OT (?) AI (personal) threats...

[Don Y]

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood. But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs. (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well. If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"? (e.g.,
imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners? Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle? Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]

 

[Ricky]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

If an AI is threatening you, perhaps you should stay away from AI? It\'s not a field for amateurs.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 7/15/2023 22:56, Don Y wrote:

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood.  But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs.  (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well.  If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"?  (e.g.,
imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners?  Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle?  Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]

I agree with you, people who can be replaced by machines should
learn to do things machines cannot do to make a living.
Egyptians who built the pyramids would be unhappy there are lorries
etc.? \"The Times They Are a Changin\'\" . Luddites of the new day?

 

[Don Y]

On 7/15/2023 3:16 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 7/15/2023 22:56, Don Y wrote:
I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood.  But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs.  (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well.  If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"?  (e.g.,
imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners?  Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle?  Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]


I agree with you, people who can be replaced by machines should
learn to do things machines cannot do to make a living.
Egyptians who built the pyramids would be unhappy there are lorries
etc.? \"The Times They Are a Changin\'\" . Luddites of the new day?

Exactly. You don\'t mind benefiting from OTHER advances -- that likely
threatened OTHER peoples\' jobs... So, YOUR worries about the things
that threaten *you* should be dismissed -- by all the other folks who
will benefit from those \"advances\"!

[You didn\'t mind when the domestic manufacture of televisions moved
to the pacific rim, displacing those domestic jobs -- cuz you ended
up with a huge TV for much less money (percentage of income). How
is competing with a worker in the \"aether\" any different?]

I.e., if you remove the \"my job is at stake\" argument from the calculus,
then what\'s the real beef?

[Granted, we can discuss whether or not AIs should be in CERTAIN
decision-making positions... but, the above suggests there are lots
of those positions that we would be very comfortable letting them
think for themselves. And, what of the AI decisions that can\'t
easily be explained in if-then language? Do you distrust them?]

[[This, IMO, is the biggest scare related to AIs]]

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:57:16 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood. But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs. (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well. If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"? (e.g.,
imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners? Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle? Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]

Does it bother you that AI resurrected a Brazilian singer for a car commercial?
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/brazil-singer-elis-regina-artificial-intelligence-volkswagen>

 

[Ricky]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:22:46 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:57:16 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood. But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs. (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well. If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"? (e.g.,
imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners? Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle? Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]
Does it bother you that AI resurrected a Brazilian singer for a car commercial?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/brazil-singer-elis-regina-artificial-intelligence-volkswagen

AI doesn\'t resurrect people. People resurrect people.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:02:43 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:22:46 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:57:16 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood. But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs. (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well. If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"? (e.g.,
imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners? Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle? Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]
Does it bother you that AI resurrected a Brazilian singer for a car commercial?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/brazil-singer-elis-regina-artificial-intelligence-volkswagen
AI doesn\'t resurrect people. People resurrect people.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

One got a bit famous for that resurrection thing.
<https://y-jesus.com/>

 

[Don Y]

On 7/15/2023 5:22 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners? Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle? Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]

Does it bother you that AI resurrected a Brazilian singer for a car commercial?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/brazil-singer-elis-regina-artificial-intelligence-volkswagen

Why should it \"bother\" me?

Would it bother you if an AI painted another Rembrandt? Even if
you knew it wasn\'t done *by* the Master? Would it be, somehow, less
artistic? Is the beauty/value in the work itself? Or, the /provenance/?

Even if I had a personal collection of genuine articles, any
perceived additional value they held (vs. the wannabes) would still
be held (among people who assign value to uniqueness). I.e., the
owner of a \"modern equivalent\" could never pass his off as a
\"long lost original\"...

I\'m annoyed that D Adams wasn\'t a more prolific writer. I\'d *welcome*
anything that an AI could create *if* it mimicked his wit and intellect.
(Or, would you be snobbish and avoid it out of \"loyalty\" to the original
artist?)

 

[Phil Allison]

Don Why wrote:
------------------------

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

** LOL

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well. If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"?

** May well breach an author\'s copyright.

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

** Professional newsreaders and the like are not simply \"talking heads\".

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them ...

** Huh ? AI is not a person.

This link about the conflicts between AI and copyright is worth a read.

https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-copyright/


....... Phil

 

[Ricky]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:06:23 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

On 7/15/2023 5:22 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners? Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle? Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]

Does it bother you that AI resurrected a Brazilian singer for a car commercial?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/brazil-singer-elis-regina-artificial-intelligence-volkswagen
Why should it \"bother\" me?

Would it bother you if an AI painted another Rembrandt? Even if
you knew it wasn\'t done *by* the Master? Would it be, somehow, less
artistic? Is the beauty/value in the work itself? Or, the /provenance/?

