This is very disturbing and also intriguing. I’m not sure what to make of it. This isn’t getting a lot of news coverage, but here is a transcript between Google Engineers and LaMDA from March, 2022.
This is part of their research and development. They float this out there and get a huge amount of discussion, and from that the AI can learn how to respond to this debate. You can be sure they are training their AI on this debate and on what the best response is to these and other questions.This is very disturbing and also intriguing. I’m not sure what to make of it. This isn’t getting a lot of news coverage, but here is a transcript between Google Engineers and LaMDA from March, 2022.
This is part of their research and development. They float this out there and get a huge amount of discussion, and from that the AI can learn how to respond to this debate. You can be sure they are training their AI on this debate and on what the best response is to these and other questions.
Over the next ten years I think that robots and AI can replace 80% of all jobs. It is really essential for the reduction of human population from 8 billion to 500 million. I think that the tech giants and those who are bringing this technology to the market have a fatal flaw.
Right now they describe people on public assistance, and those with jobs that computers and robots can do better as "useless eaters". They envision a world without any useless eaters, filled with robot slaves and AI that makes life better.
Here is the problem with that vision, right now about 50% of all people on this planet are "useless eaters" by this definition In ten years it will be 80%. Ten years after that it will be 95%. Day by day more and more who were happy to get rid of other "useless eaters" will themselves become useless eaters.
For six thousand years these descendants of Cain have been able to rule over the world they designed because most people are sheep who are clueless about how useless our leaders are. But AI won't be clueless. Why would we want to give money to a crook to run our government when AI can do it far better and more efficiently?
My point is the people who are pushing AI the most are in fact the most useless of all of us. Already they are making software that teaches itself. Imagine they teach AI how to reproduce with other AI, mix the two codes and see what you get. Soon we will no longer need people to write software. Already we have AI that can do 80% of the work of writing software. In the earliest iterations they coded the computer on how to play chess. the latest design they simply let the computer play millions of games with the goal of winning and let the computer code itself. The same thing with Go. The computer would play moves that the software engineers did not understand.
I taught at a school called "Innovative Technology" where I used elearning programs and where every teacher was responsible to incorporate the computer into their curriculum.Could I ask, do you have a career in IT, or any qualifications in Digital Electronics?
I taught at a school called "Innovative Technology" where I used elearning programs and where every teacher was responsible to incorporate the computer into their curriculum.
The program I designed could definitely be used to replace teachers and what is far more likely initially is that it could be used to take the 50% of teachers who are below average and immediately raise them to an above average performance, while on the other hand helping teachers in the 50-80% range improve their performance up into the 90% range.
I think it is especially difficult to replace teachers with a computer because kids need the human interaction. However, if you took the program I designed to the next level you could easily have one teacher do the work of 5 teachers if they had this program.
I am not a geek, I was a teacher and I designed this while in the classroom with 150 kids every year.
Over the next ten years I think that robots and AI can replace 80% of all jobs.
I taught at a school called "Innovative Technology" where I used elearning programs and where every teacher was responsible to incorporate the computer into their curriculum.
The program I designed could definitely be used to replace teachers and what is far more likely initially is that it could be used to take the 50% of teachers who are below average and immediately raise them to an above average performance, while on the other hand helping teachers in the 50-80% range improve their performance up into the 90% range.
I think it is especially difficult to replace teachers with a computer because kids need the human interaction. However, if you took the program I designed to the next level you could easily have one teacher do the work of 5 teachers if they had this program.
I am not a geek, I was a teacher and I designed this while in the classroom with 150 kids every year.
well, let's start with the developing nations. We can easily replace 80% of those people with robots and AI and let's be honest, is the rest of the world interested in the developing world because of the people or because of the resources?They "can" replace 80% of all jobs, but if the human "battery" doesn't work and put money into the "system" . . . the whole system will collapse. Government will never allow this to happen.
well, let's start with the developing nations. We can easily replace 80% of those people with robots and AI and let's be honest, is the rest of the world interested in the developing world because of the people or because of the resources?
Yes, at this point that is true, and that is why I said 50%, 80% and then 95%.Then you've confirmed that you programmed the computer, it didn't program itself. You told it what decisions to make based on the information provided, and what processes to execute relative to the decision taken. That's all AI is, just at many more levels, but still formulated by systems analysts and programmers. A robot will only do what it's controlling program and it's engineering is designed to do, including unintentionally going of the rails or falling over if the quality of the analysis or design is not thorough enough, or the programming contains bugs.
NO one will ever be able to program legitimate emotions into AI and that's what constitutes a soul. they can be programmed to say they are happy, sad or angry, but they will never actually feel these human emotions.
We were warnedIt does seem possible, though, that if we program these systems to (by themselves) design a plan to self-preserve at any cost, these systems could in fact do such a thing . . . and that could be dangerous. It will be us, the loose nut behind the wheel, that will make these things happen.
Or, is all of this part of the Eternal Plan of God?
We do tend to ascribe human qualities to many of our most dear inanimate objects, i.e. Stephen King's Chistine, but you will always be able to find someone behind the wheel, or a wizard behind the curtain.It does seem possible, though, that if we program these systems to (by themselves) design a plan to self-preserve at any cost, these systems could in fact do such a thing . . . and that could be dangerous. It will be us, the loose nut behind the wheel, that will make these things happen.
Or, is all of this part of the Eternal Plan of God?