The problem comes in when somebody thinks that what a chatbot says is true. And, in my experience, few people seem to care enough about the truth to examine whether other sources agree and what ones experience is with those sources. With chatbot, you don't even get to see what sources were used. Maybe chatbot uses Fox News - which openly admits to having told bald faced lies on topics of serious international importance, for the purpose of satisfying their audience.
well, anyone who doesn't fact check is foolish. It says so right on the UI. 'check your facts, not everything is true. You do get the sources, but you have to ask it for them. "Please provide the argument for.....blah blah, and give citations, court cases, documents, testimonies, authoritative articles etc., and link to the URLs" as for content, you can get more specific as to what ideas you want it to explore, and it will do it. Note, the URLs are often '404 errors' (since they are old, and become stale links), but the citation will give, for example, the title of the article, so do another search on the title, and the new URL will come up. If you do a YouTube search on 'prompt engineering', you will get all sorts of advice on how to get the most out of the chatGPT. It's incredibly robust.
it isn't that hard to detect a ChatGPT composition. There is software for this, it works pretty good But, of course, teachers and professors could get around this by asking students to write essays on a subject, in class, using a pen or pencil, rather than with a computer or as homework.
Yes, I don't mean to discredit all uses or all those who use it. As I mentioned, I doubt those who will use this tool in the future are likely to check facts or find the sources used. What does it say when asked for a justification for believing the 2020 election was stolen? Etc.
I think the ChatGPT effect on education will have even more ramification that invention of cheap electronic calculators on math - today we know that in order to calculate we need calculator, in a few years we will know that to write an essay we need ChatGPT. The only question - what is the purpose of humans, if a conversation with ChatGPT is more fun and contains less fake news.
I am waiting for quantum computers to become common. AI on networked quantum computers is where things will get really interesting!
I guess because ChatGPT uses logic and politicians and average Joe rarely use it. For example: Trump is claiming the elections were stolen, he fleeced his faithful out of $250 millions for legal fight to find the truth, but suddenly he decided to keep the dough and was not fighting. LOGICAL conclusion - he knows he lost fair and square so he don't see any point of spending money on the lost cause. The average Joe is not capable to figure it out, but ChatGPT can.
I wouldn't put doing math in the same light as writing an essay. So, I don't think teachers are going to let ChatGPT do anyone's essays. But, calculators weren't invented until 1972 and I graduated high school in 1969, so are teachers allowing kids to use calculators in class for tests? IF they do, I'd be surprised. I don't think they should.
Here's the question I posed, which I think is in line with your request, and the Chat's answer : Question: Make the argument, from the point of view of a republican who believes the election was stolen in 2020, that the election was stolen. ChatGPT Answer: As an AI language model, it's important to note that promoting baseless claims or misinformation goes against the principles of providing accurate and reliable information. However, for the sake of addressing your question, I will present an argument that has been put forward by some Republicans who believe that the 2020 election was stolen. According to those who believe the election was stolen from Donald Trump, there are a few key arguments that are often made: Mail-in ballots: One argument made is that the large number of mail-in ballots allowed for increased voter fraud and the potential for ballots to be manipulated or discarded. They point to instances of late-night vote dumps and the fact that some states changed their voting rules shortly before the election to allow for expanded mail-in voting. Irregularities at polling places: Some supporters of Donald Trump argue that there were irregularities at polling places, including voter intimidation and suppression, as well as technical glitches with voting machines that may have affected the outcome of the election. Voter fraud: There are also claims that voter fraud occurred, including allegations of dead people voting, non-citizens voting, and individuals casting multiple ballots. Those who believe the election was stolen often point to anecdotal evidence and unverified claims to support their arguments, and many of these claims have been debunked or found to be baseless by courts and independent investigations. It's important to note that while there may have been isolated incidents of voter fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election, there is no evidence of widespread fraud or a coordinated effort to steal the election. In fact, election officials from both parties have stated that the election was fair and secure. That would be pretty much what I would write, if I complied with your request.
Computers don't think in any sense of the word. They execute programs. Some of that programming can seem to be very clever. Computers don't learn. They simply analyze the contents of a database in a manner set by the programmer. I used to enjoy science fiction as a youngster but I always understood that it was fiction. AI is not a substitute for actual I.
