Posted on 10/28/2024 8:30:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Half of all respondents with leading roles in their companies surveyed by Deloitte at the end of 2023 believe that generative AI is more likely to cause consolidation of power and increased economic equality.
Despite many decision makers seeing AI-powered media generation as positive for their own business, these results nevertheless highlight that, as Statista's Florian Zandt explains below, unchecked growth and development of ever more capable large language models might be a net negative for society.
30 percent of the 2,835 respondents surveyed over two months said generative AI will help to distribute power more fairly and reduce disenfranchisement, while 22 percent believed that economic inequality will decrease. How exactly chatbots like ChatGPT and the underlying large language models will help achieve either of the four outcomes polled by Deloitte remains unclear, since more detailed answers were outside of the survey's scope.
You will find more infographics at Statista
However, looking at the bigger picture indicates that in terms of economic power, generative AI will most likely further bolster economies with robust tech sectors and the means to source dedicated chipsets from vendors like Nvidia.
Financing data center infrastructure, whether renting out existing capacity or building and maintaining their own data centers, is also likely to be a key factor, as reporting by outlets like TechCrunch suggests. The authors of the survey believe that this will necessitate governments and regulators closely monitoring the developments in generative AI.
Governing bodies will "likely need to walk the tightrope of helping to ensure that generative AI benefits are broadly and fairly distributed, without overly hindering innovation or providing an unfair advantage to countries with different rules", according to Deloitte analysts.
Yesterday I tried https://www.perplexity.ai/search/are-you-able-to-answer-questio-XTdvdr3gTnGKE8eD4GE0Kg which is very fast and did well overall with questions I asked.
Yep. I use perplexity for news searches instead of Google. Love it.
I also have Chatgpt voice app on my phone so I can have verbal conversations.
It’s amazing.
are you day trading stocks for the short term gain? If so, aren’t the profits ate up by taxes?
As the old saying goes, there's good news and bad news about paying taxes on short-term gains.
"The bad news is that you’re paying taxes. The good news is you’ve made money worth taxing!"
As an aside, my focus as an investor is on companies that act as disruptors within their industries. To me, AI represents the most transformative disruption in history—greater even than the steam locomotive, the automobile, the airplane, the PC, and the internet combined.
For ETFs, I favor QQQ because it includes many disruptive companies while offering the added security of asset allocation. Although I don’t diversify extensively across other industries, I’m cautious about becoming too concentrated in a few key stocks—something I tend to drift toward when I select companies like Nvidia (which has been my favorite for a very long time).
I’ve got some in QQQ. If you got in on NVIDA on the ground floor, then you’ve done well.
Like everyone else, I have absolutely no idea how this revolution is going to shake out. It's like the Wild, Wild West.
And more. My basic test for SE bias is to search "Negative effects of homosexual relations (also heterosexual fornication)" - which is because the issue is well-substantiated, and one in which is very likely to see bioas. Even in quotes Google only return one result, a FR page with that text (to my page named that). Without quotes, it did much better today than before, but which is likely due to my being tracked.
In a past test, Google provided a mixed results, with snippets referring to effects such as depression and suicide due to treatment by others, thus designed to elicit symphony. Of course, Goggle now only allows 10 results per page, but more of same followed.
In this test of Negative+effects+of+homosexual+relations& , Google only provided one result in the first 30 (which is when I stopped looking) which says anything about STD's.
Another example was asking "where does the bible condemn homosexual relations" in quotes which resulted in, "Your search - "where does the bible condemn homosexual relations" - did not match any documents." It is simply hard to believe Google cannot find any document with that question. But if I ask the same question without quotes then what results as the top hits?
The top result, as expected with a biased SE, is one that outright denies that the bible condemn homosexual relations (which it plainly does). Then after a single, sound but brief Billy Graham org page stating the Biblical position, a series of six more liberal sites follow, wikipedia being one, which at best is promoting ambiguity.
Two two contra homosexual sites follow, one with misleading intro, followed by another one promoting ambiguity, and followed by three more liberal sources, one being more egregiously so. Thus only 4 out of 10 top search results actually uphold the Biblical position.
