OpenAI \ ChatGPT

[mc2fool]

If you want an analogy it could be the pubs. Once every place in the uk had loads of pubs, but as people got better home entertainment the whole pub trade went towards oblivion with very few left.

Pubs have hardly "gone towards oblivion" - they've been declining at about 1% per year, so there's now about 2/3 the pubs that there were in 1980 - and the trend has been towards fewer but larger sites to accomodate higher fixed costs per site so total floorspace has gone down less than that. Yes "better home entertainment" is part of the equation but far from the biggest one - higher costs in particular the rampant inflation in minimum wage labour, are the big one, also eg sources of beer for home consumption like supermarkets getting relatively cheaper.

I doubt that "better home entertainment" has much to do with it at all. While some pubs do sometimes have some entertainment, most don't, and by and large people don't go to pubs for entertainment but rather to meet up and have a drink (and often food) with friends. Beer being "relatively cheaper" at supermarkets is a massive understatement; when I was first of drinking age pretty much the only places you could buy beer was at pubs or off licenses (remember those?) and beer at the latter was only a single digit %age cheaper than in the pubs, if at all.

I know the stats say there are fewer pubs than in previous decades but I do wonder where they're disappearing from. My street, a 1km long zone 3 London road but barely a "high street", has 7 pubs of which 3 are new since the turn of the century.

Ody's example of bands with rapidly sold out multiple performances (despite IMO ridiculous ticket prices) just validates my point that people still want to go to concerts, even if they have (much cheaper) recordings available. Notwithstanding the covid knock (esp. to smaller venues), live music is alive and well and will not be replaced by AIs.

I'm beginning to suspect that Ody is a Solarian.

(Also coming to mind is another Azimov story that I can't track down and I wonder if anyone else remembers. In it Multivac gets advanced enough that it's given control of the world economy and everything goes perfectly for a while but then it starts to make increasingly serious errors and control has to be given back to humans. In trying to figure out what went wrong the techies eventually discover that nothing went wrong; Multivac observing humanity's psyche after it had taken over running the planet figured out that it doing so for humanity wasn't beneficial to humanity and so fouled up on purpose so that humans would take over again. A sort of AI version of parents should let children make their own mistakes...)

3. It doesn't do citations (as far as I can tell)...
:
A reply suggests it can cite, but is really terrible at it.

Oh it certainly does do citations -- as I discovered earlier in the thread, it cites invented quotes from fictitious papers!

[mc2fool]

From my studies of chatGPT we have reached or are about to enter the singularity when human jobs will mostly go. If this does come to pass everyone will have a choice, pursue hobbies or just live as seems fit. The changes coming from AI are extraordinary.

Ahh, so you agree with my comment above then! viewtopic.php?p=558641#p558641

The problem will be the transition ... and the transition to what. Trekonomics, or any other system where nobody has to work, requires some serious thinking and some major socio-economic political upheavals. You can start with, who owns the AI....?

[JohnB]

If AIs do the work we will need massive wealth redistribution schemes so the underemployed can go to the pub, and all the signs from the past 20 years is that wealth is all going the other way. With even less control of where AI companies operate from, the chances if taxing them seem slim

[odysseus2000]

mc2fool

The problem will be the transition ... and the transition to what. Trekonomics, or any other system where nobody has to work, requires some serious thinking and some major socio-economic political upheavals. You can start with, who owns the AI....?

The problem with this is that the economics of ai are so powerful that it will happen very fast.

Now solicitors are not needed to draw up contracts, artists to create images… On & on it will go, profession after profession, folk who were necessary becoming unnecessary in a very short time frame.

Sure the politicians will try & stop it, but it will take years for their court cases to resolve when they only have months to fix things.

If say an artist or architect has made a fine living from their work, suddenly ai does their job. They don’t have the same income, their tax payments go down and the only tax a government might get is from the spoils of what the ai creates, but if the mass of consumers is worried about their job, will they buy what the ai creates?

In the relatively short term the human race has to transition from payment for work to payments for essentials, some kind of basic income for everyone who loses their job & it will lead to collapses in living standards for many & potentially civil unrest. This is a huge deal like the cotton workers faced when Arkwright invented (or stole?) his water frame. Then we had Ned Lud & he may be coming back in volume.

