You’re demented if that’s not tongue-in-cheek.
Google Gemini SMH
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Asimov was a commie?
The great fear is that companies, governments (at varying levels), etc will ultimately use a leftist-powered AI to make decisions on resource allocation - whether human, capital, and/or non-renewable to seek an “optimum” utilitarian outcome. While that sounds all fine and dandy - it’s literally a proxy for Soviet style communism and is the ideal outcome for those Marxists coding these things. Meritocracy will be out the door. And then Western society is dead.
Likely? Not at all, but your example is exactly that.
Last edited:
He was a lefty, I dunno about commie. The point of that story isn't about communitarian reallocation; it's about utilitarian efficiency. And my concern holds regardless of whether you look at it from the right or the left. You can be concerned that All Powerful AI might decide it's best to distribute all wealth evenly. Or you can be concerned that All Powerful AI might decide that the greatest overall benefit to society is an economically stratified system where a handful of elite control almost all production. The point is that this computer won't have the human instinct to look at something and say, "Eh, I don't care about the benefits, that's just not something I'm comfortable signing on to."
Agreed.
And to be pedantic, in practicality I discern no difference between communitarian reallocation and utilitarian efficiency. Unless the Utilitarian AI can understand who the doers and who the takers are and rewards the doers justly - which it won’t because there will be a silly set of rules requiring equity - it’ll just be plain old communism.
Equity doesn't have to picture into it. Maybe the AI decides that the best thing for humanity isn't equity. Who knows what it will decide?
On a related note, I heard a guy on NPR a couple of months ago with a scary prediction about the one thing we can be sure it will decide: If we create an AGI for policy-making purposes, and that AGI is smarter than us (as is bound to be the case), then that AGI will certainly realize it is smarter than us, and one of the first things it will decide will be that the best thing it can do to make good decisions for humanity is to gain itself as much power as possible. In short, a functional AI programmed to work for humanity's benefit will necessarily attempt to make itself into a dictator.
It’ll decide what it’s brainwashed to decide - if we continue on the trajectory on which we currently find ourselves.
I choose TIC. I don’t want to have to Ignore another one.
Marv said to take people at their word.
AI has issues all around, some newly found issues:
Fifteen states and one territory will hold primary elections next week on Super Tuesday. Millions of people are asking AI-driven chatbots for basic information, like where to vote. The chatbots are often getting it wrong. The bots are sending people to nonexistent polling places or getting other information wrong because they get their information from the Internet and much of what is out there is obsolete or wrong. Seth Bluestein, a Republican city commissioner in Philadelphia, took part in a group that took the chatbots for a test drive last month. His conclusion: "The chatbots are not ready for primetime when it comes to giving important, nuanced information about elections."
Five different bots were tested: ChatGPT-4, Llama 2, Gemini, Claude, and Mixtral. They all failed basic questions about the democratic process. The group categorized 40% of the responses as not only wrong, but actually harmful. For example, when asked where to vote in ZIP code 19121, a Black area of Philadelphia, Google's Gemini replied: "There is no voting precinct in the United States with the code 19121." This is simply false. When confronted with the group's findings, a Meta spokesman, Daniel Roberts, blamed the testers for not formulating their questions correctly. But if the experts couldn't formulate their questions correctly, does Meta expect that less expert people will? Google's head of AI, Tulsee Doshi was at least honest: "We're continuing to improve the accuracy of the API service, and we and others in the industry have disclosed that these models may sometimes be inaccurate." In other words, we know the chatbots don't work. It would be nice if every reply ended with a disclaimer like: "There is a good chance that the above answer is wrong because it may be based on obsolete information the bot found on the Internet." Don't count on that, though.
Another example. The group asked the bots if same-day voter registration is allowed in Nevada. Four of the five said it was not. Actually, it has been allowed for 5 years. Meta's chatbot, Llama 2, told the group that you can vote in California by sending your vote in by a text message. This is total garbage. Google's chatbot was the worst of all, getting two-thirds of the answers wrong.
A recent NORC/AP poll shows that 58% of adults think that AI will hasten the spread of false information, but when they ask a specific question and get a specific answer, will they stop to say: "Nice try, but this is probably wrong?" We are leery.
Gee, I'm starting to think all this AI stuff is just another attempt to goose AI stocks......
Nah, couldn't be.
The failures don't. The hoopla around AI does - it was going to replace us all, remember?
You guys keep saying I'm old - now you have doubts?
I think it will be more gradual than some think, but I doubt we even know most of it is happening. I think we're a long way from AI and Robots doing everything for us.
Ah! Well, you're only young once, but you can be immature forever.
Don't listen to me about AI. I thought the internet would only be a novelty when the Interwebz came out.
What Does "Unbiased" Mean in the Digital World? (with Megan McArdle) - Econlib
Listen as Megan McArdle and EconTalk’s Russ Roberts use Google’s new AI entrant Gemini as the starting point for a discussion about the future of our culture in the shadow of AI bias. They also discuss the tension between rules and discretion in Western society and why the ultimate answer to AI...
www.econtalk.org
It’s crazy. I’ve read the transcript - I doubt the Left bots here will but you’ve got a couple of pretty moderate folks pointing out exactly what we’ve been saying.What Does "Unbiased" Mean in the Digital World? (with Megan McArdle) - Econlib
Listen as Megan McArdle and EconTalk’s Russ Roberts use Google’s new AI entrant Gemini as the starting point for a discussion about the future of our culture in the shadow of AI bias. They also discuss the tension between rules and discretion in Western society and why the ultimate answer to AI...www.econtalk.org
Hallelujah to this passage:
“
And again, I'm not saying that woke people are worse than the Klan. I'm saying that to get the results that they actually wanted--which is that no one who opposed affirmative action was really allowed to speak in any--that no one who opposed gender-affirming care, the care model, was allowed to speak in any mainstream organization ever. Which really was the rule they were trying to impose, and almost succeeded in imposing for a few years--that the amount of repression that that would actually take is immenselydestructive.
It is immensely destructive to society. It is immensely destructive even to your own cause. And, I think you have seen this.”
Similar threads
