We really need to start having a serious conversation about this....

[cyrano]

Sorry, should have quoted your point that it's only on a microscopical scale.

I am not entirely sure what you are discussing, but, even though we are in fact made of microscopic molecules, I can't say that just because of that reason I can extrapolate to the macro level. I am made of atoms, but I can't say that my reality follows the wave equation and its is probabilistic.

Nicely done, you have obviously put some effort into researching. However, from my point of view all your examples are describing micro-organisms. The examples you provided seem quite foreign to human life, or even animal life in general.

The same mechanisms apply to larger animals. Only, we're just beginning to find the many, many mechanisms that cause mutations. At the same time, it's becoming clear that you can't tell if a certain mutation is random or not. Some estimate less than 1% randomness.

Science has neglected parasites for years, due to puritan feelings that parasites are degenerated. Some of the host's mutation mechanisms are being steered by the parasite. Macroscopic as well as microscopic. Even the largest animal on earth has parasites.

The question is also how much control these parasites have on our DNA. Fortunately, parasites are being studied again, in a broad sense. Not only the ones that cause known disease, like Malaria.

 

[user 37518]

The same mechanisms apply to larger animals. Only, we're just beginning to find the many, many mechanisms that cause mutations. At the same time, it's becoming clear that you can't tell if a certain mutation is random or not. Some estimate less than 1% randomness.

Interesting, I was under the impression that randomness was one of the tenets of evolution. That somehow, all life began from basic amino acids and through random mutations it achieved more complex forms of life, of which, only the 'useful' mutations survived whilst the not so useful became extinct.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I guess I'm still not seeing the concern. Students (people) will be lazy, ChatGPT or not, I'm not seeing how the existence of ChatGPT will suddenly make students who don't understand a nonsense answer any worse off than they were before.

Learning even less than before is not likely to result in them being no worse off.

Once you understand how ChatGPT is trained, you realize that although it's semantic understanding of text is very good, it's ability to draw inferences is actually shockingly terrible. Hence educators will need to rethink how we test students comprehension more than anything else.

Possibly. But inference engines have been around for decades. I remember studying them in grad school AI class.

Case in point: ChatGPT can provide a very good overview of the events in MacBeth, because a gazillion people have written about it, so the training set is large and varied. Asking a student to provide an overview of the events in MacBeth would be great fodder for being done easily by ChatGPT.

However ask ChatGPT to explain how the events in MacBeth would have unfolded differently if Malcolm had not been declared the heir of Duncan in Act I, and ChatGPT provides nonsensical answers, because it cannot understand how events might have unfolded in a story that wasn't written. It can't provide alternate scenarios, again, unless some (large) number of people have also talked about it prior to training. You can go further, and ask how Lady MacBeth's monologue might have been different if said by Ophelia from Hamlet, and again, ChatGPT provides answers that on the surface might be shallowly interesting, they don't makes any actual sense if you know anything about the characters, and could properly reason about their motivations.

There are a lot of well-paid jobs that have little need for this level of thinking and which will be affected by systems like ChatGPT.

Perhaps one day it will get there, but it's far from being able to make inferences that require nuanced understanding of source material.

I don't believe it's as far off as you do. We're looking at one single instantiation of an AI system. There are many more out there and likely the better ones are not in the public domain or even known (i.e., systems developed for military and/or intelligence services). They might be a decade ahead, but tech never stands still.

 

[ruffrecords]

I think the problem is a lot less worse that you think. Current AI is severely limited simply by its lack of complexity. It is nowhere near the 80 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections of the human brain and a lot of those are pretty stupid.


Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I think the problem is a lot less worse that you think. Current AI is severely limited simply by its lack of complexity. It is nowhere near the 80 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections of the human brain and a lot of those are pretty stupid.

It doesn't have to be that complex or capable to replace human workers in many jobs. Much of my career was spent developing automated industrial inspection systems that replaced human operators. Thousands of these things were sold worldwide, and while they were complex and expensive, they were much faster and more reliable/repeatible than humans. This stuff is a big leap (forward?).

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

It doesn't have to be that complex or capable to replace human workers in many jobs. Much of my career was spent developing automated industrial inspection systems that replaced human operators. Thousands of these things were sold worldwide, and while they were complex and expensive, they were much faster and more reliable/repeatible than humans. This stuff is a big leap (forward?).

It doesn't have to even be intelligent. Look at what the tractor did for farm labour. Look what the uniselector did for switchboard operators. My point was meant to be in regard to AI taking over the world.

Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It doesn't have to even be intelligent. Look at what the tractor did for farm labour. Look what the uniselector did for switchboard operators. My point was meant to be in regard to AI taking over the world.

Those are good examples, but the transitions occurred while other sectors were booming (at least in the US) so work was available for most who were willing to do it. Where are the replacement jobs in this round?

The speed of disruptive technologies is increasing, so it is becoming more difficult to manage the transitions. When a disruption spanned a couple of decades or a generation or two (farming tech) it was not as bad as ones that took a few years or a decade.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

Interesting, I was under the impression that randomness was one of the tenets of evolution. That somehow, all life began from basic amino acids and through random mutations it achieved more complex forms of life, of which, only the 'useful' mutations survived whilst the not so useful became extinct.

That's how it's usually worded, but it's not how Darwin put it. It bothered me as a child, when I first heard about it.

Imagine how long you'd have to wait before a useful random mutation came along...

My view now is most mutations are harmless. Only a few are dangerous and a minute number is really useful to the species.

White skin, blonde and red hair, fi, are human mutations we know about, but they're not exactly useful to mankind.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

That's how it's usually worded, but it's not how Darwin put it. It bothered me as a child, when I first heard about it.