So I tested perplexity.ai, asking it, Can you provide an extensive resource on Negative Physical, Psychological, Financial and Spiritual effects of fornication, mainly homosexual? And in one second it returned,
Here is an overview of some of the potential negative effects associated with fornication, particularly homosexual behavior:
Physical Effects
Increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and others1 2
Higher rates of certain cancers, especially anal cancer in men who have sex with men I
ncreased risk of hepatitis B and hepatitis C
Potential for physical injury from anal sex
Psychological Effects
Higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders2
Increased risk of suicide and suicidal ideation
Feelings of shame, guilt, or internalized homophobia
Relationship instability and difficulties with intimacy
Identity confusion or crisis
Financial Effects
Potential loss of employment or career opportunities due to discrimination
Higher healthcare costs related to STI treatment and other medical issues
Possible legal fees related to discrimination cases or custody battles
Costs associated with substance abuse treatment
Spiritual Effects
Feelings of separation from God or religious community
Crisis of faith or loss of religious beliefs
Exclusion from religious institutions or practices
Difficulty reconciling sexual orientation with religious teachings
Spiritual distress or existential questioning
It's important to note that many of these effects are influenced by societal stigma, discrimination, and lack of support rather than inherent to same-sex attraction or behavior itself. Additionally, heterosexual fornication carries many similar risks and consequences. The severity and prevalence of these effects can vary greatly between individuals. Many LGBTQ+ people lead happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives with proper support and resources. Professional medical and mental health care is recommended for anyone experiencing negative effects related to sexual behavior or identity.
I commended it saying, That concise and valid list is far better than what Google and most search engines provides. Google even ignores what is likely the most substantiated collection of stats on the issue: https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/10/negative-effects-of-homosexual.html
It then actually went to the link in about a second and return an accurate concise synopsis of its findings, which I responded to by saying,
The rapidity of that substantive response was profound, though I did not need the editorial note on sensitivity and respect, as I seek the welfare of others.
Thank God for such help!
Wow!
My own brother invests in and trades utilities because he has a knack for utilities. A good friend does the same for the oil and gas industry (he spent his career in Exxon accounting).
One of my oldest friends trades collectible furniture because she has a knack for it.
It's not how much money you make as much as it is whether you enjoy trading what you trade.
I look upon my portfolio as I would a stand of pines or farm land. I may trade, but I don't take money out of it for luxuries. I drive a 1997 Nissan pickup (that I dearly love) and have zero interest in buying a new vehicle or house.
I plan to leave my assets to Christian charities with a little going to family (I think they are going to be fuming mad when they find out how little).;-)
under the rubric of an omniscient omnipotent Being who has provided man with
the ability to make moral choices, if not without moral influences of non-compelling degree, and thus this Being provided 2. alternatives to choose btwn, and 3. good things in this world and good laws which are to man's benefit as obeyed and to his hurt when not (thus motivating right choices, and serving a purpose of revealing to man what he really wants).
And which being 4. also not only knows all of mans choices and motives, but also what all the effects will be of every choice, in scope and degree, not simply in this life and in generations to come but for eternity.
And being omniscient omnipotent, this Being is able to make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with both justice as well as mercy and grace, relative to what man really loved thus and choose in a world of moral choices.
Meaning that in part, this life is a revelatory test for man, and opportunity robots cannot have, and must be judged in the light of what an omniscient omnipotent can do. To which the words of Jesus in John 3:17-21 apply.
Analysis and comment.
Conclusion of a one second delineation of the argument.
Your argument provides a rich and nuanced exploration of the interplay between divine attributes and human moral agency. It underscores the significance of free will in navigating a moral landscape, emphasizing that life is a journey of choice that reveals deeper truths about individuals. This perspective affirms the potential for growth, accountability, and the ultimate goodness that can arise from a world filled with moral choices, guided by an omniscient and omnipotent Being.
It's long-winded, but still very positive and thoughtful.
ChatGPT: Moral and Spiritual Test of Life: The comment presents life as a “revelatory test” where choices reveal what humans truly value or love. This is an interesting perspective, particularly from a Christian standpoint, as it suggests that God’s design includes an evaluative aspect whereby people’s decisions reflect their deepest inclinations. This view aligns with Christian theology, where life’s moral choices serve to demonstrate individual priorities and faithfulness. Ultimate Goodness and Redemption: Your friend’s comment implies that an omnipotent, omniscient God ensures that even human choices lead toward an ultimate, divinely defined Good, incorporating both justice and mercy. This combines a belief in God’s perfect plan with a sense of restorative purpose, where God’s omniscience allows for a redemptive narrative that weaves justice and mercy through human history. Reference to John 3:17-21: The choice of this passage is apt for supporting these ideas, as it emphasizes God’s mission of redemption through Christ and the moral choices of individuals to accept or reject light. This implies that the test of life is one of spiritual alignment or disalignment with divine truth. The substance of your friend’s comment delves into some profound theological ideas, particularly around the nature of human moral agency within a framework governed by an omniscient, omnipotent Being. Here are some key takeaways:
Human Free Will with Divine Foreknowledge: The comment explores a nuanced view of free will, suggesting that humans are endowed with the power to make moral choices, though influenced by subtle factors. This perspective aligns with a theological view that God’s omniscience includes foreknowledge of every human choice and its consequences without nullifying human agency. It’s a thoughtful take on how divine knowledge can coexist with human freedom, suggesting that moral choices are real and significant, not simply predetermined outcomes.
