ChatGPT lies then gaslights reporter with fake transcript

[trappedslider]

This is actually surprising and I question the value of continuing.

A gun does what its meant to do.

An 'AI' makes up false information, and passes it off as correct.

These things are not the same, and I dont believe you are actually unaware of that.

If you hit a Sig P320 it will discharge, is it meant to discharge when you hit it? In that case you do indeed blame the maker.

 

[Dire Bare]

An interesting paper I saw this morning, regarding the use of ChatGPT in the classroom for students learning English as a second language and writing essays in English. They found that students who could use ChatGPT either supervised in class or whenever they wanted did better than those who were not allowed to use the technology.

But are they learning how to write, or how to copy from ChatGPT? Are they learning how to research effectively?

As a teacher . . . while generative AI may have it uses in the classroom, overall it is a bane to education and is contributing to the slide of American's knowledge and skill development. On some days, I see only dystopia in our future . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

Do you blame a gun or the person who uses the gun?

EDIT: With that example like AI, three things can be true all at once or individually : Someone using the tool incorrectly, someone using it in a manner it's not meant to be used or the company behind it screwed up big.

Yes.

Both to guns and the use of AI.

How folks use the tools is problematic. So are the tools themselves, their easy availability, and the lack of controls on their use.

 

[Deset Gled]

What an odd tangent.

Blame is not a limited resource.

 

[dragoner]

But are they learning how to write, or how to copy from ChatGPT? Are they learning how to research effectively?

As a teacher . . . while generative AI may have it uses in the classroom, overall it is a bane to education and is contributing to the slide of American's knowledge and skill development. On some days, I see only dystopia in our future . . .

We aren't #1 anymore

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I understand that my views about a society freeed from the buden of having to work being an utopia isn't shared by all.

I think there can be some debate if we can actually mentally fully cope with the idea of not needing to do anything at all to live.
But... for now, the real issue is that you don't get paid enough for not working, usually, and the productivity gains are helping only the non-workers that own the shares, which is usually not the non-workers that lost their employment due to productivity gains.

I think the best hope we might have is that AI - if and where it works - will raise producitivty and create jobs and industries that weren't even fully conceivable before simply because the tech wasn't there to make it a viable idea. Like we lost a lot of jobs in the agrarian industry but suddenly people with job titles like "software architect" or "mechanical engineer". (And ideally we do this without producing even more more CO2 or straight-up heat...) But this isn't guaranteed, and the way there will be a struggle, probably.

 

[The Firebird]

We aren't #1 anymore

Don't think this site is a particularly good metric. It all depends what and how you count (see below). Also it is counting conference submissions...that's why you are seeing large schools at the top.

Where are the influential AI labs?

---
One selection

A different selection

 

[Dire Bare]

We aren't #1 anymore

View attachment 419149

We haven't been for quite some time . . . generative AI is just accelerating our decline . . .

 

[dragoner]

Don't think this site is a particularly good metric. It all depends what and how you count (see below). Also it is counting conference submissions...that's why you are seeing large schools at the top.

Where are the influential AI labs?

---
One selection
View attachment 419162

A different selection

View attachment 419163

I snagged it from Bruce Sterling on masto, you can tell him.

We haven't been for quite some time . . . generative AI is just accelerating our decline . . .

10 - 15 years or so. AI isn't helping.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think there can be some debate if we can actually mentally fully cope with the idea of not needing to do anything at all to live.

People in the age brackets 0-25 and 60+ do that all the time and find endeavours in life that do not rely on selling their time for income. Not having to do things doesn't mean one can't do things. People can still sing and play instrument even if they don't need to sell tickets for a living.

But... for now, the real issue is that you don't get paid enough for not working, usually, and the productivity gains are helping only the non-workers that own the shares, which is usually not the non-workers that lost their employment due to productivity gains.

That's the political part that can't be discussed here, and there is certainly some transition that can be rough in the medium term. But I am confident it will sort itself out. Not any country on earth kept the inequality levels we knew around 1850-1870. Most developped countries followed the trend in work reduction that I posted earlier for France, it's not an odd outlier. And that despite the fact that shareholders could outlast workers easily. But of course, how the transition happens rely heavily on our collective choices. It's not unheard of: you were able to live off the product of mistophoria in Athens. Sure, Athens relied on slave labor, but if you replace slave labor by automated labor...

I think the best hope we might have is that AI - if and where it works - will raise producitivty and create jobs and industries that weren't even fully conceivable before simply because the tech wasn't there to make it a viable idea. Like we lost a lot of jobs in the agrarian industry but suddenly people with job titles like "software architect" or "mechanical engineer". (And ideally we do this without producing even more more CO2 or straight-up heat...) But this isn't guaranteed, and the way there will be a struggle, probably.

Yup. That's what happened each time technological progress freed some time: new activities were developped. There is probably a limit to what commercial activities remain to be invented, but we don't necessarily need those. Activities already exist outside of the commercial sphere.