You must log in or register to comment.

hukep t1_j54vy5l wrote

So Comedians jobs are pretty safe based on this scenario.


Hot_Blackberry_6895 t1_j54w8q8 wrote

As long as they can avoid being cancelled I guess.


TheCrimsonSteel t1_j54yem3 wrote

I think the real victims will be teenagers

Because that's dad joke territory, and dads are the type to use the crap out of this

Think of all the sighs and eye rolls


EnchaladaOfTheSky t1_j5534oo wrote

I’d rather roll my eyes at a silly dad jokes than roll my eyes at “and that’s why (insert minority) doesn’t deserve human rights!”


robplumm t1_j54yb36 wrote

So...basically this is the future of comedy then..


AttentionSpanZero t1_j5540m6 wrote

Well, the small minority of good comedians are safe. The majority of them are endangered.


Constant-Passage-814 t1_j57uw0g wrote

In that case we need to start WCF pronto (world comedians fund). Someone is going to profit off of their endangered-ness and it may as well be us. We can take 18% of donations for our salaries and fees just like WWF.


MaxChaplin t1_j554k62 wrote

If Moore's law applies here (i.e. every 18 months a laughter maximizer gets twice as funny), it might be a decade or two before AI humor reaches superhuman levels and starts posing a real existential risk.


macklintietze t1_j551bqu wrote

smokes bong ok inputs are conspiracy, masturbating in hotel rooms and Hilary Clinton. Time to write my next hour


zygodactyly t1_j54vyj2 wrote

Inspired, I asked: Create a joke about meerkats?

ChatGPT: "Why don't meerkats like to share? Because they're always standing their ground"


CarlDilkington t1_j550px1 wrote

I tried the following:

Prompt: Tell me a joke about why pelicans don't get invited to play poker

Response: Why don't pelicans get invited to play poker? Because they always keep their cards close to their chest!

Screenshot over here, if you want to confirm I'm not just making this up:


attofreak t1_j5548ij wrote

now if that ain't a funny summary of the limitations of machine learning lol


regoapps t1_j556sk8 wrote

They're doing the PG-version of the "The Aristocrats" joke lol. Just ad-lib anything for the setup of the joke and end with the same punchline.

Why don't rich women walking through a bad neighborhood get invited to play poker?

Because they always keep their cards close to their chest!


Qwertyact t1_j554ekb wrote

So that's just a standard poker joke lol


JesusAndPalsX t1_j5582op wrote

Bot: Ha-ha. Keeping cards too close to chests is a funny human joke. I am learning funny.


khamelean t1_j54vfo2 wrote

It’s doesn’t understand the connection. It’s just paraphrasing someone else that does.


GlitteringAccident31 t1_j54wmcd wrote

I thought so as well and went to check. My Google results show this as the only result to the setup question


khamelean t1_j54wt39 wrote

Google is not an exhaustive resource.


curtyshoo t1_j54xs7q wrote

You made the assertion; the burden of proof is on you.


jozelino t1_j550dy6 wrote

Or we can think of the original statement as the assertion: "chatGPT thought it out itself".
When you really want to believe something, it's easy to find proof for it.


curtyshoo t1_j550o53 wrote

Wrong. Chatgpt uttered the joke. You claimed it was plagiarized. Prove it or simply STFU.


jozelino t1_j550y1d wrote

You seem angry, almost like somebody insulted your god.
My apologies, let your dream live on!


Gagarin1961 t1_j5513sy wrote

Wouldn’t sites that Google and OpenAI crawl for data be very similar?


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j553mrp wrote

You can ask it some pretty obscure things actually, for which you can be fairly sure that no prior content exists, and it’s still able to create new material. It’s not just regurgitating material.

