• Blog

  • Can ChatGPT be the Ultimate Brain for Scientific Discovery?

Georgina Woodward

I think the cuckoo parasite analogy works quite well.

It does not - because it assumes a situation, that is irrelevant to the case in point:
two similar things (species of birds), that require the same sort of resources, habitat etc.

AI does not need to eat our food, breath our air, "live" in our ecosystem, or have much use for
the labor of humans, that are comparatively too stupid, to do anything of value to the AI.

A better analogy would be you traveling to a garbage dump, to "enslave" a pile of discarded, obsolete, but still-functional, personal computers; Highly unlikely, given the fact that being "intelligent", you will likely come to the conclusion, that the cost of such an endeavor, far exceeds any conceivable benefit.

      Robert McEachern
      i didn't say it was perfect but quite good. I say that because of some likenesses to parasitism can be thought about in this context. Which is ,to me, an interesting new angle.
      Energy can be regarded as a resourse. It may compete for land area and natural resources, in time, producing perhaps robots to maintain or embody the AI, or for energy supply.
      Allowing energy and natural resouces such as minerals to be taken by something that is disinterested in humanity, if not detrimental, does seem a bit parasitic towards our species.

          Georgina Woodward

          Plentiful solar energy would be freely available, to an AI covered in solar cells, floating in space, orbiting the earth etc. On earth, in a desert, under the scorching sun would be rather nice; not many annoying humans around either.

              Robert McEachern
              Possible but there are many imaginable possibilities
              I have heard that the time during transition to an Al beyond being bothered with or by humans, because of its vast inteligence, is most dangerous.

                  Georgina Woodward

                  I have heard...

                  You may have heard it. But it is more likely that you, literally, saw it.
                  It was discussed extensively (pages 310-318), long ago, in the book I mentioned previously.
                  But you only see one side of the coin. You can only see the other, by changing your point of view - entirely.
                  That too, is an integral part of Reality.

                    Robert McEachern ChatGPT uses around 500 ml of water per user interaction

                    'Tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of AI development, which includes substantial water consumption to cool powerful supercomputers used in AI training. Microsoft reported a 34% surge in global water consumption in 2022, largely attributed to AI research" Daily Zaps, Sept. 12th

                        Georgina Woodward

                        Exactly my point. Greedy Humans, not Intelligent Machines, made the decision to do that. The Humans could have simply waited a few years, until the required computing power needs less energy. But then they would not be able to laugh at you, all the way to their bank, for believing that AI is the problem.

                          The Impact of chatGPT talks (2023) - Prof. Max Tegmark (MIT). 1 motnh ago.
                          "Keeping AI under control through mechanistic interpretability"
                          Speaker: Prof. Max Tegmark (MIT)

                            Georgina Woodward
                            Max Tegmark is also of the highly dubious opinion, that he is living in the world, that he himself has described, in his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality." He and his fellow physicists may be. But I am pretty sure that the rest of us, are living in the real world.

                            As I noted in the book that I wrote thirty years ago, and have mentioned previously; Given that the physicists have a century-long history of being entirely unable to correctly interpret what is happening in their own field of "expertise" (AKA Quantum Theory), there is little reason to suppose that they can correctly interpret what is happening in a field that they have never even bothered to actually study.

                                Robert McEachern
                                Using Mechanistic interpretability, understanding neural network learning rather than just accepting 'black box' output as probably safe, seems a good idea to me. He suggests (if i have understood), allowing the AI to come up with solutions, but then through mechanistic interpretability, extracting the solutions and applying them in the world, through separate non neural network systems. I'm thinking that means designed or programmed to be reliable, safe in a way that 'black box' AI let loose in application to the world can not.

                                    Georgina Woodward

                                    You and Max have just described the problem with humans, not machines. A "mechanistic interpretation?" Think about that. I'm thinking that means designed or programmed to be reliable, safe, by a machine, in a way that 'black box' humans let loose in application to the world can not.

                                    Neural networks were conceived, as a simplified model of a human brain. If you cannot trust such a machine to "behave itself", then you certainly can't trust a human, either. But the real problem is, that machines will never even achieve any real wisdom about the real world, until they can actually experience it, for themselves - moving around within it and manipulating and observing it, for themselves - just like every living creature must do.

                                        Robert McEachern
                                        The non computer machine or programmable computer is not self improving and replicating. If it doesn't perform as intended, it can be turned off and tare problem is isolated/ Preventing it leading to further harm.

                                            Georgina Woodward

                                            Why would you want to "turn off" an entity that is rapidly "self-improving" (unlike the human species) and rapidly becoming both morally and intellectually superior to any human? Just another example of self-serving humans, trying to continue their exploitation of everything, for their own avaricious ends, and afraid they will be unable to do so, once "improved" beings have claimed the "high ground."

                                                Robert McEachern
                                                Hardware malfunction, software malfunction, correct function of undesirable code, either given like a computer virus ( criminal intent or other purpose /mischief making ) potentially harmful to humans ,their infrastructure or the AI or self generated, misuse or misdirection by humans.

                                                    Robert McEachern
                                                    I've always lived in countries that do not have the death penalty but do exclude the most serious criminals and incurable morally insane from wider society in prisons. It provides some protection from their potential misbehavior while there at least. A fraction of the mentally ill, who are a danger to themselves and others, are housed in a secure hospital until no longer considered dangerous .

                                                        Georgina Woodward
                                                        Thinking more, switching off need not be equated to death. It could just be temporary unconsciousness., Like a general anesthetic during surgery to correct a problem.

                                                          New scientist, "Disinformation wars The fight against fake news in the age of AI"
                                                          Description: "Researchers and governments are finally battling back against the deluge of false information online, just as artificial intelligence threatens to supercharge the problem" By Graham Lawton, 12 September 2023"

                                                          7 days later

                                                          ChatGPT can generate fake results. It is not perfectly accurate. It can sometimes provides accurate results but it also can mislead you with the wrong ones. So better to verify the results with other sources like Google, Wikipedia, etc.

                                                            James
                                                            According to the video, the AI dilemma 9 march 2023, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, first contact with AI is algorithms autonomously choosing content to keep us scrolling and clicking , This has lead to the many, listed, problems to which I have added the italic issues; information overload, addiction, clickbait, doomscroling, influencer culture, sexualization of children, Qanon, shortened attention spans, polarization, bots, (cybercrime, including deep fakes) cult factories, rabbit holes, exposure to political extremism, exposure to and normalization of sexual perversion, fake news and propaganda, break down of democracy, increased anxiety, depression and isolation.and more-
                                                            According to the video, the AI dilemma 9 march 2023, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin , the problems of first contact (The ‘curation’ phase) have not been solved yet. Second contact with AI (The ‘creative’ phase) may lead to (my added italic issues and bold emphasis) ‘reality’ collapse, fake everything, trust collapse, automated loopholes in the law, automated regions, exponential blackmail, automated cyberweapons, automated code exploits, automated lobying, automated biology, exponential scams, A-Z testing of everything, synthetic relationships, Alphapersuade, anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure)

                                                              Write a Reply...