It has been claimed in the past that computers would never think "because they are made of matter"
It was a serious statement at the time it was made, but it is clearly ludicrous. Like the universe created special states for arranging energy in just to make the human brain from.
If, as you were replacing neurons, you put them together in the same arrangement in the jar next door so you had 2 exact copes, which one is your brain?
At the exact point 50% of your neurons are copied, which one is your brain?
The best question is : does it matter?
These are similar to the contemplations that resulted in 'cogito ergo sum', being that all you can prove is that you have thoughts, so on some level, somewhere there is something having those thoughts : "I think, therefore I am"
Ah, the ever present American Exceptionalism. China really does not care what happens within the borders of the US, at least as far as stopping them developing their own models.
Make laws, make policy, ban them from US markets. It won't stop China doing whatever the hell they want. Like SpaceX developed reusable rockets and China thought "That's a good idea" and now they have their own reusable rockets.
They will do that with AI too, and fast. Having your head in the sand just exposes your rear end, and you've removed your ability to see the predator coming...
It's like saying that thinking cannot generate new knowledge because all thought is just rearranging the information we get from our senses, or memory of previous information from our senses, and we do nothing more than figure out the most likely word to say next in a conversation.
Either humans are not capable of intelligence or computers are capable of becoming intelligent. Neither or both.
"Consumers are increasingly turning to platforms like ChatGPT to research and make decisions because traditional searches have been ruined by advertising, so it’s important that we show up to ruin those moments as well"
Personally, I would say that if it cannot be shown to be true or false, it cannot be said to be true (or false).
Asking that about that sentence is, to my mind, a category error, like asking what sound yellow makes.
I'm reminded of the episode of Star Trek (TOS) where they make a bunch of robots explode by saying "This sentence is false". Any reasonably written software deals with exceptions very easily.
As I say above, here in the UK we used to have the top rate of tax at 95% of your earnings, and it was the period of fastest growth for poor and middle class people (Boomers at the time)
Unfortunately, the rich are the ones most capable of buying democracy, and the current set of politicians seem to very much welcome the money...
I fully agree. Tax wealth, not work. Then it is far easier to lift yourself from poverty, but harder to hold on to vast amounts of wealth.
After WW2, when tax on the wealthy was far greater, sometimes 95% of their income (in the UK at least), it was the period when the largest number of ordinary people were raised from poverty to middle class status, yet the number of rich people also increased greatly. When that stopped, wages stagnated, and now we have a cost of living crisis. Connect the dots, lol...
Many people think that the market is either 100% free, or 100% controlled, but a free market that operates within defined limits that will stop the greatest excesses of the rich ruining things for everyone else is the sweet spot we should be aiming for.
There is a firm opinion in some circles that an AI can never do anything but recombine already known things despite a rising number of cases where that very much appears to be an inaccurate view.
Any slim possibility that vital information was given to the AI to make the task just one of recombination, rather than coming up with anything original, is grabbed with both hands no matter how tenuous.
I can understand why, nobody likes the idea of a machine capable of doing the job of a human, and jobs requiring the mind are especially sacrosanct. But like farm workers in the early part of the C20th, not liking the incoming technology won't change the effect it will have when companies get the idea they can make more money and hire less people.
Those shows are just shorthand for 'utopian future with no need for money', 'distopian future where corporations have control', 'distopian future where machines have control', 'distopian future where the government have control' etc
Plainly, the precise future we get will be as unlike the films as our current situation is like Metropolis (robot girlfriends, skyscrapers, drones/flying transport) but the specifics are very much different.
We certainly do live in interesting times. Would be nice for them to get a bit less interesting IMO.
I don't like what AI is doing to the world and the tools it puts into the hands of those who would make the world a worse place, but I don't have my head in the sand about the inevitability of what is about to happen in a lot of fields, for better or worse.
Companies will see it as a way to make more for less, they will lay off many people, not realising, as Henry Ford did, that to make money you need to pay your workers, so they can buy products.
What the end state will be is very unclear right now, could be bladerunner, could be star trek, could be 1984. Could be terminator.
For font design, and art beyond what could be called boilerplate art, real art, not just something to quickly throw on a website so you have something there, AI is not a good tool.
I think AI will take over many jobs, firstly in the arrangement of characters and words into stock text, or coding. But art, not just pictures, is something that will take longer and may never happen. Design is very similar.
Good art makes you feel something, and you need the human experience to feel that before you can make that and make other people feel that.
How about no? I am the one who judges.