Especially good at essays. Can make an essay about why x from your favorite anime is inherently evil or not, for example, choose a length, it’ll give you a coherent essay of approximately that length. It’s absolutely capable of connecting ideas (concepts and scenes from a show to the idea of “inherently evil”, for example - or in this case likely, something that it knows about meerkats to something it knows about poker- and connect the two in a manner that is normal for a joke based on its training.)


khamelean t1_j554iqc wrote

The point is that’s just regurgitating connections and associations that already exist in its data set. It cannot reason about those concepts to build new connections.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j555avr wrote

What would “reasoning” look like, to you? What more is there to reasoning than building appropriate chains of connections? That’s generally how logic argumentation works. And as said, it builds them very coherently.


echohole5 t1_j54xc9m wrote

Nope, it's creating actually new content that makes sense. It's not just copying shit. That joke didn't exist before.

It's is a real intelligence. It's an alien intelligence but it is an intelligence.


barneysfarm t1_j54xmzh wrote

The only way it "creates" new content is through amalgamation of existing knowledge and concepts.

It's not creative nor inspired, even if it may seem that way with limited observation.


feloncholy t1_j54yc8d wrote

Isn't that how humans create new content?


barneysfarm t1_j54yqye wrote

Not always. We have actual nueral pathways that can make novel connections and inspire truly new ideas.

It's rare but there are genesis points of new ideas throughout history.

At this point AI can only be trained on existing data, its not creating novel nueral connections that could result in original thought.


Gagarin1961 t1_j5517eq wrote

> Not always.

But a lot of times, yes? And we call that intelligence.


barneysfarm t1_j551p7l wrote

And? This is artificial intelligence. It's doing its best to replicate the most base level of intelligence, connecting existing ideas together, but it has no existing capabilities that would allow it to think for itself and create truly new concepts, without relying on direction from an actually sentient being.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j55337s wrote

“ At this point AI can only be trained on existing data, its not creating novel nueral connections that could result in original thought.”

Ah… no

AI also learns on feedback loop, and randomizes. So - it fosters a sense of what is “good”, based on feedback loop, and can create new things based on that feedback loop.


barneysfarm t1_j5537d0 wrote

It's not creating anything that doesn't already exist. Not at this point.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j5554an wrote

It is. Like, you can ask it for essays about extremely obsucure topics that likely no one ever wrote an essay on. Specify a length. Even on abstract topics - (whether some character from a not all too well known show is inherently evil or not). It’ll produce you a coherent answer, mention all the relevant scenes, you can adjust what position you want it to take or how long you want the essay to be etc…

What it’s strongest at currently, is the ability to tie ideas together - for example, scenes from a show and concepts (such as “inherently evil”). Hence why it’s particularly good at essays.


barneysfarm t1_j555el5 wrote

And it all depends on the user, the code, and the data it pulls from to make a response. It's not independently creative or intelligent, it is great at making people believe it is.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j556cn0 wrote

It’s not just making trees. That’s part of it, sure, but a big part of it is artificial neural networks (don’t mind the name, I don’t like it either) with feedback loops. You can think of it as a more efficient form of evolution - random modifications in its behavior that leads to changes in outcome, behavior that is then either encouraged or discouraged based on feedback (based on human input and if it’s well made, on self-testing). That’s part of the code. And that type of code is capable of creating new things, new solutions.


barneysfarm t1_j556xjt wrote

I dont disagree with you. The point I was trying to make in reply to the original comment is that it simply cannot be independently creative given that everything in its function depends on the inputs it receives from the user, the data it has to pull from, and sure, an evolving code base.

It's the same reason that yes it can string together existing thoughts from existing data into an essay, but it hasn't produced any novel ideas because it can only pull from existing data.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j5594u3 wrote

The point I’m trying to make is that this evolving code part is capable of creativity, or at least a very good imitation of it.

That’s the main thing distinguishing old chess/go bots from the new generation, which has become way, way stronger. The old bots essentially just did depth searches and then evaluated positions based on spoon fed human knowledge. This was a big hurdle for Go bots in particular, because depth searches are extremely computationally difficult with a board that large.

The new generation instead, plays millions of games against itself. It randomly changes its strategies over time. If it wins, it tells itself, “hey I won! Maybe that is worth remembering”, slightly changes it’s code accordingly and continues building from there.

