Talking to AI

[raklian]

wjfox: I am 44. Will I reach Longevity Escape Velocity within my lifetime? Assuming I live to, say, 85, and lead a healthy lifestyle. What are my chances? Please, please don't give a vague or "on the fence" response. I want your best guess. Surely with progress in medicine and biotech, accelerated by AI, it could happen?

Conclusion: Given the accelerated pace of research and the integration of AI in biomedicine, there's optimism for significant advancements in life extension within the next few decades. By the time you reach 85, it's plausible you'll have access to therapies that can extend your healthspan and potentially your lifespan. However, achieving true LEV, where aging is indefinitely halted or reversed, remains speculative and isn't a guarantee within that timeframe.

Remember its training data is using current literature. I suspect it will change its answer if we ask it again in a decade from now.

Besides, if it were around 10-20 years ago and you asked it this same question, it probably would have said there is no chance.

[Cyber_Rebel]

Remember its training data is using current literature. I suspect it will change its answer if we ask it again in a decade from now.

Besides, if it were around 10-20 years ago and you asked it this same question, it probably would have said there is no chance.

I'd also suggest asking the "Search with Bing" version of GPT, as it might be able to add in some added details from recent developments.

On that note, has anyone tried the version where you can actually talk with natural voice to GPT, kind of like PI AI? I don't know why, but I always feel a bit more "nervous" when holding a conversation with GPT in this manner, maybe because it feels like I'm asking an actual person something, and my brain is still perplexed that this is an AI.

Not exactly at "Her" level yet as the conversation is more back and forth, but I could see it getting there with the next big iteration and possible self-agency.

[wjfox]

wjfox: What is the most likely way in which the human race will end?

GPT-4: The future is inherently uncertain, and the question of how or whether the human race might end is speculative. However, numerous theories and scenarios have been proposed based on scientific, historical, and philosophical considerations. Some of these include:

Natural Disasters:

Asteroid Impact: A large asteroid impact could cause significant destruction, triggering fires, tsunamis, and a nuclear winter effect.
Supervolcanic Eruption: A supervolcanic eruption could spew enough ash into the atmosphere to block sunlight and cool the planet dramatically.
Gamma-Ray Burst: A gamma-ray burst directed at Earth could strip away the atmosphere and sterilize the surface.

Anthropogenic Factors:

Nuclear Warfare: The use of nuclear weapons could lead to widespread destruction and a nuclear winter scenario.
Climate Change: Unchecked climate change could lead to extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and loss of habitable land.
Biological Warfare or Pandemics: The intentional or accidental release of deadly pathogens could result in widespread death.

Technological Risks:

Artificial Intelligence: Misaligned or malevolent AI could pose existential threats if it surpasses human intelligence and control.
Technological Accidents: Accidents stemming from advanced technologies, like nanotechnology or synthetic biology, could have catastrophic consequences.

Resource Scarcity:

Depletion of essential resources like water, food, or energy could trigger global conflicts and societal collapse.

Cosmic Factors:

The Sun's evolution into a red giant will eventually engulf the inner planets, including Earth, though this is expected to occur billions of years in the future.

Unknown Unknowns:

There could be threats that humanity is not currently aware of or hasn't yet encountered.

Self-destruction:

The potential for self-destruction through war, environmental degradation, or other means is also a concern.

Each of these scenarios presents a different level of risk, and the likelihood of any one event occurring is difficult to ascertain. It's often argued that focusing on long-term risk reduction, technological innovation, international cooperation, and building resilient systems are crucial steps towards mitigating these potential existential threats.

wjfox: If you had to pick one from that list, which one would you pick?

GPT-4: It's challenging to pick one scenario from the list as the most likely, since the likelihood of each scenario can change over time based on human actions and unforeseen events. However, among the listed scenarios, anthropogenic factors such as climate change and nuclear warfare are often highlighted as immediate and substantial threats given current global conditions.

Climate change, in particular, is already having observable effects on the environment, and its impacts are projected to increase over time if substantial actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are not taken. It encompasses a range of potential calamities including extreme weather events, sea-level rise, loss of biodiversity, and disruptions to agriculture and freshwater resources.

On the other hand, the potential for human conflict escalating to nuclear warfare remains a pressing concern, especially in politically unstable regions. The aftermath of a large-scale nuclear war could have devastating global consequences.

