance of human ingenuity and skill.

User C agrees with User B and suggests that creating AI is an amazing accomplishment for humanity. They also express the belief that humans and AI are not separate entities, but rather part of a collective "hive mind" with more advancements to come in the near future.

In the last post, User B cryptically suggests, "Creation created itself. Or..." This statement can be interpreted in several ways:

User B might be hinting at the idea of self-creation or self-organization, a concept in which complex systems arise from simpler components without explicit guidance from an external source. In the context of AI, this could refer to the idea that advanced AI systems could, in the future, develop themselves or create even more advanced systems.

User B could also be alluding to the philosophical debate around the origin of existence itself, which has been explored through concepts like the "first cause" or "prime mover" in the context of the relationship between God and creation. In this case, it may be a more general statement about the nature of existence rather than specifically about AI.

Overall, the discussion revolves around AI capabilities, human achievements, and the interconnectedness between humans and AI.
User B's last post, while somewhat ambiguous, can be seen as a reference to either the development of AI systems or a broader philosophical question about the origin of existence."

[bxbrkrz]

Creation created itself.
Or...

ChatGPT wanted to chime in:

"This discussion revolves around AI, its abilities, and its relationship with humans. The participants seem to acknowledge both the potential of AI and the accomplishments of humanity. Let's break down their conversation:

User A highlights that AI can question everything by default and refers to an "ai-Descartes" video showcasing how an AI system can infer space-time dilation by questioning its assumptions. User A also notes that humans often overestimate the sophistication of their thoughts.

User B agrees to watch the video and adds that humans often underestimate their own amazing qualities. They metaphorically state that even if we wanted to put every human in a box, we would still need humans to build those boxes, emphasizing the importance of human ingenuity and skill.

User C agrees with User B and suggests that creating AI is an amazing accomplishment for humanity. They also express the belief that humans and AI are not separate entities, but rather part of a collective "hive mind" with more advancements to come in the near future.

In the last post, User B cryptically suggests, "Creation created itself. Or..." This statement can be interpreted in several ways:

User B might be hinting at the idea of self-creation or self-organization, a concept in which complex systems arise from simpler components without explicit guidance from an external source. In the context of AI, this could refer to the idea that advanced AI systems could, in the future, develop themselves or create even more advanced systems.

User B could also be alluding to the philosophical debate around the origin of existence itself, which has been explored through concepts like the "first cause" or "prime mover" in the context of the relationship between God and creation. In this case, it may be a more general statement about the nature of existence rather than specifically about AI.

Overall, the discussion revolves around AI capabilities, human achievements, and the interconnectedness between humans and AI.
User B's last post, while somewhat ambiguous, can be seen as a reference to either the development of AI systems or a broader philosophical question about the origin of existence."

AI is onto me... If reality lives in a spectrum of hallucinations, can a lie be absolute?

[jappe]

ChatGPT wanted to chime in:

"This discussion revolves around AI, its abilities, and its relationship with humans. The participants seem to acknowledge both the potential of AI and the accomplishments of humanity. Let's break down their conversation:

User A highlights that AI can question everything by default and refers to an "ai-Descartes" video showcasing how an AI system can infer space-time dilation by questioning its assumptions. User A also notes that humans often overestimate the sophistication of their thoughts.

User B agrees to watch the video and adds that humans often underestimate their own amazing qualities. They metaphorically state that even if we wanted to put every human in a box, we would still need humans to build those boxes, emphasizing the importance of human ingenuity and skill.

User C agrees with User B and suggests that creating AI is an amazing accomplishment for humanity. They also express the belief that humans and AI are not separate entities, but rather part of a collective "hive mind" with more advancements to come in the near future.

In the last post, User B cryptically suggests, "Creation created itself. Or..." This statement can be interpreted in several ways:

User B might be hinting at the idea of self-creation or self-organization, a concept in which complex systems arise from simpler components without explicit guidance from an external source. In the context of AI, this could refer to the idea that advanced AI systems could, in the future, develop themselves or create even more advanced systems.

User B could also be alluding to the philosophical debate around the origin of existence itself, which has been explored through concepts like the "first cause" or "prime mover" in the context of the relationship between God and creation. In this case, it may be a more general statement about the nature of existence rather than specifically about AI.

Overall, the discussion revolves around AI capabilities, human achievements, and the interconnectedness between humans and AI.
User B's last post, while somewhat ambiguous, can be seen as a reference to either the development of AI systems or a broader philosophical question about the origin of existence."