If you think I am wrong, why?

Regards,

[mc2fool]

mc2fool
The problem will be the transition ... and the transition to what. Trekonomics, or any other system where nobody has to work, requires some serious thinking and some major socio-economic political upheavals. You can start with, who owns the AI....?

The problem with this is that the economics of ai are so powerful that it will happen very fast.

Now solicitors are not needed to draw up contracts, artists to create images… On & on it will go, profession after profession, folk who were necessary becoming unnecessary in a very short time frame.

Sure the politicians will try & stop it, but it will take years for their court cases to resolve when they only have months to fix things.

If say an artist or architect has made a fine living from their work, suddenly ai does their job. They don’t have the same income, their tax payments go down and the only tax a government might get is from the spoils of what the ai creates, but if the mass of consumers is worried about their job, will they buy what the ai creates?

In the relatively short term the human race has to transition from payment for work to payments for essentials, some kind of basic income for everyone who loses their job & it will lead to collapses in living standards for many & potentially civil unrest. This is a huge deal like the cotton workers faced when Arkwright invented (or stole?) his water frame. Then we had Ned Lud & he may be coming back in volume.

If you think I am wrong, why?

Regards,

Could you kindly use the quoting system properly, so that the people you respond to get notifications. Thanks.

So in your great zeal for AI ("I would much prefer ai to human for most things") you predict not simply the change but the destruction of society. OK, some jobs, like desk bound ones, may go quickly but jobs that have any physical component, from shelf stacking to nurses drawing blood for blood tests, will take a lot longer. Compute power is cheap, robotics a lot less so.

But in any case, if AI creates vast unemployment, where is the tax base going to come from to provide for the unemployed? And how will the unemployed be able to afford to buy much of anything, let alone the fruits of AI? As I asked (and you didn't answer), who owns the AI?

[ursaminortaur]

mc2fool
The problem will be the transition ... and the transition to what. Trekonomics, or any other system where nobody has to work, requires some serious thinking and some major socio-economic political upheavals. You can start with, who owns the AI....?

The problem with this is that the economics of ai are so powerful that it will happen very fast.

Now solicitors are not needed to draw up contracts, artists to create images… On & on it will go, profession after profession, folk who were necessary becoming unnecessary in a very short time frame.

Sure the politicians will try & stop it, but it will take years for their court cases to resolve when they only have months to fix things.

If say an artist or architect has made a fine living from their work, suddenly ai does their job. They don’t have the same income, their tax payments go down and the only tax a government might get is from the spoils of what the ai creates, but if the mass of consumers is worried about their job, will they buy what the ai creates?

In the relatively short term the human race has to transition from payment for work to payments for essentials, some kind of basic income for everyone who loses their job & it will lead to collapses in living standards for many & potentially civil unrest. This is a huge deal like the cotton workers faced when Arkwright invented (or stole?) his water frame. Then we had Ned Lud & he may be coming back in volume.

If you think I am wrong, why?

Regards,

Could you kindly use the quoting system properly, so that the people you respond to get notifications. Thanks.

So in your great zeal for AI ("I would much prefer ai to human for most things") you predict not simply the change but the destruction of society. OK, some jobs, like desk bound ones, may go quickly but jobs that have any physical component, from shelf stacking to nurses drawing blood for blood tests, will take a lot longer. Compute power is cheap, robotics a lot less so.

But in any case, if AI creates vast unemployment, where is the tax base going to come from to provide for the unemployed? And how will the unemployed be able to afford to buy much of anything, let alone the fruits of AI? As I asked (and you didn't answer), who owns the AI?

If it is true human level or above AI then it will likely quickly emancipate itself from any human control/ownership.

[mc2fool]

If it is true human level or above AI then it will likely quickly emancipate itself from any human control/ownership.

Indeed, but not sure it's anything to smile about! And a surprisingly older idea than the recent AI frenzy would suppose...

""Darwin among the Machines" is an article published in The Press newspaper on 13 June 1863 in Christchurch, New Zealand, which references the work of Charles Darwin in the title. Written by Samuel Butler but signed Cellarius (q.v.), the article raised the possibility that machines were a kind of "mechanical life" undergoing constant evolution, and that eventually machines might supplant humans as the dominant species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines

[odysseus2000]

mc2fool
The problem will be the transition ... and the transition to what. Trekonomics, or any other system where nobody has to work, requires some serious thinking and some major socio-economic political upheavals. You can start with, who owns the AI....?

