portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 18,192
Regulation is never ahead or even remotely on top of perversions in anything so expect chaos if Pro!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Are you pro or anti AI?
- Thread starter Hovegull
- Start date
joydivisionovengloves
Well-known member
An aeroplane can take you on the most magical journey of your life.
An aeroplane can drop a nuclear bomb.
An aeroplane can drop a nuclear bomb.
AI is pretty amazing and it's only going to get more powerful and more useful.
It will solve a lot of problems.
It will also cause massive problems for societies.
Technology has always given an opportunity to those who invent it (or buy it) to multiply the 'work' they can do beyond the output that one person could produce through traditional methods. Even with the advent of factories, the factory owner got rich, but still needed actual people to work in them. There was still work to be done and opportunities to earn money for the average Joe.
AI is turbo-charging the replacement of people, so money will just be channelled into the hands of an even more select few (the owners of the tech) because hardly any workers will be needed, relative even to now.
Maybe it'll be a good thing - what work is left gets divided up, but that means we only need to work 2 days per week and we all get a universal basic income while enjoying 5 day weekends....
We can trust governments to ensure the benefits of AI are fairly distributed can't we....? Can't we?
To summarise, while I think the technology is great (and use AI-powered tools daily), I think that because governments and corporations across the world can't cooperate to the extent required to regulate it sufficiently, AI will lead to mass unemployment, further economic disparity and ultimately huge social unrest.
TL/DR? It's great, but will cause the end of the World as we know it.*
* tongue only half in cheek
It will solve a lot of problems.
It will also cause massive problems for societies.
Technology has always given an opportunity to those who invent it (or buy it) to multiply the 'work' they can do beyond the output that one person could produce through traditional methods. Even with the advent of factories, the factory owner got rich, but still needed actual people to work in them. There was still work to be done and opportunities to earn money for the average Joe.
AI is turbo-charging the replacement of people, so money will just be channelled into the hands of an even more select few (the owners of the tech) because hardly any workers will be needed, relative even to now.
Maybe it'll be a good thing - what work is left gets divided up, but that means we only need to work 2 days per week and we all get a universal basic income while enjoying 5 day weekends....
We can trust governments to ensure the benefits of AI are fairly distributed can't we....? Can't we?
To summarise, while I think the technology is great (and use AI-powered tools daily), I think that because governments and corporations across the world can't cooperate to the extent required to regulate it sufficiently, AI will lead to mass unemployment, further economic disparity and ultimately huge social unrest.
TL/DR? It's great, but will cause the end of the World as we know it.*
* tongue only half in cheek
Good to hear that, but how do you explain this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqqqln0eg65o
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,624
As with most things in life, the answer isn't simply one or the other, or yes or no, it's all about the level of AI you want, or would accept – because sometimes it can be a good thing.
I used ChatGPT properly in a work capacity for the first time the other day and came away with a positive impression. I asked it to convert some text into something a bit more catchy and it did the job, although I did have to manually tone down some of it for it to a) seem realistic and b) read properly.
But, ultimately, it saved me a bit of time and – more importantly – the client loved the end result (for full context, they were aware that ChatGPT was used – it was actually their suggestion).
I used ChatGPT properly in a work capacity for the first time the other day and came away with a positive impression. I asked it to convert some text into something a bit more catchy and it did the job, although I did have to manually tone down some of it for it to a) seem realistic and b) read properly.
But, ultimately, it saved me a bit of time and – more importantly – the client loved the end result (for full context, they were aware that ChatGPT was used – it was actually their suggestion).
Easy. If you set soft generic questions it is easy to use AI to pass.
I deliberately make my teaching sufficiently bespoke and my assessments sufficiently precise that AI could never do well.
Also some 'academics' skim mark essays and the mark regresses to low 60s.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
If technological abilities increase at the same rate as the past couple of hundred years then we will all be defunct in the next one hundred. Where we are today could never have been predicted 200 years ago, where we now go doesn’t bear thinking about.
Whitechapel
Famous Last Words
This is definitely a me issue, but whenever I see somebody on here (or social media in general)with an AI profile picture I instantly think what a loser.
What’s that? You sat there, cock in hand typing in different combinations of random buzzwords until the slop that a robot produced impressed you enough? Well your profile picture looks like shit, sorry.
All the photos on the World Wide Web and the photo thst represents you the most is a seagull on the moon with the Brighton badge imprinted on its forehead and we’re supposed to be impressed because you spent 5 minutes typing varying versions of “intergalactic cool seagull that supports Brighton” in to a search bar?
