If we put an AI in the role of the judge/attorneys, we will come up against "ah but the robot didn't do this thing that a human would do" and a lot of people would be convinced that the result was illegitimate. Not necessarily wrong, but without the legitimacy conferred by being done by a human being.
It would require our social system to turn over some decisions that have been done by a very protected sector of society (legal people) to newbies coming from the tech world. "This is the correct sentence because random forest says so" is going to ring hollow to a lot of people.
But yeah there must be low hanging fruit there that in theory could be picked.
Or maybe get that judge who codes to help educate some of his colleagues.
No saying it's better or worse, but maybe more suited to AI assistants?
That said, I'm sure ChatGPT can make emotional appeals.
IMO the 12 jurors thing is not ideal. Too many people, and cases can get technical.
https://twitter.com/swiftonsecurity/status/13855657371677245...
The accountability of the existing judicial system is already pretty thin, and in some cases being elected makes it worse rather than better, but turning it over to automation? Having a system that is entirely unaware of the society and political environment in which it operates? That is very bad for legitimacy. Now, you don't need legitimacy so long as the monopoly on violence holds ...
https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/21/great-taylors-ghost/
So, we start by using AI to help decide immigration claims or parole reviews, which frees up real lawyers to deal with the terrible backlog of more important cases. And once it's in place there, and the results have stood long enough without complaints (from anyone who matters) that society has effectively legitimised them, we can start using the AIs to start "helping" more with other cases.
...now I have to go shower.
We see this already now i high frequency trading, where companies essentially battle trading bots against each other
two computers playing heads or tails is about the extent of it
Bot A is trading against Bot B.
> surely they are making the traders money though
It is not possible in a trading battle, exclusively between two parties for them to both make money.
Even further the point: there are more participants in total than the botters
> companies essentially battle trading bots against each other
If the bots are trading against each other, but making money from the other market participants then they are not trading against each other - they are trading against the other market participants.
Much easier and it'll bring a new era of effective policing and prosperity for the corporations.
I know that people like to bash GPT-3 and ChatGPT for not being perfect. But people like to bash everything, especially things they don't understand.
Technology tends to grow much closer to an exponential speed than linear. What ChatGPT can do today is truly, utterly, astonishing. That's the new baseline.
"Substance dualism is a philosophical position compatible with most theologies which claim that immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world."
It's quite possible that AI and robotics will fully surpass humans in all tasks in the next several years and you will still be in denial. Along with millions of others.
Yeah no. Everything in your list should be prefixed by "kinda", and "kinda" doesn't really cut it in most of these situations.
They certainly are good tools but it's very far from what it promised, even decades ago.
> still be in denial
AI bros are in denial since 1950. With ifs and buts you can write compelling arguments for anything, in the meantime reality is a thing and virtually none of what you wrote is part of reality.
People like you are still in the "everyone will for sure have flying cars by 2000" stage of the new iteration
It's like saying "Excel can do your taxes". Sure, it can, if you put the correct numbers and formulas into the cells first.
AI beat the top players at all those games, but new rules were introduced until AI researchers mostly abandoned those efforts. For instance, the starcraft AI found a really good build order that let it quickly build "Stalkers", a versatile but relatively weak unit. I will note that that build order had several factors that humans found very surprising (consistently oversaturating resource collection by a lot), then controlled those stalker units so well even world-champion level players couldn't match them, with double the APM (meaning the human was allowed 2 actions for every 1 action the AI could take).
In chess the rules have become ... almost ridiculous. Due to cheating, in chess championships you now are "only allowed to play the moves any of the top 3 AIs would play twice in a match, after the first 5 moves". In other words the rules are utterly dependent on humans being worse than AIs. Like in starcraft, btw, AIs have gotten so confident beating human players that a general critique of AI players is that they've gotten "agressive, to the point it's insulting to human players", as one Youtube video put it.