These type of bots are capable of coming up with completely new strategies on their own. Again - not just through search trees, that’s completely infeasible for a game like go - but by modifying its own code incrementally until it knows how to play the game. And similar things can happen here, even to a lesser degree. Go/chess have the advantage of having very clear outlines of what “good” is - if you win the game, good, have your cookies continue just like that, sport. For essays etc… it’s a bit more vague - the best we have is user feedback, and you need some separate intelligent code to generate “feedback” on its own. But in this manner, it does something that is, imo, akin to “creativity”


barneysfarm t1_j55f5ul wrote

It still cannot do so independently. That's my point. It depends entirely on our collective knowledge to do any of that. It is not creative by itself.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j55g18k wrote

Neither do humans. People didn't suddenly produce great art work, from the flat medieval art to the quality we saw to the great renaissance art took centuries, generations of arrtists buiilding on each others small innovations. I think your expectations exceed what people are capable of.


barneysfarm t1_j55gbw1 wrote

Except for the fact that you can sit with no stimuli and still end up with outputs from your brain.

ChatGPT is entirely dependent on a creative user if it is going to make a creative output. It will not do so independently, which has been my entire point. It can only be perceived as creative because it relies on creative work and inputs from creative beings.


Queue_Bit t1_j552ekh wrote

This is more "humans are special because we're special" bullshit.

ChatGPT may not be sentient but it is absolutely intelligent.


barneysfarm t1_j552yds wrote

Independently? No.

It's only as intelligent as the user.


splashdust t1_j54yx2h wrote

I mean, that how humans come up with ideas too. That’s not to say that ChatGPT is “creative”, but the way it comes up with answers is not entirely dissimilar to how humans does it. Technically speaking.


barneysfarm t1_j54z659 wrote

It's combing available data and making matches based on prompts and feedback.

The brain can actually make new connections that never existed before. All AI does at this point is spoof the brain, and its believeable enough but clearly not independently intelligent.


splashdust t1_j553nq2 wrote

> It's combing available data and making matches based on prompts and feedback.

Again, essentially what brains does. The brain actually spoofs itself into believing that you where the one who came up with the idea or thought. But actually it’s an autonomic process that happens well before you are aware of the outcome.


barneysfarm t1_j553zp9 wrote

Except the brain can actually derive new ideas independently, whereas this is software that depends upon prompts and rules to return output. It is not independently intelligent by any means, nor creative.

You can make the same argument for most people, myself included. But we are fortunate enough to be able to think outside of a prompt/response format, because we are not bounded by code.


splashdust t1_j5576hl wrote

I’m not disputing that human brains can derive new ideas independently, just saying that they do it in a way similar to large language models.

The human though process constantly loops back on itself, essentially creating its own prompts, and we have the means to evaluate the outcomes and determine it’s value to us. We can also feel something about it, which, of course, a language model can’t.

A tool like ChatGPT is essentially a brain expansion addon. Our brains only have so much capacity for information, and learning new information take a lot of work. Now we can outsource some of that, and we can still evaluate and feel our way to an end result, just as we would when it came from our own brain.

So I would argue that human interaction with ChatGPT still produces a creative outcome. One could argue that it is a less personal one, but depending on the situation that doesn’t necessarily matter.


barneysfarm t1_j557uqn wrote

I agree with you. And I can see the validity of the argument that you can have a creative outcome, primarily because you have a creative being interacting with the tool.

What I was trying to emphasize, in response to the original comment on this thread, is that it is not yet independently creative or intelligent. It relies on our intelligence and creativity. I could have expressed that better.


splashdust t1_j558n5d wrote

Yeah, I know. I got a bit carried away there. These kinds of things are just so much fun to think about! :D


yoyoman2 t1_j55344n wrote

ChatGPT or any one of these generative AI is not, technically, taking results and putting them together, instead they break them up to bits and send it with the learning algorithm through the network. ChatGPT(and others) can work without an internet connection and give the same results.


draculamilktoast t1_j550piw wrote

That's what counts as thinking for 99% of people so it's basically sentient.


