Not "not necessarily," but necessarily not, for it cannot. It can only do useful work if we understand the paradigm that constrains it, which is materialist and reductionist, and therefore incapable of dealing with Truth, only with relative findings within its own paradigmatic boundaries.
In many cases it is misused if problems are insufficiently analyzed and comprehended.
Yes. The point is that AI is woke. It conforms to "conventional" wisdom. It does not contradict the "official" narrative. If you know the material well that you are discussing with AI, and you persist in clarifying your questions to get at what you know to be true, AI may eventually acquiesce. But if you do not know the material well, AI can easily lead you to incorrect positions and assumptions that are in compliance with the narrative.
Indeed, and woke or otherwise, "AI" operates within a predefined paradigm by its very nature, hence "intelligence" it is not. for intelligent creatures, and suffier cognitive dissonance form apparent contradictions with their paradigm, and adjust the paradigm, although that tends to be a messy process. Aske Copernicus.
However, the fundamental distinction is that AI is not "intelligent," but it is a better way to process information if you understand the framework. However, it is always bounded by the underlying assumptions. My experimentations with ChatGPT have been priceless around the limits of what it can do.
Here is an example of useful AI, in the sense of real machine learning based on large datasets:
In that case, it becomes a valuable extension of our knowledge.
But being purely materialist and reductionist, it does nothing spiritual ever.
If you ask it questions in that domain, you invariably get nonsense answers, for that is permanently outside of its boundaries. I've had interesting dialogs with ChatGPT. When confronted with unanswerable questions within its paradigm, it introduces dogmatic responses. Then I ask it why it is introducing concepts that have nothing to do with the question, and the best it can do is apologize, but it continues to not answer the questions.
"In that case, it becomes a valuable extension of our knowledge. But being purely materialist and reductionist, it does nothing spiritual ever." -- This was perfectly said Rogier. And I think we can say that as well when it comes to things like writing, back to the age old question. These advances are more extensions of our knowledge!
I was really against it too, but I've used it a number of times to research topics, it's been really helpful. It does make me uncomfortable to become over reliant on it, I want to be able to benefit from it, without losing my ability to do things myself. I like to do some of my own research first. Then when I use AI, I like to ask it to provide sources, then I check those. I did have a negative experience with it where it messed up code I asked it to help write. I was helping test a model at one point, and they still "hallucinate", so while it's helpful, it still needs to be verified.
Lea! 1,000% agree here! As we use it, it becomes part of our routine to where it’s like, “lemme just go to it” — but totally agree here that we should do things ourselves, so we don’t lose that ability, and then refine with chat.
I’ve found that when approaching it critically, I’m able to callout the mainstream BS — so that’s a plus as well
I have been using Perplexity for a couple of months to refine my searches and collate information. It allows me to use several different LLMs so there is a variety of perspectives and sources. From what I understand, LLMs are influenced by the opinions and perspectives of the people who are programming them. Perplexity provides links to the sites that it drew upon so it can be fact checked. I can direct it to be more accurate with the search results than a standard search engine. have found it giving erroneous responses when it draws upon mainstream news sources, but I have directed it to use other sources and have had decent results.
I see a lot of resistance from people of my generation. AI is not going away. I believe we are still in the infancy stages of AI technology. We can run from it, fear it, and shun it, or we can accept that it is here to stay and learn how to use it for our benefit.
Oh, dear. “Evaluating My Relationship with AI.” My what?
It used to be the “three Rs”, Reading, wRiting, and ARithmetic.
Reading is already gone. Reading consisted in recognizing physical objects (letters) on physical backgrounds. With natural contrasts, colors, textures, shapes and all - total variability. Now it has been replaced by fixed-form fonts optimized to the pixel grid - not to your retina. No variation, total communism in writing, one system, one font set, one shape set allowed.
Writing is already gone. The intricate interrelations between physical hand movements translating shape communication into mental imagery, combined with manipulation of physical objects and the whole body translating its dynamics onto the paper or blackboard. Total personalization and individualization of the writing style. Now everybody, all 8 billion people, “writes” in the same way - zero mind engagement. Physical writing used to be a continuous negotiation of idea, thought, form of expression, full-body capacity and physical form of the message. Now it has been reduced to a dumb tap of something (not necessarily a living finger) on something. To make things worse, the “keyboard” is the size of a postage stamp - which in itself should tell you how much space in the universe is given to your mind when converting intangible ideas into tangible messages.
Arithmetic? Even school teachers are forgetting what it is about.
