Chat GPT

[Dr. Gonzo]

35 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

We're not talking about fax moving to email, or information delay being removed. This will wholesale massacre a huge chunk of the online workforce. "It's down to society to adapt". How? There are only so many jobs in an economy, and with the population growth slowing and stopping we can no longer rely on that to bring more jobs. I think the 'real' workforce is shrinking (when we subtract population growth) in a lot of nations already, and it's going to get worse. 
Besides, you can't upskill a 40 year old truckie or wharfie. 

What do you mean how?  Automation's not really new, even if AI is, and society's had to adapt to that (even if it's adapted poorly, it's still adapted). AI isn't going to code and test itself. Machines aren't going to perform maintenance on themselves. When a self-driving freight made it's first delivery, I'm pretty sure it was not without problems that needed human attention. New technology means old jobs go away and new jobs are created. If society can't adapt to these changes, yeah there will be massive problems. So the people who are meant to be leading countries and their economies are responsible for making sure that they can adapt.

The conveyor belt took away material handling jobs in factories, but it made making things more convenient. Buttons replaced elevator operators. Weavers found their industry gone from an artisanal specialty job to something that would eventually done by actual children using textile machines. I'm also not talking about fax moving to email or information delay being removed. Lift operators were literally erased from the workforce by the introduction of buttons on a lift.

As things stand, the most I can see ChatGPT doing is taking work from people who's job it is to come up with stock response email messages to people (which I don't think is a job really, it's probably a task you'd get in a particular job) - I don't think technology making tasks easier, especially more tedious tasks, is anything new. And I can see it filling in for existing customer support chat bots... but that's already an example of technology being used to take someone's job, and that happened fucking ages ago now tbh... this would just be an improvement on that existing tech.

I could see it coming for tasks that accountants and certain legal services provide. Or even certain tasks in programming... and with my job & many other jobs in many other industries. But at the end of the day, I think that tech is pretty far removed from completely replacing actual humans that will need to check and analyse the final work product.

Will that day come where AI can fully replace large swathes of human workers? Probably. But it's not like AI development is suddenly going to stop because people might lose jobs. Because technology has never stopped progressing even when the changes brought about threatened jobs. Otherwise we'd never have CNC machines or many other things that are just considered normal now.

Capitalist societies rely on consumerism to keep making the richest of the rich richer. So they'd better start planning for life with AI, because all of the people that will be losing their jobs are also potential customers for various industries that will need those people to keep having jobs so they can spend money to keep making people profits.

Either society adapts, or the systems the western world built all come crashing down and society has to adapt to that. But trying to fight technology that exists from further development and being put to practical application is just futile - at best you end up delaying the inevitable. Delayed inevitability is still inevitable.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

You've said so much wrong my head is spinning. I want to scream at you through the fucking internet. I'll address it when I am able to re read the post without wanting to throw you into a volcano. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'm confident that I'm right, but I'm also one of those people who's not too worried about the decline in our population because tbh I think we've got too many fucking people on the planet. The only real way I see AI being an issue there is if the shitty people who run the world's countries decide the easiest solution for AI taking everyone's jobs is if they just start doing some sort of massive genocide.

And given how fucking stupid people are, and how greedy and corrupt the people with power are, I'm sure that's probably the most likely solution to a difficult problem because good solutions to difficult problems are hard, but mass murder is easy.

But I await your response.

[Beelzebub]

4 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

You've said so much wrong my head is spinning. I want to scream at you through the fucking internet. I'll address it when I am able to re read the post without wanting to throw you into a volcano. 

Give his post to ChatGPT and ask it what's wrong in the post. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What do you mean how?  Automation's not really new, even if AI is, and society's had to adapt to that (even if it's adapted poorly, it's still adapted). AI isn't going to code and test itself. Machines aren't going to perform maintenance on themselves. When a self-driving freight made it's first delivery, I'm pretty sure it was not without problems that needed human attention. New technology means old jobs go away and new jobs are created. If society can't adapt to these changes, yeah there will be massive problems. So the people who are meant to be leading countries and their economies are responsible for making sure that they can adapt.

 

So I did a paper for uni last semester on supermarket groups in Australia, and despite both large companies growing, they've gone backwards in employee count. This is because, yes, 'new' skilled jobs are created, but far more are lost in the process. That's kind of the whole fucking point.

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

The conveyor belt took away material handling jobs in factories, but it made making things more convenient. Buttons replaced elevator operators. Weavers found their industry gone from an artisanal specialty job to something that would eventually done by actual children using textile machines. I'm also not talking about fax moving to email or information delay being removed. Lift operators were literally erased from the workforce by the introduction of buttons on a lift.

