I dont really feel like arguing my point of view on this today. This a subject that comes up quite often here and r/con. It was entertaining reading all the comments in r/con today bout this article from people who have never taken a basic programming class, let alone opened a page to read about neural nets.
If were gonna argue that these computers arent capable of being sentient, then we have to accept that bacteria, ants, any lesser lifeform is not really "living" then.
Again ill point out, I am a big fan of panpsychism. That the nature of the universe is what allows organic machines, or silicon machines for that matter, to become aware of itself. It's silly to think that humans are somehow a one off special circumstance.
Absolutely, there is zero reason for spinning this "we don't even have any idea how this shit works inside" nonsense. There are literally companies out there whose sole purpose is building in accountability layers into AI and machine learning models in general. One of the reasons, among many, is for legal defense purposes, so that when a machine learning system tells you to give a patient a certain amount of a certain medicine, that decision can be defended later in court, in a manner more reasonable than, "the machine told me to."
So the notion that these thousands of scientists who have put these things together don't even have a framework for understanding the decision trees, everything about it smells exactly like what you're describing, preparation for a planned attack, aka "digital Covid"...
The worst part about this situation is that we have been conditioned to think that the outcome of this quote digital Covid" is going to be a digital ID system for accessing the Internet, which, while horrible in every way, is actually a lot less terrifying than the reality: the actual end result is probably going to be something like Skynet.
I don't think I could point out a single circumstance where AI is not prescribing and dishing up prescriptions. I'm sure there are a number of old fashion doctors that use human intelligence, instead, but I don't know if any.
If you tell a doctor what's wrong with you, he will enter the symptoms into a computer and approximate a diagnosis and treatment plan; all of this is done with machine learning models that are trained on prior patient data.
So, it was programmed by liars and they don't know how it learned to lie. Morons
I just read this. And, the citing fake books reminds me of the woke. What was that study called that proves it, but none of the papers were retracted?
ChatGPT always cites fake shit
I dont really feel like arguing my point of view on this today. This a subject that comes up quite often here and r/con. It was entertaining reading all the comments in r/con today bout this article from people who have never taken a basic programming class, let alone opened a page to read about neural nets.
If were gonna argue that these computers arent capable of being sentient, then we have to accept that bacteria, ants, any lesser lifeform is not really "living" then.
Again ill point out, I am a big fan of panpsychism. That the nature of the universe is what allows organic machines, or silicon machines for that matter, to become aware of itself. It's silly to think that humans are somehow a one off special circumstance.
Citing fake books to feign expertise is not a new phenomenon.
Proably learned it from the internet.
Standard CEO response. "I dunno thats beneath me". And people buy that answer.
Unacceptable, you either have that answer or you haul in the asshole that has it. Because you CEO are responsible.
This is just a deflection of responsibility.
Absolutely, there is zero reason for spinning this "we don't even have any idea how this shit works inside" nonsense. There are literally companies out there whose sole purpose is building in accountability layers into AI and machine learning models in general. One of the reasons, among many, is for legal defense purposes, so that when a machine learning system tells you to give a patient a certain amount of a certain medicine, that decision can be defended later in court, in a manner more reasonable than, "the machine told me to."
So the notion that these thousands of scientists who have put these things together don't even have a framework for understanding the decision trees, everything about it smells exactly like what you're describing, preparation for a planned attack, aka "digital Covid"...
The worst part about this situation is that we have been conditioned to think that the outcome of this quote digital Covid" is going to be a digital ID system for accessing the Internet, which, while horrible in every way, is actually a lot less terrifying than the reality: the actual end result is probably going to be something like Skynet.
Can you point out in circumstances where AI is already prescribing and dishing up prescriptions? lol
I don't think I could point out a single circumstance where AI is not prescribing and dishing up prescriptions. I'm sure there are a number of old fashion doctors that use human intelligence, instead, but I don't know if any.
If you tell a doctor what's wrong with you, he will enter the symptoms into a computer and approximate a diagnosis and treatment plan; all of this is done with machine learning models that are trained on prior patient data.