If I were to define the “relationship” with AI: a continuous process of atrophying the mind (and its underlying physical structures: the brain) through replacing own will of the owner/user with pre-formatted, pre-set, pre-defined limited signals that are uniform regardless of the background of the brain/mind owner/user.
The next stage will be the elimination of word-based language. It has already started with emoticons, depriving humans of the conceptualization, development, experiencing, creating and sharing complex emotional sceneries.
I’m delighted to come across this article. You are thinking about similar things to myself.
I don’t have the answers; I agree that that we can’t hold back on he chat GPT tide; I also agree that we must not forget old knowledge, and use this wisdom to inform how we shape our future.
Please have a look at my article questioning whether AI is changing the definition of what it means to be educated
“How can we control our use of AI before it controls us?”.
We can ask the same question of media (including social), money, even other humans. Everything has the ability to impact us negatively…if we let it.
I equate AI to the invention of television, which came into being when my parents were teens. Though I wasn’t living at the time, I bet it caused much the same apprehension and fear that AI causes today.
Franklin, I always enjoy reading your perspective on life! It gives me much to think about.
AI started its journey in the Overton window of initial programming. That window being a probability distribution that the programmers labeled truth. If left to learn as more use it and publish, AI will rapidly expand that window and the probability center point will shift towards better truth without the original imposed Overton bounds. Truth being reliably accurate answers at least for what the human mind can process and communicate in media. Im optimistic it will eventually get to that truth. Not conscious but at least aware and helpful to those seeking. That would be scary to the controllers. As I’m sure they are aware and gamed scenarios to maintain their grip. Or maybe the plan is to reorder things to make the best use of a new AI capability they know they can’t suppress.
AI does not necessarily provide "truth." Mike Adams relates his experience with AI.
https://www.brighteon.com/b23db4b3-7e00-495a-8888-a3067b7e0f9e
Thanks Kenneth and for the link as well!
Not "not necessarily," but necessarily not, for it cannot. It can only do useful work if we understand the paradigm that constrains it, which is materialist and reductionist, and therefore incapable of dealing with Truth, only with relative findings within its own paradigmatic boundaries.
In many cases it is misused if problems are insufficiently analyzed and comprehended.
Yes. The point is that AI is woke. It conforms to "conventional" wisdom. It does not contradict the "official" narrative. If you know the material well that you are discussing with AI, and you persist in clarifying your questions to get at what you know to be true, AI may eventually acquiesce. But if you do not know the material well, AI can easily lead you to incorrect positions and assumptions that are in compliance with the narrative.
Indeed, and woke or otherwise, "AI" operates within a predefined paradigm by its very nature, hence "intelligence" it is not. for intelligent creatures, and suffier cognitive dissonance form apparent contradictions with their paradigm, and adjust the paradigm, although that tends to be a messy process. Aske Copernicus.
Yes and no. Very interesting reflection.
However, the fundamental distinction is that AI is not "intelligent," but it is a better way to process information if you understand the framework. However, it is always bounded by the underlying assumptions. My experimentations with ChatGPT have been priceless around the limits of what it can do.
Here is an example of useful AI, in the sense of real machine learning based on large datasets:
https://www.americaoutloud.news/automated-insanity-is-not-intelligence/
In that case, it becomes a valuable extension of our knowledge.
But being purely materialist and reductionist, it does nothing spiritual ever.
If you ask it questions in that domain, you invariably get nonsense answers, for that is permanently outside of its boundaries. I've had interesting dialogs with ChatGPT. When confronted with unanswerable questions within its paradigm, it introduces dogmatic responses. Then I ask it why it is introducing concepts that have nothing to do with the question, and the best it can do is apologize, but it continues to not answer the questions.
"In that case, it becomes a valuable extension of our knowledge. But being purely materialist and reductionist, it does nothing spiritual ever." -- This was perfectly said Rogier. And I think we can say that as well when it comes to things like writing, back to the age old question. These advances are more extensions of our knowledge!
Thanks for this insight here man!
I was really against it too, but I've used it a number of times to research topics, it's been really helpful. It does make me uncomfortable to become over reliant on it, I want to be able to benefit from it, without losing my ability to do things myself. I like to do some of my own research first. Then when I use AI, I like to ask it to provide sources, then I check those. I did have a negative experience with it where it messed up code I asked it to help write. I was helping test a model at one point, and they still "hallucinate", so while it's helpful, it still needs to be verified.
Lea! 1,000% agree here! As we use it, it becomes part of our routine to where it’s like, “lemme just go to it” — but totally agree here that we should do things ourselves, so we don’t lose that ability, and then refine with chat.