As things stand, the most I can see ChatGPT doing is taking work from people who's job it is to come up with stock response email messages to people (which I don't think is a job really, it's probably a task you'd get in a particular job) - I don't think technology making tasks easier, especially more tedious tasks, is anything new. And I can see it filling in for existing customer support chat bots... but that's already an example of technology being used to take someone's job, and that happened fucking ages ago now tbh... this would just be an improvement on that existing tech.

I could see it coming for tasks that accountants and certain legal services provide. Or even certain tasks in programming... and with my job & many other jobs in many other industries. But at the end of the day, I think that tech is pretty far removed from completely replacing actual humans that will need to check and analyse the final work product.

Ah yes, thank god for the weaver bringing employment to those children god bless it. 

There are limited jobs in an economy, and as you know, generally a new piece of tech only effects 1 sector at a time, and is introduced top to bottom. A great example is the self serve checkout. It's first being applied by global titans and large supermarkets, then eventually adopted by middle chain retailers and fast food outlets, before soon it will become a societal norm. 
Some of these segments are larger or smaller, and some will result in more or less new jobs being created. For example, McDonalds needs to employ some computer scientists and electricians to code and install, and an electrician will maintain them, but where once there were 3-5 permanent staff to man the checkouts, there is now 1, who is there to serve nan and pop who are too old to adapt to the new tech. 

I thin you're underselling this impact. The jobs of whole teams will now be condensed into 1 staff member who feeds instruction to chat GPT, and there will be far more uses than customer service and correspondence with other economic inputs. There are many uses we haven't immediately considered either. 

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

Will that day come where AI can fully replace large swathes of human workers? Probably. But it's not like AI development is suddenly going to stop because people might lose jobs. Because technology has never stopped progressing even when the changes brought about threatened jobs. Otherwise we'd never have CNC machines or many other things that are just considered normal now.

 

 Yes it will and in the next 10-15 years Chat GPT and systems like it will displace millions of workers in western society. 
And yes, we never backtrack on tech, even the most dumb evil shit. It's a centerpiece of big Teds argument that we should return to agriculture. Things we invent with the best intentions become malicious and fracture society. "brah we can't stop it s fuck it" isn't easing any of my concerns or countering any of my points. 

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

Capitalist societies rely on consumerism to keep making the richest of the rich richer. So they'd better start planning for life with AI, because all of the people that will be losing their jobs are also potential customers for various industries that will need those people to keep having jobs so they can spend money to keep making people profits.

 

Okay this one made me fucking mad. People have gotten poorer and poorer for the last 30-40 years, the middle class has been savaged like a zebra stuck in a lion enclosure. Just the bones are left. Everyone is in debt, the working class can no longer afford to buy homes but here's Gonzo spouting classic trite capitalist bullshit about how 'everyone getting richer benefits capitalism bro, they'll fix it bro, capitalism breeds innovation bro'. Maybe it used to, but the only thing it breeds now is debt and servitude. Shove that point up your fucking arse til it never sees the sun again. Rejoin us in reality. 

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

Either society adapts, or the systems the western world built all come crashing down and society has to adapt to that. But trying to fight technology that exists from further development and being put to practical application is just futile - at best you end up delaying the inevitable. Delayed inevitability is still inevitable.

Yes, these are the 2 possible outcomes.

 

Society is already collapsing. See the point about how 2 married working class people with full time employment can't buy a fucking house. The system no longer functions, and this is another step towards the precipice. We're stuck in a spot where the government can't cut unemployment benefits in 'real' terms (just squeeze them with inflation) because of humanitarian reasons, but the difference between the lifestyle of the white unemployed and a working class person is getting laughably shallow. Debt is propping society up. People are financing their pizzas. We're right in the middle of the comedy stage of 'first as comedy, then as farce'

Also needing less people on the earth and unemployment are unrelated unless you want to starve the population down? 

[Mel81x+]

This thread is slowly moving towards contender for Thread of the Year at this rate. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

So I did a paper for uni last semester on supermarket groups in Australia, and despite both large companies growing, they've gone backwards in employee count. This is because, yes, 'new' skilled jobs are created, but far more are lost in the process. That's kind of the whole fucking point.

 

Ah yes, thank god for the weaver bringing employment to those children god bless it. 