AIs ... beat the average human at driving cars, hell, even Tesla's autopilot beats something like the 98% percentile driver in safety, and Waymo's "chauffeur" is apparently much better than that. I've used chauffeur, and driven behind/around a car controlled by chauffeur. You know what my main comment is? Waymo's chauffeur religiously follows traffic laws (speed limit, stopping at "stop" signs, taking excessive time to manoeuvre around footpaths, ...), it's incredibly irritating to share the road with it. And safe? I've never had an accident, but it's blatantly obvious to me: Waymo's chauffeur is a much safer driver than I am. And that's with people reacting very aggressive towards it.
The conclusion from people? "It's not safe enough". Somehow that argument does not mean we're taking away 98% of people's driving licenses ... it's a double standard, in other words. Exactly what that's based on, I can't tell you. My theory is that it's 95% based on the terminator movies and 5% on 'people will lose their jobs'.
Oh and if you widen the definition of AIs to any algorithm, then you'll have to admit: AIs ARE trusted above humans. For the following paragraph AI means "algorithm", not necessarily deep learning. Humans cannot fly the vast majority of planes, boats, rockets without "AI" assistance. By this I mean a whole lot of vehicles, from any modern Passenger plane to quadcopters require control inputs that the human nervous system is fundamentally unable to generate. For example, because they're too fast. Modern boats, oil tankers, large container ships, require control inputs that humans can't generate because they're too slow (yes, you can calculate, on paper, and then give control inputs, but nobody does that. It's too hard). For passenger planes, AIs are more trusted than human pilots: there are "autolanding-only" weather conditions. There are no "human pilot only" weather conditions. There are now harbours that have high fines if you let a human control the ship for certain classes of ships.
There are now passenger flights where the pilot's function is the checklist, closing up the plane, and turning on autopilot. Negotiating with ground control, taxiing, taking off, negotiating with ATC, flying the plane, Negotiating again with ground control, landing, taxiing and parking the plane are all done by AI. Some of these functions are even done by deep learning algorithms.
So I contend: the problem with cars is that humans won't LET AIs control cars, and at the moment that describes 95% of the situation. That's still 5% inaccurate, and it will change. Not because Skynet will take over, but because we're building ever more cars that are safer, more performant, more helpful ... generally better because the human driver is surrounded by ever more algorithms. For instance, one example where people, even good drivers, generally agree Tesla's AI does better than themselves is parking. That's a case where people will gladly hand over the reins to AI. Those cases will grow, and grow and grow until humans are out, legislated out even, as is partly done in aviation today.
And, frankly, the problem is not the question "how do we make an algorithm control the car better", but the answer to the question "if a human gets an AI to do something so difficult/stupid it fails, who pays for damages?". That's at least 50% of the problem, if not more.
The transition from "humans do everything" to "AIs do everything" is quite a bit further along than the impression you're giving. I agree with the conclusion that we're not there yet, but we're pretty far along.
And, finally, I'd like to reverse your argument. Let's say we're two AIs in the year 30000, discussing:
> It's like saying "Humans can do your taxes". Sure, they can, if you put the correct numbers and formulas into a book and school them with that book for 18 years first. How does it make any sense? My taxes are due this year.
This is such utter nonsense that I assume the rest of your post is also closer to being false than being true.
Go out literally anywhere outside of a major western city and you'll witness just how incredibly wrong you are about this statement.
> and Waymo's "chauffeur" is apparently much better than that
You forgot a major detail, on clear straight and wide californian roads with perfect conditions. Put them in a historical european city or in inda's traffic hell and witness the mayhem
Even waymo's previous ceo was full of doubt: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/alphabet-google-waymo-ceo...
We're still so far away from autonomous vehicles, to the point most still doubt we'll get there one day without rebuilding our entire infrastructure to accommodate it
Teslas can't even drive in snowy or foggy condition, that removes half the planet for 1/3rd of the year, but of course for a FAANG engineer living in the bay that's not a problem, for them we already have fully autonomous cars, it's just an extremely tiny subset of it.
