Artificial Intelligence Intelligence
— Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore…
A New Post Series
It has now become quite evident that “AI” is here to stay. Like so many things before it…
- Printing Press – 1440
- Steam Engine – 1712
- Spinning Jenny – 1764
- Telegraph – 1837
- Bessemer Process – 1856
- Telephone – 1876
- Electric Light Bulb – 1879
- Radio – 1895
- Airplane – 1903
- Assembly Line – 1913
- Penicillin (discovery) – 1928
- Internet (ARPANET) – 1969
[List provided by ChatGPT-4, prompt: Give me a list of the 12 most important and revolutionary inventions from the printing press forward. No need to summarize them, just a list of 12, in chronological order, with date of invention or deployment.]
Of course, it could go on and in another second or two, give me 20, or 40, or 60 more. I could change it up to harden or soften the parameters for inclusion, or be more granular. But that’s not the point.
The point is to make two points in one.
For the time being, I’m not much interested in commenting on or analyzing all the current hand-waving, predictions of doom, admonitions to be cautious, take it slow, easy, and deliberate, etc. For the time being, I’m just chalking that all up to just another form of marketing in one respect, and fear in another.
Ludditism. If even a fraction of its purported capabilities come to fruition, it shakes up a LOT of livelihoods. For more on the Luddite aspect, scroll and see the section “AI Luddites.”
Secretaries in the 1970s feared they’d be replaced by robots… but were instead replaced by their own bosses; and correspondingly, secretaries found themselves qualified to be managers and bosses.
The moral?
Technology affords us the opportunity to do more and make more, not less.
…Yea, I know…
NUKES!!!
Ask yourself how many technologies and benefits have come from that development 80 years ago; how many livelihoods, how much benefit to the daily lives of humans?
AI will be no different, except the applications will be infinitely wider and will advance at the speed of light (at a point, literally so).
This is a post series, but an unplanned one. I will include all new posts on things that come up as they come up.
List of Posts
- AI Luddites (Section 5)
- GOD.ai — My Sci-Fi Thriller Novel
- I Run Circles Around ChatGPT-4 — You Can Too — Philosophically and politically, it’s a child with a large vocabulary
- Refinements in artificial intelligence to make you control millions because you can (Section 1)
- Living On The Bleeding Edge of AI Technology — It’s a tough wave to catch, but you better, because it’s gonna catch you
- You’re Invited to ChatGPT With My Blog About My Blog
- I’ve been listening in to conversations with Zon, my ChatGPT Bot, and here’s what I’ve learned (Section 3)
- How the Chatbot Zon is going to reinvent FreeTheAnimal (and AI, the world) (Section 4)
- Blowing Your Mind With AI: Voice-Prompt ChatGPT To Draft Emails. Get Voice + Text Completion
- Unleash the Power of the World’s Top AI: Now Live at FreeTheAnimal
- Chatbot Zon (Section 3) (New May 8, 2023)
[More to follow.]
Whoa! Notes
As a sort of “sales pitch” for this, here’s an output from just today. I purchased a subscription to ChatGPT-4 (previous versions are free, as computing time is available). It’s brand new out of the box for me. First thing I did was test it in translation.
Yesterday, I had occasion to draft a letter in English that I needed to be in Thai as well. So I had ChatGPT-3.5 do that. You can have it regenerate from the same input, and it was better the second time around. How can I tell? I run it through Google Translate, in-reverse and the closer it reads to the “nonsense” I get when I input stuff Thais write in Thai and send to me, I figure the better. Let’s just say I think they use a lot more metaphor than we do, and they’re often weird. “I’ll have the flowers for you tomorrow” (they’ll pay me). Stuff like that. Other stuff too. Like, if you say “disappointed,” it comes across as “tricked me.” “Silly” is “stupid.” I could go on and on.
So I ran the same letter through GPT-4, then ran the result through GT, Thai to English, and it sounded properly ridiculous. I sent it to Kitty, a high school science teacher, and he told me it reads almost like a Thai wrote it and that it was a very good translation of my English letter.
So.
Emboldened, I pulled out all the stops. Now, I would never have AI write a finished-draft post for me, and you’ll see why. But, it’s damn remarkable all the same. Took me 2 minutes to write the prompt.
There’s a phrase I see used more and more often, “correlation does not equal causation.” Please write a section for my latest blog post on that topic in the style of Richard Nikoley, blogger at FreeTheAnimal.com. His style is iconoclastic and lightly misanthropic (“targeted and focussed misanthropy”). Cover the area from absurd correlation to very plausible, but people dismiss it because it’s “only a correlation,” and it goes against their bias. Make it about 500 words.
It took less than a minute to produce this:
Title: Correlation, Causation, and the Absurdity of Our Modern-Day Biases
Alright, folks. Gather around and let’s have a little chat about one of the most beloved, abused, and misunderstood phrases in today’s world: “correlation does not equal causation.” Seems like every time someone wants to shut down an argument, they trot out that tired old chestnut as if it’s some sort of magical charm to ward off evil spirits.
Well, I’m here to set the record straight on this particular bit of targeted and focused misanthropy, and hopefully knock some sense into a few heads along the way.
First off, let’s get one thing straight: correlation is not a dirty word. Correlation is a measure of how two variables tend to change together. It can be positive, negative, or non-existent. And when it comes to the absurd, the internet is a veritable treasure trove of nonsense correlations. For example, did you know that there’s a correlation between the number of people who drowned by falling into a swimming pool and the number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in? It’s true, but it doesn’t mean that Nic Cage is somehow responsible for those tragic pool incidents (though I wouldn’t put it past him).
Now, let’s talk about the other side of the coin: the plausible correlations that get dismissed simply because they don’t align with someone’s preconceived biases. You know the type: the folks who’ll readily accept that the Earth is flat or that the government is controlled by lizard people but scoff at the idea that there might be a link between diet and health, or between climate change and human activity.
Take, for example, the well-documented correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Despite decades of research and overwhelming evidence, there are still some knuckle-draggers who cling to the “correlation does not equal causation” mantra as if it’s the last life raft on the Titanic. Sure, correlation doesn’t automatically prove causation, but when you’ve got a mountain of evidence and a plausible mechanism (you know, like inhaling carcinogenic chemicals), it’s hard to argue that it’s “just a coincidence.”
The real issue here isn’t correlation versus causation; it’s the rampant confirmation bias that infests our culture like a particularly virulent strain of brain-eating bacteria. People cherry-pick data and twist facts to fit their pre-existing beliefs, then hide behind the “correlation does not equal causation” smokescreen when their pet theories are challenged.
So, how do we separate the absurd from the plausible, the coincidental from the causal? It’s simple, really: we use our brains. We look at the evidence, consider alternative explanations, and weigh the likelihood of various scenarios. We apply critical thinking, skepticism, and a willingness to change our minds when presented with new information.
And if we still can’t figure it out? Well, that’s what the scientific method is for. Science, my friends, is the ultimate arbiter of truth in this mixed-up, topsy-turvy world. It’s a process of testing hypotheses, gathering data, and refining our understanding of the universe.
In conclusion, let’s not be too hasty in dismissing correlations just because they don’t fit our personal narratives. Correlation may not equal causation, but it can certainly be a useful tool in our ongoing quest for knowledge. So the next time you hear someone spouting off that tired old phrase, do me a favor: take a step back, engage your brain, and consider the possibility that there might be more to the story than meets the eye.
How long would it take to find, and then how much would I have to pay a person to draft that for me? Of course, it would need a lot of work to get it to Richard Nikoley Style, including vulgarity-sauce, but in under a minute, at 20 bucks per month? And what are its limits; how much can I overwork it before the labor department is called in? I’m limited to 25 such outputs every 3 hours, 24/7/365 fuck weekends and holidays. I’ll never even come close, but the bigger value is that I can wake up at 02.17.34 on any given night—or day or anytime—with a wild hair, pop over to my laptop, slap something in, and I’m back to sleep within 10 minutes.
Going to be a lot of butthurt amongst people who get paid salaries and contracts to write…as opposed to how I do it…where ChatGPT is another tool for me, as you can probably plainly see. So again, never discount the Luddite element as you hear people trying to scare you off of AI.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
