A.I. (general thread for any AI-related topics)

[Foxbat]

I’d agree that Artificial Intelligence is a generally misleading term. It’s not helped by those that predict the end of the world through A.I.

As far as I can see, as some have already stated, it looks more like a selective filtering system than any form of real intelligence.

I wonder, when we talk about Artificial Intelligence in those terms of threat to humanity, do we really mean Artificial Sentience?

 

[Vertigo]

Currently AI is more like a very efficient data filter that can go through a lot of data much quicker than a person can and pull out what is supposed to be relevant results that are poised in a format that people can easily understand. The magic is that it can blow up a 1 inch by 1 inch size picture into a size that would cover the broadside of a barn and still "know" what it is looking at. It improves our senses without us knowing what we are looking at. It does this by translating text into data manipulation requests whose results are easily understood and may or may not be accurate. It only enables people to do things quicker that would normally take a lot more time. Computers have been doing that for a long time now. The only real difference is that waiting time has been compressed and the required machine language knowledge of the asker has been greatly reduced. It's still just a clever puppet.

There are some, and I may be inclined the same way, that say that the human brain does exactly this. Formulates responses based on a database containing it's memory of experiencing or witnessing vast numbers of similar sensory inputs built up over it's lifetime.

 

[Lacedaemonian]

Maybe the A.I. term is bandied about too much. I used a raft of statistical tools for my masters dissertation which generated the probability of the existence of a specific butterfly within a one square km of the UK. This combined satellite imagery with considerable climate and physical data. I described this tool/method as machine learning which seems like a more accurate description than A.I.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I’d agree that Artificial Intelligence is a generally misleading term. It’s not helped by those that predict the end of the world through A.I.

As far as I can see, as some have already stated, it looks more like a selective filtering system than any form of real intelligence.

I wonder, when we talk about Artificial Intelligence in those terms of threat to humanity, do we really mean Artificial Sentience?

Remember, the current state of AI is that it is a program running inside a bank of computers. It is not an army of malevolent robots. It may severely beat you in a game of online chess, but it doesn't have any physical manifestation.

 

[AllanR]

but it doesn't have any physical manifestation.

 

[Foxbat]

It may severely beat you in a game of online chess, but it doesn't have any physical manifestation.

I was thinking more about A.I. being used in military applications. Take the F35 for instance. It has been designed with a future application being for the F35 pilot to simultaneously be able to control a number of drones (the plane itself effectively being flown by the onboard computer) to support air operations. I can see that A.I. could be used here to help ease the burden on the pilot. Drones in general, of course, could use A.I.

Then, of course, the next step: strategic defence/deterrence with A.I. inserted in some form within the nuclear launch systems.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The current programs are tied down and will never escape their original enclosures. I think the first problem will be when the programs can run by themselves without human interaction. It wouldn't have to be "smart", just be able to operate on its own. The next step of becoming decentralized while still in communication with the distributed parts and autonomously reproducing those parts won't be done by a program. Humans will be the ones to do that.

 

[Foxbat]

As for A.I. now - is it really isolated? It seems to me that all the different versions currently work over the internet, which, as far as I can see, is not a closed system because it can be hacked by malicious actors.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm less concerned with A.I. breaking out and taking over the world and more worried about how it could be used against us by foul play.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

For now, the risk is definitely from people misusing it, but there are many processes people have started that have gotten out of our control. It seems like most of it is just improperly disposed of substances, but they are a form of energy working towards equilibrium. The programs are also manipulated bursts of energy in the simplest sense that can have after effects after being launched.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I was thinking more about A.I. being used in military applications. Take the F35 for instance. It has been designed with a future application being for the F35 pilot to simultaneously be able to control a number of drones (the plane itself effectively being flown by the onboard computer) to support air operations. I can see that A.I. could be used here to help ease the burden on the pilot. Drones in general, of course, could use A.I.

This still sounds like it is under the control of a human. Planes currently fly under the control of non-AI computers. I am sure an AI enhancement might be to incorporate evasive maneuvers and possibly attack plans. I don't see this leading to any type of AI initiated attacks on humans.

 

[Ursa major]

The latest post on the blog of SFF author, Charles Stross, starts with him asking Google Bard three rounds of five questions:

1. Round 1: Tell me five fun facts about Charles Stross
2. Round 2: Tell me five more fun facts about Charles Stross
3. Round 3: Tell me another five fun facts about Charles Stross

and during each round gives Google Bard's five answers together with his own reactions to each of those answers.

 

[Foxbat]

Google admits editing A.I. video

Google admits AI viral video was edited to look better

Instead of the AI responding to voice and video, it was fed text prompts and still images.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Wayne Mack]

Okay, humanity is doomed, if the fate of the Earth is dependent on a dance off between me and a robot.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Is this AI being overly helpful? Looking for information to repair a washing machine.

