Alleviating the grind of being poor

[CO. Hoosier]

Define believe. If it is accepting something as true with a lack of direct evidence to prove it, yes, a computer can believe. No reason a computer can't be programmed to accept what it deems most probable as fact. Heck, to be more human they can be programmed to believe that even after conclusive proof exists they are wrong. I suspect we can program them to be greedy, jealous, racist, and all the other bad aspects of humanity.

Applying concepts such as circumstantial evidence or preponderance of the evidence isn’t the kind of belief I’m talking about. But that isn’t why I asked you The question. You said AI can consider. various origin stories and beliefs and can pick the best one. That seems different from deciding which expert opinion about the cause of a loss is more ‘believable “.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Deep Blue used custom hardware to generate moves and mini-max game theory to evaluate them. I think it’s more accurate to say Deep Blue overwhelmed Kasperov.

Didn’t deep blue also have human handlers to give it tendencies during the match?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I absolutely think practicing law is an art— and also a science.

If a legal task can be programmed, it doesn't require a lawyer to do the task in the first place. I’ve trained paralegals in how to do many things from what to look for in certain kinds of contacts, to write simple briefs, to do routine discovery. All of that is the same as AI. I’ve used AI for years in various ways.

But here is the problem with AI in many fields, not just law. Law has a tendency to become steeped in the way things have always been done. If we are not careful AI will make the ruts wider and deeper. That is not a good thing. It stops evolution.

I think AI will make good lawyers better, and will make lazy lawyers lazier.

Once during an orientation session for new public official clients I was explaining the nuts and bolts of what I did as their attorney. During the session one official asked me a general question along the lines of what value did we add to the organization. The question came from the point of view that lawyers tended to be obstructionists. I answered that I bring my judgment, my professionalism, my independence, and my skills to the table. AI can never do that. But AI can help me do it better.

(This is predicated on AI actually being able to perform as advertised.)

I think AI makes average to bad lawyers obsolete (among many other jobs). You still have room for really good lawyers but what do the average and bad ones do now? And you can take that and extrapolate it out to everyone.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

(This is predicated on AI actually being able to perform as advertised.)

I think AI makes average to bad lawyers obsolete (among many other jobs). You still have room for really good lawyers but what do the average and bad ones do now? And you can take that and extrapolate it out to everyone.

1917.

 

[VanPastorMan]

I gather you are discussing poetry or religion, as things like science can't answer that sort of why. We can't scientifically explain why the universe exists, it isn't something science can even attempt. We have a difficult enough time on how. I don't know that this is a problem.

AI is in its infancy. Its abilities will grow, especially as quantum computing comes online. Right now we hamstring AI, the corporations don't want to have it say things that may scare off investors or advertisers. So if asked the question "What is the meaning of life" it is programmed to give the "some say, others say" answer. That safety rail won't always be there. There is no reason a computer can't compare various origin stories and come up with one that it believes is at least minimally more likely. I don't see a reason they can't take parts of stories and integrate into a new one.

Once it gets quantum abilities, and the guardrails come down, I think we'll see huge moves toward AGI. AI can right now write stories/poems, paint, write music. It is only going to get better.

What if AI said, "The Universe is here because Jesus said so"? Would most people accept it?

 

[IUCrazy2]

1917.

Revolution, yes. Strictly communist? I think it would vary from country to country. You are talking about a bunch of young men in the developed world with nothing to do and nowhere to go and I think that ends up in violence. French Revolution/Communist Revolution eat the aristocracy types of violence.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What if AI said, "The Universe is here because Jesus said so"? Would most people accept it?

No more likely to accept it than if it said Buddha or any other answer. People aren't likely to just accept AI.

 

[TomEric4756]

Kasparov probably says the same thing, now anyways.

I think he said it then …

 

[TomEric4756]

Didn’t deep blue also have human handlers to give it tendencies during the match?

Players during a tournament game aren’t permitted to receive assistance of any kind while the clock is running. (Yes Chess got a shot-clock, decades before college basketball got one).

After a game, IBM could review the position scores (for example, the pieces on the board (more pieces more points), number of squares attacked by the pieces on the board, and some subjective initiative heuristic) move by move and improve (tune) the scoring fed into the mini-max optimization, where -mate is negative Infinity (loss to be avoided) and +mate is positive infinity (win to be achieved).

The memorization of opening moves and responses would also be used to conserve the clock that runs during turns. The game begins when you run out of moves in the book, or deviate from its conventional wisdom.

The move generation silicon is essentially a brute force approach to maximize the alternatives fed into mini-max decision. As it is “brute force”, I think overwhelm was the appropriate description for the time. Kasperov won some games. In retrospect, he should be commended for being competitive in the rematch after he won the first match.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov#:~:text=Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov was a pair of six,York City by 3½–2½.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So do humans.

Sometimes. But the smart, determined, and entrepreneurial humans alter the future.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What do you do that is a total abstraction?

Look at a great invention, the plane. Humans dreamed of a flying machine for a long time. Birds do it, we didn't make it up whole cloth. Thousands of trial and error attempts later someone got it. I don't see anything there an AI could not have done.

Now we find that AI cheats. How will we ever know if the answers AI provides are honest and factual?

If humans need to cite-check AI legal writing, what good is it?

"A Partner at a Big Firm ... Received Memos with Fake Case Cites from ... Two Different Associates"

A message I got from Prof. Dennis Crouch (Missouri), in response to my posting A Lawyer's Filing "Is Replete with Citations to Non-Existent Cases"—Thanks,

reason.com

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Sometimes. But the smart, determined, and entrepreneurial humans alter the future.

the smart determined ones alter it, the entrepreneurial ones monetize it.

it's very rarely the innovators who are the big financial winners from their innovations.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Now we find that AI cheats. How will we ever know if the answers AI provides are honest and factual?

If humans need to cite-check AI legal writing, what good is it?

"A Partner at a Big Firm ... Received Memos with Fake Case Cites from ... Two Different Associates"

A message I got from Prof. Dennis Crouch (Missouri), in response to my posting A Lawyer's Filing "Is Replete with Citations to Non-Existent Cases"—Thanks,

reason.com

humans cheat. AI isn't capable of grasping the concept of "cheating".