Even if I had a personal collection of genuine articles, any
perceived additional value they held (vs. the wannabes) would still
be held (among people who assign value to uniqueness). I.e., the
owner of a \"modern equivalent\" could never pass his off as a
\"long lost original\"...

I\'m annoyed that D Adams wasn\'t a more prolific writer. I\'d *welcome*
anything that an AI could create *if* it mimicked his wit and intellect.
(Or, would you be snobbish and avoid it out of \"loyalty\" to the original
artist?)

So would you be ok if other people continued with Adams\'s story lines? If not, why would it be ok for an AI?

I don\'t really care what AI does, as long as it\'s clearly labeled as such. It\'s like the \"deep fake\" images, some are labeled as such, some aren\'t. It can be hard to tell the difference.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 15/07/2023 20:56, Don Y wrote:

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood.  But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs.  (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

<snip>

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/copyright

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Don Y]

On 7/16/2023 2:35 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 15/07/2023 20:56, Don Y wrote:
I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood.  But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs.  (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

snip

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/copyright

If you owned a property, you could *consent* to having
that content used to train an AI. And, using the AI
to further your property (by extending it *or* by
coming up with alternatives -- plots, characters, etc.)
beyond the lifespan (or useful worklife) of an author.

Currently, you (typ your *estate*) has to find -- or be
approached by -- some other human author in the hope of
furthering the existing body of work. And, you have to
hope that party proves to be competent in that undertaking!

Or, you release \"unfinished works\"... which are of a SMALL,
finite number thus implicitly limiting the future value
of the original works.

Is Dick Tracy still in syndication? Peanuts? How many
additional films will Disney eke out of the Star Wars saga...
will any of them really be comparable (in appeal) to the
original trilogy?

Will Dirk Gently have other adventures (besides the series)?

Will there ever be *other* characters created in the style
of these?

Will AIs ever \"learn\" from to outperform human practitioners
by a detailed analysis of medical records? (what standing
would a *doctor* have to prevent an AI from studying the records
of HIS PATIENTS?? do the records belong to the doctor??)

What\'s to stop an AI from learning from the large body
of classical music (long out of copyright)? Or other
works that are no longer encumbered? (\"Write me a sacred text
for a new religion I\'m creating...\")

 

[Martin Brown]

On 15/07/2023 20:56, Don Y wrote:

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

The most insidious one is that what is best for the AI is not
necessarily best for humanity. We already have chips designed by AI to
do AI and that will likely continue into the future. The tricky bit is
that they can\'t tell you why they made a particular decision (at least
not yet) so they are very much a black box entity that seems smart.

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood.  But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs.  (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

There is always some backlash against automation of what used to be
highly skilled work. Luddites spring to mind here.

The uproar in the \"artistic\" world implying that they are
outright *stealing* their existing works seems a stretch,
as well.  If I wrote a story that sounded a hellofalot
like one of your stories -- or painted a picture that
resembled one of yours -- would that be \"wrong\"?  (e.g.,

Depends a bit on whether you try to pass it off as an original like some
forgers do. I think the areas where it is most dangerous is for
digitising extras in a day spent in studio and replacing their entire
acting career with a CGI avatar in the actual movie. The latest Indiana
Jones movie shows quite a bit of this CGI work in the last part.

OTOH at least they get a days work out of it. The AI\'s will be smart
enough shortly to produce plausible looking individuals from a few
parameters based on how you say you want them to look!

A listers are probably safe for now (although the actress who played
Rachael in the first movie was motion captured and unaged by digital
means so she looks the same in both films). Harrison Ford is much older.

The Abbatars Show in London is another example of what cutting edge
video processing technology can do. I\'m told it is very convincing as a
real performance by folk that have been to see it.

It is all the bit player actors who are in danger. If AI becomes
prevalent they each get one days paid work and then their appearance and
voice print becomes the property of the studio.

Likewise for some of the more formulaic movies and soaps - you could
dispense with the script writers once the AI is trained up on all the
past programmes. Generative AI is somewhat unnerving for creative types.

It used to be what we thought made us different to mere machines...

imagine the number of variants of \"A Sunday Afternoon...\"
you could come up with that would be *different* works
yet strongly suggestive of that original -- should
those \"expressions\" be banned because they weren\'t
created by the original artist?

How could a talking head justify his claim to \"value\" wrt
an animated CGI figure making the same news presentation?

News readers days are numbered and so are lawyers since an AI backed by
the worlds largest online databases will beat them every time with
instant recall of the appropriate case law. GPT falls flat in this
respect as it creates bogus references to non-existent cases if backed
into a corner as some hapless lazy US lawyers found out the hard way:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/23/two-us-lawyers-fined-submitting-fake-court-citations-chatgpt

It is one way that ChatGPT abuse for student essays can be detected...

