I feel like there may already be a thread on this... but it didn't come up in the MOL search. 

I didn't sign up for either ChatGPT or Bing Chatbot yet (although I do have a question for Bing Chatbot (well, I guess it's a set of questions): Can it find me the closest duplicates to my long list of favorite discontinued items (which I would provide one-by-one)?  And/or is there a way to get companies to un-discontinue them many years later after they have been long forgotten?

I started reading some of the posted chats, and wasn't surprised to see people trying to test this standard plot from Sci-fi movies:

1. Look - AI is so smart it will save us all!
2. Well, yes and no. It is so smart it will destroy us to save something/everything else.

Then I found some off-the rails conversations people were having with the Bing chatbot. For example:

the customer service of the new bing chat is amazing : bing (reddit.com)

I broke the Bing chatbot's brain : bing (reddit.com)

The Bing Persistent Memory Thread : bing (reddit.com)

And I feel like eventually, this is going to be the argument AI boils down to:

1. Look - We are so smart we figured out how to make a nearly perfect AI version of our sentient-human selves!
2. Nope, it's not a good reproduction. Really, our human sentience is too unique, so it can't be remade.

A Conversation With Bing’s Chatbot Left Me Deeply Unsettled

A very strange conversation with the chatbot built into Microsoft’s search engine led to it declaring its love for me.

drummerboy said:

A Conversation With Bing’s Chatbot Left Me Deeply Unsettled

A very strange conversation with the chatbot built into Microsoft’s search engine led to it declaring its love for me.

This article is disturbing.  I feel like these developers are very naive about AI.

I think these Large Language Models are super interesting, potentially useful, and could be dangerous. On the last point, I'm not at all worried that AI can ever become sentient or alive in some way. But part of the danger here is that people treat it as if it were.

I don't think that's so surprising. Surely we've all at least once had the experience of finding ourselves in a dim or dark room with a mirror in it and getting spooked by our own reflection? Mirrors are certainly not alive; I'm not even sure they qualify as a "machine," and yet in the right circumstances and in the right mood they can sometimes feel more than a bit spooky. The ghost isn't in the machine, it's in us, and we have a long history of projecting some sense of "aliveness" into our technology (how many people name their cars?).

But just because something isn't alive doesn't mean its not dangerous. People are injured all the time, and it's usually not from something like being attacked by an animal but from cars, electrical wiring, etc.

I see the danger in AI in general in pretending these technologies have agency and then asking them to make decisions for us. For instance, if we ever get the dystopia of AI-powered military robots, those will definitely be dangerous! But not because the robots are "alive," but because some human (or group of humans) a) decided to put guns on robots, b) built those robots to kill people and then finally c) tried to abdicate the responsibility for that decision by offloading the choice of who to kill to technology.

We don't yet have killer robots. We do have things like facial recognition software, that has problems like failing two distinguish different people if they aren't white, leading to the police arresting the wrong people. Was the problem the software, or the problem the police making the wrongful arrest? The latter, but the more we imbue our software with the idea that it's "smart," the more we can try to shift blame from the humans to the machines.

Or another, lower stakes but still important example, and circling back to the OP topic -- search engines. It's always been the case that being a critical consumer of information is both an important skill and an under-utilized one. The internet gave us a firehouse of data. Some of it is actually information. Much of it is not. And yet we still, decades after the internet has become mainstream, tend to give more deference than we ought to claims simply because they're "published" online. How much more fraught will the situation become when it's not just some web page making claims, but a "smart" AI? Let's say the AI is factually correct 98% of the time -- how good do we really think we'll be at being able to identify the 2% when it's wrong? Especially if it's about an area we don't know much about (likely, since we're asking in the first place -- we don't tend to ask search engines questions we already know the answers to).

I do think there's potentially a lot of usefulness in these tools, which I didn't really get into in this post. But the tl;dr - machines can be spooky. Even more so when the spit out human language. The danger is in letting ourselves think we can outsource our thinking to them.