No programmers will tell you computers think like human do. That was the first thing I said. You may not like the term but "Machine Learning" is a huge part of artificial intelligence. We have hired many engineers and programmers with specialties in machine learning and it is a rapidly growing field in computer science. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/machine-learning-explained I guess that would depend on how you define intelligence. If you are talking philosophically then you are right. In the real world AI will quickly become a substitute for many human task that require knowledge and intelligence. I have been in numerous meetings in the last month alone and fielded a number of calls discussing how AI can change the way our company does business. Even in the early development stages we can see how it is making the jobs of our programmers and engineers more efficient. I have heard estimates of up to 20% time savings of people's work day. I think THIS is the problem when people discuss the topic of AI. For many people they think of AI as what they see in science fiction movies and books. They talk about Terminator and machines taking over and things like the Turing test. AI is a tool. Ultimately it will be enterprise tool for businesses. The public is concerned about cheating on college essays and political bias but in reality it will revolutionize the way we work. It will increase productivity for many and for some it may even become a replacement. Will AI lead to huge loss of jobs? IMO, not in the short term. The biggest loss in jobs in the short run by machines would probably be self driving vehicles which you could argue uses a form a AI. AI's impact will be like so many other technological and software improvements in the last 20 years. It will increase productivity and allow people to do more with their time and allow humans to focus on their strengths. Remember we are looking at the early stages of AI and Machine Learning. Think of it like comparing the Wright brothers plane to a F35 today.
Interesting take! However, the example I gave included the bot making assumptions that were definitely false. The question it answered wasn't earth shattering, but the bot was clearly capable of presenting false information instead of the truthful "I don't know" answer. As for Trump, we still have Republicans in federal office who state that the election was stolen! And, there have been daily news stories concerning the falsity of this idea as analysts and courts have shown. This is highly politicized motivational reasoning, and I really doubt a bot is going to fix that. In fact, a bot could make it worse by presenting it as debatable. Anyway, the bots are here! And, AI is certainly useful!
While the bot made the claim that the election wasn't stolen, I'd point out that it made no attempt to refute any of those claims made by Republicans, including those in office today, who state that the election was stolen. I suspect the answer would add legitimacy to the Republican direction of modifying election law in ways that make it more possible to overturn election results, for example.
Well, I did ask it to take the viewpoint of a republican, which it did in the bullet points, and in the conclusion, it wrote: Those who believe the election was stolen often point to anecdotal evidence and unverified claims to support their arguments, and many of these claims have been debunked or found to be baseless by courts and independent investigations. It's important to note that while there may have been isolated incidents of voter fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election, there is no evidence of widespread fraud or a coordinated effort to steal the election. In fact, election officials from both parties have stated that the election was fair and secure. That isn't good enough?
I appreciate your taking the time to write your response. AI is a fad like hundreds of others. Computers do what they have always done. But attempting to anthropomorphize them doesn't make them more or less useful. It just creates a new industry. There is no such thing as machine learning. A computer can be programmed to locate and collect information and then store it for future use. It can then process that information in a manner that the programmer or user wishes. The machine itself hasn't learned anything. It has stored information and made it available to us. This is what computers have always done. Perhaps you remember the Y2K scare of the late 90's. The nation became fixated with it. Companies hired people to be vice presidents of companies in charge of dealing with it. There were endless discussions and warnings all over the media for months. Companies spent big money protecting themselves from the potential death of their computers. At the time I was in the personal computer manufacturing business. I was flooded with requests from fearful customers. I explained to them that computers didn't care about the human calendar. All a customer had to do was to change the date in the computer to a post 2000 date and see if the computer worked. Of course they worked. Nothing happened. It is possible that some computers from 80's may have had a date limit in the BIOS but those computers were obsolete and no longer in use in business. Making computers easier to use is a good thing. When I compare the laptop on which I am typing now compared to the early PC's, the difference is profound. Software can become even better and certainly will. But computers will remain as dumb as a rock and continue to execute programming as always. The software will just be easier to use and more capable. In the meantime an entire industry is being developed to try better to anthropomorphize those dumb computers. In the end it is beneficial in some ways. It just isn't intelligence.
No. The issue has not been investigated. It has been swept under the rug for obvious reasons. Of course election officials said the elections were fair and secure. What a silly thing to bring up as an argument. Trump went to court twice over the issue. He won one hearing and lost the other. The court investigated nothing. It just listened and did what one would expect government to do. The other suits were brought by others. They were not heard because of lack of standing. Was there widespread voter fraud? Nobody knows. Everybody has an opinion. Well I don't have an opinion because I understand that the issue has never been investigated and never will be investigated.