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

It is interesting that despite the huge rise in the ability of AI to
leverage the grunt work it is only really in the last year that they
have come of age in the ability to mimic other styles convincingly.

They were pretty much pastiches of the style they tried to mimic before
(and still are to some extent) but they are getting better at it.

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners?  Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle?  Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]

In most cases AI can do most of the grunt work very efficiently and
categorise things to one of

1. Correct diagnosis
2. Probable diagnosis (but needs checking by an expert)
3. No further action required
4. Uncategorisable (needs checking by an expert)

Since a lot of scans are in category 3 it saves a lot of time for the
experts if they only have to look at the difficult edge cases.

As it learns the number of cases falling into bins 2 & 4 decrease with
time, but even now the best human pattern matchers (even quite average
ones) can still out perform computers on noisy image interpretation.

FWIW I use AI for chess puzzles and computer algebra tools to do things
that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. It doesn\'t get
tired and if it takes it a few days to get a result who cares. It never
makes mistakes with missed expressions and these days can output
computer code that is guaranteed to be correct.

Way back there were bugs in the Fortran output if the number of
continuation cards exceeded 9 (and it did happen with VSOP82).

--
Martin Brown

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 7/16/2023 15:12, Martin Brown wrote:

On 15/07/2023 20:56, Don Y wrote:
I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

The most insidious one is that what is best for the AI is not
necessarily best for humanity. We already have chips designed by AI to
do AI and that will likely continue into the future. The tricky bit is
that they can\'t tell you why they made a particular decision (at least
not yet) so they are very much a black box entity that seems smart.

Well there is a lot more silicon on Earth than there is carbon so
it is not so unlikely for evolution to take this path .

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 16/07/2023 14:14, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

<snip>

Well there is a lot more silicon on Earth than there is carbon so
it is not so unlikely for evolution to take this path .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95UCJs2rUA

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 16/07/2023 14:44, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 16/07/2023 14:14, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

snip

Well there is a lot more silicon on Earth than there is carbon so
it is not so unlikely for evolution to take this path .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95UCJs2rUA

Ooops. Shoulda been sandman.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[bitrex]

On 7/16/2023 6:21 AM, Don Y wrote:

On 7/16/2023 2:35 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 15/07/2023 20:56, Don Y wrote:
I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I can understand how a person that can be *replaced* by an AI
would fear for their livelihood.  But, that (to me) isn\'t a
blanket reason for banning/restricting AIs.  (we didn\'t
ban *calculators* out of fear they would \"make redundant\"
folks who spent their days totaling columns of figures!
or back hoes out of fear they would make ditch diggers
redundant).

snip

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/copyright

If you owned a property, you could *consent* to having
that content used to train an AI.  And, using the AI
to further your property (by extending it *or* by
coming up with alternatives -- plots, characters, etc.)
beyond the lifespan (or useful worklife) of an author.

Currently, you (typ your *estate*) has to find -- or be
approached by -- some other human author in the hope of
furthering the existing body of work.  And, you have to
hope that party proves to be competent in that undertaking!

Or, you release \"unfinished works\"... which are of a SMALL,
finite number thus implicitly limiting the future value
of the original works.

Is Dick Tracy still in syndication?  Peanuts?  How many
additional films will Disney eke out of the Star Wars saga...
will any of them really be comparable (in appeal) to the
original trilogy?

Will Dirk Gently have other adventures (besides the series)?

Will there ever be *other* characters created in the style
of these?

Will AIs ever \"learn\" from to outperform human practitioners
by a detailed analysis of medical records?  (what standing
would a *doctor* have to prevent an AI from studying the records
of HIS PATIENTS??  do the records belong to the doctor??)

What\'s to stop an AI from learning from the large body
of classical music (long out of copyright)?  Or other
works that are no longer encumbered?  (\"Write me a sacred text
for a new religion I\'m creating...\")

\"Please write a short story about a witch named Tanya who lives in a
tumble-down cottage on the edge of an enchanted forest, and makes
friends with a magical bear who lives deep in the woods.\"

ChatGPT:

\"In a small cottage nestled on the edge of an enchanted forest, lived a
witch named Tanya. Her humble abode, with its crooked walls and creaky
floors, seemed to mirror the essence of the magical realm that
surrounded it. Tanya was a kind-hearted witch, whose mismatched clothes
and unruly hair reflected her free-spirited nature.

Every day, Tanya would venture into the woods, her trusted broomstick in
hand, seeking the secrets and wonders that lay within. The enchanted
forest was a place of mystery, filled with shimmering trees, glowing
mushrooms, and whispering leaves that seemed to hold the secrets of the
universe.

One day, as Tanya ventured deeper into the woods, she stumbled upon a
clearing bathed in golden light. In the center stood a magnificent bear,
its fur shimmering with a myriad of colors like a celestial tapestry.
This was no ordinary bear; it was a magical bear, the guardian of the
forest.