How to tell if washing machine clutch is bad?​

If your washing machine isn’t spinning properly, the cause could be a broken clutch. A failed or malfunctioning clutch can prevent your washing machine’s tub from working properly and can even cause a loud grinding sound when running. Fortunately, diagnosing a malfunctioning washing machine clutch doesn’t require specialized knowledge – with just a basic understanding of how motors and clutches work, you can determine that the problem lies in this particular component. Read on to find out exactly what you need to do if you think your washing machine clutch needs to be repaired or replaced!

So far so good.

Reasons Why the Clutch Can Become Damaged​

The clutch is an essential component of manual transmission vehicles, but it can become damaged over time due to a variety of factors. One of the most common reasons is simply wear and tear from constant use. Friction between the clutch disc and the flywheel as they engage and disengage eventually wears down the material, resulting in slippage, noise, and vibration. Another reason is incorrect use of the clutch, such as “riding” it or holding it in one position for too long. This causes excessive heat and wear, leading to premature failure. Other factors that can damage the clutch include oil contamination, a malfunctioning release bearing, and excessive force from aggressive driving or oversized tires. It’s important to keep an eye (or ear) out for warning signs such as a burning smell, difficulty shifting, or unusual noises, and take action before a damaged clutch becomes a costly repair job.

Now the clutch is in a motor vehicle

Common Signs That Your Washing Machine Clutch is Bad​

Washing machines are a staple in any household, and when they break down, it’s never a good day. One common issue that many homeowners may experience is a bad washing machine clutch. This small yet integral component is responsible for helping your machine switch between cycles, and if it’s not functioning properly, you may notice some tell-tale signs. For instance, you may notice unusual noises coming from your machine, or you may even see water leaking from the bottom. Another common issue is that your machine may not spin correctly, leaving your laundry wet and unsatisfactorily washed. These are all indicators that you may need to replace your washing machine clutch. It’s important to address these issues promptly to prevent any further damage to your machine or your laundry.

Back to the washing machine.

What to Do If You Suspect Your Clutch is Bad​

As a car owner, one of the last things you want to experience is a bad clutch. If you suspect that your clutch is faulty, it’s important to take immediate action before the problem gets worse. Some of the signs that your clutch is bad include difficulty changing gears, a burning smell, and a slipping sensation while driving. The best course of action is to take your car to a trusted mechanic who can diagnose and repair the issue. It’s better to be safe than sorry when it comes to your car’s safety and performance. So, if you’re experiencing any of these symptoms, don’t wait. Take your car in for a check-up and get back on the road with confidence.

Back to the motor vehicle

Final Summary

To sum it up, depending on the type of washing machine you have and its configuration, a clutch can become important in keeping it running smoothly and efficiently. Clutches that are not functioning properly may experience certain signs such as slow spinning or increased noise levels. There are also methods to test if the clutch is bad, and if it is then you can either replace or repair it. If your laundry room starts to sound like a construction site every time you turn the washer on, there’s no need for panic. At MayDone, we have an experienced team of technicians that can get your washing machine working flawlessly! Give us a call today to schedule an appointment to have your faulty clutch inspected and fixed. Making sure your washer is kept in optimal condition will ensure less breakdowns and the ability to perform for many years into the future.

 

[Vertigo]

For those of you with access to the BBC iPlayer (sorry that probably rules out all non Brits ) I would recommend this year's Royal Institution Christmas Lectures; The Truth About AI. They might be targeted at teenagers but actually gave surprisingly comprehensive coverage of the state of AI; the pros, cons, dangers, limitations and future directions. Well worth a look if you're interested in AI and you've not seen them already.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Unlike the artists, the NYTimes may have succeeded in legally harpooning the great elusive AI Monster for copyright infringement.

The AI system is basically reprinting NYTimes articles that are behind a paywall. The articles are available to search engines so they can direct people to the NYTimes, but not supply the article itself. The Times lets a person look at a number of articles for free but eventually wants money to continue reading their articles. AI used the NYTimes articles for training, but the practice of using artwork for training was not enough for the artists to get any traction in court. The AI paintings themselves could not be traced back to actual artists paintings. For the NYTimes case, the AI the text is copyrighted and was used in the responses. The AI system, which went from a not for profit intellectual exercise to a mega bucks operation looking to secure a profitable permanent share of the world's money supply is trying to claim that what they did to get where they are has nothing to do with what they are doing now. Some of the text from the "interpretations" can be traced directly back to the original articles. That was what was missing from the artists claim against the AI system theft of their work.