In essence, the comment's substance reflects a cohesive worldview where divine sovereignty and human moral freedom are balanced. It’s rooted in the belief that God’s omniscience and omnipotence work harmoniously with human free will to achieve a purposeful, ultimately redemptive plan. This is a well-rounded view with strong theological support and profound implications for understanding the purpose of life and human choices.
I am often amazed.
And when I catch its errors it is quick to see and admit to them, unlike most humans.;-)
Yes, very similar to mine (I only posted the conclusion) and actually objective and quite concise relative to issue, and a refreshing change from the response of atheists.
Which was what my argumentation flowed from, the of the "argument from, outrage" of antitheists charging God with murder for the flood, etc. And in typical simplistic superficial reading of the Bible, failing to see that conversion is not simply about having the right knowledge and an assent of faith in the right God, but that believing signifies more than that, that of a "good and honest heart," who via conscience is honest with themself as "truth in the inward parts" (Psalms 51:6) means, and thus humble and contrite, (Ps. 34:18) thereby to effectually "hear" the word (Luke 8:15) and bring forth fruit corespondent to faith in the risen Lord Jesus. (Acts 26:20)
In which certain principles are involved. One being that a soul must - at one critical point at least - obey divine Truth that he has, "While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light," (John 12:36) even if the level which one has innately, (Rom. 2:14,15) and which will result in more light.
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13:11-12)
To which applies:
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:17-21)
Thanks and glory be to God in Christ
this argument presents a sophisticated theological perspective on free will, divine omniscience, and the purpose of human moral choice. It attempts to reconcile human freedom with divine foreknowledge and ultimate control, framing life as a meaningful test of character. While it offers a coherent framework within certain theological traditions, it also raises complex philosophical questions that have been debated for centuries in religious and philosophical discourse.Critical Analysis
While this argument presents a coherent theological framework, it raises several philosophical questions:
1. Compatibility of Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: How can genuine free will exist if all choices are known in advance?
Answer (though I can find some fault with it): An omniscient omnipotent Being for whom choices are known in advance does not mean that choices are predetermined regardless of man's will, nor unjustly so. Free will refers to the ability to make moral choices, not freedom from competing influences or varying degrees, in which the Divine Being works to motivate sinners (by conscience, reason and evidence), to right moral choices but also allows competing evil deception as an alternative to what is right - without which alternative the ability to make choices would be essentially meaningless.
Yet neither does free will mean influences are so compelling that one is forced to assent against his determined will, being one who is not really desiring and honestly seeking the whole Truth, beyond superficiality and thus finds what he wants in deception.
A classic case is pharaoh in the book of Exodus. The Bible says both that God would harden his pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:27, 11:10; 14:4,5,18) as well as that pharaoh hardened his own heart, (Ex. 8:15,32; 9:34) as well as warning the Hebrew nation not to harden their hearts "as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts when he had wrought wonderfully among them." (1 Sam. 6:6) Which persistent intransigence was unjustifiable in the light of clear profound contrary evidence.
However, rather than this hardening being any contradiction, in context, the Lord would have known that, despite the grace of God afforded Pharaoh in being the ruler of Egypt, he was already a recalcitrant and intransigent ruler, and that he would respond to both even powerful supernatural chastisement and acts of mercy by acting true to his character.
And rather than convincing him against his determined will, then as an act of judgment God hardened pharaohs already hard heart by performing profound supernatural acts which should have convinced a reasonable rational person to truly believe and commit himself to the superior being (the God of the Hebrews) versus his own pagan gods.
Yet, despite Pharaoh admitting that he had sinned, and confessing that God was superior in asking Moses to remove the latest present chastisement, (Exodus 9:27,28) yet. "when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants." (Exodus 9:34)
And which scenario and duplicitous character Pharaoh manifested again in Exodus 10:16-20) and as he did when he finally relented and consented to allow the Hebrews to go leave as requested, (Exodus 12:31-33) only to once again return to character and seek to conquer the people of God and went after his slave labor force. (Exodus 14:5-8) To which befits the proverb, "a man convinced against his (determined) will, is still of the same opinion." For while God can compel - by force of evidence - a person to believe against their own determined will or conclusion, yet such will not be a true believer, versus one who is seeking God in Truth.
