Posted on 01/09/2023 7:16:45 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
I’ve always embraced Change. It’s inevitable and often life-improving.
But I don’t like the way the world is going in lots of ways. Many people won’t realize how dead we’re making our souls until it’s far too late.
Imagine an opinion synthesized by ChatGPT in the style and thought pattern of the late, lamented Antonin Scalia . . .
Imagine kids growing up learning from programs like this and never seeing/hearing a lecture from a human even remotely like Scalia.
Some of the AI pioneers really thought that AI could take the place of humans, in positions like judges in court, for instance. That’s terrifying to me.
The problem with this technology, is who is feeding in the “truth” to the AI?
This AI has ground breaking possibilities to upset the entire world. A coworker and me were discussing it the other day. This technology could replace white-collar jobs for the first time ever.
GIGO...
Will Robinson!
We must get over the conceit that we have now, ever had in the past - or in some future golden age will have - objective truth handed to us on a silver platter.There will always be unproven axioms to defend, and propagandists to attack them gratuitously.
Skepticism, skepticism, skepticism!!!
What a crock.
It’s artificial stupidity: the people behind it enforce “the current thing” so CPT will not give facts, only work consensus.
Stop treating it as though the answers are anything significatnt.
I asked ChatGPT for an equation to predict electrical usage for heating a house. I gave it some specific information. At each step, I had to lead it to the answer as it would not create the right equation without my leading it to the answer.
I had to suggest simplifying the equation as house size, number of heat pumps, insulation are not variables. I suggested used a weighted average outside temperature and it liked that idea. I suggested using degree day instead of absolute temperature and it also liked that idea. I suggested that given the wall constructed I used in the example, 6 inches of concreate, that the walls should be considered as thermal storage, and it liked that too.
Those are all things it should have provided in the equation immediately. It added nothing that I did not already know.
Rather disappointing example on my first interaction.
They are already using it. I was released Nov 30, by Dec 12, they were using it. My daughter teaches High School History in Nashville. One teacher there caught 4 students using it to do their assignments and doesn't know how many she didn't catch.
Teachers are viewing it as a major headache, because they don't know how to keep the kids actually doing the assignments. She said the programming instructor was really beside himself.
I think it should be embraced. How do keep the kids doing the assignment is the wrong question. Will it help kids learn and learn faster is the right question.
WILL they learn? Slackers gonna be slackers.
That’s a pretty good poem for a bot.
Are we sure it’s really a bot and not a cubicle farm of humanities majors underpaid to create instant content?
I agree wholeheartedly!
It would be easy to catch the history students cheating.
Just teach the politically incorrect version of any piece of history—and watch the AI give them the politically correct answer!
My brother, an engineer (like me), faced a similar problem in real life. His oil furnace was on its last legs, so he wanted to minimize its operation by installing a heat pump/central air system. The vendor wanted to sell a larger system than Bob’s calculations implied was needed.He gulped and ordered the smaller system, and it worked fine. You always wonder, if you’re “betting on the other fella’s game.” But I guess maybe “the other fella’s game” in this instance was selling a more expensive solution to the problem.
I always thought those chat boxes were like those phone answering systems where they hear one word and go with that.
Both are rather spectacularly dumb!
Yeah, you two are probably right—y2k all over again...
Yes. Who’s programming the program?
It’s hard enough for a discerning human mind to find historical truth nowadays. Even libraries are trashing or storing old books off-site, and putting everthing online - soon the available history will only be of the ‘approved’ kind.
Hate to be a complainer but that YT channel is just a ripoff site. It’s the YouTube version of a blog poser ripping off others for clicks.
I am now haunting youTube substantially. I especially like John Campbell, PhD - retired nursing professor who comments on health (and that mostly meant Covid and the effects of the societal/governmental reactions thereto).It is excruciatingly clear that youtubers commenters are heavily constrained from saying everything they think. Campbell is quite open about it. I get the impression that there is money to be made being a (successful at attracting listeners) youTuber. But the price of that is staying within guidelines which, for example, prevent you from disagreeing with the WHO or any local health “authority.” And who knows what else?
So it’s always caveat lector, but what else is new? And if the alternative is the MSM, I’ll take it. I’m starting to wonder if the Elon Musk version of Twitter might not be worth signing up for . . .
I stopped watching CSpan after it took to having call-ins divided between R, D, and I. They did that because conservatives, having limited outlets, took to call-in shows like duck to water. Others have the MSM to promote their nonsense . . .
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)That applies to journalism as to any other “trade,” and altho that mattered a lot less before 1848 than it does now, people of the “trade” of journalism have been systematically “meeting together,” via the wire services, to such an extent and for so long that they assume that conspiring against the public is their job and their birthright.This problematic situation was exacerbated in 1964 by the Warren Court’s infamous New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which made the unprecedented claim that the First Amendment modified libel law (this was unprecedented, and a fatuous claim in that the First Amendment was crafted to be noncontroversial and, because freedom of the press, etc, as limited by existing laws against libel, pornography, etc., was already taken for granted in America, “the freedom of the press incorporated libel (and pornography) law into the Constitution wholesale and untouched).
The Sullivan decision asserted that public officials including judges, BTW could not sue for libel. Close your eyes for a moment, and imagine a sitting Republican-nominated SCOTUS justice inventing that idea! Obviously the (unanimously very liberal) justices of Warren Court lived in a very different universe than that inhabited by the six sitting Republican-nominated SCOTUS justices.
conservatism_IScompassion, thank you, as always for the ping.
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.