ChatGPT is an Open Source AI
- Thread starter ZNP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Let's take this apart.
1. This guy even points out that what the person was offering to do would not have been illegal, and it would not have been practicing law. So this argument looks like a frivolous charge.
2. This is not how I envision AI replacing lawyers.
A. I expect the first to go would be paralegals, they represent 14% of lawfirms (419,000 in the US).
B. I would then expect teams of lawyers would be whittled down. Sometimes these big firms will have 3 or 4 lawyers sitting at the table, I can see that being reduced to 1 or 2.
C. A lot of law never goes to court. People hire lawyers to read contracts, write contracts, wills, etc. I suspect much of this work will be done by AI.
D. I see AI becoming an assistant to a lawyer. He will direct it to write a letter, write a contract, review a contract, research legal precedent, etc. Previously this person might have needed a partner and a paralegal, now he can do it with just the AI.
3. He pointed out that the ChatGPT was excellent at defining what the lemon law was but was terrible at describing what to do if you were a victim. AI is based on what you give it to study. If you give AI a digital library of every single legal case and precedent ever, and the law, and every textbook on law, every legal journal, and every non fiction book on the law, and even every fictional legal thriller, you can train it to be much better.
4. AI is also trained by feedback. So if you start out replacing paralegals and the lawyers give feedback on the research it will train the AI as a whole. Paralegals make about 40k a year. So if you charged 10k for an AI paralegal for a year, and the firm had access 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and you could get almost instant feedback on your requests and you no longer needed to subscribe to various legal journals, it would be a no brainer. There are 419,000 paralegals and legal assistants in the US. It would be much cheaper to have the AI and in a single year the feedback to the AI would be like 10,000 lifetimes of experience. After the first year no paralegal could compare to this.
5. Think how easy it would be to train AI to write wills and contracts. Feed it all the wills and contracts that you can find. At first it would simply be a feature of the paralegal, but all the edits, corrections and feedback lawyers around the country would make would convert a decent program into a program equal to or superior to any lawyer in the country.
The lawsuits have no future. It will be the biggest and most feared firms that adopt this first. They will save hundreds of thousands of dollars and they will be able to provide much better service.
1. This guy even points out that what the person was offering to do would not have been illegal, and it would not have been practicing law. So this argument looks like a frivolous charge.
2. This is not how I envision AI replacing lawyers.
A. I expect the first to go would be paralegals, they represent 14% of lawfirms (419,000 in the US).
B. I would then expect teams of lawyers would be whittled down. Sometimes these big firms will have 3 or 4 lawyers sitting at the table, I can see that being reduced to 1 or 2.
C. A lot of law never goes to court. People hire lawyers to read contracts, write contracts, wills, etc. I suspect much of this work will be done by AI.
D. I see AI becoming an assistant to a lawyer. He will direct it to write a letter, write a contract, review a contract, research legal precedent, etc. Previously this person might have needed a partner and a paralegal, now he can do it with just the AI.
3. He pointed out that the ChatGPT was excellent at defining what the lemon law was but was terrible at describing what to do if you were a victim. AI is based on what you give it to study. If you give AI a digital library of every single legal case and precedent ever, and the law, and every textbook on law, every legal journal, and every non fiction book on the law, and even every fictional legal thriller, you can train it to be much better.
4. AI is also trained by feedback. So if you start out replacing paralegals and the lawyers give feedback on the research it will train the AI as a whole. Paralegals make about 40k a year. So if you charged 10k for an AI paralegal for a year, and the firm had access 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and you could get almost instant feedback on your requests and you no longer needed to subscribe to various legal journals, it would be a no brainer. There are 419,000 paralegals and legal assistants in the US. It would be much cheaper to have the AI and in a single year the feedback to the AI would be like 10,000 lifetimes of experience. After the first year no paralegal could compare to this.
5. Think how easy it would be to train AI to write wills and contracts. Feed it all the wills and contracts that you can find. At first it would simply be a feature of the paralegal, but all the edits, corrections and feedback lawyers around the country would make would convert a decent program into a program equal to or superior to any lawyer in the country.
The lawsuits have no future. It will be the biggest and most feared firms that adopt this first. They will save hundreds of thousands of dollars and they will be able to provide much better service.
What was my erroneous claim? That we are not seeing sea level rise? The context of that claim was fear mongering by Al Gore and others that numerous places would be underwater and uninhabitable by this time. He made claims of 20 foot rise in sea level. We are not seeing any of those claims or the models that supported those claims being proven true. We can conclude they were either fatally flawed in their calculations or were out and out fraudulent.
