Do you think AI is going too far? It seems like AI is becoming more popular and advanced. You should see the things AI can do now: write poems https://youtu.be/QAnTG9u_7VQ https://youtube.com/shorts/bdsu3Q40wv8?feature=share, make "art", write essays, etc. (you may have heard of these things) It's also more advanced than before.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
I do recognize that people now call those new injections vaccines, yes. To not recognize that would make communication exceedingly difficult. Now I try to avoid calling them vaccines (although I will say vax) but to pretend I don't know what other people are talking about when calling them vaccines would be obtuse
That not the analogy I see.
Say, not-a-vaccine was falsely attributed with properties "safe" and "effective".
I see people who understand that not-a-vaccine in no way safe and effective, and it does not matter how they call it - vaxx, vaccine, jab, shot, whatever. Main thing - they know that it does not have properties "safe" and "effective".
But somehow same people thinks that not-an-AI somehow could have property of deciding something, property of intelligence, property of having kind of will, and so on.
That is the problem that bothers me, not how that not-an-AI is named.
That not-an-AI thing does not decide anything, does not create anything new, does not have any intelligence, could not uncover anything or have kind of will to do something.
It does not have properties MSM attribute to it. It can't have them in principle.
Just like not-a-vaccine can't be safe and effective in principle.
Why one thing is perfectly clear, and another, exactly same thing somehow is not?
Also interesting, that those who got that not-a-vaccine is not what it was declared to be do a lot of digging and enormous efforts to find a truth about not-a-vaccines. Huge and honorable work, really.
And now, the same people somehow don't even want to find out how that not-an-AI really works and why it just can't have any of advertised properties. And unlike with vaccines nobody ban or hide that information. It is publicly available, unlike vaccine data, you could easily not only read everything about how not-an-AI made, but even build and run your own not-an-AI on your own PC and study how it really works by yourself and find out why everything MSM told about not-an-AI is a complete bullshit, exactly like everything they told about not-a-vaccines.
What is that? How is that? Why is that?
I know very well how it works, but this generalized system architecture is being called AI and you would not be able to have a conversation with an average person if you were to refer to it as something else. That being said I think we're generally in agreement. My view is that people's expectation of AI has been seeded for so long by the media that little parlor tricks like an chatGPT can whip people into a frenzy. This can be for multiple reasons, another tech gold rush, an "innocent" incentive for even more massive data collection, and perhaps most importantly using the "AI" as a source of truth or even a god
Again and again. It does not matter how you call it. What is matter is that thing unable to do anything that could be accounted as an intelligence. It does not think, it does not make decisions, it does not make conclusions it does not understand anything, it have no any properties that is thoroughly attributed to it by MSM.
ANNs is pretty limited things, they could be fine for some tasks, but they need enormous volumes of data for decent training and will always fail when input will be outside model. It could perfectly distinguish between cats and dogs when trained, but will miserably fail with racoon. And you will not be able to back-propagate racoon option with one or even dozen of images, you will need thousands if not millions (depending on number of layers and resolution) racoon images to make it work with racoons. It is simply not scalable. Same with GPT models and any other ANN stuff. It is narrow, it is not scalable, it is insanely hungry for resources at training stage. Niche technology that inflated to the enormous scale, to the level when what public believe today about it is complete lie. Just like quantum computers, meanwhile.
The only real reason for the AIhoax we observe today is an attempt of TPTB and their puppets to move any responsibility to the so called AI and hide behind it. "It is not us, it was AI decision". That's all. And the success of that farce is completely depends on total acceptance of fake AI existence. They don't care what you will think about not-an-AI, good or bad, threat or blessing, they only care about you believing that their not-an-AI could make decisions. And looks like they succed in that AIhoax much more than they succeed in coronahoax or vaccinehoax.
If you want a real AI area question to dig around - then try to find what happened with so-called "expert systems", and why they was abandoned/banned, and why only that silly ANNs get a hype. You will find pretty interesting things from the fear of new inventions, including closing ones, that expert systems should be able to produce (one of the main things they was researched and developed for) to the using need for ANN training as a reason for getting access to so-called BigData (or just "surveillance", speaking human language).
So based on your third paragraph we have the same read on the situation. Good enough for me