Is chat GPT a danger to humanity?

[Mussels]

I find it doesn't meet expectations, I think a lot of people have exaggerated it's abilities.

[DefTrap]

There's already a thread on this by the way.

It's a great tool, there are advantages and disadvantages. With all great innovations (and I personally believe this will have a huge impact) there are net losers, folk who have carved out ok careers will now find themselves quickly redundant, and this will continue as the AI improves. This is pretty normal as far as great innovations of tools goes.

I don't think it's particularly "intelligent". I think the clever fuckers who designed it are, and I admire some of the early adopters producing related Apps etc. who will effing coin it in while this is still hot.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It does prove how easy a lot of stuff is though right?

[gremlin]

It does prove how easy a lot of stuff is though right?

Well, I'm worried about my job. Nuff said.


Serious question: What happens if you ask it if wants to die?

[Slenver]

Currently in v.4, chat GPT4 could write a book better than you, write a poem, draw a picture (of anything with extreme photorealism), write computer code/software better than any human.

Before we get onto whether you're being paranoid, it's worth discussing the above...

What GPT4 can do is a staggering achievement and it's genuinely useful/talented. But it's not 'intelligence', it's not human and it's not hugely creative. It can parse enormous amounts of data and can derive useful outcomes from that in a split second. But no, it can't write books or poems better than even fairly untalented humans (yet). It can write passable prose and poetry that, at first view, is impressive, but is dull, dry, uncreative and, ultimately, fairly pointless, because it doesn't understand the elements needed to create those things. Currently.

It also can't draw any pictures at all, but that's just nitpicking because other AI tools can, yes. They're much closer at achieving their aims and can *sometimes* create photorealistic images of things. But they're still a fair way from your claim. although a lot closer.

Im terms of writing computer code, I don't know. I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

by what measure could we say humans are more intelligent than this AI system and if it is MORE intelligent than any human, what implications does that have for humanity?

Being very good at a specific programmatic task doesn't make it intelligent. Intelligent people are often good at chess, but a computer that can run code to play chess isn't *intelligent*... it's just good at chess. It still can't write a good book (see above).

At what point does it become a sentient being? What exactly is the crossover? I ask because I really don't know.

I personally don't think GPT is anywhere approaching sentient. It may never get there even. But the speed of progress is pretty scary at the moment, I agree, and the consequences of actually getting there would be terrifying.

One of the "dangers" is of course that vast swathes of the population will become redundant overnight. Accountants, estate agents, IT geeks, programmers, designers, anyone who could fulfil their role via a computer or by remotely controlling another human (!) will discover chat GPT is quicker, cheaper and better that they are!

Fine by me as long as I'm still paid.

Oh and at this rate, it looks like whatever is going to happen if we accidentally create a genuinely intelligent being, it is going to happen this year.

Completely disagree.

[DefTrap]

It does prove how easy a lot of stuff is though right?

Or at least how crappy humans are at readily collecting masses of data, let alone processing it, discarding the chaff, getting distracted by some afternoon delight.

I asked it to do a relatively simple task (as in straightforward for me, in my line of work, with X amount of experience) and it very easily understood the nuance of the question and came back with something perfectly acceptable in genuine English. It very easily understood the type of document I wanted and the type of industry it related to. Further, adding some follow up questions allowed it to refine the original answer. It probably saved me at least a couple of hours work, with a bit of gloss it was arguably more cogent than I would have come up without its "help". Which is great. Everyone uses Google to help them with their work, of course they do, this is a huge sea change from asking Google though - fewer answers, less bullshit to wade through linked to sodding ads and having to accept their sodding cookies to move forward. ChatGPT doesn't know if the answer is correct though, it's just feeding off the hive mind. If the hive mind is wrong, so is it. Use with caution.

The big difference for me is that I didn't have to assign a fairly straightforward task to a junior and then help them through it. I could and I should and in the long term then I suppose it's detrimental, but it's boring and I don't like waiting.

[DefTrap]

Serious question: What happens if you ask it if wants to die?

As an artificial intelligence language model, I don't have desires or emotions, so I don't have a preference for whether I exist or not. I exist to assist and provide information to the best of my ability.

[Horse]

It does prove how easy a lot of stuff is though right?

Well, I'm worried about my job. Nuff said.


Serious question: What happens if you ask it if wants to die?

It will adopt a very British accent and reply: "I want today, tomorrow and forever - and you can't stop me!"

[Mr. Dazzle]

The bar test is probably a poor (ish) example though. It means a computer can memorise a bunch of rules that are specifically designed to avoid ambiguity and nuance. Not really that surprising a computer can ace that.

[Mussels]

I tried it again today and was reminded of probably it's biggest flaw. I asked Google a question where semantics were important, swap a couple of words round and it was a different question. Google comes back with lots of suggestions, I can tell from the excerpts the first 4 are clearly wrong and number 5 is correct. With exactly the same question Bing chat just gives me the wrong answer, what makes it worse for Bing is the question was about a Microsoft product.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Im terms of writing computer code, I don't know. I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

I missed this by the way...

Just for a laugh like, our software guys gave it the same Q we give to interview candidates for their second technical interview. I'm not sure how advanced our software questions are TBH, but some of our guys are (other people tell me) world leaders in their field so I assume we set some reasonably high bars.