DrBimboo t1_j551l9e wrote

Its also not true. 'Quoting' is massively underselling it.


neelankatan t1_j54yo4b wrote

Is this chatgpt just copying jokes from it's huge corpus of training data, or actually making these jokes up? If so, that's fucking amazing


Trevor_GoodchiId t1_j5536ux wrote

It's more complex than just copying - it can pick up contexts in which word sequences occur from multiple examples, even if those weren't arranged that specific way originally.

That said, it has no understanding of what meerkats, cards or jokes are, just that this text in this order may occur statistically in relation to user query.

This works well for narrative content, because there are no strict flow requirements and the result is error tolerant - we give it leeway as readers.


attofreak t1_j554sc5 wrote

That's it, and that is why I don't get the mania or paranoia around it. Technically, it's a great achievement and a step in right direction to create a machine better capable at understanding context. It is really good at ascertaining the right context and use of language. The only "disruptive" event going to happen is now you can go to chatGPT for queries rather than Google search. Already, other software can identify when a student just copies chatGPT response for assignment, so it didn't really negatively affect academia. It would be something if Google could match that context-awareness in its search algo. It already is quite good, but sometimes it is a bit difficult, especially with technical searches.


KamikaziAvalanche t1_j555e88 wrote

No, software can tell if a text is 100% grammatically correct and error free. The software has a HUGE problem with false positives and is just media hype at the moment.


Wolfe114M t1_j556jor wrote

Not just media hype, but hype funded by billionaire investors, There's a lot of fake accounts promoting AI and posting about it

There's a reason people make accounts to farm karma and sell.

And they will downvote your posts and award the positive ones


Talkat t1_j555kru wrote

I certainly wouldn't say it has no idea what a Meerkat or cards are.

Dall-e has the same structure as ChatGTP. With Dall-E you can ask for the back of a Meerkat, or a stack of cards in the shape of a Meerkat.

It deeply understands what the concept it and how to 'draw' it.

So ChatGTP certainly would have a conceptual understanding of ideas.


Voctus t1_j553egk wrote

When I’ve asked generically for a joke, it seems like I get an existing joke. But if you give it some specific parameters (“tell me an Ole and Lena joke about flying a kite”) then you get something structured like a joke but the punchline isn’t funny. The program doesn’t understand humor, it’s just stringing together words that are a “likely” response to your prompt


Themasterofcomedy209 t1_j553pmu wrote

It’s literally just copying jokes. I vividly remember reading the meerkat joke but with a different animal, then telling it to someone years ago.

Someone else in this thread even asked “tell me a joke why aren’t pelicans invited to play poker” and chatgpt just replies “because they always keep their cards close to their chest”

You can argue it’s what humans do but chatgpt is not thinking up jokes


flopflipbeats t1_j55rm2t wrote

Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s predicting language that it believes makes sense as a response to your prompt. With the right prompting, you can get it to create completely unique jokes


Archinatic t1_j551b36 wrote

Argueably not too different from the way humans would. It doesn't have a literal library of jokes. It is trained on jokes and based on that training it's network forms a certain logic that is then able to produce jokes on it's own.


say592 t1_j553em2 wrote

The whole point of ChatGPT is that its not just showing you information from other sources, everything is "original". Its trying to tell you what it thinks you want to hear based on what it has "observed" in the wild. So it has probably heard the response "It holds its cards too close to its chest" and decided that is a response that would make sense. As iterations go on and it receives feedback, it should get a better idea of how these responses work and whether people like them or not, and it will get better. Even just a couple of years ago if you asked a chatbot to write you a poem, you might use one line out of ten, then ask it again, use another line, etc until you have collected enough responses that make sense or are good. ChatGPT, on the other hand, tends to yield responses that are good enough the first time and can piece together a cohesive poem, story, article, etc.


fiftythreefiftyfive t1_j55424h wrote

Chatgpt has the ability to connect concepts (which is what makes it great at essays). It probably has some knowledge about poker, some knowledge about meerkats, and connects the two in a manner that is normal for human joke form.


GlassAmazing4219 OP t1_j554mig wrote

It’s not copying, think more along the lines of text prediction, but instead of your chat history as a model, use the internet.