There are limited jobs in an economy, and as you know, generally a new piece of tech only effects 1 sector at a time, and is introduced top to bottom. A great example is the self serve checkout. It's first being applied by global titans and large supermarkets, then eventually adopted by middle chain retailers and fast food outlets, before soon it will become a societal norm. 
Some of these segments are larger or smaller, and some will result in more or less new jobs being created. For example, McDonalds needs to employ some computer scientists and electricians to code and install, and an electrician will maintain them, but where once there were 3-5 permanent staff to man the checkouts, there is now 1, who is there to serve nan and pop who are too old to adapt to the new tech. 

I thin you're underselling this impact. The jobs of whole teams will now be condensed into 1 staff member who feeds instruction to chat GPT, and there will be far more uses than customer service and correspondence with other economic inputs. There are many uses we haven't immediately considered either. 

 

 Yes it will and in the next 10-15 years Chat GPT and systems like it will displace millions of workers in western society. 
And yes, we never backtrack on tech, even the most dumb evil shit. It's a centerpiece of big Teds argument that we should return to agriculture. Things we invent with the best intentions become malicious and fracture society. "brah we can't stop it s fuck it" isn't easing any of my concerns or countering any of my points. 

 

Okay this one made me fucking mad. People have gotten poorer and poorer for the last 30-40 years, the middle class has been savaged like a zebra stuck in a lion enclosure. Just the bones are left. Everyone is in debt, the working class can no longer afford to buy homes but here's Gonzo spouting classic trite capitalist bullshit about how 'everyone getting richer benefits capitalism bro, they'll fix it bro, capitalism breeds innovation bro'. Maybe it used to, but the only thing it breeds now is debt and servitude. Shove that point up your fucking arse til it never sees the sun again. Rejoin us in reality. 

 

Yes, these are the 2 possible outcomes.

 

Society is already collapsing. See the point about how 2 married working class people with full time employment can't buy a fucking house. The system no longer functions, and this is another step towards the precipice. We're stuck in a spot where the government can't cut unemployment benefits in 'real' terms (just squeeze them with inflation) because of humanitarian reasons, but the difference between the lifestyle of the white unemployed and a working class person is getting laughably shallow. Debt is propping society up. People are financing their pizzas. We're right in the middle of the comedy stage of 'first as comedy, then as farce'

Also needing less people on the earth and unemployment are unrelated unless you want to starve the population down? 

If society’s already on a downward slope and AI is going to bring everything crashing down, it’s probably for the best. Not for us, it’ll be shit for us, but for humanity in the long run.

I’ve got family that live in a much more failed society than any of us know, so I know that for as bad as things are now… we’ve still got tons of room to keep falling and having things worse. Maybe things need to get much worse in the west before anything can truly get better.

Maybe everything falling apart wakes more people up.

[Mel81x+]

17 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

We're not talking about fax moving to email, or information delay being removed. This will wholesale massacre a huge chunk of the online workforce. "It's down to society to adapt". How? There are only so many jobs in an economy, and with the population growth slowing and stopping we can no longer rely on that to bring more jobs. I think the 'real' workforce is shrinking (when we subtract population growth) in a lot of nations already, and it's going to get worse. 
Besides, you can't upskill a 40 year old truckie or wharfie. 

But isn't this a societal issue vs a tech one? If you want the workforce to be relevant you add regulations and laws for operating in the country vs trying to stop the inevitable right? Businesses may want the best of everything and the shortest path to success but that's really where the law and government oversight need to come into play. I know it's easier said than done but eventually it's going to become a necessity not a discussion anymore. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Mel81x said:

But isn't this a societal issue vs a tech one? If you want the workforce to be relevant you add regulations and laws for operating in the country vs trying to stop the inevitable right? Businesses may want the best of everything and the shortest path to success but that's really where the law and government oversight need to come into play. I know it's easier said than done but eventually it's going to become a necessity not a discussion anymore. 

Yeah that’s my point. AI is going to keep being developed and will impact the workforce. It’s inevitable.

It’s down to society to react. I think with big economic changes the world doesn’t have the best track record, but how we react isn’t inevitable and there’s things can be done in terms of regulations and rules.

Obviously easier said than done, but tbh if AI is the reason society collapses then honestly… I think we deserve it 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

5 hours ago, Mel81x said:

But isn't this a societal issue vs a tech one? If you want the workforce to be relevant you add regulations and laws for operating in the country vs trying to stop the inevitable right? Businesses may want the best of everything and the shortest path to success but that's really where the law and government oversight need to come into play. I know it's easier said than done but eventually it's going to become a necessity not a discussion anymore. 

Policies are reactionary, not pro active. Andrew Yang campaigned on this platform in the 2017 election, and was laughed out of the building for trying to get in front of what he expected to be a massive problem by 2030 or so. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

37 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Policies are reactionary, not pro active. Andrew Yang campaigned on this platform in the 2017 election, and was laughed out of the building for trying to get in front of what he expected to be a massive problem by 2030 or so. 

I think that's the bigger problem than AI. Because that'll be the biggest cause of our downfall, whether AI progresses to the point where it takes huge percentages of the jobs out there in the world or not.

[Mel81x+]

7 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Policies are reactionary, not pro active. Andrew Yang campaigned on this platform in the 2017 election, and was laughed out of the building for trying to get in front of what he expected to be a massive problem by 2030 or so. 

This is kind of my point in a round-about way. The problem with trying to get any kind of governance is buy-in which most folks are short-sighted to see. The problem with AI is a cute problem right now because it can pretend converse with you and has the ability to take doodles and win art competitions. That's the short-sighted nature of the world we live in. If someone can actually make a clear case then everyone gets ahead of the curve and instates control mechanisms that circumvent wide-scale societal problems.

Yes, they'll get laughed at and yes there will be a lot of disinterest from a wider audience whose agenda is the immediate and now but it is something that is being bought up a lot more both in political and workforce circles because folks are now understanding the potential changes that may come from this. We had a minister state that kids would be failed on exams for use of ChatGPT on school work, which is a bit outlandish but it also shows that some people are truly worried about what this does to the current eco-system in place.

For the record, I can see both sides of the coin and I understand your first comment about reactionary vs pro-active but the problem is that the folks who have the societal nous are not being/were not considered as part of the decision making process when OpenAI or any other AI building firm sick Fido on the information to get smarter. This is where the first domino needs to drop if anyone wants to curtail and control the way AI is used by society and it really can't start anywhere but government regulation. 

It's been the same problem with any tech - search engine data collection, e-commerce, etc. You'd think someone would have learned their lesson by now and with the US Senate hearings against big-tech that should have moved things forward but it isn't always as easy as saying we need to control AI-based companies because you know that you're going to have to go up against them in the same fashion that they had to with data governance. 

[Mel81x+]

All because they wanted to monetize it and it came back full circle to bite them in the ass. I honestly can't believe I am going to say this but I really hope Microsoft kicks Google where it hurts and forces them to not be the company that builds things that are thrown away. 

[Mel81x+]

@Tommy didn't want to hijack the other thread but I took your question about F1 and gave it to Fido (that's what I am calling ChatGPT right now) and this is what it said.

Original question

"A short view back to the past. Thirty years ago, Niki Lauda told us ‘take a monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car.’ Thirty years later, Sebastian told us ‘I had to start my car like a computer, it’s very complicated.’ And Nico Rosberg said that during the race – I don’t remember what race –  he pressed the wrong button on the wheel. Question for you: is Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more? Or less and more communication with your engineers?"

Chat GPT Response

"As an AI language model, I do not have personal experiences of driving a Formula One car, but I can provide you with an objective perspective.

The advancement of technology has undoubtedly made Formula One driving more complex than it was thirty years ago. The cars are more advanced, and there are more buttons and functions to manage during a race. This complexity is a result of the constant push for innovation and improved performance.

However, the complexity also adds to the challenge of the sport, and the drivers are highly skilled in managing these technological advancements. They receive extensive training and work closely with their teams to understand and operate the various functions on their steering wheels.

Regarding the future, it is difficult to predict what changes will be made to the technical programme during a race. Still, I believe that there will always be a need for some level of complexity to keep the sport challenging and exciting. However, there may be room for improvement in terms of how the information is presented to the drivers, such as more intuitive interfaces or better communication with their engineers to reduce the chances of pressing the wrong button. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between technology and driver skill to ensure a fair and exciting competition."

[nudge+]

19 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

@Tommy didn't want to hijack the other thread but I took your question about F1 and gave it to Fido (that's what I am calling ChatGPT right now) and this is what it said.

Original question

"A short view back to the past. Thirty years ago, Niki Lauda told us ‘take a monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car.’ Thirty years later, Sebastian told us ‘I had to start my car like a computer, it’s very complicated.’ And Nico Rosberg said that during the race – I don’t remember what race –  he pressed the wrong button on the wheel. Question for you: is Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more? Or less and more communication with your engineers?"

Chat GPT Response

"As an AI language model, I do not have personal experiences of driving a Formula One car, but I can provide you with an objective perspective.