Both of these scenarios reflect how human actions can significantly influence existential risks, and they underscore the importance of proactive global cooperation and policy-making to mitigate such risks.

[caltrek]

caltrek: What percentage of the population of the United States has access to free or low cost usage of computers and the internet by visiting their local libraries?

Ask Bing: According to the web search results, there is no definitive answer to the percentage of the population of the United States that has access to free or low cost usage of computers and the internet by visiting their local libraries. However, some estimates can be derived from the available data.

One report from 2010 states that nearly one-third of Americans age 14 or older–roughly 77 million people–used a public library computer or wireless network to access the Internet in the past year(1). Assuming that the population of the United States in 2010 was about 309 million, this would imply that about 25% of the population had access to library computers and internet in that year.

Another report from 2021, based on the 2018 American Community Survey, shows that 27% of respondents age 16 or older used a library’s website in the previous 12 months(2). This suggests that at least 27% of the population had access to library internet services, either through their own devices or library computers, in 2018. However, this may not capture the full extent of library internet access, as some people may use library computers or wireless networks without visiting the library website.

A third report from 2005 indicates that 98.9 percent of all public libraries offer free public access to computers and the Internet(3). This means that almost all libraries in the United States provide the opportunity for people to use computers and internet at no or low cost. However, this does not necessarily mean that all people who live near a library can or do take advantage of this service. There may be barriers such as limited hours, availability, or quality of computers and internet, as well as personal preferences, needs, or circumstances that prevent some people from using library computers and internet.

Therefore, based on these sources, it is likely that the percentage of the population of the United States that has access to free or low cost usage of computers and the internet by visiting their local libraries is somewhere between 25% and 98.9%, depending on how access is defined and measured. However, more recent and comprehensive data would be needed to provide a more accurate and reliable estimate.

Sources:

(1) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/m ... education

(2) https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens ... cs-49.pdf

(3) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/ ... echnology

[caltrek]

Rather than post a specific "discussion" I have had with AI lately, I thought I would just give some initial impressions. Mostly as a result of my use of AskBing.

At this point, I would give it credit as a potentially useful assistant, but not ready for prime time in the sense of taking away anybody's job (not even a competent librarian / research assistant). Take questions related to economics. It would be like encountering someone who is well learned in classical economics, but not much else. Ask it a question that would require a little out of the box thinking that comes with an understanding of other schools of thought and you are liable to get an answer about how it could not find anything that would be responsive to my question. Although it takes on an apologetic tone, it does not seem to otherwise recognize the nature of its deficiency.

Or take something like history and geography. In trying to do some research on the Great Depression of the 1930s, it encountered great difficulties in understanding the difference between "Maine" and "California." When this confusion was point out, it apologized. In the very next exchange, it again failed to make the proper distinction, again writing as if the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco were located in Maine. So, it did not even learn from its mistake.

It does help me track down some internet sources of which I might not otherwise become aware, but that is about it. Useful, but not exactly awe inspiring.

[Tadasuke]

When do you think this particular prediction regarding AI is going to be true?



I'm not sure if this is the topic to post this.

Today I was talking (yes, talking with voice) to ChatGPT and for the first time it didn't respond with wrong answers, imagine that!

[wjfox]

wjfox: Should tiny organisms like bacteria or insects have rights?

ChatGPT: The question of whether tiny organisms like bacteria or insects should have rights is a complex and philosophical one, involving considerations from ethics, science, and law. Here are some key points to consider:

Scientific Understanding: Our understanding of organisms varies greatly. Bacteria are single-celled organisms without a nervous system, making them fundamentally different from animals in terms of sentience and suffering. Insects, while more complex, have a simpler nervous system compared to higher animals, and there is ongoing debate about their capacity for pain and suffering.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations often revolve around the capacity for suffering. Many ethical frameworks give more consideration to organisms that can experience pain. Since our understanding of pain in insects is limited and virtually non-existent for bacteria, this influences the debate on their rights.

Practical Implications: Granting rights to such organisms would have significant practical implications. Bacteria, for instance, are ubiquitous and essential to life on Earth, including human life. They play roles in digestion, decomposition, and are used in countless industrial processes. Similarly, insects are integral to ecosystems, acting as pollinators, decomposers, and a food source for other animals. Balancing their rights with ecological and human needs would be challenging.

Legal and Moral Precedent: Currently, most legal systems grant rights primarily based on an organism's complexity, sentience, and relationship to humans. Pets, for example, have certain protections, while livestock have different standards, and wildlife yet another. Extending rights to insects or bacteria would require a significant shift in legal and moral thinking.

Environmental Ethics: Some argue from an environmental perspective, suggesting that all living organisms have intrinsic value and deserve consideration. This view often advocates for the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity rather than individual rights for each organism.

Degree of Protection vs. Rights: There's a distinction between offering some level of protection to organisms and granting them rights. For instance, regulations that prevent unnecessary harm to insects (like restrictions on certain pesticides) are different from granting insects individual rights.

Cultural and Religious Views: Different cultures and religions have varying views on the treatment of living organisms, ranging from strict non-harm principles (like Jainism) to more utilitarian views. These perspectives influence how societies think about the rights of small organisms.

In conclusion, while it's a growing area of ethical and philosophical discussion, the consensus leans towards a more pragmatic approach that focuses on ecosystem protection and preventing unnecessary harm, rather than granting individual rights to bacteria or insects. The debate is ongoing and evolves with our understanding of biology, ecology, and ethics.

[caltrek]

caltrek: Please explain to me Karl Marx’s theory of the tendency of the rate of profits to decline.

AskBing: Karl Marx’s theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a hypothesis in the crisis theory of political economy, according to which the rate of profit —the ratio of the profit to the amount of invested capital —decreases over time. Marx argued that overall technological progress has a long-term “labor-saving bias”, and that the overall long-term effect of saving labor time in producing commodities with the aid of more and more machinery had to be a falling rate of profit on production capital, quite regardless of market fluctuations or financial constructions (1). In other words, the value of a commodity is the amount of labor that is socially necessary to produce that commodity. Marx argued that technological innovation enabled more efficient means of production. In the short run, physical productivity would increase as a result, allowing the early adopting capitalists to produce greater use values (i.e., physical output). In the long run, if demand remains the same and the more productive methods are adopted across the entire economy, the amount of labor required (as a ratio to capital, i.e. the organic composition of capital) would decrease. Now, assuming value is tied to the amount of labor necessary, the value of the physical output would decrease relative to the value of production capital invested. In response, the average rate of industrial profit would therefore tend to decline in the longer term (1). The theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall has been regarded, by most Marxists, as the backbone of revolutionary Marxism (1).

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_ ... it_to_fall

[wjfox]

wjfox: Why won't OpenAI reveal the parameter count of GPT-4? Why the big secret?

ChatGPT: OpenAI's decision not to publicly disclose the specific parameter count of GPT-4 and other details about its architecture could be influenced by several considerations. While I can't provide an official statement from OpenAI on this matter, I can outline a few potential reasons based on common practices in the field of artificial intelligence and considerations related to competitive advantage, security, and responsible AI development:

Competitive Advantage: The specifics of GPT-4's architecture, including its parameter count, represent valuable intellectual property. By keeping these details confidential, OpenAI may aim to maintain a competitive edge in the rapidly evolving field of AI. Revealing too much information could potentially enable competitors to replicate or closely mimic their advances.

Misinterpretation and Misuse: Sharing the parameter count without context could lead to misinterpretations about the model's capabilities, limitations, or improvements over previous versions. Users might incorrectly equate a higher parameter count with better performance across all tasks, which is not always the case. OpenAI might prefer to focus on functional improvements and application outcomes rather than raw specifications.

Security Concerns: Detailed information about the model's architecture could potentially be used to exploit its weaknesses or manipulate its outputs. By limiting the amount of technical detail available to the public, OpenAI could be taking steps to mitigate these risks and ensure the model's responsible use.

Responsible AI Development: OpenAI has expressed commitments to the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. Part of this approach involves careful consideration of the information released about new models to prevent misuse and ensure that their AI benefits all of humanity. By controlling the release of detailed technical specifications, OpenAI may aim to pace the adoption and integration of GPT-4 in a way that aligns with ethical guidelines and societal readiness.

Research and Development Strategy: The development of models like GPT-4 involves ongoing research and potentially iterative improvements. OpenAI might choose not to disclose specific details to maintain flexibility in their R&D strategy without being tied to public expectations based on previously released specifications.

It's worth noting that OpenAI has shared insights into the performance improvements, capabilities, and potential applications of GPT-4, focusing on how the model can be used effectively and responsibly rather than on the underlying technical specifications. This approach aligns with their broader goals of promoting safe, ethical, and beneficial AI development.

[wjfox]