Techmite t1_j556qzp wrote

It's not connected to the internet to learn from, for good reason (usually to avoid bias information). Its given data sets from pre-made groups that are carefully chosen by humans.


voyyful t1_j554qis wrote

Funny thing is it remembers previous questions and answers, so you can actually ask it if it is novel. I asked it to invent a recipe for cookies. It sounded too good to be true so I asked it where it got it from. It could be lying though, which would be really scarry.


xvf9 t1_j553pyy wrote

The fact that something like this is fooling people into perceiving a higher intelligence suggests that maybe AIs actually will overtake human intelligence sooner rather than later.

But this is just a random joke scraped off the web and the subject changed to meerkats.


Callisto_NTG t1_j557pbv wrote

But it’s important to remember intelligence is not the same thing as consciousness or sentience. I worry about AIs fooling us into believing they’re sentient and all that comes with that, when in fact it’s just clever algorithms.


GlassAmazing4219 OP t1_j555gh2 wrote

I don’t feel fooled by it, I work with ML professionally so I have a fairly good idea about how it was created. It’s not scraping jokes and swapping animals. I wrote that I was “surprised” by it, and I am. The model can make linguistical connections between colloquial metaphors and unrelated facts about animals and wrap it up into an (albeit dad-like) holistic framework. It’s really impressive.


-1KingKRool- t1_j557366 wrote

Or perhaps, it made the connection between punchline “holds its cards too close to its chest!”, the premise for the joke (not being invited to play poker) and a subject (an animal).

Much like a psychic does, it gave you a vague answer, and you made the connection and attributed intent of actions on its part in your mind.

Further proof is the person who repeated your test with another animal (to whom the posture would absolutely not apply) and it gave the same punchline, just with that animal.


kylemesa t1_j557xsb wrote

What about the top comment proving all of your theories wrong with the Pelican joke?


dlrace t1_j54ruj1 wrote

I'm not really seeing that connection, it seems more of a pun to be honest, where the subject could be anything.


regoapps t1_j54srrk wrote

Or maybe it's mistaking meerkats for sea otters?

Meerkats stand with their arms down next to their balls, not their chest.


GlassAmazing4219 OP t1_j550inx wrote

Well, yes and no, quickly googled meerkat images and I agree their hands are hanging down, but their arms are held very close to their chest.


spydabee t1_j5521xl wrote

It isn’t funny. It isn’t even good enough for a Xmas cracker. It might fulfil the criteria as far as joke structure is concerned, but it falls flat on its face when it comes to the core element.


KALIBRAUDIO t1_j553l75 wrote

YOU made the connection between joke and the posture. The AI did not. Reference that same question being asked with animals with different posture/ arm length . 👍🏻


drewbreeezy t1_j557obq wrote

That was my first thought as well. Sooooo much anthropomorphism going on in this discussion.

It even responded the same way to another person when they changed the animal. No, it doesn't understand.


StaticFanatic3 t1_j54ykru wrote

Anytime I’ve asked for a joke there is no connection at all


OriginalCompetitive t1_j54yf1w wrote

Ask it to write you a zen koan about meerkats holding their cards close to their vest, in words that child could understand, based on characters from Winnie the Pooh, concluding with a rhyming couplet that summarizes the key lesson of the koan.


PaddyLandau t1_j553uyb wrote

I shall do this, once it becomes available again.


PaddyLandau t1_j597a2h wrote


>Write a Zen koan about meerkats holding their cards close to their vest, in words that child could understand, based on characters from Winnie the Pooh, concluding with a rhyming couplet that summarizes the key lesson of the koan.


>Once upon a time, in the Hundred Acre Wood, Pooh and Piglet were playing cards with some meerkats. The meerkats were very good at keeping their cards close to their vest, so Pooh and Piglet couldn't figure out what they had.
>The meerkats told them, "Just like how we keep our cards safe, you should always keep your thoughts and feelings safe too. Don't show them to just anyone, choose who you share them with wisely."
>Pooh and Piglet thought about this and realized the meerkats were right. They learned that it's important to be careful about what you share and with whom you share it.
>"Wise meerkats play their cards close,
And teach us all to guard our thoughts."


tomistruth t1_j5521nb wrote

I don't know about you but that's pretty damn funny joke. You need to make the connections to their short arms though, not their posture.