-
1
- Show all
I began studying climate change at the end of the 1970s and in 1980 while at Rice University. One of my Geology professors went to Antarctica each year to look at ice cores. I am very familiar with this topic for over 40 years. I came to it looking at the irrefutable evidence that the burning of fossil fuel has caused the chemistry in our atmosphere to change. It is also quite logical that those changes would cause an increase in the heat from the Sun being retained.
Based on this climate scientists began using computers to model the climate. This is an essential component of proving the theory. If we get the models correct we could input climate data from the 1950s and it would predict the 1970s, etc. Al Gore used the models at the time to make his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". Watch that movie today and it is a comedy in how wrong it was.
You are not "respecting the science" if you ignore it when your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. This does not mean that the chemistry of the atmosphere has not changed, it has. Nor does it mean that greenhouse gases don't actually retain more heat, they do. What it means is there are many other factors at play, it is not as simple as addition and subtraction in 1st grade.
What bothers me is how screechy these "climate activists" are while also being, in many cases, boneheads. I have no respect for AOC, she comes across as a grifter trying to get trillions of dollars out of Americans. I also have no respect for Greta, she comes across as a kid being used by some very despicable people.
I taught Earth Science in HS and I soon reconciled with the fact that 95% of my students would never be Geologists. But then I saw Harvard students graduating with a major in Geology who didn't even understand why we have summer and winter. I don't think it is too much to conclude that 99% of Americans are truly not equipped to look at the science on this topic. They simply parrot what they have been told.
I have also found the Main Stream Media to be extremely misleading in how they present the science and the viewpoint of scientists. It seems the only scientists they will get on to talk about this is some TV star scientists, neither of which are Geologists. Sometimes you will see them with footage from some scientist studying ice cores but hardly let the scientists speak). So, yes, pretty much all scientists agree that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased since the start of the industrial revolution, though to be fair we only started carefully measuring this about 70 years ago (so there is a bit of an assumption there). Also they all pretty much agree that greenhouse gases trap heat from the Sun. That is it.
Why not ask a more relevant question, how many Geologists and Climate scientists agree with the claims made by Al Gore in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"? I would be stunned if it were more than 10%. However, this is a politically charged topic that could impact funding to the university so they will be diplomatic, and vague.
Based on this climate scientists began using computers to model the climate. This is an essential component of proving the theory. If we get the models correct we could input climate data from the 1950s and it would predict the 1970s, etc. Al Gore used the models at the time to make his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". Watch that movie today and it is a comedy in how wrong it was.
You are not "respecting the science" if you ignore it when your hypothesis is proven to be wrong. This does not mean that the chemistry of the atmosphere has not changed, it has. Nor does it mean that greenhouse gases don't actually retain more heat, they do. What it means is there are many other factors at play, it is not as simple as addition and subtraction in 1st grade.
What bothers me is how screechy these "climate activists" are while also being, in many cases, boneheads. I have no respect for AOC, she comes across as a grifter trying to get trillions of dollars out of Americans. I also have no respect for Greta, she comes across as a kid being used by some very despicable people.
I taught Earth Science in HS and I soon reconciled with the fact that 95% of my students would never be Geologists. But then I saw Harvard students graduating with a major in Geology who didn't even understand why we have summer and winter. I don't think it is too much to conclude that 99% of Americans are truly not equipped to look at the science on this topic. They simply parrot what they have been told.
I have also found the Main Stream Media to be extremely misleading in how they present the science and the viewpoint of scientists. It seems the only scientists they will get on to talk about this is some TV star scientists, neither of which are Geologists. Sometimes you will see them with footage from some scientist studying ice cores but hardly let the scientists speak). So, yes, pretty much all scientists agree that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased since the start of the industrial revolution, though to be fair we only started carefully measuring this about 70 years ago (so there is a bit of an assumption there). Also they all pretty much agree that greenhouse gases trap heat from the Sun. That is it.
Why not ask a more relevant question, how many Geologists and Climate scientists agree with the claims made by Al Gore in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"? I would be stunned if it were more than 10%. However, this is a politically charged topic that could impact funding to the university so they will be diplomatic, and vague.
-
1
- Show all
OK, and in the last 20 thousand years how much has sea level risen and fallen prior to the burning of fossil fuel?
During the last ice age sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today. So over the last twenty thousand years sea level has risen 400 feet. That had nothing to do with fossil fuel being burned during the industrial revolution since around 1850.
So put your 2.6 inch rise in sea level in the context that sea level has just recently (in Geologic time) risen 400 feet.
