Oh no it's gonna murder us.

people have been calling literal pathfinding algorithms in video games AI for decades. This is what AI is now and I think it's going to be significantly easier to just accept this and clarify when talking about actual intelligence than trying to fight the already established language.

Too late, the journalists have been replaced by advanced auto completes already.

I know many of the people here already know this, but how do we get this message to journalists?!

Journalists have this information, but articles about it probably generate 10% of the clicks, shares and eyeballs->ad revenue that either the hype or the scaremongering does.

It's even better at seeming knowledgeable about things that it may or may not be knowledgeable about.

Yesterday, I asked it to help me create a DAX measure for an Excel pivot table. The answers it gave were completely wrong. Each time, I would tell it the error that Excel was displaying and it would respond with "Sorry about that. You can't use that function there for [x] reasons."

So it knows the reason why a combination of DAX functions won't work but recommends them anyways. That's real fucking useful.

I believe guardian of galaxy 3 did a take of that. Rocket was special because he innovated while the others just mimiced.

You are correct, but there's a larger problem with intelligence, we don't have a practical definition, and we keep shifting the goalpost. Then there's always a question of a philosophical zombie, if someone acts as a human and has a human body you won't be able to tell apart if they don't really have intelligence, so we only need to put LLM into humanlike body (it's not so, but you get the point)

"Never have I been so offended by something I 100% agree with!"

Why yes, you CAN put a tomatoes in your fruit salad. It is a fruit after all.

I mean, GPT 3.5 consistently quotes my dissertation and conference papers back to me when I ask it anything related to my (extremely niche, but still) research interests. It’s definitely had access to plenty of publications for a while without managing to make any sense of them.

Alternatively, and probably more likely, my papers are incoherent and it’s not GPT’s fault. If 8.0 gets tenure track maybe it will learn to ignore desperate ramblings of PhD students. Once 9.0 gets tenured though I assume it will only reference itself.

I guess then we would be able to tell it to recite a paper for free and it may do it.

You know the Chineese? They talk about this ChatPT 7. But we Americans. My uncle, very smart man. Smartest in every room except on Thanks Giving. I always had Thanks Giving and my Turkey, everyone loved my Turkey. He said we will soon have Chat 8 and the Chineese they know nothing like it.

I'm planning to defend in October and I can say that getting a Ph.D. is potentially the least intelligent thing I've ever done.

In intelligence. Duh!

sigh

I'm so tired of repeating this ad nauseum. No, it's not going to take your job. It's hype train bullshit full of grifters. There is no intelligence or understanding, nor have we come anywhere close to achieving that. That is still entirely within the realm of science fiction.

People have the wrong idea about how advanced AI has to be to take people’s jobs.

The loom was not intelligent. It did not “understand” weaving. It still eliminated so many jobs that human society was altered forever and so significantly that we are still experiencing the effects.

As an analogy ( not saying this is how the world will choose to go ), you do not need a self-driving car that is superior to humans in all cases in order for Uber to eliminate drivers. If the AI can handle 95% of cases, you need 5 drivers for 100 cars. They can monitor, supervise, guide, and fully take over when required.

Many fields will be like this. I do not need an AI with human level intelligence to get rid of the Marcom dept. I need one really skilled person to drive 6 people’s worth of output using AI. How many content creators and headline writers do I need to staff an online “news” room? The lack of person number two may surprise you.

Getting rid of jobs is not just a one for one replacement of every individual with a machine. It is a systemic reduction in demand. It is a shifting of geographic dependence.

Many of the tasks we all do are less novel and high-quality than we think they are. Many of us can be “largely” replaced and that is all it takes. We may not lose our jobs but there will certainly be many fewer new jobs in certain areas than there would have been.