The bear\'s kind eyes met Tanya\'s, and a connection sparked between them.
Unafraid, Tanya cautiously approached the bear, her heart filled with
curiosity and wonder. As she drew closer, she could hear the gentle
whispers of the forest creatures, acknowledging her presence alongside
the bear.

\"Hello, magical bear,\" Tanya said, her voice filled with awe. \"I am
Tanya, a witch who seeks the wonders of this enchanted realm. Might you
be willing to share your wisdom with me?\"

The bear, named Orion, nodded solemnly, his voice resonating deep within
Tanya\'s soul. \"I have observed your pure heart and intentions, Tanya.
Together, we can learn from one another and protect this forest we both
hold dear.\"

And so, a remarkable friendship bloomed between Tanya and Orion. They
spent their days exploring the depths of the forest, uncovering hidden
waterfalls and ancient ruins lost to time. Tanya taught Orion the ways
of magic, while Orion shared tales of ancient wisdom, weaving enchanting
stories that made Tanya\'s imagination soar.

As the seasons passed, word of Tanya and Orion\'s friendship spread
throughout the land. The creatures of the forest, from the smallest
fireflies to the mightiest stags, began to gather around Tanya\'s
cottage, seeking her guidance and the warmth of her magical presence.
Together, they formed a vibrant community, where all creatures, magical
and mundane, coexisted in harmony.

Tanya\'s tumble-down cottage transformed into a haven for those seeking
solace and friendship. Visitors would bring gifts of freshly picked
herbs or shiny stones, tokens of gratitude for Tanya\'s kind heart and
the wisdom she shared.

Years passed, and the bond between Tanya and Orion grew stronger. They
became inseparable, their spirits intertwined like the roots of the
ancient trees that stood tall around them. With each passing day,
Tanya\'s magic flourished, her spells echoing through the forest and beyond.

Eventually, Tanya\'s time in the enchanted forest drew to a close. She
had learned all she could from Orion and had become a true master of
magic. With a heavy heart, Tanya bid farewell to her dear friend,
promising to honor their bond and protect the forest they cherished.

As Tanya ventured out into the world, armed with her newfound wisdom and
Orion\'s blessings, her name became legendary. People spoke of the witch
who had tamed a magical bear, her tales inspiring others to seek the
magic within themselves and to care for the world around them.

Though Tanya\'s cottage stood empty, its walls crumbling under the weight
of time, the spirit of her friendship with Orion lingered on. And in the
enchanted forest, whispers of their adventures could still be heard,
carried by the wind and treasured by all who cherished the magic of
love, friendship, and the beauty of the natural world.\"

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 16/07/2023 16:25, bitrex wrote:

<snip>

The bear, named Orion, nodded solemnly, his voice resonating deep within
Tanya\'s soul.

Well, if he\'s to be named after a constellation, it might have been
better to use an Ursa rather than the hunter.

A few weeks back, I asked ChatGPT how to design a baseband OFDM
communication link, as that\'s what I\'ve been doing for a while. The
answer was of no practical use to me, nor would it have been at the
start of the project /however/, with just a little massaging, it would
have made a very good presentation to management, all the right
buzzwords etc and without any of that pesky detail.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 7/16/2023 16:46, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 16/07/2023 14:44, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 16/07/2023 14:14, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

snip

Well there is a lot more silicon on Earth than there is carbon so
it is not so unlikely for evolution to take this path .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95UCJs2rUA

Ooops.  Shoulda been sandman.

Never mind. I had not listened to that song which is odd,
I have always liked them. I don\'t think I have a lot
on my phone nowadays (apart from obvious stuff like \"Sunday
Afternoon\", \"A Well Respected Man\", \"Waterloo Sunset\" etc.)
but I can\'t/don\'t listen much to music lately so it makes
no difference.

 

[ehsjr]

On 7/15/2023 3:56 PM, Don Y wrote:

I\'m trying to come to a rational/consistent opinion wrt AI
and it\'s various, perceived \"threats\".

I think the \"guts\" of their fear can be understood by
a mental experiment. (snipping to get there)

<snip>

I rely heavily on tools that are increasingly AI-driven
to verify the integrity of my hardware and software designs;
should they be banned/discouraged because they deprive
someone (me!?) of additional billable labor hours?

Imagine an AI that produces work indistinguishable from
what you produce. How would you react to the loss of
salary, the loss of recognition, the loss of reputation,
the loss of the sense of accomplishment, etc? That\'s
what the actors face.

Ed

If an AI improved your medical care, would you campaign to ban
them on the grounds that they displace doctors and other
medical practitioners?  Or, improved the fuel efficiency of
a vehicle?  Or...

[I.e., does it all just boil down to \"is *my* job threatened?\"]