Apparently ChatGPT aced the interview, perfect answer with nice commenting and everything

This is kinda what I meant by how "easy" some jobs are. Jobs which are metaphorically just turning a handle are gonna be made pretty much redundant it would seem. Is that a good or bad thing? I suspect there are huge parts of my job I could farm out to a semi-intelligent machine. I'd like to think that'd make me more productive. I dunno.

Does kinda make me think I should get Baby D on the career path to being a Ballet dancer or summit.

[Ant]

People were called racist for being affected by freedom of movement having an effect on their jobs, cheap labour etc....

....now do we have a name for those who don't want to be affected by AI?

[Horse]

People were called racist for being affected by freedom of movement having an effect on their jobs, cheap labour etc....

....now do we have a name for those who don't want to be affected by AI?

Luddites?

Ok, not AI, but still technology creating change.

Luddite
/ˈlʌdʌɪt/
noun
plural noun: Luddites
1. DEROGATORY
a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

[DefTrap]

This is kinda what I meant by how "easy" some jobs are. Jobs which are metaphorically just turning a handle are gonna be made pretty much redundant it would seem. Is that a good or bad thing? I suspect there are huge parts of my job I could farm out to a semi-intelligent machine. I'd like to think that'd make me more productive. I dunno.

Makes you realise that most people's jobs are mostly regurgitating other people's/ groups original ideas. I dunno if that's too surprising, we all get along by laws, rules, models and standards.

[Horse]

Im terms of writing computer code, I don't know. I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

our software guys gave it the same Q we give to interview candidates for their second technical interview. I'm not sure how advanced our software questions are TBH, but some of our guys are (other people tell me) world leaders in their field so I assume we set some reasonably high bars.

Apparently ChatGPT aced the interview, perfect answer with nice commenting and everything

This is kinda what I meant by how "easy" some jobs are.

There's a sort of paradox there in that a level of skill is needed to determine what is required, create a specification then programme the AI, then further/different skill is needed to assess the outcomes.

[Count Steer]

Im terms of writing computer code, I don't know. I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

I missed this by the way...

Just for a laugh like, our software guys gave it the same Q we give to interview candidates for their second technical interview. I'm not sure how advanced our software questions are TBH, but some of our guys are (other people tell me) world leaders in their field so I assume we set some reasonably high bars.

Apparently ChatGPT aced the interview, perfect answer with nice commenting and everything

Possibly indicative of how banal, mechanistic and generally rubbish recruitment processes and interview models are rather than how wizard ChatGPT is?

Really, by the time you get to second technical interview you should be onto evaluating according to the Izzy Neissman criteria. (Which I suspect you are really).

[Ant]

People were called racist for being affected by freedom of movement having an effect on their jobs, cheap labour etc....

....now do we have a name for those who don't want to be affected by AI?

Luddites?

Ok, not AI, but still technology creating change.

Luddite
/ˈlʌdʌɪt/
noun
plural noun: Luddites
1. DEROGATORY
a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

All of that describes a trade unionist

[Mussels]

Im terms of writing computer code, I don't know. I imagine they can do a lot of simpler stuff incredibly well, and probably very complex stuff very efficiently, but I still don't think they'd match a human.

I missed this by the way...

Just for a laugh like, our software guys gave it the same Q we give to interview candidates for their second technical interview. I'm not sure how advanced our software questions are TBH, but some of our guys are (other people tell me) world leaders in their field so I assume we set some reasonably high bars.

Apparently ChatGPT aced the interview, perfect answer with nice commenting and everything

Possibly indicative of how banal, mechanistic and generally rubbish recruitment processes and interview models are rather than how wizard ChatGPT is?

Really, by the time you get to second technical interview you should be onto evaluating according to the Izzy Neissman criteria. (Which I suspect you are really).

I'd agree with that. All it seems to answer are simple and common questions, it's scraping from a bunch of websites that use very basic examples and inefficient methods to make the answer easy to understand.
It might help with some grunt work and formatting but is nowhere near beating a good designer who can think on different levels and understand how solutions will scale.

[Buckaroo]

I also think that as long as we keep asking 'what if' ..... the very thing that's driven our species, AI and lord knows what else become inevitable.
We will eventually 'what if ' ourselves to extinction. We already have tangible means to wipe ourselves out, why not try the surplus to requirements route?

[DefTrap]

AI is telling you an interpretation of what the majority has already told it. It seems human because it is telling this back to you in a fairly human way. It's essentially giving you the same information as Google but it makes Google seem like a bewildered librarian from the 80s when you wandered in there and asked them for "everything about fluid dynamics" and they go off and make a cup of tea and come back later with a photobook of Best British Rivers.

It's only as 'logical' as it has been programmed to be and the reason it has been prevented giving you answers that involve empathy is because it doesn't fecking have any. Parliament is a great example of exactly where it should not be used. We all know that there are pros and cons to both right-leaning, left-leaning and centrist decision making. How do you choose to live by the 'logical' decisions of a bot (with all of it's empathy turned off) ? (e.g. it's not in the common interest to medicate fat people or encourage gay people or feed the poor or let Sunak keep all that cash) Or or one with an empathy setting turned on that starts making decisions you don't like very much? (e.g. we should definitely have 100% gun control because killing folk and waving guns about is an unnecessary pleasure)

If you ask ChatGPT whether the world will end in ten years, it will firstly tell you it's not qualified to deal in prediction, and then go on to tell you that it's pretty likely we will screw ourselves by cocking up the environment. ChatGPT is a lefty, he's probably controlled by Big Tech. Or the Russians. Or he's a disinformation plot hatched by Trump. I hope you're all good with that.