AI - A force for Good or Evil??

[Greg2607]

3 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

I work in an industry where it threatens to destroy the very fabric of it so I’m quite biased one way. I’m sure I’d be much more forthcoming about it if I wasn’t.

there is the potential for this to be true of it in General to be fair. there will be very few professions, over the span of time, that this doesn't entirely alter the way things are done.  To give an example, I'm in the process of looking at an AI solution for our organisation, where it will transform the way we identify and manage talent.  It will absolutely make it infinitly better than our current processes and levels of insight.... but at the same time it potentially eradicates a number of people's roles... or at the very least fundamentally alters the work that is being done within our current talent management structures. 

Edited 3 November 2023 by Greg2607

[kingkisnorbo]

8 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

there is the potential for this to be true of it in General to be fair. there will be very few professions, over the span of time, that this doesn't entirely alter the way things are done.  To give an example, I'm in the process of looking at an AI solution for our organisation, where it will transform the way we identify and manage talent.  It will absolutely make it infinitly better than our current processes and levels of insight.... but at the same time it potentially eradicates a number of people's roles... or at the very least fundamentally alters the work that is being done within our current talent management structures. 

My outlook on it right now is that if it removes a human from a job, it isn't a good thing. I'm sure if I ran a business I'd feel differently. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

I don't really understand this to be honest. 

 

"We" can't abandon anything. 

 

I'm not sat in my room at home building the AI that will change the world. It's not even really government owned. We can't vote on it. 

 

 

The wealthiest people in the world are already out there funding and building this shit. 

 

AI isn't the problem, ultimately the world is. 

Yeah, looking at it that way what a lot of people think is inconsequential. Luddism just triggers me too much.

 

That being said, the Chinese government (and by extension their people) likely have influence in this field too, so it isn't just rich private individuals at work on this.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

My outlook on it right now is that if it removes a human from a job, it isn't a good thing. I'm sure if I ran a business I'd feel differently. 

Would agree with this but add the caveat: "and no or inadequate provision is made for that human to find other work at equal pay and/or survive".

 

Buckminster Fuller had it right - automation does have the potential to make life much less drudgery and much more leisurely for lots of human beings. But it really really does come down to how it's applied and the human element of greed and abuse of power.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, looking at it that way what a lot of people think is inconsequential. Luddism just triggers me too much.

 

That being said, the Chinese government (and by extension their people) likely have influence in this field too, so it isn't just rich private individuals at work on this.

 

The Chinese government are just the billionaire ruling class cosplaying something else. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

The Chinese government are just the billionaire ruling class cosplaying something else. 

For some reason the word "cosplay" just set off some really weird ideas about what those guys get up to.

[Finnegan]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

For some reason the word "cosplay" just set off some really weird ideas about what those guys get up to.

 

 

[Scanchez]

Some of you are acting like you've not even seen Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

[Amin]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

It’s always curious to me in this that Elon Musk is the voice of caution. I expect it to be the other way around.

I think he's always been consistent on this, it's just his rhetoric has changed so that it's now another reason to hate the left.

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

It’s always curious to me in this that Elon Musk is the voice of caution. I expect it to be the other way around.

 

Man is a complete and total moron. He shouldn't be considered the voice of anything. 

 

Baffles me there are still news organisations putting any stock in his opinion. 

 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Scanchez said:

Some of you are acting like you've not even seen Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

[Jattdogg]

I know people say AI will get rid of a lot of jobs (we think it will) but apparently it will also create new jobs. Like to see what the person who has worked in construction for 25 years will be retrained to do? Will he/she have to learn how to use a computer and code?  

 

I don't think anyone can truly say there will be a net gain or loss of jobs right now but i can't  see how this benefits the working person if automation takes over. If less of us have jobs how are we paying for food/shelter or buying things? You can't get rich or sustain wealth if people don't work and don't spend. There is only so many of us that will work security for you before we turn on ya. Soo perhaps the rich will ensure we still have jobs...maybe...don't know. Anyone? Lol

 

There is so much promise and uncertainty with this tech. Right now, it's downright scary but i hope things morph without getting worse. Time will tell no doubt.

 

What i will say is that if this makes the rich richer, (the middleclass and poor, poorer) then the rich will have something coming to them when 90+% of the world mdk's them. People will always have the final say and power in the end.

 

I sometimes think even without AI that we are almost at that tipping point with these wealthy barstards.

 

That's my simpleton comment for the day.

 

 

 

Edited 3 November 2023 by Jattdogg

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Man is a complete and total moron. He shouldn't be considered the voice of anything. 

 

Baffles me there are still news organisations putting any stock in his opinion. 

 

Sadly he's a rich and influential techbro, and we know how that plays out.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The first harvesting machine (and other associated agricultural devices). A landmark that allowed the development of modern civilisation as we know it and made the lives of everyone immeasurably easier.

 

And Internet porn.

This is about as 'un-Mac' as it gets. 

[Finnegan]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sadly he's a rich and influential techbro, and we know how that plays out.

 

I dont think he deserves techbro status tbh. 

 

However evil or benign they are, most of the billionaire tech bros are competent professionals who created something exceptional. 

 

Elon Musk is just Donald Trump only instead of Housing, he's bought tech firms. He doesn't invent anything he just buys shit and tries desperately to pass himself off as smart. Every narcissistic outburst exposing himself bit by bit. 

 

Man's one of the biggest freuds of this Millennium to date. 

 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, kingkisnorbo said:

My outlook on it right now is that if it removes a human from a job, it isn't a good thing. I'm sure if I ran a business I'd feel differently. 

Humans do a lot of pointless jobs. Theory is that we shouldn't be doing jobs that tech can easily do, instead we should on the same money and be at leisure. Few decades ago people were washing clothes by hand, adding up numbers on calculators, typewriting, working on switchboards etc etc. These days middle man jobs such as, brokers, dealers, agents are totally useless, just paying people commission for no reason.

Of course in reality the level and intellect of the average job will not go up, it will just be lost and the incremental saving will go to the top, not the people

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I dont think he deserves techbro status tbh. 

 

However evil or benign they are, most of the billionaire tech bros are competent professionals who created something exceptional. 

 

Elon Musk is just Donald Trump only instead of Housing, he's bought tech firms. He doesn't invent anything he just buys shit and tries desperately to pass himself off as smart. Every narcissistic outburst exposing himself bit by bit. 

 

Man's one of the biggest freuds of this Millennium to date. 

 

Which is a damn shame because I got caught up in the hero worship at first, especially given the success of SpaceX.

[grobyfox1990]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I dont think he deserves techbro status tbh. 

 

However evil or benign they are, most of the billionaire tech bros are competent professionals who created something exceptional. 

 

Elon Musk is just Donald Trump only instead of Housing, he's bought tech firms. He doesn't invent anything he just buys shit and tries desperately to pass himself off as smart. Every narcissistic outburst exposing himself bit by bit. 

 

Man's one of the biggest freuds of this Millennium to date. 

 

Christ, that is some anger. Pretty girls will talk to you as well if you try

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Which is a damn shame because I got caught up in the hero worship at first, especially given the success of SpaceX.

 

The good news is, as with all of the businesses he owns, I'm sure there's some absolutely brilliant people there doing some great things. It just so happens the figure head is a moron. 

 

 

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Christ, that is some anger. Pretty girls will talk to you as well if you try

 

What? 

 

 

You okay there buddy? 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

To paraphrase Oppenheimer, "I am become Liz, destroyer of jobs."

[Chelmofox]

I'm confused to what people are referring to as AI these days. For me, there has always been a difference between 'machine learning' and 'artificial intelligence'. 

 

Generative AI is interesting because a lot of people seem to assume its AI. Its certainly part of the overall discipline but in reality Gen AI is a subset of machine learning. Everything it can do is based on whats its been trained on. The hugely impressive part is the ability to write or express very well. But its not free thinking nor can it create outside the boundaries of what its been trained on. The information on the internet is its limiting factor (for Gen AI use cases, its not a bad limiting factor!).

 

Gen AI is a threat to jobs where the tool can take simple information and a good prompt and output lots of useful information that would take people a lots of time (we work in online ads - it's great a generate lots of campaign content etc). But it can't create things that haven't created yet (well it can, but its answers will always be based on what it knows). Innovation is very difficult for Gen AI. So for now, it won't replace all jobs. Its interesting that there are clear signals for things created by ChatGPT. Lots of the content ends up reading the same after a while.

 

What i consider genuine AI (free thinking machines that can innovate, and make genuine decisions based on parameters it may not understand before the decision needs to be made) is most definitely a threat to mankind. What would true AI decide was the right course of action of the Israel/Palestine conflict? I'm sure Musk will tell you he is 6 months away from delivering this sort of machine. But that is very different to getting Chat GPT to write you a poem about Vardy.

 

If i've not lost you yet, one last interesting point about Gen AI like ChatGPT. There is the concept of 'inbreading'. If its trained on content that was created from GenAI, newer models actually become dumber. For GenAI to continue to flourish, it needs human creativity and innovation to train from.