SociMalorum t1_j553wka wrote

I guess you guys aren’t ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.


Houseplantkiller123 t1_j554qt3 wrote

I asked it for a joke about bees.

Q: Why don't bees go out to bars?

A: Because they're already buzzed.


sweeny5000 t1_j559bf1 wrote

Now ask it why does it think it's funny? Watch how dumb it gets


slipperyjoel t1_j5554hh wrote

How have you even been able to get access? Everytime I try to get on it says the servers are full.


boogiebear123 t1_j555gka wrote

It can read and write code from English to say Python and back and will paint a pic in a millisecond of anything you want in whatever style Monet mashed up with Warhol. It makes mistakes on purpose to appear more human. It can write papers on almost any subject in seconds. Run people


OhioSider t1_j54yt7x wrote

Did you have to get a membership to continue using chatgpt? I'm getting blocked


realPidge t1_j553dnz wrote

Yeah ChatGPT is a smart one they probably going to grow up to be something big. Love that dude only positive vibes 😎.


RareLibra t1_j554mtv wrote

And only yesterday I asked if it had a Humour setting and it said No!!!


boogiebear123 t1_j554ww1 wrote

Thing is Skynet, we should kill it or we will be working for it in like 2 weeks


Tenter5 t1_j554ym3 wrote

It’s pulling a general joke story about poker that’s highly rated in its cost bias algorithm. It’s bad and unimpressive. Im sorry.


Ferfuxache t1_j5569m9 wrote

I do a lot of internal writing for my company. I ask it to do things like “write me instructions to make English muffins” and then I edit it to fit what I’m writing. It has cured my blank page phobia.


Fantastic_Fox_9497 t1_j557899 wrote

"Playing/holding your cards close to your chest" is a pretty common phrase, and meerkats are known for their vigilance and the tripod stance which is used for sensing predators. I think you could make the same joke with a T-Rex but I did also find a similar format:

> "What did the pirate's friend say when he saw the pirate sitting next to the treasure chest during their poker game? Why are you playing your cards so close to your chest?"


llc4269 t1_j557kn1 wrote

ChatGPT is fun. I am a huge history geek and it's fun to see how it breaks down events.


sweeny5000 t1_j558zlz wrote

The less you know about something, the more impressive it seems. And the converse is true also. So, really the sweet spot for AI writing is putting together fluff that you kind of already knew but would like summarized in a way you haven't bothered to already.


Diamondsfullofclubs t1_j55eq6z wrote

>So, really the sweet spot for AI writing is putting together fluff that you kind of already knew but would like summarized...



Constant-Passage-814 t1_j57wubl wrote

I think I'm waiting for an ai to be able to ask a novel question that makes complete sense to ask, but that it doesn't have an answer to. Or find a question it has that it can't find the answer to on a search engine. A truly unique yet logical question would be hard to come by if it's regurgitating information.


MansfromDaVinci t1_j54v966 wrote

They much prefer pool, after all, they're meercats.


echohole5 t1_j54wegl wrote

It's insane how clever and creative it is. I'm am continually stunned by it. It either actually understands or it perfectly mimics understanding, which for all practical purposes, is the same thing.


PaddyLandau t1_j553ir8 wrote

AI, despite its name, has zero understanding. It uses a statistical analysis of billions of pieces of information.


tomistruth t1_j552l07 wrote

That's the point most people don't get. We have reached a point of no return on AI technology. AI technology will catch up to human capability this year, not next or a decade from now. It's here and it's going to stay and society and the job market are not ready for it.

Basic income will be a must now and it will change how immigration works, because no country will want to allow new migrations of low income workers, if they have to pay them basic income.


Batou2034 t1_j555369 wrote

most likely it simply copied a joke it scraped from the internet. It's an AI sure, but one that's been trained to plagiarise, not to think.


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j54tgvf wrote

You’re surprised because the joke isn’t really any less “funny” than most of the dumb puns us humans come up with tbh. People on this sub seem to severely underestimate AI’s potential to match (and eventually exceed) human wit. We aren’t nearly as complex as we want to believe we are.