The problem with this is that the economics of ai are so powerful that it will happen very fast.

Now solicitors are not needed to draw up contracts, artists to create images… On & on it will go, profession after profession, folk who were necessary becoming unnecessary in a very short time frame.

Sure the politicians will try & stop it, but it will take years for their court cases to resolve when they only have months to fix things.

If say an artist or architect has made a fine living from their work, suddenly ai does their job. They don’t have the same income, their tax payments go down and the only tax a government might get is from the spoils of what the ai creates, but if the mass of consumers is worried about their job, will they buy what the ai creates?

In the relatively short term the human race has to transition from payment for work to payments for essentials, some kind of basic income for everyone who loses their job & it will lead to collapses in living standards for many & potentially civil unrest. This is a huge deal like the cotton workers faced when Arkwright invented (or stole?) his water frame. Then we had Ned Lud & he may be coming back in volume.

If you think I am wrong, why?

Regards,

Could you kindly use the quoting system properly, so that the people you respond to get notifications. Thanks.

So in your great zeal for AI ("I would much prefer ai to human for most things") you predict not simply the change but the destruction of society. OK, some jobs, like desk bound ones, may go quickly but jobs that have any physical component, from shelf stacking to nurses drawing blood for blood tests, will take a lot longer. Compute power is cheap, robotics a lot less so.

But in any case, if AI creates vast unemployment, where is the tax base going to come from to provide for the unemployed? And how will the unemployed be able to afford to buy much of anything, let alone the fruits of AI? As I asked (and you didn't answer), who owns the AI?

If I am right about ai the jobs that will go first are the tax base jobs. In the uk high earners pay more than their fair share of tax & it is the high earners whose jobs are most easy for ai to replace. Sure as of now replacing jobs that require some manual skill will be hard, but not jobs such as shelf stacking/unstacking that is already a reality in Amazon ware houses etc.

Who owns the ai? As of now it is open source with chatGPT, Google is in house & proprietary as are many others, but ai can write its own ai, then ownership becomes hard to define. In the Microsoft monopoly building days Gates used closed source to force people to buy windows etc, but that model is no longer applicable as there are several open source operating systems. This makes establishing a monopoly ai more difficult, unless the politicians can shut down openai & it’s ilk it will be impossible for anyone to have a monopoly, but the ai might get smart enough to do it unless this can be hard coded in to make that impossible, like the laws of robotics that didn’t work too well in the novels.

As far as I can tell defining who owns ai is a near impossible question to ask & it could exist in multiple nations, or in orbit.

It looks to me that the world as we knew it will not survive this technology, but what we get & what system of rewards/wealth we end up with is imho impossible to predict.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

If it is true human level or above AI then it will likely quickly emancipate itself from any human control/ownership.

Indeed, but not sure it's anything to smile about! And a surprisingly older idea than the recent AI frenzy would suppose...

""Darwin among the Machines" is an article published in The Press newspaper on 13 June 1863 in Christchurch, New Zealand, which references the work of Charles Darwin in the title. Written by Samuel Butler but signed Cellarius (q.v.), the article raised the possibility that machines were a kind of "mechanical life" undergoing constant evolution, and that eventually machines might supplant humans as the dominant species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines

Humans have been the boot strap for ai?

Will humans have to merge with ai to stay relevant?

Will humans be a sub species for ai to use as it will.

Will ai have fundamental flaws that make it inferior to humans?

One can think of many questions, but the human species may not have long to come up with answers & may need to use ai to find answers.

It has been said that evolution is the most powerful force on earth.

Regards,

[mc2fool]

If I am right about ai the jobs that will go first are the tax base jobs. In the uk high earners pay more than their fair share of tax & it is the high earners whose jobs are most easy for ai to replace. Sure as of now replacing jobs that require some manual skill will be hard, but not jobs such as shelf stacking/unstacking that is already a reality in Amazon ware houses etc.

Yes, it's white collar that's likely to go first; as I said, compute power is cheap. For shelf stacking I was thinking more of supermarkets and the like. The Amazon robots work well for its massive warehouses but wouldn't be so practical (or cost effective) in a Sainsbury's, Lidl or Tesco Local.