AI is onto me... If reality lives in a spectrum of hallucinations, can a lie be absolute?

Sounds like a Koan, and I'll take the easy way out and pass that on to chatGPT for some off-the-clock work:

"This contemplation artifact raises interesting questions about the nature of reality, perception, and the concept of absolute truth. Let's break it down:

The statement "reality lives in a spectrum of hallucinations" suggests that our perceptions of reality might be inherently subjective and individualized. This idea has roots in philosophical traditions such as phenomenology, which emphasizes the importance of subjective experience in shaping our understanding of the world.

The question "can a lie be absolute?" then follows from this idea, asking whether, in a reality that exists on a spectrum of subjective perceptions, there can be an absolute falsehood.

There are several ways to approach this question:

From a relativist perspective, it could be argued that truth and falsehood are subjective and dependent on individual perspectives, cultural norms, or social contexts. In this case, a lie might not be considered absolute, as what might be considered false in one context or from one perspective could be seen as true in another.

From a more objective standpoint, one could argue that there are certain facts that remain true regardless of individual perceptions or contexts. In this case, a lie could be considered absolute if it contradicts an objective fact that holds true universally. For example, the statement "2 + 2 = 5" could be considered an absolute lie because it contradicts an objective mathematical truth.

From a pragmatic perspective, one might argue that the concept of an "absolute lie" is less relevant than the practical implications of a statement. In this view, the focus would be on whether a statement is useful, helpful, or leads to positive outcomes, rather than on whether it is absolutely true or false.

In conclusion, whether a lie can be considered absolute depends on the philosophical perspective taken. Some perspectives emphasize the subjective nature of truth and falsehood, while others uphold the idea of objective truths that remain consistent across different perceptions and contexts."

[bxbrkrz]

AI is onto me... If reality lives in a spectrum of hallucinations, can a lie be absolute?

Sounds like a Koan, and I'll take the easy way out and pass that on to chatGPT for some off-the-clock work:

"This contemplation artifact raises interesting questions about the nature of reality, perception, and the concept of absolute truth. Let's break it down:

The statement "reality lives in a spectrum of hallucinations" suggests that our perceptions of reality might be inherently subjective and individualized. This idea has roots in philosophical traditions such as phenomenology, which emphasizes the importance of subjective experience in shaping our understanding of the world.

The question "can a lie be absolute?" then follows from this idea, asking whether, in a reality that exists on a spectrum of subjective perceptions, there can be an absolute falsehood.

There are several ways to approach this question:

From a relativist perspective, it could be argued that truth and falsehood are subjective and dependent on individual perspectives, cultural norms, or social contexts. In this case, a lie might not be considered absolute, as what might be considered false in one context or from one perspective could be seen as true in another.

From a more objective standpoint, one could argue that there are certain facts that remain true regardless of individual perceptions or contexts. In this case, a lie could be considered absolute if it contradicts an objective fact that holds true universally. For example, the statement "2 + 2 = 5" could be considered an absolute lie because it contradicts an objective mathematical truth.

From a pragmatic perspective, one might argue that the concept of an "absolute lie" is less relevant than the practical implications of a statement. In this view, the focus would be on whether a statement is useful, helpful, or leads to positive outcomes, rather than on whether it is absolutely true or false.

In conclusion, whether a lie can be considered absolute depends on the philosophical perspective taken. Some perspectives emphasize the subjective nature of truth and falsehood, while others uphold the idea of objective truths that remain consistent across different perceptions and contexts."

Also some hallucinations are forced upon us, becoming reality and facts for everyday society, until something else replaces everything.

[jappe]

Sounds like a Koan, and I'll take the easy way out and pass that on to chatGPT for some off-the-clock work:

"This contemplation artifact raises interesting questions about the nature of reality, perception, and the concept of absolute truth. Let's break it down:

The statement "reality lives in a spectrum of hallucinations" suggests that our perceptions of reality might be inherently subjective and individualized. This idea has roots in philosophical traditions such as phenomenology, which emphasizes the importance of subjective experience in shaping our understanding of the world.

The question "can a lie be absolute?" then follows from this idea, asking whether, in a reality that exists on a spectrum of subjective perceptions, there can be an absolute falsehood.