Imagine how long you'd have to wait before a useful random mutation came along...

And how long has evolution taken so far?

My view now is most mutations are harmless. Only a few are dangerous and a minute number is really useful to the species.

White skin, blonde and red hair, fi, are human mutations we know about, but they're not exactly useful to mankind.

Lighter skin allows more UV to penetrate and be converted to Vitamin D3 which is essential for health (and which is available in only a limited number of foods). Arguably, this mutation assisted humans moving beyond the tropics where adequate sun is limited, especially in winter. Of course this mutation is a tradeoff as light skinned people suffer sunburn in lower latitudes.

 

[cyrano]

Well, if you can't imagine, try doing the math. You'll see.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, if you can't imagine, try doing the math. You'll see.

It isn't clear what or whose comment you are responding to here.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Evolution has been written about and debated about forever....

JR

 

[user 37518]

That's how it's usually worded, but it's not how Darwin put it. It bothered me as a child, when I first heard about it.

Imagine how long you'd have to wait before a useful random mutation came along...

My view now is most mutations are harmless. Only a few are dangerous and a minute number is really useful to the species.

White skin, blonde and red hair, fi, are human mutations we know about, but they're not exactly useful to mankind.

Yes, that is exactly what many complain about. If you put in random mutations and just let the system develop, you don't get useful life forms. Computer simulations fail with this scenario, but then again, what is the fundamental premise behind it then? if it is not randomness.

 

[ruffrecords]

Those are good examples, but the transitions occurred while other sectors were booming (at least in the US) so work was available for most who were willing to do it. Where are the replacement jobs in this round?

A question that has been asked since before the spinning jenny was invented. I think the answer is the spin off from the new technologies themselves. Before the railways were built in England, large quantities of raw materials were transported by canal. With the coming of the railways, canals fell into disuse but far more jobs were created building and running the railways. Eventually roads displaced the railways but the result was large quantities of jobs in the motor industry. Even social changes like fewer working hours and more leisure time have spawned huge holiday and leisure time industries.

Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

A question that has been asked since before the spinning jenny was invented. I think the answer is the spin off from the new technologies themselves. Before the railways were built in England, large quantities of raw materials were transported by canal. With the coming of the railways, canals fell into disuse but far more jobs were created building and running the railways. Eventually roads displaced the railways but the result was large quantities of jobs in the motor industry. Even social changes like fewer working hours and more leisure time have spawned huge holiday and leisure time industries.

Cheers

Ian

Yes, I'm no spring chicken nor am I ignorant of history which is why I asked the questions. I note that you didn't answer the question: what new jobs are going to replace the ones that are lost? Here we have shrinking economic opportunity, not growth. Government is trying to actively encourage growth in "green" tech and semiconductor manufacturing, but that kind of thing rarely works as well as removing the existing (often governmental) barriers to organic growth in these sectors which have moved offshore for real reasons.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

AI definitely has a place in middle management...

 

[JohnRoberts]

A question that has been asked since before the spinning jenny was invented. I think the answer is the spin off from the new technologies themselves. Before the railways were built in England, large quantities of raw materials were transported by canal. With the coming of the railways, canals fell into disuse but far more jobs were created building and running the railways. Eventually roads displaced the railways but the result was large quantities of jobs in the motor industry. Even social changes like fewer working hours and more leisure time have spawned huge holiday and leisure time industries.

Cheers

Ian

I'm not sure you are seeing the economic big picture message. Railways were even more cost effective than canals (which were more cost effective than using donkey carts to transport goods). This expanded commerce creating more wealth and improved quality of life for workers.

Cost effective automobiles allowed individuals easier access to gainful employment within commuting distance further away from city centers. More economic growth and improved quality of life resulted.

I am not sure constructive AI is the world changing paradigm shift that talking heads suggest, but it will change many formerly white collar jobs. For better for those who embrace and learn how to master it, worse for those who will lose gigs that are so easy that even computers can do them.

JR

PS; Prior to rail roads, big cities were typically located adjacent to major water ways. Railroads changed that calculus. Atlanta, GA was one of the first major cities located adjacent to major railroad junctions. Since then cars and highways have spread the population out even further. Modern work from home technology could have an impact on the need to be physically present, unless AI can replace those work from home employees completely and cheaply.

 

[cyrano]

Yes, that is exactly what many complain about. If you put in random mutations and just let the system develop, you don't get useful life forms. Computer simulations fail with this scenario, but then again, what is the fundamental premise behind it then? if it is not randomness.

A deeply devoted relative has used that argument ad infinitum to prove intelligent design.

For me, it's just a sign that there's much more intelligence in nature than we've unraveled...

 

[user 37518]

A deeply devoted relative has used that argument ad infinitum to prove intelligent design.

For me, it's just a sign that there's much more intelligence in nature than we've unraveled...

Ok, lets put intelligent design a side for a minute. How did that intelligence that you claim started, if it is only aminoacids? or, what is your answer to your relative?

 

[cyrano]

I don't discuss that with him, although he's probably the relative with the most knowledge about plants. I respect his belief and he respects my silence on the subject.

I have no clue how intelligence started, but it's all around. We've talked about octopuses before, I believe. Based on their brain (size, complexity) they should be very simple creatures. Yet they seem very good at solving problems. And lately, even slime molds stood out, as they seem to find their way to food easily in a maze. Have a look at Jerry:



This is a YT short. YT's answer to TikTok. If you scroll the short, there are several other examples of single-cell creatures showing intelligence. Depending on your definition of intelligence, of course.