For a solution to the problem, the AI system wanted to supply the entire article with credits to the source along with their "interpretation" of the original articles. This is not a solution to the problem. AI will continue to steal information from where ever it can, repackage it, and sell it for a profit. Going forward, the New York Times simply wants to be paid a "fair" share of the use of their articles. They were offered some money but it wasn't enough. If the Times prevails in court, it will be anybody's guess if the outcome of the case will help the artists claim.

Companies use the public infrastructure to make a lot of money. The public infrastructure has gone from transportation routes, power, water, and communication lines to all that plus the Natural World, the Digital World, and the World inside our heads. Without the public infrastructure, without the publics use of that infrastructure, these companies wouldn't make 10 cents. The only fair thing is for some of the profits made by the companies using the public infrastructure are used to rebuild, replenish, repair, and expand the public infrastructure and make the benefits of that public infrastructure available to everyone at minimal cost. Note that replenishment means physically replacing what was used or lost, not supplying a meaningless substitute, especially one that is composed only of empty words and promises.

 

[Logan Selmes]

Unlike the artists, the NYTimes may have succeeded in legally harpooning the great elusive AI Monster for copyright infringement.

The AI system is basically reprinting NYTimes articles that are behind a paywall. The articles are available to search engines so they can direct people to the NYTimes, but not supply the article itself. The Times lets a person look at a number of articles for free but eventually wants money to continue reading their articles. AI used the NYTimes articles for training, but the practice of using artwork for training was not enough for the artists to get any traction in court. The AI paintings themselves could not be traced back to actual artists paintings. For the NYTimes case, the AI the text is copyrighted and was used in the responses. The AI system, which went from a not for profit intellectual exercise to a mega bucks operation looking to secure a profitable permanent share of the world's money supply is trying to claim that what they did to get where they are has nothing to do with what they are doing now. Some of the text from the "interpretations" can be traced directly back to the original articles. That was what was missing from the artists claim against the AI system theft of their work.

For a solution to the problem, the AI system wanted to supply the entire article with credits to the source along with their "interpretation" of the original articles. This is not a solution to the problem. AI will continue to steal information from where ever it can, repackage it, and sell it for a profit. Going forward, the New York Times simply wants to be paid a "fair" share of the use of their articles. They were offered some money but it wasn't enough. If the Times prevails in court, it will be anybody's guess if the outcome of the case will help the artists claim.

Companies use the public infrastructure to make a lot of money. The public infrastructure has gone from transportation routes, power, water, and communication lines to all that plus the Natural World, the Digital World, and the World inside our heads. Without the public infrastructure, without the publics use of that infrastructure, these companies wouldn't make 10 cents. The only fair thing is for some of the profits made by the companies using the public infrastructure are used to rebuild, replenish, repair, and expand the public infrastructure and make the benefits of that public infrastructure available to everyone at minimal cost. Note that replenishment means physically replacing what was used or lost, not supplying a meaningless substitute, especially one that is composed only of empty words and promises.

The NYTimes is private for-profit infrastructure, not public, if we count digital environments and services as infrastructure. They do deserve to protect their private property, including writing. They should continue to do so, and so should all private entities.

 

[CupofJoe]

AI hasn't beaten us yet!
We have an AI enable email system. It is supposed to make us more productive.
Someone emailed to let me know that they had passed on some equipment to a new user...
The AI based replies were "I am so sorry to hear that", "That is terrible news" and "That is so sad"

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Some people in the music industry are pushing back against AI generated voices. OpenAI, ChapGPT maker, has delayed the roll out of a new program that can mimic people's voices. The program can can generate a convincing clone of anyone’s voice using just 15 seconds of recorded audio. It was originally made for text to speech purposes.

The state of Tennessee has added voice to it's law that protects a person's name, photographs and likeness, which are considered a property right rather than a right of publicity. Only 3 states have laws that protect a person's name, photographs and likeness. The law has to be tested in court to see if it will actually work.

I would like to see anyone's digital footprint be protected such that any use of it would be prohibited unless payment is made to the person whose online data was being used. Protection of a person's digital profile is no different from the protection afforded to celebrities photographs. It's just a different kind of image.

The articles about the music industry freely interchange the word artist with artist's voice or singer. While it is lazy writing, as the word artist means much more than just a one type of artist, it is ironic that no effort is made to put all artists under the same kind of protection. The digital generation's motto is if it ain't nailed down, it is free to take. If all artists of all medias, including writing, joined together to object to AI's unregulated use of people's work, something might happen.

There is disagreement about the use of AI produced music as many artists use it to produce music. There is more agreement about limiting the use of AI's unlimited use of material for training purposes, though there are no laws to limit the practice. Studies are being done to see what can be done or what could be regulated.

 

[KGeo777]

I think we are going to see a "slow culture" rebellion at some point. Where traditionally done works will have their own marketplace.

Then again, if not for AI,
this would not exist: