[removed]

non biased ai doesn't exist

Right, but the fear that taxi services, truck drivers, and delivery drivers etc was blown out of proportion. Can it still happen? Sure. But people were saying by early 20s' there would be massive change in the workforce.

One of those bot authors invited users to interact with the bot on Mastodon. I wonder if there will be any sufficient uptick in that user base as a result of this change.

Persuasion is the one thing chatgpt can do really well. That's something that doesn't require any hard logic. And it's also why this tech is dangerously deceptive, it will be so persuasively correct until it's not.

It's really easy to get around this if that was his goal. It just requires a raspberry pi.

What makes you think an ai can make a better legal defense? You understand winning a court case is about persuading a jury just as much as having the law on your side.

The difference being that self driving cars work pretty well and are already being offered to the public.

Cancel the AI project, some dude on reddit can predict by zip codes. Well, I guess that one is done! (joking!)

Feelings are important? Yes they are and that is why we should have real humans, with real families and real life experience acting as judges and juries, my reasoning follows.

But the Tech sector DOES employ people who fit the culture, just not in the way you suggest. Take a wild guess on how many people employed in Silicon Valley who vote the same way, who feel the same about Trans issues, who feel the same about gun control, who feel the same about Christianity, who feel the same about abortion.

THIS is the key problem, the AI is being developed and maintained exclusively by this group, lets say they make up half of the population - where does that lead?

I feel AI is incredible but I really think it needs to be given bounds, building better mouse traps (or cars, planes, energy generation, crop rotation etc, etc) NOT making decisions directly for human beings.

Eventually AI will be able to build a better legal defense than a human can, and in that case it would be unethical to give people human defense teams.

However, that day is not today. ChatGPT has no hard internal logic. You can trick it into doing bad math for example, or sometimes it writes code that is just wrong.

I'm no lawyer but I'm assuming legal defense requires some sort of presentation of factual evidence, logic, and verification of that evidence. Right now you can't guarantee the AI hasn't just spat out a huge document of gibberish that looks right but has a hidden logical flaw.

Um, the people developing the AI.

To create art with Stable Diffusion, people find different large collections of images to get it to "learn from" and they tweak the prompts and the weightings to get an interesting result.

"AI" isn't just one thing, and the data models are incredibly important to what you get as a result. A lot of times, the data is randomized at it is learned -- because order of learning is important. And, you'd likely train more than one AI to get something useful.

In prompts, one technique is to choose words at random and have an AI "guess" what other words are there. This is yet another "type of AI" that tries to understand human language. Lot's of moving parts to this puzzle.

People are confusing very structured systems, with Neural Nets, Expert systems. Deep Data, and creative AI that use random data and "remove noise" to approach many target images. The vocabulary in the mainstream is too limited to actually appreciate what is going on.

Oh for sure, it hasn't caused any major upheavals yet. But once it's refined it'll start to make a more noticable impact. This all being in the future. Give it 10 years? But who knows, maybe this is the same hoopla as self driving cars were back in 2015.

[removed]

[removed]

Au contraire, there's already ai being used in the criminal justice system, and it's incredibly biased.

[removed]

>If there’s only ONE objective/factually reality,

There isn't though.

There can be objective facts. But there are SO MANY facts. Sometimes people lie. Sometimes they get bad data. Sometimes the look at the wrong things.

Your simplification to a binary choice of a social issue isn't really helping. And, there is no "binary choice" what AI produces writing and art at the moment. There is no OBVIOUS answer and no right or wrong answer -- just people saying "I like this one better."

>I imagine a true AI would know the scientific method and execute it perfectly.

You don't seem to understand how current AI works. It throws in a lot of random noise and data so it can come up with INTERESTING results. An expert system, is one that is more predictable. A neural net adapts, but needs a mechanism to change after it adapts -- and what are the priorities? What does success look like?

Science is a bit easier than social planning I'd assume.

Fair enough. I can see that being useful once all the kinks are worked out.

I'm not convinced that this technology, in it's current form, will replace lawyers. It lacks the precision required by legal reasoning and still gets shit wrong all the time. Furthermore, as a software engineer, I have doubts on whether this tech is capable of solving these problems without radical new ideas. I foresee a lot of people giving themselves a lot of headaches by thinking they can rely on this technology, but not much more than that.

No, it isn't like saying that.

With 2+2 you already KNOW the answer. It's 4. You already know the inputted data is perfect.

Creating an AI to make decisions is drawing from HUMAN sources.

And, I think your idea that "objective reality" and "facts" are certain is not really a good take. We don't even observe all of reality. Or perceptions and what we choose to pay attention to are framed by our biases. And programming an AI requires we know what those are and know what data to feed it to learn from.

FACTS are just data. The are interpreted. "TRUTH" is based on the viewer's priorities and understanding of the world. The facts can be proven, but, which facts to use? And TRUTH is a variable and different for everyone who says they know it.

Because it provides value. It generates answers for questions that can require a more extensive due dilligence. Instead of a human scouring the internet for answers it can directly and comprehensively answer the question in the context is asked with explanations. For instance, software developers are using it by being recommended actual implementations in code that actually works, solving problems much faster and being more productive.

Edit: I want to add that the answers are very specific to the problem stated by the user. ChatGPT does not provides a general answer but a very specific answer for the problem at hand.

> it’s just Google search on steroids

This is incredibly ignorant lol

I don't think it's made very much of anything obsolete. It's still pretty shit. If anything, it's degrading the quality of content on the internet and making it less useful.

[removed]

It’s hard when it’s your time.

Can’t stop progress though, and I have little empathy for lawyers.

Soulless machines replacing soulless people.