AI machines aren’t ‘hallucinating’. But their makers are

I'm not sure that even mentioning the word conscious or the idea of consciousness is relevant in a discussion of AI. The essence of AI is that it is mechanistic, algorithmic. That is, following a set of rules and instructions which is how it arrives at some quirky and absurd outcomes.

I was thinking about the mistakes made when driving a car. I know when I first started driving on my own I made mistakes, often quite frightening ones, but each time I learned something. My driving changed as a result. Even with much experience I still made mistakes when in an unfamiliar situation, such as in a foreign country where road layouts and expected habits can be very different. Again my driving adapted and changed very rapidly.

In the case of AI, when it makes an obvious mistake, the system itself does not have any way to quickly learn and adapt, indeed it seemingly does not even detect that something 'bad' has happened. The concepts we use as humans simply don't translate into the algorithmic rules, except in terms of probabilities and weightings, but not as meanings.

I'm not sure that even mentioning the word conscious or the idea of consciousness is relevant in a discussion of AI. The essence of AI is that it is mechanistic, algorithmic. That is, following a set of rules and instructions which is how it arrives at some quirky and absurd outcomes.

I was thinking about the mistakes made when driving a car. I know when I first started driving on my own I made mistakes, often quite frightening ones, but each time I learned something. My driving changed as a result. Even with much experience I still made mistakes when in an unfamiliar situation, such as in a foreign country where road layouts and expected habits can be very different. Again my driving adapted and changed very rapidly.

In the case of AI, when it makes an obvious mistake, the system itself does not have any way to quickly learn and adapt, indeed it seemingly does not even detect that something 'bad' has happened. The concepts we use as humans simply don't translate into the algorithmic rules, except in terms of probabilities and weightings, but not as meanings.

Good point. I do think the AI system would have the capability at least to detect that it has made an error. What it couldn't do is to readily come up with an operational solution to update its software with, since it is limited to an existing database which evidently didn't include the (perhaps rare) anomaly causing the accident or near-accident.

A well-done and hard-hitting attack on current AI trends, at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...aomi-klein . I completely agree with this writer's views.

"In (the) reality of hyper-concentrated power and wealth, AI – far from living up to all those utopian hallucinations – is much more likely to become a fearsome tool of further dispossession and despoilation.
...............................................
...first, it’s helpful to think about the purpose the utopian hallucinations about AI are serving. What work are these benevolent stories doing in the culture as we encounter these strange new tools? Here is one hypothesis: they are the powerful and enticing cover stories for what may turn out to be the largest and most consequential theft in human history. Because what we are witnessing is the wealthiest companies in history (Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon …) unilaterally seizing the sum total of human knowledge that exists in digital, scrapable form and walling it off inside proprietary products, many of which will take direct aim at the humans whose lifetime of labor trained the machines without giving permission or consent.

This should not be legal.....
................................................
....our words, our images, our songs, our entire digital lives - all are currently being seized and used to train the machines to simulate thinking and creativity. These companies must know they are engaged in theft, or at least that a strong case can be made that they are. They are just hoping that the old playbook works one more time – that the scale of the heist is already so large and unfolding with such speed that courts and policymakers will once again throw up their hands in the face of the supposed inevitability of it all.
................................................
...the upsides claimed from these developments are, for the most part, hallucinatory. Let’s dig into a few of the wilder ones:"

"Hallucination #1: AI will solve the climate crisis:
Almost invariably topping the lists of AI upsides is the claim that these systems will somehow solve the climate crisis.
................................................
....it looks far more likely that AI will be brought to market in ways that actively deepen the climate crisis. First, the giant servers that make instant essays and artworks from chatbots possible are an enormous and growing source of carbon emissions. Second, as companies like Coca-Cola start making huge investments to use generative AI to sell more products, it’s becoming all too clear that this new tech will be used in the same ways as the last generation of digital tools: that what begins with lofty promises about spreading freedom and democracy ends up micro targeting ads at us so that we buy more useless, carbon-spewing stuff."

................................................

"Hallucination #2: AI will deliver wise governance:
This hallucination summons a near future in which politicians and bureaucrats, drawing on the vast aggregated intelligence of AI systems, are able “to see patterns of need and develop evidence-based programs” that have greater benefits to their constituents."

Comment: this is absurd and naive.
................................................

"Hallucination #3: Tech giants can be trusted not to break the world:
Asked if he is worried about the frantic gold rush ChatGPT has already unleashed, Altman said he is, but added sanguinely: “Hopefully it will all work out.” Of his fellow tech CEOs – the ones competing to rush out their rival chatbots – he said: “I think the better angels are going to win out.” 

Comment: again, this is absurd and naive."

This means that those very many people (losing their jobs) will find themselves staring into the abyss – with actual artists among the first to fall.

The fact is that we live in a capitalist society and the means and resources and "will to do" sufficient to establish the necessary cradle-to-grave socialism just don't exist in America and most of the world. Accordingly, we can expect mass poverty and despair among a great majority of the population.

"As the ever-worsening climate and extinction crises show us every day, plenty of powerful people and institutions seem to be just fine knowing that they are helping to destroy the stability of the world’s life-support systems, so long as they can keep making record profits that they believe will protect them and their families from the worst effects."

[Laird]

A well-done and hard-hitting attack on current AI trends, at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...aomi-klein .

This is kinda awkward to say, but... that's the same article as in the OP, after which this thread was titled.

This is kinda awkward to say, but... that's the same article as in the OP, after which this thread was titled.

Oh I thought it was meant to be a reply with the link for convenience.

But yeah it's the opening article for the thread.

A little embarrassing. I guess I didn't read the OP article thoroughly enough.

The fact is that we live in a capitalist society and the means and resources and "will to do" sufficient to establish the necessary cradle-to-grave socialism just don't exist in America and most of the world. Accordingly, we can expect mass poverty and despair among a great majority of the population.

We are hinting at politics here so I will try to be careful.  The same money exists in the system whether or not people can work.  There might be a way to cause the businesses that use AI instead of people to pay a special tax to compensate those who lose work because of AI. Sorry if that sounds "socialist" but those who are willing to work deserve a wage. Poverty in the Western world has a particular cause that could be dealt with if the authorities were not scared to deal with it.  I won't say what that is because that would definitely be considered political.

Personally, I don't think things will get that bad.  If you give Deep Dream a try you will very quickly become acutely aware of how limited it is and why it is so limited and it will put your mind at rest.  Yes some of the results are amazing if you are not fussy about detail but a company that wants a particular visual concept will be very disappointed with the results.  Artists are safe, at least for now.  I am a hobby artist and Deep Dream AI is a great resource for inspiration.

We are hinting at politics here so I will try to be careful.  The same money exists in the system whether or not people can work.  There might be a way to cause the businesses that use AI instead of people to pay a special tax to compensate those who lose work because of AI. Sorry if that sounds "socialist" but those who are willing to work deserve a wage. Poverty in the Western world has a particular cause that could be dealt with if the authorities were not scared to deal with it.  I won't say what that is because that would definitely be considered political.

Personally, I don't think things will get that bad.  If you give Deep Dream a try you will very quickly become acutely aware of how limited it is and why it is so limited and it will put your mind at rest.  Yes some of the results are amazing if you are not fussy about detail but a company that wants a particular visual concept will be very disappointed with the results.  Artists are safe, at least for now.  I am a hobby artist and Deep Dream AI is a great resource for inspiration.

That's a clever concept, but it wouldn't address the second primary problem with idleness (in addition to poverty). This is the alienation and feelings of uselessness and lack of meaning that often ensue from joblessness and careerlessness.