This review of a new Ishiguro book, given by Bill Gates no less, may be an outline of what we can quite soon expect to see
I donât think a machine robot, no matter how lifelike in appearance, can ever âmake up for the lack of socializationâ.
Even if someone really wants to believe an artificial life form is sentient and has feelings, at some point there will be hints or great big events of jarring realisation to remind someone that machine is not a human.
On the other hand, do we really need touchy-feely human behaviours in an efficient, tireless and constant servant? A good robot will not need to be humanlike to fulfil tasks but it may be nice if it is easy on the eyes.
Our mistake would be in thinking that a robot can be a social substitute for human to human interchanges. Machines may be excellent at programmed and possibly learned tasks but they will not actually care/like/love us. Thinking they do would be our mistake.
P.S. As the resounding silence to my posts would seem to indicate, I may need a Klara soon just to stop me talking to myself.
A very interesting read for anyone interested in a development of AI, the causal algorithm and how it substantially differs from the correlation-based machine LLMs
If you collect data on the number of shark attacks and the number of ice cream cones sold at a beach in Sydney, you will find thereâs a 99.9% correlation between the two. We, as humans, know that thereâs no causal relationship between how many people get eaten by a shark and how many ice creams get sold. The causal driver is the warm weather.
So, if you are trying to make a decision about how many ice creams to bring to the beach, you canât really look at shark attacks. Causal models allow you to eliminate the shark attacks. When you throw a lot of data at mathematical functions, you are just going to get shark attacks and your predictions suffer in the real world.
Inevitably, these artificial friends will influence what people look for in relationships. The âidealâ was always artificial. Compromise is essential for human interactions but any artificial entity, programmed only to please a viewer is not at all real, no matter how much it nods and blinks.
Iâm not sure exactly what to think about this new use of ChatGPT but do feel that whatever helps someone safely navigate through drowning in the grief of loss of a loved one, may be good
If robots can make cars, can perform intricate human operations, and a LEGO machine can play the drums, I can imagine that a robot orchestra will perform music at the Albert Hall one day, composed and orchestrated by AI.
Worth betting on?
âAnimusicâ on YouTube is pointing the way IMO. In much the same way that science fiction predicted real science technology.
LEGO
This Resonant Chamber one is a bit over the top, but illustrates the pointâŚ
I include this âGhost of Johnny Cashâ song as it sounds extraordinarily like the real Johnny Cash, and Iâm sure is AI generated, although I understand that no one knows whether it is or isnât.
There is no AI art, music, novels without everything that has gone before. In short, the achievements are still ours.
The panic is focused on what might be . AI is an extremely advanced tool, but it is just a tool. It is the humans holding the tools with whom we need to concern ourselves.
AI is also a brainwasherâs dream. Advocates for regulation want you to think that AI is about to discover sentience and write new religious tomes, invent propaganda and disrupt elections, all because it wants to, for its own devious reasons. In fact, the brainwashing threat is quite different.
AI can be sedimented with psychological techniques such as ânudgingâ. Nudging involves influencing your behaviour by altering the environment, or choice architecture, in different ways, by exploiting our natural cognitive biases.
I feel that the tool of AI is only a threat in the wrong human hands. I.e. ânudgingâ.
Music, literature, paintings etc. all fine as long as honestly presented as created by AI. I can really imagine the Jeff Koons art factory is working overtime now.
I think the Rabbit is another little gizmo for chaps to collect. Seems to overlap a few things with a mobile. Something else for men to ask their wives to carry in their handbag.
I read an article about this (this one) and it seems to be used for automating stuff⌠stuff that isnât already automated or doesnât have an API or a plug-in for things like IFTTT.
Instead of taking out your smartphone to complete some task, hunting for the right app, and then tapping around inside it, Lyu wants us to just ask the R1 via a push-to-talk button. Then a series of automated scripts called ârabbitsâ will carry out the task so you can go about your day.
âŚ
This pocket-friendly device is by no means meant to replace your smartphone. Youâre not going to be able to use it to watch movies or play games. Instead, itâs meant to take menial tasks off your hands. Lyu compared it to the act of passing your phone off to a personal assistant to complete a task. For example, it can call an Uber for you. Just press and hold the push-to-talk button and say, âGet me an Uber to the Empire State Building.â The R1 will take a few seconds to parse out your request, then itâll display cards on the screen showing your fare and other details, then request the ride. This process is the same across a variety of categories, whether you want to make a reservation at a restaurant, book an airline ticket, add a song to your Spotify playlist, and so on.
The trick is that the R1 doesnât have any onboard apps. It also doesnât connect to any appsâ APIsâapplication programming interfaces, the software gateways that cloud services use for data requests. There are no plug-ins and no proxy accounts. And again, it doesnât pair with your smartphone.
unless one is referring to animal husbandry.