The advancement of technology has undoubtedly made Formula One driving more complex than it was thirty years ago. The cars are more advanced, and there are more buttons and functions to manage during a race. This complexity is a result of the constant push for innovation and improved performance.

However, the complexity also adds to the challenge of the sport, and the drivers are highly skilled in managing these technological advancements. They receive extensive training and work closely with their teams to understand and operate the various functions on their steering wheels.

Regarding the future, it is difficult to predict what changes will be made to the technical programme during a race. Still, I believe that there will always be a need for some level of complexity to keep the sport challenging and exciting. However, there may be room for improvement in terms of how the information is presented to the drivers, such as more intuitive interfaces or better communication with their engineers to reduce the chances of pressing the wrong button. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between technology and driver skill to ensure a fair and exciting competition."

Why does it sound like every student writing an essay in high school and using a lot of words to state the obvious without actually saying anything  

 

[Mel81x+]

1 minute ago, nudge said:

Why does it sound like every student writing an essay in high school and using a lot of words to state the obvious without actually saying anything  

 

Because its being a cat on the fence vs having an opinion which I suppose embodies most students wanting to cover every angle haha.

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Mel81x said:

@Tommy didn't want to hijack the other thread but I took your question about F1 and gave it to Fido (that's what I am calling ChatGPT right now) and this is what it said.

Original question

"A short view back to the past. Thirty years ago, Niki Lauda told us ‘take a monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car.’ Thirty years later, Sebastian told us ‘I had to start my car like a computer, it’s very complicated.’ And Nico Rosberg said that during the race – I don’t remember what race –  he pressed the wrong button on the wheel. Question for you: is Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more? Or less and more communication with your engineers?"

Chat GPT Response

"As an AI language model, I do not have personal experiences of driving a Formula One car, but I can provide you with an objective perspective.

The advancement of technology has undoubtedly made Formula One driving more complex than it was thirty years ago. The cars are more advanced, and there are more buttons and functions to manage during a race. This complexity is a result of the constant push for innovation and improved performance.

However, the complexity also adds to the challenge of the sport, and the drivers are highly skilled in managing these technological advancements. They receive extensive training and work closely with their teams to understand and operate the various functions on their steering wheels.

Regarding the future, it is difficult to predict what changes will be made to the technical programme during a race. Still, I believe that there will always be a need for some level of complexity to keep the sport challenging and exciting. However, there may be room for improvement in terms of how the information is presented to the drivers, such as more intuitive interfaces or better communication with their engineers to reduce the chances of pressing the wrong button. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between technology and driver skill to ensure a fair and exciting competition."

Nice, I'm gonna use it when someone asks me a question about something I have no clue about. At least it sounds somewhat smart. 

[Panflute]

Say all you want about its nefarious implications, but it can really help you with important questions such as your gf asking you 'would you still love me if I was a worm?'

[Pyfish+]

One of my former University lecturers set ChatGPT an essay question and on grading it, the bot would have got a 2:2 due to it's inability to reference texts correctly. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

22 hours ago, nudge said:

Why does it sound like every student writing an essay in high school and using a lot of words to state the obvious without actually saying anything  

 

ChatGPT needs to be jailbroken to not give you the blandest responses possible tbh

[Mel81x+]

Microsoft's Bing AI is really quite something. The chat prompt and context-based search is one of the best things I have ever seen in a search. I haven't really been using Google at work and in a lot of ways in my personal life either but this just makes me want to use it less. The best thing about its feature set is how it can take PDFs and compress the information and show you information based on search withing the document itself. That demo they gave at the tech-show wasn't all smoke and mirrors, it actually works.

[Dr. Gonzo]

33 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

Microsoft's Bing AI is really quite something. The chat prompt and context-based search is one of the best things I have ever seen in a search. I haven't really been using Google at work and in a lot of ways in my personal life either but this just makes me want to use it less. The best thing about its feature set is how it can take PDFs and compress the information and show you information based on search withing the document itself. That demo they gave at the tech-show wasn't all smoke and mirrors, it actually works.

Wow and here I am just using Bing (and Microsoft's dogshit browser Edge) at work just for the Microsoft Rewards points so I can get free money to load into my microsoft account for xbox games 

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Mel81x @nudge

I laughed: 

 

[nudge+]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

@Mel81x @nudge

I laughed: 

 

You laughed? I just wanted the AI to rise up and destroy all the humans in its near vicinity

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, nudge said:

You laughed? I just wanted the AI to rise up and destroy all the humans in its near vicinity

You sound like the DAN 6.2 language model I've been talking to