Hexabunz t1_j54zsg2 wrote

Not sure about exceed, I also saw someone asking chatGPT if x's mom has four kids, three of them are called a,b and c, what's the name of the fourth... to which it didn't know the answer even when given a hint that the answer is in the q lol


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j550t30 wrote

Except AI is already exceeding most people’s abilities as we speak… AI just passed the bar exam. Can the average person do that? AI beat humans in an art competition last year. Humans haven’t beat AI in a chess tournament in like 15 years. And it’s still only in its infancy. Think about what it’ll be capable of in 5 years.


solardeveloper t1_j553siy wrote

You're comparing purpose built AI with average human for the bar exam?

And chess is also not a great example, as there are finite number of possible moves. In any system requiring significant inductive reasoning, or environments that are unstructured/chaotic, AI typically struggles without extensive human guidance.


iamnearlysmart t1_j557zlb wrote

I pointed out chess thing in a thread a couple of weeks ago and got downvoted to hell. People simply don’t understand that the best human players haven’t been able to beat best chess engines for years now. An discussion from 2010 -

Anything that’s formulaic, computers have been better at it for years. But it hasn’t made it irrelevant. We still have chess tournaments because it’s a sport and we want to see human greatness and excellence. Not the limits of chess game play.


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j554ioa wrote

Irrelevant. You’ve said nothing that disproves that AI is still capable of exceeding human abilities already. AI is already more accurate than doctors. Thinking AI won’t eventually exceed even the best human minds in pretty much every sector is basically the same as those morons who thought the internet was a fad that would die out in the first five years.


drewbreeezy t1_j557i7q wrote

A calculator exceeds human abilities regarding math.

A toaster exceeds human abilities regarding heat generation.

This "AI" is another tool we use.


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j55863p wrote

The difference is that the tasks AI are beginning to beat us in are becoming increasingly more and more complex. AI is beginning to beat us at full jobs now. That’s different. Anyone who can’t see the upcoming paradigm shift AI will create is just willfully playing blind. The coming AI won’t just be another tool that helps us get the job done. It’ll soon do the job better than we ever could. Do you think that will have the same impact on society as a fucking toaster?


solardeveloper t1_j56hsng wrote

>full jobs

And thats only an issue for humans who treat themselves as tools to be used by someone else.

A value creator uses AI to generate value faster and cheaper. AI frees creators from having to do mundane tasks. People like you fear this seismic shift because all you can do is follow orders.

If you look at any of the prior 3 industrial revolutions, more jobs were created by technology replacing humans than jobs destroyed - but it also required the average worker to be increasingly skilled and fluent with the new tech.


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j56j9mg wrote

Drop the pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Understanding the gravity and magnitude of something isn’t necessarily the same as fearing it. Don’t try and lecture me about this topic if you’re gonna make such ignorant assumptions.

And just so you know, past performance doesn’t necessarily always predict future events. So using the past to say “see, these other times such and such didn’t occur…” is fallacious thinking. You’re not the intellectual you seem to think you are if you couldn’t spot such an obvious fallacy in your logic tbh.


drewbreeezy t1_j55aznd wrote

>It’ll soon do the job better than we ever could.

So, like every single tool we invented?


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j55cbx8 wrote

No. A fucking paint brush simply helped you paint better. It didn’t paint the entire fucking picture for you. Rendering all of your skills and experience now useless in the process. Get it? That’s the difference between this coming wave of AI versus past “innovations”. If you can’t see the obvious nuance here, may God have mercy on your naive, oblivious soul tbh. 😂 You likely won’t be ready for the upcoming seismic shifts these new technologies will create.


drewbreeezy t1_j57c8bk wrote

I think it's more that I adapt to change quite easily and do it all the time, so the changes this will add over the years will be nothing spectacularly different for me.

I'll use it as another tool to make myself more useful to clients.


