OpenAI \ ChatGPT

[odysseus2000]

NVIDIA reaches $Trillion today on the back of AI.

Is this just the beginning.....Have I missed the boat or should I pile in ?

The easy money has been made, but if demand continues and the CEO has stated that demand is unprecedented then it could go a lot higher.

As of now it is not a commodity product as no one has a competing product, but competitors will be running flat out to catch up and pass and there are AI such as the one produced by Stanford a few months back that use existing AI to train off and are very inexpensive.

What is now looking like a great opportunity can suddenly change, so as ever its caveat emptor!

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Fascinating polarisation between the experts and long standing practitioners in the field who are warning and many who don't have the expertise who are saying this is all over blown.

As far as I can tell this is the most powerful technology ever developed, with its roots in evolution, the most powerful force known.

I find it impossible to believe that there is not enough potential in this technology to lead to extinction of the current dominant life form and its replacement with a newer and more powerful one, like has happened many times before if you believe in evolution.

Regards,

I am more sanguine. Not sure it can evolve except with a human to tell it where it's gone wrong. It could be damaging but only if it's given power e.g setting bank rates without oversight. At the moment it can't produce code that works and I don't think I would rely on it's stock picks. As long as it's supervised it's OK, better if it's supervised by layers of decision makers and tested where possible, then we ought to be safe. It should never have the power to do anything where outcomes are beyond it's supervisor's power. I'm thinking of it being used as a doctor's assistant or armed forces fire control. It needs qualified supervision, with the supervisor the only one empowered to actually do anything. Suppose that rules out driverless cars though ...

i

Interesting! So you think that the billions of $ being spent on AI are such that a system 1000's smarter than a human with the resources of ages, is going to be controlled by humans. Most of the systems being created envisage removing humans to save cost & increase reliability & performance.

Regards,

[servodude]

I am more sanguine. Not sure it can evolve except with a human to tell it where it's gone wrong. It could be damaging but only if it's given power e.g setting bank rates without oversight. At the moment it can't produce code that works and I don't think I would rely on it's stock picks. As long as it's supervised it's OK, better if it's supervised by layers of decision makers and tested where possible, then we ought to be safe. It should never have the power to do anything where outcomes are beyond it's supervisor's power. I'm thinking of it being used as a doctor's assistant or armed forces fire control. It needs qualified supervision, with the supervisor the only one empowered to actually do anything. Suppose that rules out driverless cars though ...

i

Interesting! So you think that the billions of $ being spent on AI are such that a system 1000's smarter than a human with the resources of ages, is going to be controlled by humans. Most of the systems being created envisage removing humans to save cost & increase reliability & performance.

Regards,

That's terrifying! We're doomed!
If only there was a way to power turn them off
- oh yeah sorry you had me going there for a bit

[Sorcery]

I am more sanguine. Not sure it can evolve except with a human to tell it where it's gone wrong. It could be damaging but only if it's given power e.g setting bank rates without oversight. At the moment it can't produce code that works and I don't think I would rely on it's stock picks. As long as it's supervised it's OK, better if it's supervised by layers of decision makers and tested where possible, then we ought to be safe. It should never have the power to do anything where outcomes are beyond it's supervisor's power. I'm thinking of it being used as a doctor's assistant or armed forces fire control. It needs qualified supervision, with the supervisor the only one empowered to actually do anything. Suppose that rules out driverless cars though ...

i

Interesting! So you think that the billions of $ being spent on AI are such that a system 1000's smarter than a human with the resources of ages, is going to be controlled by humans. Most of the systems being created envisage removing humans to save cost & increase reliability & performance.

Regards,

Not sure it's smarter than a human. Possibly it can access 1000s times more human knowledge than the average human. It can't self check or test it's own code, it can't reason, it AIUI selects knowledge from its very large library of human knowledge, based on the human prompts given. Hence it could not say anything much about the naked code I gave it, yet it could work out a way (that didn't work) to address the task "find next black in a bitmap". That's my understanding anyway. This is not to say ChatGPT version 88 (say) will not be able to do a lot better. It's currently very human like in it's interactions (together with human-like flaws) which is a plus.

[odysseus2000]

Sorcery
Not sure it's smarter than a human. Possibly it can access 1000s times more human knowledge than the average human. It can't self check or test it's own code, it can't reason, it AIUI selects knowledge from its very large library of human knowledge, based on the human prompts given. Hence it could not say anything much about the naked code I gave it, yet it could work out a way (that didn't work) to address the task "find next black in a bitmap". That's my understanding anyway. This is not to say ChatGPT version 88 (say) will not be able to do a lot better. It's currently very human like in it's interactions (together with human-like flaws) which is a plus.

If AI is not smarter than humans, how can the Google AI systems easily defeat multiple grand masters at chess after a few hours training having just become world champion at GO?

Regards,

[XFool]

If AI is not smarter than humans, how can the Google AI systems easily defeat multiple grand masters at chess after a few hours training having just become world champion at GO?

Well, if you define "smart" as simply being good at playing chess, then it is "smarter" than humans.

But then, if you define "smart" as simply being good at mental arithmetic, computers have been "smarter than humans" since around the 1940s/1950s.

[mc2fool]

If AI is not smarter than humans, how can the Google AI systems easily defeat multiple grand masters at chess after a few hours training having just become world champion at GO?

Well, if you define "smart" as simply being good at playing chess, then it is "smarter" than humans.

But then, if you define "smart" as simply being good at mental arithmetic, computers have been "smarter than humans" since around the 1940s/1950s.

"Mental" arithmetic?!? Methinks that's an anthropomorphisation...

But Cash Registers have been able to do arithmetic faster and more accurately than humans since 1879. Does that make cash registers smarter than humans....?

[Mike4]

Well, if you define "smart" as simply being good at playing chess, then it is "smarter" than humans.

But then, if you define "smart" as simply being good at mental arithmetic, computers have been "smarter than humans" since around the 1940s/1950s.

"Mental" arithmetic?!? Methinks that's an anthropomorphisation...

But Cash Registers have been able to do arithmetic faster and more accurately than humans since 1879. Does that make cash registers smarter than humans....?

In a similar vein, I used to have a Philips cassette tape recorder that could record and replay a human voice. Does that mean it was intelligent and could talk?

I sometimes feel as though Chat GPT is doing something similar, in a more sophisticated manner.

[Sorcery]

Sorcery
Not sure it's smarter than a human. Possibly it can access 1000s times more human knowledge than the average human. It can't self check or test it's own code, it can't reason, it AIUI selects knowledge from its very large library of human knowledge, based on the human prompts given. Hence it could not say anything much about the naked code I gave it, yet it could work out a way (that didn't work) to address the task "find next black in a bitmap". That's my understanding anyway. This is not to say ChatGPT version 88 (say) will not be able to do a lot better. It's currently very human like in it's interactions (together with human-like flaws) which is a plus.

If AI is not smarter than humans, how can the Google AI systems easily defeat multiple grand masters at chess after a few hours training having just become world champion at GO?

Regards,

Very good human programming perhaps? Not more intelligent so not smarter by my definition of the word, imho.

[XFool]

Well, if you define "smart" as simply being good at playing chess, then it is "smarter" than humans.

But then, if you define "smart" as simply being good at mental arithmetic, computers have been "smarter than humans" since around the 1940s/1950s.

"Mental" arithmetic?!? Methinks that's an anthropomorphisation...

I see your point.

But Cash Registers have been able to do arithmetic faster and more accurately than humans since 1879.

Umm... I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that. More conveniently, yes, but "faster"? And the function of cash registers goes beyond arithmetic.

Does that make cash registers smarter than humans....?

All humans or some humans?

[mc2fool]

But Cash Registers have been able to do arithmetic faster and more accurately than humans since 1879.

Umm... I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that. More conveniently, yes, but "faster"? And the function of cash registers goes beyond arithmetic.

Sure, the teller rings up all your produce and then presses the "total" button and it pretty much instantly shows the total.

[odysseus2000]

Some interesting recent ideas.

We have known how to make machines that can do complex calculations for around 2000 years if the antikythera mechanism isn't a fake.

But neither it or a cash register can do anything beyond what they were designed to do. Neither can play chess.

AI by contrast can do things for which it has never been designed for, such as learning how to play chess and becoming world champion after a few hours of self teaching.

Forgive me if I am falling for hype, but what AlphaGo has done seems both qualitatively and quantitively far beyond anything that existed previously.

Regards,

[Mike4]

AI by contrast can do things for which it has never been designed for, such as learning how to play chess and becoming world champion after a few hours of self teaching.

This is curious. I take a passing interest in chess and I haven't noticed the world of chess discussing this at all, other than to comment how Chat GPT seems to play well then randomly makes an illegal or chaotic move or takes a piece that isn't there. Do you have a link please? Thanks.

There is even a website for the subject https://chessvsgpt.com/

[jfgw]

This is curious. I take a passing interest in chess and I haven't noticed the world of chess discussing this at all, other than to comment how Chat GPT seems to play well then randomly makes an illegal or chaotic move or takes a piece that isn't there. Do you have a link please? Thanks.

There is even a website for the subject https://chessvsgpt.com/

It played ok until I took its queen with my queen. It then took my queen by moving a pawn from the other side of the board. I moved my rook for a check (not mate) and its king disappeared and I won.

If you want chess, I recommend Lichess, https://lichess.org/.


Julian F. G. W.

[XFool]

Umm... I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that. More conveniently, yes, but "faster"? And the function of cash registers goes beyond arithmetic.

Sure, the teller rings up all your produce and then presses the "total" button and it pretty much instantly shows the total.

Err... No it doesn't (necessarily)!

If you are describing a modern, electric/electronic, printing, totalising till (you are) - then yes it does.

If you are describing one of those old fashioned, brass, mechanical cash registers (or "tills") - such as shown pictured in your Wiki link - then (IICR) it doesn't!
What it does is: after the shopkeeper/cashier has totalled up your orders in their head, they 'ring up' the total, say 4/3½d, on the register. This unlocks the till drawer and it opens. They then put your cash in the till drawer, work out in their head, the amount of any change you need. They take this calculated amount of cash from the till drawer and give it to you; then close the till draw, which locks it again. The only "total", or record, is the total amount of money in the till drawer at the end of the day.


PS. "till" strictly refers to the cash register drawer. However...

[mc2fool]

Sure, the teller rings up all your produce and then presses the "total" button and it pretty much instantly shows the total.

Err... No it doesn't (necessarily)!

If you are describing a modern, electric/electronic, totalising, printing till (you are) - then yes it does.

If you are describing one of those old fashioned, brass, mechanical cash registers (or "tills") - such as shown pictured in your Wiki link - then (IICR) it doesn't!
What it does is: after the shopkeeper/cashier has totalled up your orders in their head, they 'ring up' the total, say 4/3½d, on the register. This unlocks the till drawer and it opens. They then put your cash in the till drawer, work out in their head, the amount of any change you need. They take this calculated amount of cash from the till drawer and give it to you; then close the till draw, which locks it again. The only "total", or record, is the total amount of money in the till drawer at the end of the day.

PS. "till" strictly refers to the cash register drawer. However...

"Early mechanical registers were entirely mechanical, without receipts. The employee was required to ring up every transaction on the register, and when the total key was pushed, the drawer opened and a bell would ring, alerting the manager to a sale taking place. Those original machines were nothing but simple adding machines. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_register

[Lootman]

"Early mechanical registers were entirely mechanical, without receipts. The employee was required to ring up every transaction on the register, and when the total key was pushed, the drawer opened and a bell would ring, alerting the manager to a sale taking place. Those original machines were nothing but simple adding machines. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_register

I am just about old enough to remember having to add amounts of "old money". It was a Saturday job in a shop as a teenager. Even though I was studying "double maths" at A level, it was still a struggle. So the register struck me as an amazing piece of high-tech wizardry. This was back when people used slide rules of course, and the electronic calculator was not yet a thing.

It all got a lot easier with decimalisation in 1971, so I assume that the cash registers then got simpler as well.

[XFool]

"Early mechanical registers were entirely mechanical, without receipts. The employee was required to ring up every transaction on the register, and when the total key was pushed, the drawer opened and a bell would ring, alerting the manager to a sale taking place. Those original machines were nothing but simple adding machines. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_register

Ah yes. It comes back now, that "kerching!" and the till drawer "slam!".
Possibly(?) those brass tills shown in the Wiki article are more technically advanced than the ones I recall? I'm not sure. I seem to remember a 'sit up & beg' style* with also tills such as those shown, which appear to have a comptometer type keyboard.

I am just about old enough to remember having to add amounts of "old money".

I can still easily do it!

* Like this? https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/691884054/very-rare-professionally-restored

[odysseus2000]

AI by contrast can do things for which it has never been designed for, such as learning how to play chess and becoming world champion after a few hours of self teaching.

This is curious. I take a passing interest in chess and I haven't noticed the world of chess discussing this at all, other than to comment how Chat GPT seems to play well then randomly makes an illegal or chaotic move or takes a piece that isn't there. Do you have a link please? Thanks.

There is even a website for the subject https://chessvsgpt.com/

There is a lot of confusion over AI which now exist in multiple forms with the popular things like Chat GPT being just a general jack of many trades but master of none.

The more powerful AI include the the Alpha** range of technologies where ** indicates what ever the AI is tailored to, one relatively recent example was Alphafold that determined the structure of most proteins.

A generalised account of the developments that set off the current AI industry is in this New Yorker article from several years ago:

https://www.newyorker.com/science/eleme ... -its-games

There are many other articles.

The human world of chess has diverged from trying to beat AI, basically humans gave up against AI, and is now a human/human game that has been made extremely popular by the Swedish player Anna Cramling who has many videos on youtube playing a range of folk including Magnus Carlson, only recently knocked from the top spot in chess.

Regards,

[tjh290633]

"Early mechanical registers were entirely mechanical, without receipts. The employee was required to ring up every transaction on the register, and when the total key was pushed, the drawer opened and a bell would ring, alerting the manager to a sale taking place. Those original machines were nothing but simple adding machines. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_register

I am just about old enough to remember having to add amounts of "old money". It was a Saturday job in a shop as a teenager. Even though I was studying "double maths" at A level, it was still a struggle. So the register struck me as an amazing piece of high-tech wizardry. This was back when people used slide rules of course, and the electronic calculator was not yet a thing.

It all got a lot easier with decimalisation in 1971, so I assume that the cash registers then got simpler as well.

I worked as a bus conductor during my long vacations in the mid 50s. You had to remember the fares for adult returns and singles, child fares, dog fares, pushchair fares, plus parcel fares. My favourite combination was two adult returns at 5.5d, two child singles at 2d, a dog at 1d and a pushchair at 2d. Total 1/6d.

TJH