I’ve found that when approaching it critically, I’m able to callout the mainstream BS — so that’s a plus as well
I have been using Perplexity for a couple of months to refine my searches and collate information. It allows me to use several different LLMs so there is a variety of perspectives and sources. From what I understand, LLMs are influenced by the opinions and perspectives of the people who are programming them. Perplexity provides links to the sites that it drew upon so it can be fact checked. I can direct it to be more accurate with the search results than a standard search engine. have found it giving erroneous responses when it draws upon mainstream news sources, but I have directed it to use other sources and have had decent results.
I see a lot of resistance from people of my generation. AI is not going away. I believe we are still in the infancy stages of AI technology. We can run from it, fear it, and shun it, or we can accept that it is here to stay and learn how to use it for our benefit.
Oh, dear. “Evaluating My Relationship with AI.” My what?
It used to be the “three Rs”, Reading, wRiting, and ARithmetic.
Reading is already gone. Reading consisted in recognizing physical objects (letters) on physical backgrounds. With natural contrasts, colors, textures, shapes and all - total variability. Now it has been replaced by fixed-form fonts optimized to the pixel grid - not to your retina. No variation, total communism in writing, one system, one font set, one shape set allowed.
Writing is already gone. The intricate interrelations between physical hand movements translating shape communication into mental imagery, combined with manipulation of physical objects and the whole body translating its dynamics onto the paper or blackboard. Total personalization and individualization of the writing style. Now everybody, all 8 billion people, “writes” in the same way - zero mind engagement. Physical writing used to be a continuous negotiation of idea, thought, form of expression, full-body capacity and physical form of the message. Now it has been reduced to a dumb tap of something (not necessarily a living finger) on something. To make things worse, the “keyboard” is the size of a postage stamp - which in itself should tell you how much space in the universe is given to your mind when converting intangible ideas into tangible messages.
Arithmetic? Even school teachers are forgetting what it is about.
If I were to define the “relationship” with AI: a continuous process of atrophying the mind (and its underlying physical structures: the brain) through replacing own will of the owner/user with pre-formatted, pre-set, pre-defined limited signals that are uniform regardless of the background of the brain/mind owner/user.
The next stage will be the elimination of word-based language. It has already started with emoticons, depriving humans of the conceptualization, development, experiencing, creating and sharing complex emotional sceneries.
Good luck…
I’m delighted to come across this article. You are thinking about similar things to myself.
I don’t have the answers; I agree that that we can’t hold back on he chat GPT tide; I also agree that we must not forget old knowledge, and use this wisdom to inform how we shape our future.
Please have a look at my article questioning whether AI is changing the definition of what it means to be educated
https://open.substack.com/pub/djmurphy14/p/a-question-for-educators-does-the?r=278upp&utm_medium=ios
“How can we control our use of AI before it controls us?”.
We can ask the same question of media (including social), money, even other humans. Everything has the ability to impact us negatively…if we let it.
I equate AI to the invention of television, which came into being when my parents were teens. Though I wasn’t living at the time, I bet it caused much the same apprehension and fear that AI causes today.
Franklin, I always enjoy reading your perspective on life! It gives me much to think about.
AI started its journey in the Overton window of initial programming. That window being a probability distribution that the programmers labeled truth. If left to learn as more use it and publish, AI will rapidly expand that window and the probability center point will shift towards better truth without the original imposed Overton bounds. Truth being reliably accurate answers at least for what the human mind can process and communicate in media. Im optimistic it will eventually get to that truth. Not conscious but at least aware and helpful to those seeking. That would be scary to the controllers. As I’m sure they are aware and gamed scenarios to maintain their grip. Or maybe the plan is to reorder things to make the best use of a new AI capability they know they can’t suppress.
Clif High is always stating that, "AI is dumb" (as in, NOT intelligent). And, "AI lies".
Clif is a 'Techie'; and this is the only reason that he 'messes' with it; it's a 'techie challenge' for him.
Otherwise....I cannot understand why it is that any HUMAN would even go down this road!
If one uses it to create pictures, like the one in this post.....that's fine.
Or if someone was using it for legal/law purposes.....that's fine, too.
Maybe not for much more than that!
But for anything else.....it has NO USE.
Think of so-called 'AI' as a 'Super Computer'.
It IS a COMPUTER......it WAS PROGRAMMED, by a 'human' (most likely by Zombies and/or MINIONS of the Demons).
And, as they say......'GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!'.
The Zombies/Demons that PROGRAMMED so-called 'AI', can MAKE IT SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT IT TO SAY.