Yes, we see some land glaciers melting and yes, it sure seems like we are seeing melting at Antarctica and Greenland. But the prediction was 20-40 foot rise and we have seen 2.6 inches. And this in the context of sea level having risen by 400 feet since the last ice age.
So no, it is not at all clear how much of an impact the burning of fossil fuel has had on our climate.
During the last ice age sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today. So over the last twenty thousand years sea level has risen 400 feet. That had nothing to do with fossil fuel being burned during the industrial revolution since around 1850.
So put your 2.6 inch rise in sea level in the context that sea level has just recently (in Geologic time) risen 400 feet.
Yes, we see some land glaciers melting and yes, it sure seems like we are seeing melting at Antarctica and Greenland. But the prediction was 20-40 foot rise and we have seen 2.6 inches. And this in the context of sea level having risen by 400 feet since the last ice age.
So no, it is not at all clear how much of an impact the burning of fossil fuel has had on our climate.
This is what I expect from ChatGPT, students will stop studying for themselves and will mindlessly repeat this drivel from Al Gore, Greta, AOC, and a host of news anchors.
They will claim like Magenta that sea level has risen 2.6 inches, as though that is proof anything, while ignoring the fact that sea level has risen 400 feet since the last ice age. We have only just begun to carefully measure sea level like this, so for all we know this is a natural fluctuation.
But students won't need to study, they'll ask ChatGPT to write them a report they will turn it in and they will assume it is the gospel truth. That is how 4th, 5th and 6th graders see the world. It is black and white.
If you begin at an early age to make the official narrative the "gospel truth" then by the time they are 20 they will be completely brain washed and unable to see it any other way and anyone saying differently will sound like a crazy person.
They will claim like Magenta that sea level has risen 2.6 inches, as though that is proof anything, while ignoring the fact that sea level has risen 400 feet since the last ice age. We have only just begun to carefully measure sea level like this, so for all we know this is a natural fluctuation.
But students won't need to study, they'll ask ChatGPT to write them a report they will turn it in and they will assume it is the gospel truth. That is how 4th, 5th and 6th graders see the world. It is black and white.
If you begin at an early age to make the official narrative the "gospel truth" then by the time they are 20 they will be completely brain washed and unable to see it any other way and anyone saying differently will sound like a crazy person.
Are there searchable records for that? What does that have to do with your original
claim, any ways? Sea levels have been seen to rise despite your claim to the contrary.
I didn't say it did.
I did not realize you expected me to address so many issues when responding to one. Tant pis (that's French).
claim, any ways? Sea levels have been seen to rise despite your claim to the contrary.
I didn't say it did.
I did not realize you expected me to address so many issues when responding to one. Tant pis (that's French).
So then what are the other factors?
Well, first of all "heat" is energy and energy can be displayed in many different ways, not simply heat and melting ice. So a more energetic weather system does not mean more ice melts.
One thing we would think is that as the heat rises more water vapor would also rise into the atmosphere. Clouds reflect the sunlight back into space. On the one hand water vapor is a tremendous greenhouse gas, on the other hand clouds will prevent the sunlight from ever becoming heat in the first place.
Another thing is a more energetic weather could be good for life in the ocean and the ocean is a huge carbon sink.
Also, if the earth does heat up and you do get more energetic weather system how will that effect the growth of plants? Two thirds of the earth is ocean and the plants in the ocean are a very critical component of our weather and atmosphere. Increasing carbon in the atmosphere acts as fertilizer causing plants to grow faster.
I doubt anyone has the interest to sit through a few lectures on this topic, but suffice it to say it is not as simple as more CO2 in the atmosphere means Ice melts and sea level rises 20 feet.
Well, first of all "heat" is energy and energy can be displayed in many different ways, not simply heat and melting ice. So a more energetic weather system does not mean more ice melts.
One thing we would think is that as the heat rises more water vapor would also rise into the atmosphere. Clouds reflect the sunlight back into space. On the one hand water vapor is a tremendous greenhouse gas, on the other hand clouds will prevent the sunlight from ever becoming heat in the first place.
Another thing is a more energetic weather could be good for life in the ocean and the ocean is a huge carbon sink.
Also, if the earth does heat up and you do get more energetic weather system how will that effect the growth of plants? Two thirds of the earth is ocean and the plants in the ocean are a very critical component of our weather and atmosphere. Increasing carbon in the atmosphere acts as fertilizer causing plants to grow faster.
I doubt anyone has the interest to sit through a few lectures on this topic, but suffice it to say it is not as simple as more CO2 in the atmosphere means Ice melts and sea level rises 20 feet.
