dimreepr

I have little doubt that an aboriginal ancestestor that started the oral story, would not understand the current version; but if they could they would recognise... 😉

The written language, however presented has a best before date bc it's written, it's like a snapshot in meaning that slowly loses resolution. After a generation or two, the original meaning can be changed, so that we might think we understand what the words meant and everyone would agree, other than the author. Orally, language and meaning develop at the same rate bc the error correction is always current. "I luk forwerd to klarifikashen" looks fine to me (a dislexit). 😉

I largely agree, it's a scary future; we are either sitting on the precipice of a brave new world, where all the boring task's are done for us and we're free to think, or an infinitely sustainable autocracy with AI as the king maker and no-one is aloud to think. I honestly don't know which would be preferable, when the dust settles. Somer tastes so good.

Why would a different approach to language mean that I understand what a dipshit is when spelt deepmidden?

The media is muddying the waters though, it only takes notice of the negative effects, like the guy who formed an intimate relationship with a relatively primitive AI chatbot, which reinforced his delusion about assasinating Queen liz II with a crossbow. For every example of that type of extreme human behaviour, there will be an example of an extreme at the other end of the spectrum. Most of us don't need a rampant influence to be a luddite... 😉

I see it as being seen to do the right thing and Andrew is a target that so few doubt his guilt, so it obfuscates the more guilty but less palitable option's...

The fundamantals in this context will change, but one thing that history teaches us is, some humans will always rage against the machine/societal norm's with a new line of thinking that contradicts the accepted fundamentals. Perhaps the rise of AI fakes will be what teaches the next generation to think critically and rise above the average. It strikes me that this question runs parallel to the 'was Marx right' question.

Indeed, but should we just let him choose bc he is entitled to do so? Who gets to choose the depth of the turtle's???

defecated and dedicated is a matter of inches... 😉

I have a bespoke wall, for your gratification and ease of impact and it's cheap... 😉

Indeed, he got the wrong people too upset to ignore him...

Assuming we're ruling out sentience, then a true AI would create a society that is completely free to think; Maslow's hierarchies will be met by the machine's, including levelling the playground for plebs like me; dyslexia means text is effectively my second language, I love predictive text bc it even tells me where to put an apostrophe, to convey meaning in a language I find natural, orally. The definition of student, in the context of a working GAI will be the future etymology. We don't need to outperform AI, we just need to understand how and when to apply the brakes and ride the wave.

LLM's can talk to whales potentially, why would less talk lead to greater understanding?

I said we'll lose students as AI improves, so the pathways will reduce but the quality of students will increase bc they will stand out, thinking beyond the typical AI answer. If AI fulfils it's potential, beyond the short term political economy, then it could provide for us, to the point that the word economy becomes essentially meaningless.

That's a good question, do you remember when you were mature enough to make a decision?

I'm guessing he built your walls well enough though...

On the slippery slope to a dystopic future, the odds are it won't kill me. 😉

But our history is littered with dystopic regime's followed by revolution and a viarbly brief time of peace, before the previous regime births a polar opposite dystopic vision. I think AI has the potential to extend the brief time of peace, much like splitting the atom did, but much more efficiently. When they realise they don't need the rest of us, they might realise the futility of being superior, in terms of things and stuff, they will find a different metric with which to be better, probably/hopefully who's the greatest at my favorite hobby. If they kill us all, who's gonna serve them drinks? Robots wouldn't work, they can't suck the jealous out of them and they starve. Potentially, AI is the artificial god that Nietzche was looking for... 😉

Just imagine what those students could achieve with unlimited extendable shoulders to stand on.

We're following the same pattern as with all technology, most of us lose the abilities that our grandparents took for granted, and we rely on the specialists to do it f or us, like making cloth or servicing the car. It'll be the same now but bc the technology is intelligence, most of us will rely on the specialist and lose what our grandparents took for granted. I doubt we'll loose our philosophers/scientists but I imagine the number of students will decline substantially as the AI sophistication increases.

We've given birth to a problem child, a precocious little smart arse that's got a lot of growing up to do; maybe it'll be a good teacher, if we guide it down the right path. But one thing's for sure, we can't kill it now...

Nope, size is imaterial unless we're discussing Godzilla v King kong,,,

I'd agree, when did I say otherwise? Maybe that's your cultural bias, assuming a powerful male is violent.

The problem is, sexual maturity comes with a drive to provide for the children, which bleeds into/from the culture, i.e. the most powerful male available, is the most desirable. Our culture confounds that drive with a moral imperative to protect the children from themselves, but a nebulous definition of a child, it's further confused by our natural bias towards plenty/money equals power, so the money maker's are the most desirable. It's ultimately anecdotal evidence for each girl to know, and each man to justify.

Why?