Another demonstration of chatGPT 4.0 capabilities

5/8 for me.  The videos threw me but I am quite used to studying photos for oddities.

He is also worried that A.I. technologies will in time upend the job market. Today, chatbots like ChatGPT tend to complement human workers, but they could replace paralegals, personal assistants, translators and others who handle rote tasks. “It takes away the drudge work,” he said. “It might take away more than that.”
Down the road, he is worried that future versions of the technology pose a threat to humanity because they often learn unexpected behavior from the vast amounts of data they analyze. This becomes an issue, he said, as individuals and companies allow A.I. systems not only to generate their own computer code but actually run that code on their own. And he fears a day when truly autonomous weapons — those killer robots — become reality.
“The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people — a few people believed that,” he said. “But most people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/techn...inton.html

He is also worried that A.I. technologies will in time upend the job market. Today, chatbots like ChatGPT tend to complement human workers, but they could replace paralegals, personal assistants, translators and others who handle rote tasks. “It takes away the drudge work,” he said. “It might take away more than that.”

Down the road, he is worried that future versions of the technology pose a threat to humanity because they often learn unexpected behavior from the vast amounts of data they analyze. This becomes an issue, he said, as individuals and companies allow A.I. systems not only to generate their own computer code but actually run that code on their own. And he fears a day when truly autonomous weapons — those killer robots — become reality.

“The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people — a few people believed that,” he said. “But most people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.”

I wouldn't worry too much.  They will never be able to program desire into a machine because it requires consciousness and emotion.

I wouldn't worry too much.  They will never be able to program desire into a machine because it requires consciousness and emotion.

I wouldn’t be too sure those traits aren’t gonna evolve and soon. I understand that what you are doing is moving the goalpost, but in reality I think almost everybody is surprised about what’s happening here. Soon it will outsmart any person.

I wouldn’t be too sure those traits aren’t gonna evolve and soon. I understand that what you are doing is moving the goalpost, but in reality I think almost everybody is surprised about what’s happening here. Soon it will outsmart any person.

Evolve?  Can you explain how desire can evolve from an algorithm?  Can you explain how consciousness can just randomly evolve from physical matter?  I am not moving the goalpost at all, I am simply saying that the impossible will have to happen before machines start "taking over"

It’s an unproven assumption that consciousness isn’t an epiphenomenon entirely dependent on chemical and physical processes.

It’s an unproven assumption that consciousness isn’t an epiphenomenon entirely dependent on chemical and physical processes.

It's also unproven that it is an epiphenonmenon.

But there's good reason to think the materialist's Something-from-Nothing belief is false ->

Why I am not a Physicalist: Four Reasons for Rejecting the Faith

Peter Sjöstedt-H, PhD

I wouldn't worry too much.  They will never be able to program desire into a machine because it requires consciousness and emotion.

Yeah I think the issue is more the reliance on AI than the creation of Terminators or other killer robots that an AI uses to take over the world.

A misleading open letter about sci-fi AI dangers ignores the real risks (might be a repost but the forum isn't telling me so...)

Sayash Kapoor and Arvind Narayanan

We agree that misinformation, impact on labor, and safety are three of the main risks of AI. Unfortunately, in each case, the letter presents a speculative, futuristic risk, ignoring the version of the problem that is already harming people. It distracts from the real issues and makes it harder to address them. The letter has a containment mindset analogous to nuclear risk, but that’s a poor fit for AI. It plays right into the hands of the companies it seeks to regulate. 

[Laird]

It’s an unproven assumption that consciousness isn’t an epiphenomenon entirely dependent on chemical and physical processes.

False

False

You seem to be confusing a philosophical argument with scientific evidence.