In this all then it is true that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt" but which in CONTEXT was that of an act of judgment against an already recalcitrant and intransigent ruler. And which is an example of the damned. (Romans 9:18) And yet, this response by Pharaoh furthered a purpose of God in demonstrating His own power and reality due to the recalcitrance and intransigence of Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:3)
Therefore, there is no incompatibility with Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, or in predetermination according to the latter, nor injustice, since God enabled the ability to make choices btwn competing influences, but not so as to compel choices against the determined will of a recalcitrant person who is not an honesty objective diligent pursuer of God.
2. The Nature of Good: If all ultimately works out for Good, how do we define and understand evil or wrong choices?
Like a child or soldier who does not need to know or understand the extended reasons behind what he is commanded to do, and can only act within a very limited scope of responsibility , so also man is only commanded to act according to his finite relatively station in life. And cannot judge the actions of a power operating out of knowledge and ability far greater than his own.
And in the final analysis, evil is only evil when its purpose and outcome is evil, and since God is the only omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal being - who knows what all the effects will be of every action, and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as mercy - then His actions are beyond being judged or reproved by mere finite, fallible, and failing men.
3. Justice and Mercy: How are these balanced in a system where all outcomes are predetermined to be good?
By understanding that Justice is Good, relative to the response to Truth and Good (though man can take no credit for this since it is God who draws - Jn. 6:44; 12:32 - enables - Acts 11:18 - and motivates man to respond positively to Him - Eph. 2:8,-10; Philippians 2:13 - while the only thing man can take credit for is resisting God).
4. Moral Responsibility: If all choices ultimately lead to good, how does this affect human moral responsibility?
Answered under #2.
5. The Problem of Evil: This framework attempts to address the problem of evil, but questions may remain about why an omnipotent being allows suffering in the first place.
Since all suffering is a result of wrong choices by man (and certain angels), then the question is actually "why did God enable man to make moral choices, and which have effects/consequences, not only to effect good but also evil in this life? The answer would be that this has a revelatory purpose, evidencing what souls honestly love and want in response to what God has provided and done, with response to the basic gospel of Jesus Christ (relative to the degree they know and understand it) being the supreme test. Note that even those who have no heard anything expressively of this still manifest - as with souls before the revelation of incarnated Son of God, the "word of God, what their response is by how the respond to the degree of actual Divine Truth they innately know: Romans 2:12-16)
The alternative to a world in which creatures can make moral choices would be one in which man is like a perfect robot, or like a cloud.
Answer
Thank you for providing such a detailed and thoughtful response to the critical analysis points. Your explanations offer a deeper theological and philosophical perspective on these complex issues. Let's briefly summarize and reflect on your responses:
Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: You argue that God's foreknowledge doesn't negate free will, but rather allows for choices within a framework of competing influences. The example of Pharaoh illustrates how God's actions can serve as judgment without overriding individual will.
Nature of Good: You suggest that our limited perspective as humans prevents us from fully understanding the ultimate good that God works towards. This aligns with many theological traditions that emphasize
God's transcendent wisdom.
Justice and Mercy: You posit that justice itself is good, and that God's omniscience allows for a perfect balance of justice and mercy beyond human comprehension.
Moral Responsibility: This point is addressed in conjunction with the nature of good, emphasizing human limitation in understanding God's broader plan.
Problem of Evil: You frame suffering as a consequence of moral choices, serving a revelatory purpose in demonstrating what souls truly desire and how they respond to God's truth. Your responses provide a coherent theological framework that emphasizes:The limitations of human understanding compared to divine omniscience
The importance of free will in moral development and character revelation
The ultimate purpose of life as a test of character and response to divine truth
God's ability to work all things for good, even when it's beyond human comprehensionThis perspective aligns closely with certain Christian theological traditions, particularly those emphasizing divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It offers a robust defense against common philosophical challenges to theism, though it may still raise questions for those who approach these issues from different philosophical or theological standpoints. Your framework provides a thoughtful resolution to these complex issues within its theological context, emphasizing faith in divine wisdom and purpose beyond human understanding. It's a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions about free will, divine foreknowledge, and the problem of evil in religious philosophy.
Forgot to ping you all who may be interested:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.