[WigstonWanderer]

Aside from all the apocalypse stuff, I think there is a very real danger that administrators will very soon come to rely on AI and we risk a “computer says no” type dystopia in decision making.

 

For a few years under the last government here in Australia we had a system in social security that was nicknamed RoboDebt. The system was programmed to work out what it thought people who had claimed social security of one sort or another, owed due to them having been paid “too much” due to their earnings during the claim period.

 

As far as I know it wasn’t billed as AI, just a plain old algorithm that was hopeless flawed (and as it turned out actually illegal), foisted on the vulnerable by a government devoted to caring for the rich and crushing the poor. Many people pointed out problems with the system, but it wrought untold suffering on vulnerable people presented with huge debts that they could never repay. Several committed suicide.

 

What will happen when AI gets involved? We’ll likely have these sort of systems by default. The decision making process of an AI will probably be extremely opaque. It isn’t like an old fashioned piece of code that has a logic flaw that can be corrected by a programmer through inspection and testing. No doubt it can be retrained, but mostly the administrators designing the rules of the system won’t understand how it arrived at any particular decision and will be more likely to trust the AI than any reasoning. It will be beyond the capability of most victims to get decisions overturned. Will we be able to argue or reason with an AI in the same way as with an administrator on the phone?

 

And I’m not just talking about social security, what about tax? Mortgage and loan applications? Practically anything that requires quite complex evaluation of circumstances.

 

You have been warned!

Edited 3 November 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[Stadt]

The demand for it being evil is outstripping the supply at the minute 

[grobyfox1990]

11 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Aside from all the apocalypse stuff, I think there is a very real danger that administrators will very soon come to rely on AI and we risk a “computer says no” type dystopia in decision making.

 

For a few years under the last government here in Australia we had a system in social security that was nicknamed RoboDebt. The system was programmed to work out what it thought people who had claimed social security of one sort or another, owed due to them having been paid “too much” due to their earnings during the claim period.

 

As far as I know it wasn’t billed as AI, just a plain old algorithm that was hopeless flawed (and as it turned out actually illegal), foisted on the vulnerable by a government devoted to caring for the rich and crushing the poor. Many people pointed out problems with the system, but it wrought untold suffering on vulnerable people presented with huge debts that they could never repay. Several committed suicide.

 

What will happen when AI gets involved? We’ll likely have these sort of systems by default. The decision making process of an AI will probably be extremely opaque. It isn’t like an old fashioned piece of code that has a logic flaw that can be corrected by a programmer through inspection and testing. No doubt it can be retrained, but mostly the administrators designing the rules of the system won’t understand how it arrived at any particular decision and will be more likely to trust the AI than any reasoning. It will be beyond the capability of most victims to get decisions overturned. Will we be able to argue or reason with an AI in the same way as with an administrator on the phone?

 

And I’m not just talking about social security, what about tax? Mortgage and loan applications? Practically anything that requires quite complex evaluation of circumstances.

 

You have been warned!

Computer says no already happens. But with humans in charge!! The public sector,  been in the job for 20 years, middle aged types who cannot see past their tick boxes and charge sheets, hate their jobs and just want to go home. Hopefully AI systems will be able to apply some logic, uniqueness and escape all the driving negativity that affects so many people and their decision-making.

[orangecity23]

27 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

 

What will happen when AI gets involved? We’ll likely have these sort of systems by default. The decision making process of an AI will probably be extremely opaque. It isn’t like an old fashioned piece of code that has a logic flaw that can be corrected by a programmer through inspection and testing. No doubt it can be retrained, but mostly the administrators designing the rules of the system won’t understand how it arrived at any particular decision and will be more likely to trust the AI than any reasoning. It will be beyond the capability of most victims to get decisions overturned. Will we be able to argue or reason with an AI in the same way as with an administrator on the phone?

 

I've often wondered if the final evolution of VAR for refereeing would be AI based, as it would offer a means of "standardising" the officiating. All the bolded bits about shortcomings sound a) completely plausible b) very much like the existing standard of VAR

 

Seriously though, imagine trying to put together a training set to teach it what a handball was. "Oh, it's not working properly, what clips did you train with?" "I've got Wes Morgan vs Liverpool, Rob Holding does YMCA LCFC vs Arsenal, and Craig Dawson punchs the ball into the net, LCFC vs West Ham". "It's allowing you to play basketball, and awarding a penalty every time someone heads a cross clear".

Plus the way AI learns makes it very good at finding underlying patterns in big data sets - imagine it "learning" from existing ref clips that the correct action to make is to award everything in favour of Man Utd. Media would probably be very happy with the outcome, Gary Neville would think the AI had everything spot on.