Don’t get me started on the trend on social media for people to type the name of somebody they don’t like followed by “fat, baby, crying, smelly” in to an AI image generator before posting the results like that alone is funny. 45 year old blokes who have essentially called somebody a big baby but with 10 extra steps in the middle. Absolute cretins.
What’s that? You sat there, cock in hand typing in different combinations of random buzzwords until the slop that a robot produced impressed you enough? Well your profile picture looks like shit, sorry.
All the photos on the World Wide Web and the photo thst represents you the most is a seagull on the moon with the Brighton badge imprinted on its forehead and we’re supposed to be impressed because you spent 5 minutes typing varying versions of “intergalactic cool seagull that supports Brighton” in to a search bar?
Don’t get me started on the trend on social media for people to type the name of somebody they don’t like followed by “fat, baby, crying, smelly” in to an AI image generator before posting the results like that alone is funny. 45 year old blokes who have essentially called somebody a big baby but with 10 extra steps in the middle. Absolute cretins.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I have to say 'Anti'. The whole concept of it is pretty scary, and you just know it will be abused and used to cause trouble.
I have a feeling it'll progress faster what with quantum computing, biotech etc Hopefully, we get to enjoy the boom before the inevitable apocalypse
There’s only one good thing to do with AI.
Unplug it.
Unplug it.
UnhingedSeagull94
Have a nice day….BANGBANG
- Jan 6, 2024
- 110
Recently seen videos where the old WWF Hasbro figures from the 80’s are walkin’ and talkin’. Quite impressive because as anyone familiar knows, those toys were solid plastic, with little movement if any. Scary that a physical item can be run through a programme and brought to life. Harmless in this instance, but concerning if you start thinking about the bigger picture. Govt. regulation is needed asap on this subject.
If companies want to use it as a tool, provided they are still accountable for their answers/output then that seems to be an efficient way forward
OTOH I am bothered by the fact that AI can make any famous person I might respect / any politician who I might consider voting for... say absolutely anything, and it's getting difficult to spot that it's not the real person.
Is there a way to stop this false representation? Or is it technically illegal, like impersonating a police officer is? Could I go to court and claim civil damages if I had suffered a loss as a result of believing what they say? Or am I asking too many questions
OTOH I am bothered by the fact that AI can make any famous person I might respect / any politician who I might consider voting for... say absolutely anything, and it's getting difficult to spot that it's not the real person.
Is there a way to stop this false representation? Or is it technically illegal, like impersonating a police officer is? Could I go to court and claim civil damages if I had suffered a loss as a result of believing what they say? Or am I asking too many questions
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,145
you're talking about regulating art and animation. this really isn't that innovative, people have made plastic figures come to life for decades - see Toy Story, Small Soldiers, in the 90's. the technology now we have the tools to do this at home without animation skills. it would be like regulating cameras, once the preserve of people with chemicals and darkroom, eventually available to everyone in form of compact cameras. just like we had some concerns about what people take photos of, we made laws about that not the technology. and as the tools are open source, cheapish commodity HW, regulation is hopeless as anyone can run it at home, just takes longer than the online services.
Last edited:
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,857
I am not anti AI. I am anti the version of AI that we have chosen.
For me it is the Face Eating Leopard Party AI. We have chosen deregulation and given psychopaths unfettered power to introduce AI as they see fit.
AI isn't good or bad, it's just a thing. The fact we have given these people total freedom in how they create and use it is monumentally stupid.
... But we didn't think they would eat our faces.
But here we, I expect we are going to be told that the answer is less regulation or tech companies and more power to the government's supported by them. And we will believe them.
For me it is the Face Eating Leopard Party AI. We have chosen deregulation and given psychopaths unfettered power to introduce AI as they see fit.
AI isn't good or bad, it's just a thing. The fact we have given these people total freedom in how they create and use it is monumentally stupid.
... But we didn't think they would eat our faces.
But here we, I expect we are going to be told that the answer is less regulation or tech companies and more power to the government's supported by them. And we will believe them.
Pondicherry
Well-known member
Assuming AI is not used for nefarious purposes which results in some cataclysmic event or events, the major issue is what are humans going to do and how will this be funded. Some sort of centrally funded utopia may emerge where the majority can pursue learning or leisure in some form. A much more likely scenario (in my opinion) is that widescale boredom and wealth inequality will result in a cataclysmic event or events. In summary there is a small chance of utopia and a large chance of a cataclysm.
Hot take from The Daily Star...