AI, ML technology and the Metaverse 👾

I read the article when it was published, it was a hoot :face_with_hand_over_mouth: The new head of the op-ed department is obviously very gullible and The Irish Times has always had ideas above it station. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer paper :joy:

This is the crux. Available to manipulators the LLM et al are indeed not sentient as we would define it but they are capable of massive power. This is a tool and any tool in the wrong hands can become a weapon. However, manipulators are only part of the concern.

Wishful thinking. All the great tech minds, regardless of whether they are pessimistic or optimistic, conclude that this technology will be world changing and at an ever accelerating pace that will prove challenging.

AI expert Kai-Fu Lee championed AI technology and its forthcoming impact while also noting its side effects and limitations. Of the former, he warned:

“The bottom 90 percent, especially the bottom 50 percent of the world in terms of income or education, will be badly hurt with job displacement … The simple question to ask is, ‘How routine is a job?’ And that is how likely [it is] a job will be replaced by AI, because AI can, within the routine task, learn to optimise itself. And the more quantitative, the more objective the job is—separating things into bins, washing dishes, picking fruits and answering customer service calls—those are very much scripted tasks that are repetitive and routine in nature. In the matter of five, 10 or 15 years, they will be displaced by AI.”

Not long. Not stopping.

Focussing only on LLMs such as ChatGPT, which are only part of the AI spectrum means that we may miss looking at generative adversarial networks (GAN) that allow computer algorithms to create rather than merely assess. We cannot even yet perceive all the possibilities this will bring.

I was reading recently about the challenge of insidious knotweed in UK. (Posted a link to an excellent article in The Guardian on the the other thread). Makes me think, is there a perhaps a parallel here? Can failure to recognise a threat and apathy regarding taking control lead us into a quagmire?

As humans, we do tend to lean towards hoping for the best. Certainly, not many listened to the few who warned of Putin’s intentions for Ukraine. Hindsight is all very well but do we fail repeatedly to overcome this tendency? Will very human hesitation be our nemesis?

I agree with that, it’s LLMs I’m commenting on and I think artificial intelligence is actually a misnomer, but a great headline. When, if ever, real intelligence surfaces I’ll worry about it then (IMHO I’ll have been dead for a long, long, time).

For once I agree with the NRA, it’s not LLMs that will kill us, it the people using them and it’s maybe only whac-a-mole to try and coral the technology. But it is feasible to control the people. So, regarding your quagmire, I think keeping a close eye on the bad actors, physical or corporate, is as least as important as worrying about the tools they use.

In real terms I think Zuckerberg, for example, has been a bad actor, or at least an irresponsible one. It was not the Facebook technology that was the issue or needed control, it was the Company’s disregard for public safety that was the problem. If you have a legal framework to prevent them for doing harm then what’s under the bonnet techwise should matter less.

Maybe I’m rambling on :roll_eyes: but technologies will come and go, the enduring problem is behaviour.


BT suggesting 10k of its 55k job cull will be “replaced with AI” (so expect customer services to be even more sh*t and actual humans harder to pin down when things go wrong).

Not too surprising and does fit the predictions of automated jobs being transferred from humans to AI machines. Machines don’t need lunch breaks or healthcare or a place to sit. BT service may actually end better.

As for the servicing engineers that will no longer be required for maintenance of fibre lines, I would have thought they could long have seen this end.

The consequences of these and similar job losses throughout multiple industries will have a major impact. Retraining and new related jobs may pick up some slack but changes are already in motion.

Especially The Naked Sun :sunglasses:.

1 Like

A comment on LLMs from an IT worker perspective.

Instead of concentrating our all on the possible downsides of AI, let’s look at potential upsides

Or perhaps not. If you do manage to read to the end of this article it does turn a bit gloomy.

I’ll just stick with the Hortensia chair and leave smiling.

1 Like

Garry Kasparov did, in 1998.

"In 1998, I invented what I called advanced chess, in which humans played together with a machine partner. A true model for many kinds of collaborative AI integration today. And humans still play chess against each other all over the world more than ever. "

I Was There When: AI mastered chess | MIT Technology Review.

1 Like

As an avid watcher of the original Star Trek, I hoped that by now everyone (other than Vulcan Mr Spock) would now be playing chess in multiple levels against a machine.

Seems the tri-dimensional version is still not as popular as the regular flat game. The machine neither


I heard this morning on BBC Sounds, in part of Hannah Fry’s talk, that Gary Gaspanov used AI as a partner, playing against a competitor who also had an AI partner. Centaur Chess, using AI positively, in partnership, as far as I understand it! Except you won’t heed AI’s advice if you disagree, using your own grey matter…

1 Like

Another potential upside

This is not really because the latest AI is ‘smart’ but it is however capable of crunching huge amounts of data and presenting possible solutions without requiring bathroom breaks

1 Like

AI - French letter writing …

1 Like

Maybe by the time I and/or my OH needs at home help, in say ~20 years we can have a roboJeeves


Should be compulsory apparel for Tories :joy:

1 Like

Good robots

Maybe soon in France

A mildly interesting use of AI…

It is rather fun.

Only caveat is that there is often something quite specific intended by an artist. The cut off point is intended to draw the viewer in. This us lost when a symmetrical extension is added and the main focus distanced.

Van Gogh’s in particular - the table and its departed diners rather than the deserted street; the intimacy in the Arles bedroom.

I remember in my early twenties seeing Botticelli’s Venus in Florence for the first time. Took my breath away. I think I might have remained more detached had their been all that water and landscape.

Interesting that AI added extra diners and staff to Edward Hoppers lone Nighthawks, somewhat missing the point.

I do however, much appreciate your posting the link. I can imagine the tech being used to recreate damaged and partially lost paintings. Something to give critics endless hours of arguing!


Yes, agreed. I was impressed by the quality what the technology can do, but I didn’t find any of them added any value over the original artworks.

1 Like

Artificial intelligence could lead to extinction, experts warn