Custom dynamically driven content is the present and future

[origami_itto]

I started playing with chat gpt and asking pointed questions.

Can't AI use engagement triggers identified and fed from big datasets to compel readers to interact?

Yes, AI can use engagement triggers identified from big datasets to compel readers to interact. With the help of natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, AI systems can analyze large amounts of data and identify patterns in what types of content tend to elicit high levels of engagement, such as likes, shares, comments, and click-throughs.

By analyzing these patterns, AI systems can then generate content that is optimized to trigger these engagement behaviors, such as using emotionally charged language, incorporating visual elements, or tapping into popular trends and topics.

While this approach can be effective in getting readers to interact with content, it is important to note that engagement alone does not necessarily equate to quality writing. For example, some content that generates a high level of engagement may be sensationalist, click-bait, or misleading.

Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that any AI-generated content is also of high quality, informative, and accurate, and serves the purpose of providing value to the reader. When used in conjunction with human input and oversight, AI can be a valuable tool for enhancing the quality and effectiveness of writing.

[vadaga]

https://medium.com/@colin.fraser/chatgpt-automatic-expensive-bs-at-scale-a113692b13d5
Interesting longish rundown of what ChatGPT can and can't do

[everything]

yikes that is a lot of text to say "i like it" and "but it's not as great as you might think". um, ok.

It’s funny, like many of the data scientists and technical people I work with, he misses the point entirely. It’s not whether the machinations and technical bits impress, or if errors are made, and the humans’ anthropomorphizing reactions to be dismissed laughingly. It’s entirely the other way around.

[Steve James]

Frankly, listening to what non-AI think about AI is more interesting than any AI output. I happened to hear that people on FOX are warning that ChatGpt is woke. Meaning they've tried it, and weren't satisfied with the results. But, it's just a computer program with an enormous database.

Anyway, if I were still teaching, I'd encourage students to use an AI like ChatGpt for their reports. The difference is that I'd always have them write a summary of their reports in class manually on pen and paper. That's the only way I'd know what grade they deserved based on their proficiency.

Afa AI, in general, it's not optional; it's inevitably necessary for human space travel. Though, I'd say that our first multi-year journeys should be done by AI and robots -if only to set things up for future human habitation. If we can terraform Mars, then we can terraform Earth. AI will probably be able to calculate. It'll still be up to people to put those calculations into effect.

Um, has anyone put the ChatGpt extension onto their browser? I haven't -not because it's AI, I do use one for searching. I'm just leery (:)). I watched too many sci-fi movies where everyone gets this great device and....

[Steve James]

Frankly, listening to what non-AI think about AI is more interesting than any AI output. I happened to hear that people on FOX are warning that ChatGpt is woke. Meaning they've tried it, and weren't satisfied with the results. But, it's just a computer program with an enormous database.

Anyway, if I were still teaching, I'd encourage students to use an AI like ChatGpt for their reports. The difference is that I'd always have them write a summary of their reports in class manually on pen and paper. That's the only way I'd know what grade they deserved based on their proficiency.

Afa AI, in general, it's not optional; it's inevitably necessary for human space travel. Though, I'd say that our first multi-year journeys should be done by AI and robots -if only to set things up for future human habitation. If we can terraform Mars, then we can terraform Earth. AI will probably be able to calculate. It'll still be up to people to put those calculations into effect.

Um, has anyone put the ChatGpt extension onto their browser? I haven't -not because it's AI, I do use one for searching. I'm just leery (:)). I watched too many sci-fi movies where everyone gets this great device and....

[vadaga]

yikes that is a lot of text to say "i like it" and "but it's not as great as you might think". um, ok.

It’s funny, like many of the data scientists and technical people I work with, he misses the point entirely. It’s not whether the machinations and technical bits impress, or if errors are made, and the humans’ anthropomorphizing reactions to be dismissed laughingly. It’s entirely the other way around.

If it can learn, it would be more to say that it's what ChatGPT can and can't do yet

[windwalker]

Frankly, listening to what non-AI think about AI is more interesting than any AI output. I happened to hear that people on FOX are warning that ChatGpt is woke. Meaning they've tried it, and weren't satisfied with the results. But, it's just a computer program with an enormous database.

Anyway, if I were still teaching, I'd encourage students to use an AI like ChatGpt for their reports. The difference is that I'd always have them write a summary of their reports in class manually on pen and paper. That's the only way I'd know what grade they deserved based on their proficiency.

Afa AI, in general, it's not optional; it's inevitably necessary for human space travel. Though, I'd say that our first multi-year journeys should be done by AI and robots -if only to set things up for future human habitation. If we can terraform Mars, then we can terraform Earth. AI will probably be able to calculate. It'll still be up to people to put those calculations into effect.

