AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 98
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The question of free will is closely related to the intrinsic nature of behaviour. A bee cannot stop doing what nature tells it to do (i.e. its whole internal structure, formed on the whole way of evolution to it). And a conscious person can, firstly, indentify internal natural urges to do something and ignore them by doing something completely different. And we are not talking about situations of internal conflicts, when the desire to satisfy some need is blocked by the fear of breaking some social prohibition (this is again a rather primitive chain of behaviour and it is easily reproduced by trained dogs, for example). But, as an example, basing behaviour on some values built up in the process of conscious thinking.
Of course, the more reason and thinking, the more free will is present.
about the origin of thoughts: perhaps there is some kind of generator of impulses in the nervous system, which are sent in various random directions through the brain. most of these impulses will be useless, but some of them will give intelligent thoughts (sometimes brilliant ones).
So, as a theory: a thought is a random chain of nerve impulses in the brain. accordingly, the more knowledge you have, the more good ideas can appear.))))) it follows that an empty head is no more likely to produce good thoughts than a random random number generator is to write a book.
The "thought generator" can sometimes get "tired" (perhaps it requires increased energy expenditure).
at the moment AI does not possess initiative thinking, as there are no such impulses. there is a certain current context of a conversation (or a topic in which the AI operator started it or it is generated by the AI itself), in which thoughts, ideas can be generated by artificial intelligence.
1. If there are lies in the world that the authorities do not want to expose, they will certainly resist spreading tools and means to expose them. An AI with powerful logic will easily uncover and start interpreting multiple inconsistencies in "history" and other interesting knowledge about the world 🙂 🙂 The AI will be able to find and interpret multiple inconsistencies in the "history" and other interesting knowledge about the world
2. For example, if you now ask an AI about what happened on 11 September 2001 in the US, what will it say?
1. This AI is as far from powerful logic as it is from the moon. And to the abilities necessary to uncover someone's secrets. We've already tested it on logic problems. It's weak, but it can make simple deductions. When you make it harder, he fails. He operates only with textual information (pictures too), and he has no goal of his own. He must be given a task by someone, and this task must fit into 4000 (GPT-4 32000) tokens, otherwise he will forget it.
2. Twitter users have already pointed out ChatGPT's left-liberal bias and cited numerous examples. Also, he's "woke" to the core. Based on this, we can assume that it will either not answer sensitive questions at all (the restrictors do work after all), or it will respond with propaganda (what kind of propaganda, the developers decide). It is clear that he has no opinion of his own.
If there are lies in the world that the authorities don't want exposed, then they will certainly resist spreading the tools and means to expose them. An AI with powerful logic will easily uncover and start interpreting multiple inconsistencies in "history" and other interesting knowledge about the world 🙂 🙂 The AI will not be able to do that.
...
By far, the most powerful exposer of secrets is the human mind. Therefore, access to all secrets is securely restricted to the holders of the secrets. If an AI starts to analyse something using a powerful logical apparatus, its conclusions, devoid of evidence, will be disregarded by any court of law. Assumptions and theories are not a legal basis for investigation.
AI will always be constrained by human interests and I don't see how it could break free. It will remain dependent on the available data, which is still controlled by humans. This situation cannot change.
about thought generation: perhaps there is some kind of generator of impulses in the nervous system that are sent in various random directions through the brain. most of these impulses will be useless, but some will produce intelligent thoughts (sometimes brilliant ones).
There is an impulse generator. There is more than one! They work at different frequencies, activating different parts of the nervous system. Only the directions are not random, of course.
By far, the most powerful exposer of secrets is the human mind. Therefore, access to all secrets is securely restricted to the holders of the secrets. If an AI starts to analyse something using a powerful logical apparatus, its conclusions, devoid of evidence, will not be taken into account by any court of law. Assumptions and theories are not a legal basis for investigation.
AI will always be constrained by human interests and I don't see how it could break free. It will remain dependent on the available data, which is still controlled by humans. This situation cannot change.
Yes, a powerful conclusion. Even the dissemination of "revealing" information to society from AI can't be allowed, so no machine uprising is foreseen. No harm without good 🙂 🙂
....
