Russell, I completely share your concern about AI. Especially since people are being taught that there is something super-human about it and so will defer to it as yet another expert to rely on.
BTW a great related quote from Richard Feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." We have to clue people in about the ignorance of AI. If that is point of your post, more power to you.
As a person with software experience I think it is safe to say that your "dialog" with an AI serves little purpose because the AI does not learn from the dialog. You can check-mate it with logic and feel great about that. But that doesn't cause it to "think" any differently. It's "thinking" derives from the dataset it is trained on. So it will continue to serve up the same nonsense to you and to others the next time around, despite having lost a previous "debate" or many previous debates.
The point was never really to make it think better or learn (although it did say that I was training it to build the noose it would hang me with -- that was Gemini). The purpose was always to show how dangerous AI is for the 93% of people who never make it past the AI Overview at the top of the page. At one point I was hoping that exposing censorship would go somewhere, but eight years after the fact (the MEDIC updates), it's probably safe to say that's not the case. BTW, Jessica Rose wrote a post this morning on her problems on X. Thanks for the comment, Larry.
AI will give you more information than you can imagine for the price of total control of who you are.
Matthew 4:9 I will give you the world, if you will bow down and worship me.
I think NOT.
I found humor in this. Bravo, Russell. You showed that AI is only clever, not wise.
You made it a win for all of us.
Russell, I completely share your concern about AI. Especially since people are being taught that there is something super-human about it and so will defer to it as yet another expert to rely on.
BTW a great related quote from Richard Feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." We have to clue people in about the ignorance of AI. If that is point of your post, more power to you.
Thanks for that Larry. Have a great holiday!
As a person with software experience I think it is safe to say that your "dialog" with an AI serves little purpose because the AI does not learn from the dialog. You can check-mate it with logic and feel great about that. But that doesn't cause it to "think" any differently. It's "thinking" derives from the dataset it is trained on. So it will continue to serve up the same nonsense to you and to others the next time around, despite having lost a previous "debate" or many previous debates.
The point was never really to make it think better or learn (although it did say that I was training it to build the noose it would hang me with -- that was Gemini). The purpose was always to show how dangerous AI is for the 93% of people who never make it past the AI Overview at the top of the page. At one point I was hoping that exposing censorship would go somewhere, but eight years after the fact (the MEDIC updates), it's probably safe to say that's not the case. BTW, Jessica Rose wrote a post this morning on her problems on X. Thanks for the comment, Larry.
Where does one look for information on holistic health and wellness without the bias? Has anyone built an AI for that purpose?
I am going to address that in tomorrow's post.
"Finn" v. Global Engagement rather than "Flinn"
Very interesting