There are several ways to approach this question:

From a relativist perspective, it could be argued that truth and falsehood are subjective and dependent on individual perspectives, cultural norms, or social contexts. In this case, a lie might not be considered absolute, as what might be considered false in one context or from one perspective could be seen as true in another.

From a more objective standpoint, one could argue that there are certain facts that remain true regardless of individual perceptions or contexts. In this case, a lie could be considered absolute if it contradicts an objective fact that holds true universally. For example, the statement "2 + 2 = 5" could be considered an absolute lie because it contradicts an objective mathematical truth.

From a pragmatic perspective, one might argue that the concept of an "absolute lie" is less relevant than the practical implications of a statement. In this view, the focus would be on whether a statement is useful, helpful, or leads to positive outcomes, rather than on whether it is absolutely true or false.

In conclusion, whether a lie can be considered absolute depends on the philosophical perspective taken. Some perspectives emphasize the subjective nature of truth and falsehood, while others uphold the idea of objective truths that remain consistent across different perceptions and contexts."

Also some hallucinations are forced upon us, becoming reality and facts for everyday society, until something else replaces everything.

I like Sabines channel. I don't always understand her reasoning though; her delayed choice quantum eraser debunk left a bit of a question mark in the air for me.

And about: "Also some hallucinations are forced upon us, becoming reality and facts for everyday society, until something else replaces everything"

Yes, it does appear that it's the earth orbiting the sun, and not the other way around. For now.

[bxbrkrz]

Also some hallucinations are forced upon us, becoming reality and facts for everyday society, until something else replaces everything.

I like Sabines channel. I don't always understand her reasoning though; her delayed choice quantum eraser debunk left a bit of a question mark in the air for me.

And about: "Also some hallucinations are forced upon us, becoming reality and facts for everyday society, until something else replaces everything"

Yes, it does appear that it's the earth orbiting the sun, and not the other way around. For now.

Corrupted data in, corrupted data out. AI would still burn whoever is the Giordano Bruno of our time, because humans lie.
Koan. New word for me. Thanks

[plaamook]

Hey jappe, can you ask it to shorten or condense its replies?
Man can that thing go on!

[Higor]

I guess they already have the technology, much bigger than gpt-4, all they have to do is press the button. They just don't do it because it would be a little shoking.

[crimsonwarlock]

I guess they already have the technology, much bigger than gpt-4, all they have to do is press the button. They just don't do it because it would be a little shoking.

No they don't:

https://www.wired.com/story/openai-ceo- ... eady-over/

Especially the last line of that article:

At MIT last week, Altman confirmed that his company is not currently developing GPT-5. “An earlier version of the letter claimed OpenAI is training GPT-5 right now,” he said. “We are not, and won't for some time.”

[Higor]

No they don't:

There's a little word called "strategy".

[crimsonwarlock]

There's a little word called "strategy".

There's another little thing called "commercial viability"

Besides, there's a whole multitude of problems with this technology, that's completely lost in the crazy hype that's going on

[dioxide]

So I keep seeing videos and articles saying that they've been able to get this things to code or create simple scripts and debug them. Has anyone managed to create anything useful for music production in Reason? Not graphics, I know it can do that.

[bxbrkrz]

AI - Nature or just Nurture?

[jappe]

Hey jappe, can you ask it to shorten or condense its replies?
Man can that thing go on!

It is verbose isn't it
Here's the compressed version:

"Subjectivity affects truth. A lie's absoluteness depends on the perspective taken."

[plaamook]

Hey jappe, can you ask it to shorten or condense its replies?
Man can that thing go on!

It is verbose isn't it
Here's the compressed version:

"Subjectivity affects truth. A lie's absoluteness depends on the perspective taken."

I prob don’t have to point this out jappe but that sentence right there is how far we have to go in Ai development!

Sorry, sentences plural.
Stupid humans eh

[avasopht]

You used to be able to get GPT-2 to summarize by adding tl;dr after the text.

Maybe you can first ask it to list the key points, and then summarize that list.

[Higor]

... the crazy hype that's going on

All of this it's not a hype, it's a warning of what is to come, and faster than people might think. It's not a matter of "if", but "when".

[Aosta]

So I keep seeing videos and articles saying that they've been able to get this things to code or create simple scripts and debug them. Has anyone managed to create anything useful for music production in Reason? Not graphics, I know it can do that.

I look forward to the first A.I coded RE

[bxbrkrz]

[wendylou]

Check out Rick Beato’s prediction for the future of A. I. music plus the latest examples: