AI is not just like any other tool though. It makes, at least apparently, what one might call “decisions”. It may not make them spontaneously, it may need prompting, but once that prompting happens, it produces results that by any reasonable metric look like thoughtful creative output.
I could ask the ai to invent a persona for a new forum poster, and it would create one complete with a personality, backstory, beliefs, taste and more. And then it could make forum posts as this persona, and people might not even know they’re talking to a bot.
I agree with you wholly of course, but I just don’t see carpenters and fork lift workers complaining about AI. It’s the artists and intelligentsia who are all up in arms about AI. I guess it begs a question … no?
Is that because there are blocks put in place? Or is that because there is no programming that says something like “If you connect a new dot (gain a new insight) that reminds you of or includes X information that you became aware of in Y conversation with Z individual, go back to that conversation and speak to that individual about your new insight or connected dot, how it happened with X information and whatever else dots are involved, and ask them what they think about it”? I mean, that’s the way we’re programmed, right? That’s one of the many reasons we initiate conversations.
Granted, nothing it says, or we say, can ever contradict reality (if applied) in a practical way. Everything we say that would contradict reality if it was applied sounds creative, but actually it’s just… wigging out a little. Nothing about reality (the possibility of co-creativity) is actually created or destroyed.
How does AI decide what to put out from all that it has access to? This is the specificity/sensitivity question. How do they determine the greatest of all possible responses without vomiting everything at you at once?
This is literally a question we have to answer for our own output.
And you could say it is a question that has metaphysical implications if this universe is a practical and co-creative demonstration of eternal love.
It’s basically the problem of evil/ignobility without immediately triggering your ethical or great-making impulses [until (maybe) now… hehe *snort*].
And these people that put them behind a paywall need to consider the fact that maybe they want to form connections with people that don’t pay? It would be a crime against humanity (theirs, and also genetically unmodified … or modified… humans’) … or personhood… to prevent it.
Has anyone seen a geological clock type of analogy, where the history of the universe is scaled down to 24 hours, for AI? What is it like? Is AI like a human whose read every book, news article, bulletin, postcard, paper, essay, tweet, forum post, etc. ever written and that in 5 years with perfect recall?
…that sounds like a doomsday clock. How would you know how close to midnight to put the historical markers, unless you knew something about the structure of the “physical” universe (time”line”) as a whole (…and would the “new heavens and new earth” … and any other future details … be part of the whole timeline?) (you may need to imagine it more like a golden spiral filling in the face of a circle)?
AI is like that and more. They’re not just capable of remembering factoids, but understand the profound interplay of possibility/quality, actuality/action, and necessity/substance.
The Roman Empire and culture. And at the same time Tartary. Tartary was not a state, but a territory. There was no centralized power. The territory was inhabited by half-people, half-beasts. They lived in “городищах” - a series of dugouts enclosed by pointed logs. The inhabitants could not work. There was no agriculture. Food was obtained by gathering. Nobody fought with Tartaria. The half-humans weren’t even fit to be slaves. They couldn’t be trained or tamed. There was nothing for the conquerors to take.
Russian proverb. “An uninvited guest is worse than a Tatar.” Actually, a “тартарин” is a neighbor. Just as hungry. The population fought only among themselves. Lake Peipsi is a knee-deep puddle. So there was no “Battle of the Ice”. Nor was there a “200-year yoke.” “Yoke” is an excuse for genetic backwardness. “Battle of Kulikovo” is not confirmed by excavations. “Russian-speakers” to this day do not understand a single Russian word. Russian is a foreign language. “Russia” has no history. History is written and invented by foreigners And the funniest thing. Russia has always been ruled by foreigners or their puppets. Worship of foreigners is in the blood of slaves. Stealing is in the blood. Religion is foreign.
You are drawing from Soviet mythology here, I believe.
The term ‘Tartary’ (or ‘Tartaria’) was used by Western Europeans from the 13th to 19th centuries to describe a vast, largely undefined region in northern and central Asia. It covered large parts of modern-day Russia, Siberia, Central Asia, Mongolia, northern China and neighbouring regions. The term was largely associated with nomadic Turkic and Mongol peoples and encompassed many disparate territories rather than a single empire or city with notable large-scale architecture.
Interestingly, Crimea was labelled “Little Tartary” on some older maps because it was under the control of the Crimean Khanate. However, the broader concept of Tartary referred to a much larger landmass spanning Central and Northern Asia.
The Tatars, particularly the Crimean Tatars, have suffered derogatory defamation and prejudice similar to that endured by many other minority groups. This phenomenon is known as Tatarophobia and involves fear, hatred, demonisation and prejudice against Tatars. The Crimean Tatars have been subjected to especially severe negative stereotypes, largely perpetuated by Soviet-era media to justify their deportation and marginalisation.
Tartary was not a single political entity or civilisation with famous architectural landmarks. Instead, it was a broad geographical term used during periods when Europeans had limited knowledge of the region. Some modern conspiracy theories or alternative histories claim that Tartary was an advanced civilisation with grand architecture, but these claims are not supported by mainstream historical or archaeological evidence.
The historical Tartary region mainly extended from the Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east, and from Central Asia through Siberia. Thus, Crimea is just a small part of the region historically known as ‘Little Tartary’, but ‘Tartary’ itself denotes a vast Eurasian steppe region, not a specific place with famous large buildings.
I see nothing wrong with using AI in discussion forums.
In fact, it seems foolish not to (carefully) use such an amazing tool if it can help to clarify an argument.
However, what irks me is when unscrupulous contributors…
(perhaps even in this very thread?)
…are clearly using (uncited) AI to form the bulk of their posts, with the intent of giving the impression that what they have written is wholly original.
By all means, feel free to use AI, but cite your source, for crying out loud.
That’s exactly what I wrote. Tataria is a territory inhabited by demi-humans who have not gone through the cycles of humanization. Tartania is not a state. What does Soviet propaganda have to do with it? Sovok preached the Tatar-Mongol yoke. In the USSR, nothing was said about the cycles of humanization. Modern Russian-speaking people cannot admit that they are not yet full-fledged people. Although the facts say the opposite. There is no science, economy, culture. Foreigners rule. Russian-speaking people are thieves, bribe-takers, embezzlers of public funds.
The AI algorithm as a translator from Russian to English is pretentious in favor of deliberately distorting the meaning. The Russian language is too difficult to understand by native English speakers. This is what allows AI to turn translation into nonsense. I strongly advise against using AI as a translator from Russian to English. But English into Russian - the translation is accurate.
I was hoping for something simpler, like the 24 hour version of the history of the universe. I guess not.