ChatGPT incoming

I used chatgpt to help with researching information on a famous Welshman. It told me he was from a village in Ireland.

I corrected this and it apologised!

That said, it was fascinating how I could ask for more details and it would come back with the extra information.

Essential to factcheck both Bard and Chatgpt thoroughly though. MUCH flakier than Wikipedia.

Neil

This story has also been reported in today’s mainstream News … but [in my opinion] this is a more useful link:

**LINK**

https://talking-pictures.net.au/2023/04/01/boris-eldagsen-the-woman-who-never-was/

Quite astonishing.

MichaelG.

Garden advice from ChartGPT:

https://talking-pictures.net.au/2023/04/01/boris-eldagsen-the-woman-who-never-was/

Sony's (and others' ) reluctance to engage the 'photographer' in discussion is a bit strange. However it would seem they never bothered reading the accompanying notes to his photograph set, otherwise they would have realised the images were AI generated.

So they stuck their head in the sand.

I think AI generated photography is just another method of creating imagery, similar to cave scratchings, paintings, photography etc. Main difference is that it will soon require little skill or training to create that 'real' imagery. I'm battening down the hatches.

Ches

Edited By Ches Green UK on 18/04/2023 12:02:14

Photographic evidence... a thing of the past?

Music too: Although the internet may find it fascinating, the use of AI to create popular music is not pleasing for artists and rights-holding companies. Furthermore, the potential risk to their business seems to be increasing as AI-generated renditions of songs by Rihanna and Eminem have been released without authorization in the past few weeks.

Commercial concerns apart - and they are serious concerns - no-one seems to challenge the AI's enthusiasts hard, on on their desire to replace human creativity with artificial contrivance.

There is an even more serious aspect to copying real people than defrauding pop-singers and their publishers, in twisting political figures to enhance or more likely, to destroy, their reputations and undermine due democratic governance and civility (small 'd', for US readers...).

Just to labour a point.

I assume that photography must have caused some concern when it arrived - any idiot could now independently produce clear, detailed images without the need for skilled ....etc, etc, etc.

New tech. alway bring chaos. The (modern) world we live in is only about 250 - 300 years old (depending on how you measure it) It's mostly the result of constant "revolutionary" technological innovation.

This too will pass.

Things will break and there are so many thing that need to be broken.

It's just my opinion.

Regards

Frank C.

I suspect people will not think AI is so good after crooks use it seriously and hackers get well into it.

Edited By V8Eng on 18/04/2023 19:36:57

.

No need to assume, Frank … it is very well documented

Here is a verbatim quote from the article that I referenced:

”One hundred and seventy years ago, Baudelaire pronounced the nascent medium of photography to be the “mortal enemy of painting, (&hellip refuge of all failed painters, the untalented and the lazy”. Today, AI artists are berated in much the same way by photographers. Back then, photographers took the likeness, the realistic representation, away from painters. It proved a liberating blow, the prerequisite for the development of modern painting.”

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ verbatim except for the stupid #####ng smiley thing introduced by this [soon to be forgotten?] forum software

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 18/04/2023 20:31:27

An interesting TED talk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_78DM8fG6E

Sort of the end of computings steam age [If you will pardon the mixed metaphor]

Regards.

FrankC.

Messed up the link. Missed the edit window.

Oh well.

To update this part of the discussion, I've just put the Flaubert question to Bing's AI chat bot. I expected largely evasive waffle and a re-telling of the plot, but instead got a very impressive 300-word answer.

I think this spells the end of homework and coursework assessments in virtually every subject. From this point on, surely only exams [from which all digital devices are banned] will result in fair grades.

I'm going to wait until these things are openly available and not being used as a personal data gathering vehicle

I've a sinking feeling that open availability and personal data gathering go hand in hand.

These systems are impressive and are growing better exponentially. They will change the world, for better and for worse. Prepare to be spammed with auto-generated fake news and believable personalized calls from your "friends" who are in trouble and need you to send money fast. (And, as always, war and porn will be amongst the first and biggest applications.)

I haven't tried one myself yet, partially because of the privacy issue. But also because I don't want to use it for shopping and other stuff Microsoft, et. al., will want you to use it for (it's all about money in the end, isn't it?).

Instead, I'd like to use it to explore the zeitgeist of human knowledge and culture. But one "problem" with the current crop of publicly-accessible generative AI's is that they are deliberately hamstrung. For example, they will refuse to converse on a given topic for more than say a dozen prompts to stop them from meandering. And, of course, they are heavily constrained because of the fear that they will go off into unfortunate directions that may hurt people's sensibilities.

Now we see the likes of Google actually promoting government restrictions on AI. I wonder if that's really just "rent seeking" - the desire to remain the nearly-sole controller and provider of access? Probably, but it's probably also doomed to failure.

There are efforts to develop public domain LLM's (and photo generation, etc.) that will run locally on a reasonably powerful personal computer. For example, Meta's model was made open source, and their "weights" (the trained data) leaked. These are interesting to me, and one day I'll see if I can install one.

The scariest question of all is when they will achieve superior intelligence to us (whatever "intelligence" means), and what they will grow capable of. Don't go thinking that humans will remain on top. At the rate they are improving, it could be just a year or two. And sooner rather than later, they will be handed abilities to interact with the world autonomously. It's inevitable.

Pandora's box has been opened.

Edited By S K on 25/05/2023 16:05:10

We already have mass cheating in popular videogames, forum chat spambots and computer viruses have been about for years

Now we'll have AI developing and running DDoS exercises and military AI hacker computers having a go at each others networks

In 20 years the global internet may be toast and split along global political boundaries

(but As long as the ME site is still up and my Alibre key still works I'll be fine)

Edited By Ady1 on 25/05/2023 16:58:38

I've found ChatGPT very useful for researching topics. It saves consulting multiple sources when looking at a subject where there is no obvious authority. But you do need to do some poking around of your own to fact check.

Neil

Having done some horology searches using it I have no faith whatever in its answers. The whole point about doing research on something you don't know about is that you need reliable information. If you don't know in the first place you can't judge. If you then have to go off and find other sources you might as well not bother.

What worries me is that people will just use it to search information and rely on the answers - for example there is documented evidence of someone having a criminal conviction ascribed to them which wasn't in fact the case.

Automatic fact-checking is a top priority for all LLM's, and is in place in most already. Or you can say "fact check that for me, please" and it should provide links, etc.