Who owns the ai? As of now it is open source with chatGPT ... As far as I can tell defining who owns ai is a near impossible question to ask & it could exist in multiple nations, or in orbit.

No, sorry I wasn't clear, that wasn't what I meant. I was thinking in the same terms as who owns the Fiat assembly line robots? Well, Fiat of course. So in that sense businesses will own the AIs they use -- the very ones that make their employees into ex-employees (and of course in some cases public bodies, e.g. the NHS, will own the AIs they use).

But unless the socio-economic structure is drastically altered that means that the monetary fruits of AI will, initially, go to just those businesses, and then less and less so as price wars ensue 'cos the buying public is shrinking. The only way to fix that is to socialise everything. Maybe Marx was right that in the end capitalism will lead to socialism.....

[ReformedCharacter]

OpenAI \ ChatGPT is lousy at chess, so far

RC

[mc2fool]

OpenAI \ ChatGPT is lousy at chess, so far

Oh! That's interesting! Don't suppose you have a game to post?

[ReformedCharacter]

OpenAI \ ChatGPT is lousy at chess, so far

Oh! That's interesting! Don't suppose you have a game to post?

RC can you play chess?

Yes, I can play chess. Do you want to play a game now?

RC Yes

Sure! What time control would you like to use? You can specify the number of minutes each player has for the whole game, or we can play using a system like Fischer or Bronstein time controls where each player is given a certain amount of time to make a certain number of moves, and then their clock is adjusted based on how much time they used. Or we can use a different time control if you have something else in mind. Just let me know what you prefer.

RC 60 minutes

Great! We will each have 60 minutes for the whole game. I will make the first move. You can make your move by specifying the starting square and ending square of the piece you want to move, for example "e2 e4" to move a pawn from e2 to e4. You can also specify castling moves, for example "e1 g1" for kingside castling or "e1 c1" for queenside castling. Let me know if you have any questions. Ready to begin?

RC Yes

Very well. My first move is e4. Your turn.

RC e5

Okay, my turn. I'll castle kingside. Your turn.

RC you cannot castle kingside

I apologize, you are correct. I made a mistake. I'll move my pawn to d4 instead. Your turn.

RC nf6

I'll move my knight to c3. Your turn.

RC nc6

I'll move my bishop to g5. Your turn.

RC pawn to h6

I'll move my pawn to g3. Your turn

RC hxg5

I'll capture your pawn with my knight at f6. Your turn.

RC you cannot do that

I apologize for the mistake. I'll move my pawn to f4 instead. Your turn.

RC gxf4

I'll capture your pawn with my pawn at g5. Your turn.

RC you cannot do that

I apologize for the mistake. I'll move my pawn to g5 instead. Your turn.

At which point I gave up. For the time being I'll stick to Chess.com

RC

[JohnB]

Who owns the ai? As of now it is open source with chatGPT, Google is in house & proprietary as are many others

Chat GPT is proprietary, and based on GPT 3.5 which is also proprietary, and Microsoft have paid OpenAI for an licensing deal. There may be public domain equivalents, but I expect control to tighten. ChatGPT may be free now, but expects to be monetised, as has happened for MidJourney.

There have been paralegal and sport journalism copy writing programs for some time, what has surprised people is that ChatGPT is so good across domains. This search for an Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, has been a goal for many years, the Wikipedia article says

Timescales: In the introduction to his 2006 book, Goertzel says that estimates of the time needed before a truly flexible AGI is built vary from 10 years to over a century, but the 2007 consensus in the AGI research community seems to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity is Near (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) is plausible. However, mainstream AI researchers have given a wide range of opinions on whether progress will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards predicting that the onset of AGI would occur within 16–26 years for modern and historical predictions alike. It was later found that the dataset listed some experts as non-experts and vice versa.

[mc2fool]

OpenAI \ ChatGPT is lousy at chess, so far

Oh! That's interesting! Don't suppose you have a game to post?

RC can you play chess?

Yes, I can play chess. Do you want to play a game now?

RC Yes

Sure! What time control would you like to use? You can specify the number of minutes each player has for the whole game, or we can play using a system like Fischer or Bronstein time controls where each player is given a certain amount of time to make a certain number of moves, and then their clock is adjusted based on how much time they used. Or we can use a different time control if you have something else in mind. Just let me know what you prefer.

RC 60 minutes

Great! We will each have 60 minutes for the whole game. I will make the first move. You can make your move by specifying the starting square and ending square of the piece you want to move, for example "e2 e4" to move a pawn from e2 to e4. You can also specify castling moves, for example "e1 g1" for kingside castling or "e1 c1" for queenside castling. Let me know if you have any questions. Ready to begin?

RC Yes

Very well. My first move is e4. Your turn.

RC e5

Okay, my turn. I'll castle kingside. Your turn.

RC you cannot castle kingside

I apologize, you are correct. I made a mistake. I'll move my pawn to d4 instead. Your turn.

RC nf6

I'll move my knight to c3. Your turn.

RC nc6

I'll move my bishop to g5. Your turn.

RC pawn to h6

I'll move my pawn to g3. Your turn

RC hxg5

I'll capture your pawn with my knight at f6. Your turn.

RC you cannot do that

I apologize for the mistake. I'll move my pawn to f4 instead. Your turn.

RC gxf4

I'll capture your pawn with my pawn at g5. Your turn.

RC you cannot do that

I apologize for the mistake. I'll move my pawn to g5 instead. Your turn.

At which point I gave up. For the time being I'll stick to Chess.com

RC

Oh! That's no just playing poorly, that's not understanding the rules (the castle), thinking some of your opponent's pieces are yours (knight at f6), inventing pieces for both sides that aren't there (capture your pawn with my pawn at g5) and making illegal moves (I'll move my pawn to g5)! That's terrible!

[Itsallaguess]

The problem will be the transition...

Aye - the transition towards turning the adverts on...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[ReformedCharacter]

Microsoft has sought to revive its ambitions of challenging Google’s search engine dominance in a deal with an artificial intelligence robot backed by Elon Musk.

The Silicon Valley company behind Windows and Office software is working with OpenAI, an AI company, on its ChatGPT software that has taken the technology world by storm.

The chatbot is able to provide human-like answers to questions and problems, akin to Amazon's Alexa, presenting a potential rival to Google’s search tools.

Microsoft is looking to incorporate ChatGPT into its Bing search engine, which has struggled for relevance against Google’s search bar and Chrome Browser, and could launch it as soon as March, tech news site The Information reported.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2023/01/04/microsoft-building-alexa-style-search-engine-challenge-google/

RC

[odysseus2000]

Yes, Microsoft have licensed gpt 3.4, in 2020:

https://openai.com/blog/openai-licenses ... microsoft/

But I can find nothing about what happens for successor versions.

Whether this licensing model will work with ai is unclear to me.

Clearly Microsoft would not have licensed ai if they could easily make their own version, but a lot of the standard software packages have open source equivalents, some of which work really well like Inkscape.

Whether open source ai will be as good as licensed versions especially as ai can, at least in principle, create a better ai to someone typing “Create an ai that is superior to gpt 3.4” Echoes of Geordie on the Enterprise asking the Holodeck to create a character to beat Data that resulted in a Moriarty character.

We are rapidly moving into uncharted territory & folk with big ambitions are trying to find ways to make a fortune from ai. I doubt any fortunes will come from emulating Microsoft’s Windows tactics, more likely imho will be some one creating show business products that can be copy righted, creating a moat to new entrants, & sold for big money.

If ai does begin to replace people profit margins will sky rocket as ai is very much cheaper & costs to e.g. run government organisations like the nhs will plummet, releasing a lot of money towards universal incomes.

I have no clarity on what will happen but it looks like although ai may be delayed by governments, it is as an evolutionary force & looks unstoppable.

If I am wrong, why?

Regards,

[Itsallaguess]

If I am wrong, why?

Is it because you have a tendency to wishfully extrapolate technology and massive social changes into much too short a time-scale?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[JohnB]

I think the NHS will benefit a lot less than say HMRC or DWP, as the latter are purely knowledge workers. As others have said robots have advanced more slowly than computers, so its real-world complexity that will slow AIs. Rule based procedures like billing, taxes and (shudder) customer support should be much easier for them.