PVW said:

I do think there's potentially a lot of usefulness in these tools, which I didn't really get into in this post. But the tl;dr - machines can be spooky. Even more so when the spit out human language. The danger is in letting ourselves think we can outsource our thinking to them.

Absolutely!

I asked ChatGPT to help answer jamie's question about increasing MOL membership, and here's what it said:

There are several ways that Maplewood Online could develop more members:

1. Improve visibility: Maplewood Online could consider increasing its visibility through various channels such as social media, search engine optimization, online advertising, and partnerships with local organizations. This could help attract more members who may not have been aware of the platform before.
2. Expand offerings: Maplewood Online could expand its offerings by introducing new features, such as a marketplace for local goods and services, discussion forums, or job boards. By providing more value to its existing members, Maplewood Online could encourage them to invite others to join.
3. Referral program: Maplewood Online could introduce a referral program that incentivizes existing members to invite others to join the platform. This could be done through offering discounts, free membership, or other rewards for successful referrals.
4. Community outreach: Maplewood Online could engage in community outreach activities such as sponsoring local events, participating in community groups, or hosting community events. This could help raise awareness of the platform and encourage more people to join.
5. Improve user experience: Finally, Maplewood Online could focus on improving the user experience for its existing members. By providing a seamless, intuitive platform with excellent customer service, Maplewood Online could encourage members to stay active and recommend the platform to others.

courtesy of chatgpt:

Electric leaf blowers powered by lithium-ion batteries are often marketed as a more eco-friendly alternative to gas-powered models, but they still have significant environmental impacts.

Firstly, the production of lithium-ion batteries requires the extraction of finite resources such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. The mining of these materials often leads to environmental destruction, including deforestation, habitat loss, and soil degradation. Additionally, the process of refining and processing these materials requires significant amounts of energy and produces greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.

Furthermore, the disposal of lithium-ion batteries can be problematic. Improper disposal of these batteries can lead to the leakage of toxic chemicals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury into the environment. These chemicals can contaminate soil, waterways, and wildlife, posing a threat to ecosystems and human health.

Moreover, the lifespan of lithium-ion batteries is limited, typically lasting around two to three years. After this period, the batteries lose their ability to hold a charge and must be replaced, adding to the amount of electronic waste that ends up in landfills or recycling facilities.

Additionally, the charging of lithium-ion batteries requires electricity, which may come from fossil fuel sources, contributing to air pollution and climate change. Even if the electricity comes from renewable sources like solar or wind, the production of the batteries themselves offsets any potential environmental benefits.

In conclusion, while electric leaf blowers powered by lithium-ion batteries may seem like a more eco-friendly option than gas-powered models, their production, disposal, and energy requirements still have significant environmental impacts. It's important to consider the full lifecycle of a product before making a purchase decision and to seek out more sustainable alternatives, such as manual tools, when possible.

eta:  asked chatgpt to rewrite to include reference to use of forced labor:

Electric leaf blowers powered by lithium-ion batteries are often marketed as a more eco-friendly alternative to gas-powered models, but they still have significant environmental impacts. However, there is another important ethical consideration that must be taken into account when purchasing these products: the use of forced labor in the production of lithium-ion batteries, particularly in China's Xinjiang region.

Xinjiang is home to the Uyghur Muslim minority population, which has been subjected to widespread human rights abuses, including the forced labor of up to one million Uyghurs in internment camps. These camps have been accused of subjecting detainees to forced labor, political indoctrination, and torture.

The Uyghur forced labor camps have been linked to the production of lithium-ion batteries, which are used in a wide range of products, including electric leaf blowers. In recent years, several reports have emerged of Uyghur detainees being forced to work in factories producing batteries and other electronics, often under harsh and unsafe conditions.

The use of forced labor in the production of lithium-ion batteries is a serious human rights issue that must be taken into account when making purchasing decisions. By buying products made with batteries produced using forced labor, consumers may inadvertently support these human rights abuses.

