Afraid to ask, but can't help but ask, about ChatGPT and AI.
I ask because serious proponents and opponents of democracy as a human system are likely compelled to find things out about this AI.
Even though I've read books on the subject of AI, I'm overwhelmed by its latest appearance, and am afraid I or humans in general won't adapt well to its existence. I hope to understand more about it, and how it impacts human free will, freedom, human futures, and whether to support those impacts on humans; whether humans even have a choice.
For me, it's pretty basic: AI's forms are better to know about than to experience unaware.
Questions TO HUMANS ONLY here about thisChatGPT.
1. Has ChatGPT shown up on FB and/or other social media platforms yet?
Would we humans know?
How would we know?
Questions TO BOTH HUMANS AND TO THIS CHATGPT re its use:
2. "Does ChatGPT track us & all our device use forever once we're signed up."
3. "Does ChatGPT stop tracking us and our devices once we end our contract."
4. "Does the AI itself have lawful standing to contract on behalf of its human owners, such that a contract with them becomes lawfully the same as a contract with the AI itself."
5. "Can ChatGPT lie for its owners about the fine print of humans' contracts with the owners."
More questions TO BOTH HUMANS AND TO THIS CHATGPT re its impact on human status, and human learning systems.
Perhaps by comparing human & AI responses, humans can learn whether OpenAI's future development is close to matching or surpassing humans' systems of being AN authority -- in law, judges; in education (the ways that pre-school to graduate schools develop humans to become AN authority).
Perhaps compared answers can give humans a sense of where and whether humans may or may not exercise their AI based authority, or their own -- partially, together, or not at all.
Perhaps questions to both humans and to this ChatGPT can unsettle or settle human issues about which entity(ies) will be, bottom line, IN authority -- humans, or AI -- and which might or might not carry over to the existence and use of General Artificial Intelligence.
On to the questions:
6. "Who is AN authority" and
"Who is IN authority," and
"What is authority,"
7. "What is rule of law."
"What is 'consent.' "
"What is government."
"What is 'consent of the governed.' "
"What is 'consent of the government.' "
8. "What is 'equality under the law.' "
"Is "equality under the law" a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution."
Questions to AI researchers:
9. Are there 'zones of human control' and/or 'zones of authority' for AI.
10. When does learning AI become General Artificial Intelligence.
11. When/if GAI comes to exist, when does it become self aware.
12. If GAI becomes self aware, would it inform its humans owners.
13. If GAI existed, would any or all affected humans even know it.
Which raises two overall questions:
14. Now that AI is here,
why have humans wanted AI at all?
15. Have our old ways of mapping reality crossed a line of human control?
Other human based sources to read through the Commons of the Internet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_Justice_League
AI takeover
Artificial consciousness
Artificial general intelligence (AGI)
Computer ethics
Effective altruism, the long term future and global catastrophic risks
Existential risk from artificial general intelligence
Human Compatible
Personhood
Philosophy of artificial intelligence
Regulation of artificial intelligence
Robotic Governance
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies
= new reply since forum marked as read
to shoot first, ask questions later. Koch's Freedom coup Caucus wouldn't ever agree to constructively co-manage legislation, unless their owner/donors said to.
You ask because you're fair minded. But please remember who we've been dealing with for over 6 years under Trump, and driven by 40 years of government capture by Koch and his later network of oligarchs.
I wonder if, when, or how the FBI would handle its existence, nevermind Congress. But Congress should immediately begin hearings and call the owners in to explain how its profitability wouldn't cause loss, harm or damage to end users, or society at large. Just so scholars can do studies to frame outcomes of its use, in order to get data on both positive and negative outcomes. And maybe, even, to write intelligent legislation.
The profiteers? imo, they will say whatever optimizes profitability.
for prompting me to do a quick read about it. From Wikipedia, among other interesting info:
The whole wiki page is an interesting read, including discussion about its “hallucinations.”
At this point, a Wikipedia content entry, itself, could likely be proposed by chatgbt, right?
Or possibly even parts of your OP!
and yes, I noted that line, too.
I doubt that Wikipedia policy allows for any but human input. But I'd bet, too, that its owners are right now discussing policy re input from humans who'd dare use AI or ChatGPT.
As for DU, I'm pretty sure that Earl and Elad have a rule coming up about DU members' use of ChatGPT or AI generated content. Why wouldn't they, right?
Thanks JudyM!
