Under the guise of making it easier, simpler and saving you moneyit sure seems like they just want to cut a few more employees to increase profit.
-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Should we be afraid of Artificial Intelligence?
- Thread starter Mailman
- Start date
Under the guise of making it easier, simpler and saving you moneyit sure seems like they just want to cut a few more employees to increase profit.
As over time people rely on "AI", they become stupider, it's an equation...how many can nowadays do even basic arrhythmic, while a generation or two ago kids learned with pencil and paper and theirm brains to do trig, or calculus, and memorized many tables. AI = stupidification, imho. Cutting employees indeed! And who will then pay tax or buy their krap, both figuratively and literally? Really though, it's not properly a technical matter, rather a question of who decides how to use it on whom and for what...which takes us perhaps to the edge of the prohibition on politics!
it sure seems like they just want to cut a few more employees to increase profit.
Ah, forgive please...AI story...make what y'will... the AI, the US AI, says the loon, I mean moon, landing movies was not...not what Kubrik, er, happened... see also
(Chinese site, Ruski Czar, lookit the two movies, one is real, the other not so much...)
and for people who really dive deep into the dark...https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/ see the stuff on the moon movie, and on Laurel Canyon... I was there myself on the edge of the Canyon, and lucky to have only a somewhat scary brush or two, but I think Dave's right on...fwiw.
and for people who really dive deep into the dark...https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/ see the stuff on the moon movie, and on Laurel Canyon... I was there myself on the edge of the Canyon, and lucky to have only a somewhat scary brush or two, but I think Dave's right on...fwiw.
More unemployed for the dole = more control for...
Ruskieboss make careful reply...ahamtinking he's smart fella... the machinery and scrap is there, the film maybe fake. Nice job tho...
An excellent discussion revolving around AI and the nuclear codes. A lot of good background information on nuclear arsenal.
Typically a political podcast, (up to @gggGary, to decide if 4 seconds of questionable politics out ways the rest), and there is 4 seconds that could b classes as right leaning, but the rest of the 44min 52 seconds really delve into AI, all its implications, and applications, known or known unknowens and how we as humans can't compete with AI. More to the point, as humans, we are prepared to defer to and let AI make decisions for us. Where is this going to lead to.
LOL gggGary.
EDIT
I posted a link. Removed the link after the moderater instead of asking me to remove it or just removing it as I asked him to rule on he stated I opened the tent flap for politicly posted material which he done.
Typically a political podcast, (up to @gggGary, to decide if 4 seconds of questionable politics out ways the rest), and there is 4 seconds that could b classes as right leaning, but the rest of the 44min 52 seconds really delve into AI, all its implications, and applications, known or known unknowens and how we as humans can't compete with AI. More to the point, as humans, we are prepared to defer to and let AI make decisions for us. Where is this going to lead to.
LOL gggGary.
EDIT
I posted a link. Removed the link after the moderater instead of asking me to remove it or just removing it as I asked him to rule on he stated I opened the tent flap for politicly posted material which he done.
Last edited:
Last edited:
60 Minutes did a report on AI.... It's a race between the US, Russia and China to develop the ultimate AI... of course, the US said it's days away.... if you read the book " Colossus " (1966) .. fiction has become ...... scary 
Its shown up in university students papers, according to my youngest, Dr. Sara.
That's problematic if left unchecked.......or a stepping stone for cyborgs.
That's problematic if left unchecked.......or a stepping stone for cyborgs.
What's not to like about AI
Should we be afraid of AI? Yes….very very afraid. 
Even those creating it are afraid
https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/14/o...oming-and-wants-to-build-tools-to-control-it/
https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/14/o...oming-and-wants-to-build-tools-to-control-it/
Thought here as good a place as any to put this? Been in the news that NY Times is suing Open AI and Microsoft for breach of copyright.
We are told that generative chat bots are 'trained' by reading, well, everything available on that Internet. Maybe an exaggeration but the principle is that the bot has read so much of everything that it is able to predict/generate a 'response' to any string of text offered up by a user in conversation. But that means the 'response' is, uhm, well, plagiarised from what it has read. We could have a conversation about whether an AI system reads let alone understands anything. But there is no doubt that the training involves accessing an unimaginably large quantity of data.
I wonder if chat bots will read this drivel? But ain't gonna lose any sleep wondering if they understand, agree or approve. It's just data mining after all, but I digress.
Apart from the claim that the bots read everything, which must include copyrighted material, NYT says it has loads of direct evidence where entire sentences and paragraphs from NYT content have been output in chat bot responses.
Be interesting to see how the courts rule - NY Times and potentially every publisher who puts stuff on line versus the people making money outta chat bots, because preventing them accessing material without paying a royalty or at least acknowledging sources looks like putting a stick through the front wheel of the generative AI business model.
The stakes look high and both sides can afford expensive lawyers.
We are told that generative chat bots are 'trained' by reading, well, everything available on that Internet. Maybe an exaggeration but the principle is that the bot has read so much of everything that it is able to predict/generate a 'response' to any string of text offered up by a user in conversation. But that means the 'response' is, uhm, well, plagiarised from what it has read. We could have a conversation about whether an AI system reads let alone understands anything. But there is no doubt that the training involves accessing an unimaginably large quantity of data.
I wonder if chat bots will read this drivel? But ain't gonna lose any sleep wondering if they understand, agree or approve. It's just data mining after all, but I digress.
Apart from the claim that the bots read everything, which must include copyrighted material, NYT says it has loads of direct evidence where entire sentences and paragraphs from NYT content have been output in chat bot responses.
Be interesting to see how the courts rule - NY Times and potentially every publisher who puts stuff on line versus the people making money outta chat bots, because preventing them accessing material without paying a royalty or at least acknowledging sources looks like putting a stick through the front wheel of the generative AI business model.
The stakes look high and both sides can afford expensive lawyers.
Last edited:
An interesting video from Racer TV
Very interesting and a useful revision of what we know about AI imaging software apps. But then it occurred to me - everything you will see and hear will be artificial, nothing will be real - rather flat delivery, tends towards prolix, but quite passable AI commentary.
The narrator is a real person; he uses a voice treatment app for some reason.
He actually builds and rides custom cafe racers himself; owns a Honda CX and is building an XS650 at the mo’.
Yeah, he's on my play list. He does put out very good videos. The voice he uses is very off putting, I'll give ya that, but after a few vids you hardly notice. He's definitely worth getting past the voice in my opinion.
Oh well, I wuz wrong. Still true about flat delivery and tendency to be 'wordy'. But passable human commentary then . . .
At one time, he changed the voice. His fans complained. He put it back. (Racer TV)
There's a lot of synthetic text to voice on yootoob. poor cadence and miserable syllable/word accent makes it nasty to listen to.
Run into AI web entries a lot when looking up arcane subjects. It starts out sounding good then a paragraph or two in you realize it's regurgitated garbage with little or no content, grr.
A better then some example with twenty-seven 8 times 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and
Arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one
https://www.motorbikecatalog.com/performance/2007/59615/honda_cb900f_hornet_cb919.html
Fabricated from mostly thin air, it's like you wandered into Alice's restaurant. ;^)
Run into AI web entries a lot when looking up arcane subjects. It starts out sounding good then a paragraph or two in you realize it's regurgitated garbage with little or no content, grr.
A better then some example with twenty-seven 8 times 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and
Arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one
https://www.motorbikecatalog.com/performance/2007/59615/honda_cb900f_hornet_cb919.html
Fabricated from mostly thin air, it's like you wandered into Alice's restaurant. ;^)
Last edited: