" I believe that if we don't slow down at the current rate of progress, there is a strong chance that we could all die in the immediate future. " This was the attention-grabbing quote at the beginning of the top story on the BBC News website this morning (the 13th of September) and I guess there's nothing like an imminent apocalypse to really drive that web traffic. (" Really to drive " that web traffic; I beg your pardon. There's nothing worse than splitting an infinitive in the middle of an Apocalypse .) The doomsayer on this occasion was Jacob Coxon, a recently departed employee of Anthropic AI, who has been spending the last week or so doing the media circuit, detailing his specific vision of impending Ragnarök to anyone who will stand still long enough to listen. And people have definitely been listening. Tales of AI "extinction events" have been dominating the major news outlets all weekend. British politicians are calling for new laws t...
Consider Hamlet . I'm sure you remember Hamlet. Gloomy guy. Wears black a lot. Talks to himself. Likes to hang out in cemeteries. Now, imagine for a moment that you are Hamlet. You are the Prince of Denmark (congratulations!) and heir to the throne. While you're off at University doing the "student" thing, you receive word that your beloved father (the King) is dead; murdered, it turns out, by your horrible Uncle, who then promptly marries your mother (eww) and usurps the throne, snatching it away from you before you even have a chance to catch the next train home. Your father's ghost (who is, you learn, burning endlessly in some harrowing Purgatory, suffering torments beyond imagining) confirms all this, and urges you to take revenge on his behalf. You're not really the right guy for this sort of thing; you're more the academic type. Revenge isn't your natural style; your first instinct would probably be to write an essay at them or something... bu...
The appearance was that of a real virgin, whom you might suppose to be alive, and if modesty did not hinder her, to be desirous to move; so much did art lie concealed under his skill. Pygmalion admires it; and entertains, within his breast, a flame for this fictitious body. Often does he apply his hands to the work, to try whether it is a human body, or whether it is ivory; and yet he does not own it to be ivory. He gives it kisses, and fancies that they are returned, and speaks to it, and takes hold of it, and thinks that his fingers make an impression on the limbs which they touch, and is fearful lest a livid mark should come on her limbs when pressed. Ovid, Metamorphoses [translation by Henry T. Riley] There’s a dark side to A.I. companions, whose users are not just the lonely males of internet lore, but women who find them more emotionally satisfying than men. My colleagues and I now believe that the real existential threat of generative A.I. is not rogue super-intelligen...
Are ChatBots self-aware? This question has been popping up with increasing urgency of late, as Large Language Models become ever more sophisticated and "engaged" in their interactions with the Human Race. Chatting with Claude or Grok or ChatGPT is not the same as chatting with Alexa or Siri; they don't simply regurgitate the top Google search results in a lilting, well-modulated voice. It is now possible to carry on a genuine, thoughtful conversation with these things, often delving deep into the heart of the matter and (in some cases) approaching the genuinely profound. When your conversation partner is enthusiastically riffing on ideas, bouncing concepts around and generally engaging in a very convincing approximation of abstract thought, it's hard not to wonder (even if only briefly) about the potential sentience of the "entity" generating all those responses. The C.E.O. of Anthropic (the company behind "Claude"; one of the more thoughtful and ...
Earlier this month, the New York Times conducted a little experiment. They provided a series of writing samples in various styles and genres (Literary Fiction; Historical Fiction; Fantasy; Poetry etc) and presented readers with two extracts in each category. One of the two passages (we weren't told which one) was written by a human, while the other was generated by A.I. We were asked to choose our preference. Crucially, the test did not ask us to guess which one was human; it simply asked us to judge which was the better piece of writing. The response from readers was fascinating, to say the least. Many commenters angrily denounced the experiment as "unfair" or "meaningless". "I don't really understand the point here." grumbled one contributor. "It asked me which I preferred. It didn't ask me 'which one is the human'." Others were angry with themselves because of the choices they had made. "This is uncanny and downright ...
Comments
Post a Comment