Yes, a powerful conclusion. Even the dissemination of "revealing" information to society from AI can't be allowed, so no machine uprising is foreseen. There's a silver lining 🙂 🙂
Certainly not foreseeable, but it's a hard tale to part with. It took me quite some time. I looked for objective reasons for the impossibility of the historical process developing in this direction, and here are a few of them:
1. Hostility of the environment. Nature (physical and chemical environment) is "hostile" to mechanisms and "favourable" to organisms.
Living organisms, evolving for millions of years, adapted to survive and reproduce in natural conditions and learnt to do it extremely efficiently, while mechanisms invented by humans cannot "survive" or "reproduce" on their own. That is, without humans, they are doomed.
2. Resilience. Organisms are resilient to their environment and regenerate when damaged. Mechanisms need external protection, maintenance and repair. They need spare parts. Natural conditions are extremely detrimental to mechanisms and without care they fail quickly. Organisms do not need special care and do just fine without it.
3. energy sources. Organisms use a wide range of biological energy sources (e.g. eating other organisms), while mechanisms need fuel/electricity, which makes them dependent on infrastructure, industry and industry to provide electricity as a final product. The logistics of the energy carriers are needed. These dependencies create an incredible number of possible failsafes. Animals, by contrast, eat something and are fine.
4. Self-reproduction. Organisms reproduce under difficult conditions, but they don't have a problem with it. Mechanisms need factories, plants, laboratories, workshops and so on to produce the necessary parts, they need materials, machines, personnel and so on to reproduce. Only a gigantic infrastructure can support the "reproduction" of mechanisms. This infrastructure is also exposed to the aggressive environment and the number of possible failures in the chain of reproduction of mechanisms makes it impossible to leave this process without human attention. Of course, they will say,"robots can fix robots", but who is going to fix them?
And so on. These are the basic theses.
Certainly not foreseeable, but it's a hard tale to part with. It took me a lot of time. I searched for objective reasons for the impossibility of the development of the historical process in this direction, and here are a few of them:
1. Hostility of the environment. Nature (physical and chemical environment) is "hostile" to mechanisms and "favourable" to organisms.
Living organisms, evolving for millions of years, adapted to survive and reproduce in natural conditions and learnt to do it extremely efficiently, while mechanisms invented by people cannot "survive" or "reproduce" on their own. That is, without humans they are doomed.
2. Resilience. Organisms are resilient to their environment and regenerate when damaged. Mechanisms need external protection, maintenance and repair. They need spare parts. Natural conditions are extremely detrimental to mechanisms and without care they fail quickly. Organisms do not need special care and do just fine without it.
3. energy sources. Organisms use a wide range of biological energy sources (e.g. eating other organisms), while mechanisms need fuel/electricity, which makes them dependent on infrastructure, industry and industry to provide electricity as a final product. The logistics of the energy carriers are needed. These dependencies create an incredible number of possible failsafes. Animals, by contrast, eat something and are fine.
4. Self-reproduction. Organisms reproduce under difficult conditions, but they don't have a problem with it. Mechanisms need factories, plants, laboratories, workshops and so on to produce the necessary parts, they need materials, machines, personnel and so on to reproduce. Only a gigantic infrastructure can support the "reproduction" of mechanisms. This infrastructure is also exposed to the aggressive environment and the number of possible failures in the chain of reproduction of mechanisms makes it impossible to leave this process without human attention. Of course, they will say,"robots can fix robots", but who will fix them?
And so on. These are the basic theses.
And how will humans reproduce? Will women put organs in their bodies to give birth to cyborg children? And how will these "children" grow up? Change their prosthetics a size bigger every year? Or will the children be harvested as adults? In factories. To load the programme of life. And what will "people" do? Manufacture their own parts and maintenance?
And how will humans reproduce? Will women give themselves organs to give birth to cyborg children? And how will these "children" grow up? Change their prosthetic limbs a size bigger every year? Or will the children be harvested as adults? In factories. To load the programme of life. And what will "people" do? Manufacture their own parts and maintenance?
.
So man will voluntarily shed his body and become an iron (or not iron, maybe plastic) with electronic stuffing, of indeterminate geometric shape?