I spent my holidays in a Eastern european country, I'd pay big money to film Musk in a fully autonomous tesla there, it would probably be the funniest shit ever, I bet it would crash in the first mile
I agree it'd be funny, but crash in the first mile? I'd take that bet.
I've been trying to get it to act as a dungeon master unsuccesfully. Do you have any other leads apart from GPT (ChatGPT or AIDungeon)?
You may need to wait a few minutes before you can reply. Refresh the page
> The new OpenAI models certainly don't need any help to answer their prompts
I've only tried ChatGPT, and it needs a lot of help if you want it to do useful stuff. 90% of my attempts to get it to do something failed. ChatGPT provides an answer that looks sensible at a first glance, but it misses the point. I needed to try a lot of variations of prompts to actually get it to answer my questions, and once it does it was a lot of effort to check if the answers were correct. That's why I am saying you need human assistance.
Also, there is entirely too much hype on gpt and it’s unwieldy nature and not enough on bert and actually useful tools.
I am sure someone made a statement like that 70 years ago. The fact that that person was wrong doesn't mean that nothing has happened.
You claim that it's "mostly shit as basically everything", even though the featured article shows that it's close to passing the bar exam.
I feel like I felt when explaining google search in 1999
That doesn't at all invalidate the achievement or belittle the impact such systems will have on society but, keeping this in mind does help to avoid blowing everything out of proportion (which is easy to do because, yep, ChatGPT is genuinely very cool and exciting tech).
Water trickles into a big pool. The flow was slow to start with but flow rate increases exponentially so that the amount of water in the pool doubles every year.
Now, it started flowing 100 years ago when the pool was empty. It's now half full. When will it be full? Remember it's been flowing for 100 years and it's only half full.
Human intelligence isn't growing exponentially and moores law is said to be breaking down.
I think if you had the credentials you could probably rent a server farm or a cluster of 160 Tesla v100s that would meet that requirement, although how long you would have access to that for $1,000 may be very disappointing.
It can also be tricky to determine if something is growing exponentially, or if you're full of wishful thinking.
We landed on the moon in 69, basically haven't done anything since then.
All our passenger planes are shrink down or blown up version of a boing 707 from 1957.
You car isn't much different than cars in the 70s, and it certainly isn't flying as we were expecting them to be back then.
Musk promised fully autonomous cars "in two years" in 2012.
I'd say the pool isn't being filled any faster than it was back then, if anything it looks like someone is pumping water out of it, straight in the sewers
Legislation and policy has mainly kept nuclear weapons under check, however, nuclear technology does provide us with a reasonably clean energy which is beneficial for the masses.
Perhaps regulation at some point will need to be crafted to ensure that only crippled AI or AI within a defined scope can be used for commercial purposes.
With AI we have to debate how destructive it is. The debate itself has been weaponized. You'll be debating against deniers and AI using all the logical fallacies and information overload it can feed you.
I, being the greatest armchair expert in human behavior I know, say it will destroy democracy as we know it.
What's left of it after social media?
Marty: Within two hours of his arrest, Martin McFly Jr was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary.
Marty: Within two hours?
Doc: The justice system works swiftly now that they've abolished lawyers.
Marty: This is heavy
But yeah let's just autoban via AI in real life. Sounds great.
I really don't like companies like that. EU flight compensation is really easy. Airlines have a simple webform that you fill out, and you get your money 1-2 weeks later. Companies like AirHelp make it sound like a really hard and difficult process, then take a big cut of your compensation as payment. And the SEO the crap out of it, drowning out the real claim webforms from the airlines themselves.
There's already things like this without AI to sort out for example EU flight compensation (companies like https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/), parking tickets (https://www.appwinit.com/) and probably more that I don't know about. All of these are complete waste of time to actually have humans deal with, and there's many more small crimes that could work the same way, also to make prosecutor offices more efficient and less biased hopefully.