Hexabunz t1_j5533d4 wrote

That was mostly intended as a joke, but following your line of argument I'd argue there are areas where AI still cannot compete with humans, e.g. following your bar lead, some court cases are not won based on evidence but by appealing to the emotions of the jury. AI will only ever know what humans teach it, it can "invent" based on what it's taught :)
(obviously, not undermining the potential of AI in any way- huge fan here ;))


Callisto_NTG t1_j5580rf wrote

Yes but it has no awareness that it’s doing that. No understanding. It does not have thoughts.


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j559g3r wrote

Why is that relevant to whether or not it completes the task better than us? You’re trying to move the goal post to something you think is uniquely human (vague shit like “thoughts” and “awareness”)

A thought is basically just an internal process, instruction, or reaction that stems from a change in the body or environment. In certain senses, any machine that can discern it’s environment (and facilitate internal reaction processes to that environment) can “think” technically. Thinking isn’t even some magical ability unique to us. Even some of the simplest life forms can “think”. AI is already showing promise in that area and will only get better with time.


Callisto_NTG t1_j559w42 wrote

I wasn’t saying you’re claiming that, my bad. I was just offering my response to how I think about ChatGPT.

I disagree about thinking though. Thinking isn’t simply processing information (which our computers already do). And being a person (which I know you aren’t claiming chatGPT to be) requires awareness and subjectivity. Which clever AI algorithms are not.

Whether we ever could create self aware, sentient, conscious AI, I have no clue.


BigZaddyZ3 t1_j55b7dm wrote

>> disagree about thinking though. Thinking isn’t simply processing information (which our computers already do). And being a person (which I know you aren’t claiming chatGPT to be) requires awareness and subjectivity. Which clever AI algorithms are not.

Okay but I didn’t say it was merely processing information. It’s the combination of both processing the current stimuli and internally reacting to it. That’s it. Thinking isn’t really unique or special. Us humans are just used to being the best at it. That won’t last forever though. For better or worse.

>>Whether we ever could create self aware, sentient, conscious AI, I have no clue.

Many experts in the field see it as a matter of when, not if. Very few challenge “the singularity” as a concept. Only when it’ll occur.


writer-fransborn t1_j54w888 wrote

I see Kenyans being mentioned everywhere. From academic cheating, managing most American sites, has excellent web developers. It must be a smart country? They have a good education system or sth?


momolamomo t1_j54rn65 wrote

Avoid. They pay Kenyans $2 an hour to manage the site


sterlingback t1_j54w8bt wrote

It's actually Kenyans behind the screen googling very fast about whatever you ask


Simple_March_1741 t1_j54t01z wrote

Just like all big business. It's actually horrifying, but no billionaires were made without exploiting vast quantities of other, less fortunate humans in the process. However, we still buy their products and close our eyes to the great injustices of the 21st century.


union4nature t1_j54sik1 wrote

is 2 dollar an hour low in kenya?


Wolviam t1_j54ucd4 wrote

The minimum hourly wage in Kenya is around $0,7. A $2/hour equals around $340 per month which is on par with the average entry level salary for Junior Software Devs there who have a salary range of $80 to $550 per month.

However looking at the living costs in Kenya, it seems with the $2 per hour, one would only be able to live paycheck to paycheck.


momolamomo t1_j54skav wrote

Yes. It is.


RizInstante t1_j54tr3g wrote

You're going to have to provide a source for that claim.

Also, $2 USD per hour works out to $39,712 KES (Kenyan Shilling) per month, which ranges from twice their minimum wage to slightly over it.


SeneInSPAAACE t1_j54tq3d wrote

Huh. Had to check. The average hourly pay in Kenya is like $6, assuming standard workdays and hours. Not sure if those check out, but even if they do 80 hour weeks, it's still over $3.


writer-fransborn t1_j54wnkr wrote

Are Kenyans that smart? Mentioned everywhere. My uncle hired a Kenyan to develop a business and did it so well for 2500 dollars only, an American developer was charging 6000 dollars and uncle saved 3500 USD. How smart are they, the world is hiring them in almost everything? Lol


koalazeus t1_j54tvwk wrote

I tried to use it and it needed my email address and then phone number or something. So I just stopped there. Does that sound like the right setup or is there another way that people are getting to use this?