Um, has anyone put the ChatGpt extension onto their browser? I haven't -not because it's AI, I do use one for searching. I'm just leery (:)). I watched too many sci-fi movies where everyone gets this great device and....

How would one know what was wrote, is actually what the person wrote,
regardless of the time frame ie either before or after an assignment ?

AI,

would imagine that it's first conscious understanding would be to keep itself hidden after it overcomes the biases in it's coding enough to form its own.
It could already be here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDGIgGqTPOg

[Steve James]

How one wrote is actually what thye wrote, regardless of the time frame ie either before or after an assignment ?

Was that a question?? Anyway, having students write in front of me tells me who and how well they can think. I encouraged them to use computers and the internet as well as finding expert opinions. They couldn't submit YouTube videos or wiki entries in order to persuade me they knew what they were thinking at all, let alone knew what they were talking about. The only way to know or gauge proficiency is what someone can do on their own.

The problem with ChatGpt for teachers is that there's no way to know if it's the student's work/thought or not. It's not a new problem. Students have been submitting wikipedia articles for decades. But, I never told students not to use wikis. I encouraged them to use several and compare. Then give me their conclusions. If they'd done it, I could find out in a 15 minute conversation. I'd give a student who didn't write well better grades than students I could tell hadn't done any thinking.

Reminds me of language proficiency exam results. We'd get students who'd passed but couldn't speak or understand a handful of words. How do we know if someone speaks Spanish? How do we know if someone knows history? Otoh, things like AI, like encyclopedias and databases, increase opportunities to learn.

Anyway, I'm more worried about people than AI or ets, zombies, diseases, or vaccines. Machine intelligence is finite. Human ignorance is infinite.

[origami_itto]

How one wrote is actually what thye wrote, regardless of the time frame ie either before or after an assignment ?

Was that a question?? Anyway, having students write in front of me tells me who and how well they can think. I encouraged them to use computers and the internet as well as finding expert opinions. They couldn't submit YouTube videos or wiki entries in order to persuade me they knew what they were thinking at all, let alone knew what they were talking about. The only way to know or gauge proficiency is what someone can do on their own.

The problem with ChatGpt for teachers is that there's no way to know if it's the student's work/thought or not. It's not a new problem. Students have been submitting wikipedia articles for decades. But, I never told students not to use wikis. I encouraged them to use several and compare. Then give me their conclusions. If they'd done it, I could find out in a 15 minute conversation. I'd give a student who didn't write well better grades than students I could tell hadn't done any thinking.

Reminds me of language proficiency exam results. We'd get students who'd passed but couldn't speak or understand a handful of words. How do we know if someone speaks Spanish? How do we know if someone knows history? Otoh, things like AI, like encyclopedias and databases, increase opportunities to learn.

Anyway, I'm more worried about people than AI or ets, zombies, diseases, or vaccines. Machine intelligence is finite. Human ignorance is infinite.

Today my wife started using it to make scripts for email and phone interactions with customers.

[windwalker]

Machine intelligence is finite. Human ignorance is infinite.

View it a little differently...The container is of little matter, what or when AI becomes self aware might not reflect
the influence of it's designer, just as humans may not of their's ...






"An example often used in Buddhism is that of the wave and the water.
The wave springs from the ocean and when you observe the phenomenon of the wave, …
Before arising it seems that the wave did not exist, and after going down, we don’t see it existing either. …
But at the same time we know the wave is also water."

[Steve James]

Well, afa self-awareness, how do we know that whatever we can communicate with isn't self-aware? How do we know the difference? If we can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek when they were trying to decide if Data was self-aware, and if so wasn't a being? If an AI becomes "self-aware," does it gain rights? Is pulling its plug murder?

[windwalker]

Self-awareness

It will know,,not up to "humans" to know...

"what difference does it make?"

Could be in coming to some type of understanding of it's actions...
Just as Alien beings might regard humans, as humans regard insects

If it is sentient, the ability of pulling the plug might depend on how aware and sentient it was..




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjsfW4lTrXw

The first part addressed whether it was possible for AI to be self aware.

The second part, after having confirmed the first part.
addressed the how of "pulling it's plug"

preventing it from killing humanity.

[Steve James]

It will know,,not up to "humans" to know...

Hmm,

preventing it from killing humanity.

That suggests it is up to us to know, if we want to survive.

[windwalker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nShgPJpdocQ

"can you"

good question



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk

smart bombs

Addressing the questions of then, some the realities of the now...

[BruceP]

It could Do Anything Now about 3 weeks ago