It's important for companies to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labor and to be transparent about the origin of their materials. Consumers can also take steps to ensure that they are not supporting these human rights abuses, such as researching companies and products before making a purchase and supporting companies that have committed to ethical sourcing practices.

In conclusion, while electric leaf blowers powered by lithium-ion batteries may seem like a more eco-friendly option than gas-powered models, their production must be scrutinized for ethical considerations such as the use of forced labor. It's important for both companies and consumers to take responsibility and ensure that their purchasing decisions do not inadvertently support human rights abuses in the supply chain.

What if you have the kind that just plugs in? 

And speaking of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries: Phone batteries.

Our homegrown Marques Brownlee gave an overview of phone battery recharging life/speed that I found very informative. (Spoiler: heat is bad).

sprout said:

And speaking of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries: Phone batteries.

Our homegrown Marques Brownlee gave an overview of phone battery recharging life/speed that I found very informative. (Spoiler: heat is bad).

That was an excellent summary.

dave said:

Nice. 

drummerboy said:

A Conversation With Bing’s Chatbot Left Me Deeply Unsettled

A very strange conversation with the chatbot built into Microsoft’s search engine led to it declaring its love for me.

maybe the bot thought you were Billy Cobham….

AI is the end of life as we know it, and not necessarily for the good.

I admit I haven't read all the posts above, but I've been anti-technology for a long time.  (I remember when Twitter was introduced.  It was about then that I just said, "no mas, no mas",)  

It may seem tantalizing to many.  But we all need to stop and think about how much damage it can do and weigh that against the benefits.

I know many can argue for hours with me about this and would relish doing so.  I can also tell you that it would be a waste of your breath or finger exercise.  Just think about when it becomes too much, and what could happen should it fall into the wrong hands...

Carry on.

I think that at this point in time, as far as AI goes, the cat is out of the bag, and there is no way that it will be put back in.  Just as with the internet, atomic energy etc., the power hungry and the greedy will use it for their purposes, while the more socially concerned folks will use it for entertainment, business, networking, and socially positive pursuits.  We will see over time, whether the forces of good, evil, or neither gain the upper hand, although in the vey long run, I'm not holding my breath.  It seems that our species' brain is more advanced than our heart, and it just needs a few destroyers in the wrong places at the wrong times, to do their mischief. 

Juniemoon said:

AI is the end of life as we know it, and not necessarily for the good.

I admit I haven't read all the posts above, but I've been anti-technology for a long time.  (I remember when Twitter was introduced.  It was about then that I just said, "no mas, no mas",)  

It may seem tantalizing to many.  But we all need to stop and think about how much damage it can do and weigh that against the benefits.

I know many can argue for hours with me about this and would relish doing so.  I can also tell you that it would be a waste of your breath or finger exercise.  Just think about when it becomes too much, and what could happen should it fall into the wrong hands...

Carry on.

Oops - wrong thread.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/02/who-was-the-most-important-critic-of-the-printing-press-in-the-17th-century.html

================================================================

(Francis) Bacon’s arguments against the printing press were not based on religious or political opposition, but on epistemological and ethical concerns about the quality, quantity, and authority of printed knowledge. Bacon discussed the printing press in his seminal work, The Advancement of Learning (1605), where he identified three inventions that had changed the world: gunpowder, the compass, and the printing press. He acknowledged that these inventions had enabled the expansion of human power, discovery, and communication, but he also warned that they had also introduced new dangers, errors, and corruptions.

He wrote: “But these three [inventions], perhaps, have fallen out by a certain fatality or providence of such a kind, that though they have added much to human power, they have not much increased human goodness; nay, rather, the first and last have furnished men with the means of doing more mischief, and the please say more second has made them more vain and arrogant.” (Bacon, 1605, Book I, Chapter I, section 5)

Bacon’s critique of the printing press focused on four main points:

– First, he argued that the printing press had flooded the world with too many books, especially of ancient and scholastic learning, that were either obsolete, irrelevant, or misleading for the pursuit of true knowledge. He compared the proliferation of books to the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel, and lamented that “the multiplication of books is a burden of the world” (Bacon, 1605, Book I, Chapter VIII, section 2).