This is the point, there are many, many factors and all these people parroting the one factor while ignoring all the others are not helping anyone. As bad as it is now, I expect with ChatGPT it will become ten times worse. If 1% of Americans are capable of looking at complicated scientific issues intelligently it will probably be 0.1% in ten to twenty years.
Yes, sea level during the ice age is very easy to search, it is very well documented, and very easy to prove.
Yes, sea level during the ice age is very easy to search, it is very well documented, and very easy to prove.
So let's dig into this sea level rise. Since 1880 it has been 8-9 inches. Let's say 9 inches so no one accuses me of downplaying the severity of this issue.
So 9 inches in 140 years.
Over the last 20,000 years sea level has risen 400 feet. That works out to 2 feet per hundred years. This sea level rise was about one foot every fifty years, or to equate it to this rise, 9 inches every 36 years. The vast bulk of the sea level rise was over by 6,000 years ago. Yes, we know how much since 1880, but how about from 1740 to 1880? This is called background variability. Starting around 1880 it exceeded background variability, but the difference is between millimeters (background variability) and inches (what we are seeing now).
So then, is this really an issue that should supersede all other issues? I doubt it. Is it an important issue that should be addressed? Perhaps, but the hyperventilating and panic that is driving the policies does not seem to make any sense at all (unless you sell solar panels or light bulbs).
Meanwhile we have seen an utterly alarming increase in earthquakes and volcanoes. Although the news never reports on this, we know the governments are well aware of this issue because Putin has even threatened to nuke Yellowstone in the hopes of triggering a super volcano that would wipe out the US.
To me this is the far more urgent issue. Volcanic eruptions cool the earth, it is very likely that increased volcanic activity will completely counteract the influence of greenhouse gases. If that happens all of this concern over climate change will have been for nothing.
So 9 inches in 140 years.
Over the last 20,000 years sea level has risen 400 feet. That works out to 2 feet per hundred years. This sea level rise was about one foot every fifty years, or to equate it to this rise, 9 inches every 36 years. The vast bulk of the sea level rise was over by 6,000 years ago. Yes, we know how much since 1880, but how about from 1740 to 1880? This is called background variability. Starting around 1880 it exceeded background variability, but the difference is between millimeters (background variability) and inches (what we are seeing now).
So then, is this really an issue that should supersede all other issues? I doubt it. Is it an important issue that should be addressed? Perhaps, but the hyperventilating and panic that is driving the policies does not seem to make any sense at all (unless you sell solar panels or light bulbs).
Meanwhile we have seen an utterly alarming increase in earthquakes and volcanoes. Although the news never reports on this, we know the governments are well aware of this issue because Putin has even threatened to nuke Yellowstone in the hopes of triggering a super volcano that would wipe out the US.
To me this is the far more urgent issue. Volcanic eruptions cool the earth, it is very likely that increased volcanic activity will completely counteract the influence of greenhouse gases. If that happens all of this concern over climate change will have been for nothing.
Hey ZNP! I just had a thought. Given that military intelligence is at least 25 years, sometimes 50 years, ahead of civilian tech, maybe our low-batting-average poster is actually a CHATGPT machine from 25 years ago? It would explain the obsession with supporting government-issued excuses that long ago exceeded their used-by date, the (smart) grade 6 year level intelligence, and inability to develop its own theories?
ChatGPT is based on AI we had in 2020, so it is more than 2 years behind the state of the art today.
There is a term called the singularity when AI is smarter than we are. I would argue that ChatGPT is already smarter than 50% of the people on this planet. I think that would be undeniable. Not only so but AI can be specially designed to be smarter than those in specialized industries (chess grandmaster, Go grandmaster, Jeopardy are the three we have seen, but they are all many years out of date).
My guess is that if we look at the current version of AI that is state of the Art it is smarter than 100% of people in most things. There might be a small minority, say 5% who are truly smarter than AI in their special field. But even if that is true, AI is rapidly gaining on those 5%.
There is a term called the singularity when AI is smarter than we are. I would argue that ChatGPT is already smarter than 50% of the people on this planet. I think that would be undeniable. Not only so but AI can be specially designed to be smarter than those in specialized industries (chess grandmaster, Go grandmaster, Jeopardy are the three we have seen, but they are all many years out of date).
My guess is that if we look at the current version of AI that is state of the Art it is smarter than 100% of people in most things. There might be a small minority, say 5% who are truly smarter than AI in their special field. But even if that is true, AI is rapidly gaining on those 5%.
-
1
- Show all