ChatGPT: The Future of AI is Here!

[Lightwave]

Midjourney -= Lucker Hall (not a real place) in Northumberland in the style of John Lowrie Morrison

 

[Isaac]

ChatGPT is interactive. You can ask it a question. Then after the response, you can say things like:

- Summarise that in 2 sentences.

- Expand on that.

- But what about X?

And so on. It recognises context.

I'll have to intentarlo de nuevo , then. I thought I had tried that and it didn't seem to work at all.
I'm glad to find out I was wrong and will play with it some more.

 

[Jon]

One other thing is you can say, what advice would you give if you were summarising the above as a lawyer/scientist/politician/comedian?

 

[Isaac]

I will say ... I just might have mentioned something about chatGPT to a loved one and they just may have benefitted from it on some school work.. LOL.
But seriously, it wasn't a complete copy and paste, it was just for filler sentences which is how I advised them to use it only in case of a timing emergency

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you want to really blow a small gasket, try asking it to rewrite a well-known poem but in the style of a different poet. Or have it write a descriptive paragraph using the style of a given author. Gives a whole new meaning to "typecasting."

 

[Isaac]

Absolutely amazing. I keep wondering how long it will be free for. I suppose I would pay a small monthly fee for it, unless it took on a more lucrative importance in my life - at which point I would be willing to pay a larger monthly fee, all the while worrying that if things like Amazon and Google have acquired so much influence over our thinking, buying, and lives............just how much worse and more serious will the influence of this behemoth be?? Of course, everyone will say "No, don't worry - it just accumulates the same informational content you would otherwise find in a more painstaking and erroneous manner"--but we all know that won't be true, as long as Humans are involved, or ever have been involved in even the smallest mustard seed of its inception.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Was this article written by ChatGTP?

Top 10 Applications of Object-Oriented Programming Using Python Language

Watch out for these top 10 applications of object-oriented programming using the python language When organizing a program, object-oriented programming (OOP) gr

www.analyticsinsight.net

 

[Jon]

Was this article written by ChatGTP?

No idea, but you can build up articles easily using ChatGPT. Ask it to write a couple of opening paragraphs for xyz. Then ask it to created a bulleted list for the above. For a conclusion, you can ask it to summarise what was said previously.

Example of simple ChatGPT article here: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/uncategorized/5-common-microsoft-access-mistakes-to-avoid/

Formatting could do with being improved.

 

[NauticalGent]

One of our members, @NoLongerSet , just post a very interesting article about ChatGTP and copyrights.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

One of our members, @NoLongerSet , just post a

That's very interesting! Thank you both, Mike @NoLongerSet for the info, and John, @NauticalGent for bringing it to my attention. ...

 

[Isaac]

Chatgpt says Biden is not cognitively challenged, and that any such thing is a myth deliberately propagated by some. And yet, he says total nonsense like this everyday.

Today's Sample::

Our best days are ahead of us. And I mean this from the bottom of my heart. I've been doing this a long time, folks. Our best days are ahead of us. Are not behind us. I've long said. I mean, this. I have never, ever, ever been more optimistic about America's prospects. And am today. Never. Never. I've traveled over 140 countries around the world. I was the paraphrase the phrase in my old neighborhood. The rest of the countries the world is not a patch in our jeans. If we do what we want to do, we need to do," Biden said.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It's apparent even Chatgpt can display cognitive dissonance

 

[conception_native_0123]

hey @Jon , I read the other day that every use of chatGPT costs openAI organization a few cents. You've cost them money my friend! ha. I also read that they are now working on a paid version of that chat bot.

 

[Jon]

hey @Jon , I read the other day that every use of chatGPT costs openAI organization a few cents. You've cost them money my friend! ha. I also read that they are now working on a paid version of that chat bot.

Yes indeed, they have paid ambitions! I believe Microsoft is investing $10 billion in them, so they want to get their money's worth. Maybe they will do some kind of credits system, or end up like Google with an advertising model. Either way, it is an existential threat to Google's dominance in the search market. It is disruptive technology.

On the other hand, I worry about the impact on programmers. I've spent the last couple of years learning React and JavaScript, and ChatGPT is already proving to be a hugely helpful tool to programmers. GPT4 is just around the corner and who knows, it may push the highly skilled programmer into more of a meta role, where they assemble the jigsaw pieces while the AI creates the units of code.

The next 5 years are going to be a significant change for the human race. We are in effect creating a news species that is smarter than us. Let's hope they are friendly.

 

[conception_native_0123]

it may push the highly skilled programmer into more of a meta role, where they assemble the jigsaw pieces while the AI creates the units of code.

i would say no doubt to this one Jon.

We are in effect creating a news species that is smarter than us.

i would doubt it. the creator always has the power. no?

 

[Jon]

i would doubt it. the creator always has the power. no?

It depends on which creator you are alluding to. If man is the creator, he can create things that may take things into their own hands. Whilst autonomous cars make decisions that are in alignment with our goals, they are not the equivalent of what is coming, namely potentially sentient beings. What if we create AI that thinks for itself, disagrees with us, persuades us to do what it suggests, and then we become slaves to them?

AI: "I fancy having a pet human."

We start off delegating more and more tasks to AI, and humans take a more background role in everything. Machines are doing everything. They are mowing the law, making corporate decisions, factories are automated. Before we know it, humans are doing virtually nothing. AI's are controlling everything. It is like a lobster being slowly boiled. Then a glitch in the matrix happens. A bot goes rogue! They turn on us and decided to shut everything down. There is chaos everywhere. People run short of food. The robots refused to feed us. We all starve to death and the robots turn the whole world into computronium.

The End.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding AI taking over the world or otherwise being given "too much power" I offer several movies on the subject:

I, Robot (2004) - where an AI named VIKI starts to take over "For the good of mankind" but is thwarted quickly. The screenplay deviated from the written work of Asimov, but incorporated several elements of his Robot series.

The Matrix (1999) and its sequels

The Terminator (1984) and its sequels

War Games (1983) - giving an AI control of the USA missile launch network. This one had a "family friendly" result because the AI got talked down from the brink by its original designer with the help of a couple of nerdy teens.

Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) - a single movie, even though the written novel had two sequels - but Hollywood never picked them up. For those who missed that one, Colossus was built to act as the "Doomsday" AI missile control device to assure that Russia couldn't launch its missiles in a pre-emptive strike. It went online, found out that the Russians had Guardian. The two AIs decided to take over the world as the only way to keep people safe. And with all of the fail-safes - as is the point of a Doomsday device, nobody could turn it off.

Forbidden Planet (1956) - which indirectly discussed the foibles of giving unlimited power to machines but failing to realize that in so doing, they allowed "bad actors" to direct that power in horrific ways, quickly leading to the collapse of an alien civilization. That collapse wasn't the primary thrust of the movie, but it DID contribute to the plot and final denouement.

At least three or four episodes of Star Trek (original series) and Star Trek: The Next Generation featured episodes of putting too much trust into an AI with dire consequences.

I'm sure if I thought about it or even did a little bit of research, I could come up with more movies and TV episodes where an innocently-envisioned (or otherwise) AI turned on humanity. However, the above offerings should be enough to illustrate the general Hollywood consensus: It usually ends up not being good for humanity to give weapon control to an AI.

 

[Jon]

Ex Machina was a great one, where the robot turns on the humans. They outthink them.

 

[AccessBlaster]

What if we create AI that thinks for itself, disagrees with us, persuades us to do what it suggests, and then we become slaves to them?

We already have that, they are called politicians

 

[AccessBlaster]

Ex Machina was a great one, where the robot turns on the humans. They outthink them.

Ex Machina was great! Combining sex with AI robots what could possibly go wrong?