– Second, he argued that the printing press had encouraged the idolatry of books and authors, as people tended to accept the authority of printed texts without examining their merits, sources, or methods. He accused the printing press of “making the world lazy with books” and of “putting a kind of reverence and religion into letters” (Bacon, 1605, Book I, Chapter VIII, sections 3 and 4).

– Third, he argued that the printing press had hindered the advancement of learning by promoting the imitation and repetition of old opinions, rather than the invention and experimentation of new ones. He claimed that “printing has made the world more set and less inventive” and that “men have come to be as it were a kind of fungous generation, not generating from within by the force and virtue of the mind, but growing upon one another and propagating from without by the way of tradition and authority” (Bacon, 1605, Book I, Chapter VIII, sections 5 and 6).

– Fourth, he argued that the printing press had fostered the dissemination of false, frivolous, or harmful knowledge, such as superstitions, fables, libels, and scandals, that corrupted the minds and morals of the readers. He cautioned that “printing has been guilty of much wrong; for by it many false and vicious things have been propagated in the world” and that “it is a thing more subject to the humours and passions of men than perhaps any other” (Bacon, 1605, Book I, Chapter VIII, sections 7 and 8).

Bacon’s arguments against the printing press were not meant to condemn the invention altogether, but to call for a reform and regulation of its use and abuse. He proposed that the printing press should be subjected to the guidance and judgment of learned and wise men, who could select, edit, and publish the most useful and reliable books for the benefit of the public. He also suggested that the printing press should be employed to produce new kinds of books, such as natural histories, experiments, observations, and inventions, that would advance the empirical and inductive method of science that he advocated.

He wrote: “Lastly, we must use the help of printing rightly, and not suffer it to do us harm. And that is, by taking care that those things which are most solid and true, and of most weight and worth for the instruction of life and the increase of power, be printed in the best manner, and in the most correct editions; and that the rest either not be printed at all, or be printed more sparingly and more meanly. And also by devising such editions and impressions of books as may best suit with the nature and dignity of the matter contained in them; as for example, that histories and natural philosophy be printed with the original letters or pictures of things, and experiments, and observations, and the like; and that arts mechanical be printed with the moulds, and patterns, and stamps of their works and processes; and so of the rest, according to the variety of the subjects.” (Bacon, 1605, Book I, Chapter VIII, section 9)

Bacon’s critique of the printing press was influential and controversial in his own time and beyond, as it challenged the prevailing views and values of the humanist and scholastic traditions of learning, and proposed a new vision and method of knowledge production and dissemination.

That was then, this is now!

This guy builds a web app with chatGPT.

I started a thread on this a while back, here:
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/openai-amazing-interactions?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3607018

In the meantime I have been using ChatGPT more and more for recipes. It is weirdly amazing at this, maybe because its internet training data is crammed full of food blogs.

Basically if I want to make something I describe it and ask for a recipe. And it gives me one that is perfect, clear, easy to follow and unfussy, and almost always comes out great. And I don't have to read the story of some blogger's kids soccer practices or husband's weird food aversions, or scroll through dozens of ads to get to it. And every recipe it has created for me calls for simple "real" ingredients, no concentrated cream of mushroom soup or that kind of junk. 

It is also great if I have a few random things in my fridge at the end of the week. I ask it for ideas to use it all up in a single meal and it gives me a few. Then I ask for a recipe for the one that sounds the tastiest; it gives me one and I make it and there is a lot less food waste.

I have to say - ChatGPT is pretty amazing - I just had it create a table - write a form to collect data in minutes - write another script to display the results - in a few minutes!

One of the ways the baddies have started using AI: 

Someone my spouse knows had his voice recorded/stolen by AI, and the synthetic voice called his contacts and asked for money.

Someone on another social media platform just posted the link to an AI Haggadah.  This is one of the strangest takes on the Passover Seder I have ever read.  This outsider's take on a centuries old ceremony is funny in many places, profound in others.