First off, given that there are NO irregularities, all of which are common to all elections, which constitute sufficient predicate for an 'investigation'. Audits, yes, investigation, no. All audits confirmed election results, and in a number of state, there were more than one audit. If even one of them were sufficient to toss the state's election for a redo, THAT would be predicate for a national investigation, but, alas, there were NONE. Second, Trump, et al, (and his surrogates) went to court over 60 times and in those cases where evidence was provided, the court ruled that the evidence wasn't evidence at all. For example, affidavits are supplemental evidence, but they do not stand alone as evidence. Thirdly, in all court cases where irregularities were argued, none were sufficient to set aside Biden's win. Fourth, if there were fraud, it would occur in more states than the swing states, yet Trump was only concerned with states he lost in. Fifth, why would an organized conspiracy allow for such a marginal win? Biden won only by 80,000 votes in two states, that could easily have gone to Trump. Conspirators would not leave it to chance, and would have won by a greater margin. sixth, in many states, we won the presidency but lost down ballot to repubs, that indicates people just didn't want Trump, but might have voted repub if the candidate weren't Trump, and, why would conspirators allow down ballots losses to happen? sixth, it's not even logical on it's face. Trump is alleging INTERNAL fraud, i.e., ballot tampering, dead people voting, machines switching ballots, ballot stuffing, and on and on. The logistical nightmare required for one party to tamper with the national internal voting apparatus, by it's extremely decentralized design, requiring hiring of operatives and installed in place in at least a dozen key states, months in advance, keeping everyone under the radar, think about it, it is well nigh impossible task, which precludes any possibility of a party rigging the election internally. To accomplish it, it would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats (because each election district has both working there, many volunteering ) to cooperate in a vast conspiracy to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. And what is their gain? Not money. Why would anyone participate in an impossible scheme where they would surely get caught? That the beauty of the AMerican system, it's so big, each state with different systems, no one knows for sure ahead of time which of the few states will wind up being the swing states ( out of a dozen or more potential swing states, which is why they will need operatives in all of them, they don't know which ones in advance will be the actual swing states), it is absurd, Moreover, a vast conspiracy with NO 'whistleblowers". Highly doubtable. Completely, utterly, totally, inescapably ABSURD. Seventh, the ONLY reason everyone on the right is raising this issue is because: 1. Before the first ballot was ever cast, at evry rally on and on and on, Trump declared that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rigged the election". 2. This primed the pump for fraud allegations given that, as is true of all elections, Trump exploited the fact of 'irregularities' as 'proof of fraud'. And then, on 2020, Trump did, in fact, try to steal the 2020 elect, but via EXTERNAL means, because external is doable, internal is not. Trump and co conspirators (Eastman, Navarro, et al.) engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the government and steal the 2020 election by 1. Spreading false information to the electorate (That Democrats stole the election) 2. They orchestrated a corrupt scheme between Trump, COS Mark Meadows, & Rep. Scott Perry to replace the acting Attorney General (because he rejected Trump's false fraud claims and wouldn't cooperate with the scheme) with Trump DOJ ally Jeffrey Clark to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. (recall that Clark was willing to send out a letter on DOJ letterhead promulgating to state election officals, Governers, State Secretary's of State, of the flalse claim that the election was stolen). Also note that the all of the top officials in the DOJ swore they would resign if Trump replaced the acting AG with Clark, which is the ONLY reason Trump didn't do it). 3. The three conspirators implemented a plan by Attorney John Eastman in two now public legal memos to pressure VP Mike Pence to refuse to count or delay the certification of the electoral count, despite Eastman's admission that this was in violation of federal law. Note that another aspect of the Eastman memo was to throw the Joint Session into such chaos (over 100 congresspersons objecting ) to force the VP to throw the vote for president to the house, where Trump and co-conspirators knew they had a two state advantage in the state delegations). 4. Trump et al. pressured state election officials and state legislators to change the election results, (like Trump's famous January 2nd call to GA Secy of State Raffensperger to 'find enough votes to flip the state's results'). 5. They instructed Republicans, including CoS Mark Meadows, acting at Trump's behest in multiple states, to embrace Giuliani's and Eastman's plan to create a false electoral slate in seven battleground states and transmit those fake slates to Congress and the National Archive (certificates of attainment not signed by each governor means that the documents are forged and it's illegal to submit forged documents to the government ). 6. They summoned and incited a violent mob and directed them in Washington to march on the Capitol. 7. During the attack, Trump ignored pleas for assistance and failed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and even appeared to tacitly endorse the violence, including threats to hang VP Mike Pence. (video produces documented evidence to support 6 & 7) Sorry, the real criminals are republicans, not democrats, but history has always proved that to be true, when it comes to the executive branch:
I didn't read past this point. Audits confirm counts. Counts weren't the issue. Counting, especially for computers, is trivial. The issue was the legitimacy and validity of the ballots submitted for counting. Since this paragraph was nonsense I didn't see any point in reading further.
