Chat GPT

ME14addick said:

I haven't taken much notice of this up to now, but with a lot of discussion in the media on the reduction in fact checking on some social media platforms, I wondered how this will impact AI. 

I understand that these AI systems gather some of their info from social media, and with so much misinformation on those platforms, how will we be able to rely on the information that comes out of AI?

stonemuse said:

stonemuse said:

Leuth said:

We are sleepwalking into hell

Why?

Firstly, tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Bard etc are neither inherently good nor bad; they are shaped by the intent of their creators and the context of their use. Based on my experience, they enhance productivity and democratise access to knowledge.

However, the risks associated with misuse, bias, and dependency on such systems are real and need vigilance. That’s a challenge for regulators and society.

Saying that we “sleepwalk” into hell displays a passive, unthinking consideration of this technology, which I find to be an oversimplification. 

While some individuals or organisations may adopt AI without fully understanding its implications, there is a growing global discourse about its ethical and practical boundaries. Conversations like these are evidence that people are questioning, debating, and seeking to shape AI’s role in society.

It’s important to acknowledge that, like any powerful innovation, AI has the potential for harm. However, the solution lies not in rejecting it outright, but in taking an active role in guiding its development. Otherwise Luddism beckons. 

With thoughtful engagement and collective effort, ChatGPT and similar tools can be part of a future that enhances human capabilities rather than diminishes them. 

To see it as a march towards hell, rather than an opportunity to shape progress responsibly, risks ceding control of the narrative to fear rather than informed dialogue.

As I guess is obvious, I am a big fan.  

I'm simply quite concerned about how the relentless march of 'optimisation' has harnessed and will continue to harness a technology that is increasingly adept at simulating the creative, professional and personal output of humans, but is not humans. I'm worried about the effects this will have on human creativity, on work, on relationships, on decisions made by medical companies, on communication with service providers, on education, on political campaigning, on mental health, on every single level of society. And y'know, maybe I am a bit of a Luddite about this. Because, like the original Luddites, I'm ultimately concerned about humans being excluded. Except this time it isn't just weavers, it's everyone with a pulse. And what really scares me is that most humans will passively accept what's happening until it's too late. I hope there's a serious resistance. Human interaction needs to make a comeback, sharpish

All fair points and time will tell. 

stonemuse said:

@Chunes

All fair points and time will tell. 

I do not know all the jobs that will be created … but many will appear. 

My own work has changed already - I now do it in a very different way so it has, essentially, given me a new job … it has been greatly enhanced by AI and changed my approach completely (training, product management, and consultancy). 

AI is a tool and society will adjust and adapt as always. 

Just to add, it’s also made me more competitive. Up until recently, there were many contracts I could not bid for because, as a sole trader, I was up against large corporates and regional banks … difficult when you are on your own. 

Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.

We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!

Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR,       "AI"?

Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.

Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.

But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little. 

For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
 
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.

A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".

stonemuse said:

stonemuse said:

@Chunes

All fair points and time will tell. 

I do not know all the jobs that will be created … but many will appear. 

My own work has changed already - I now do it in a very different way so it has, essentially, given me a new job … it has been greatly enhanced by AI and changed my approach completely (training, product management, and consultancy). 

AI is a tool and society will adjust and adapt as always. 

Just to add, it’s also made me more competitive. Up until recently, there were many contracts I could not bid for because, as a sole trader, I was up against large corporates and regional banks … difficult when you are on your own. 

September last year I found myself competing with two larger companies with plenty of resources for a tight deadline project in respect of an online training proposition with some unusual nuances. I used AI as my personal research team, used my knowledge to change/ update what was wrong or missing, and added my own perspective. 

I won the project and could not possibly have done so without AI. 

Your earlier point about GenAI being an excellent way of democratising knowledge is very valid.

The other side of the coin on that is we now have unprecedented appropriation of copyright material from millions of scientists, artists, musicians, photographers, writers, film makers, etc.

Fortunately, a lot of office use of GenAI e.g. meeting minutes, contact bids, Excel sheets, etc. does not rely on creative intellectual property

But in the creative industries the impact is not good, reducing jobs, career paths and training opportunities.

stevexreeve said:

Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.

We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!

Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR,       "AI"?

Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.

Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.

But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little. 

For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
 
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.

A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).

We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators. 

I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬

Oh, I thought this was about CBT!

PragueAddick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

stonemuse said:

@PragueAddick this is a good read 

This one is even better:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Will-Change-Your-Life/dp/1805222570

Since one will be enough for me, why would you say this one has the edge on the other one ? And would it be better for somebody like me who has minimal understanding of tech generally but is keen to use it?

They're both good books - and opinions are subjective - but having read both, I feel Dixon's is written by someone with a deeper understanding of the societal issues, has a much better writing style, and covers the implications in more depth (and a broader range of subjects). Suleyman's is good as well - just think that Dixon's is a better read. 

Leroy Ambrose said:

stevexreeve said:

Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.

We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!

Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR,       "AI"?

Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.

Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.

But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little. 

For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
 
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.

A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).

We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators. 

I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬

I think stevexreeve has a point regarding hype around GenAI. We underestimate how much human input is needed to train these tools.

So much so that even the most anti-human of the tech billionaires, Elon Musk, is worried that we are running out of training data a.k.a. high quality human knowledge:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/09/elon-musk-data-ai-training-artificial-intelligence?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

bobmunro said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

stevexreeve said:

Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.

We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!

Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR,       "AI"?

Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.

Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.

But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little. 

For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
 
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.

A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).

We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators. 

I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬

I think stevexreeve has a point regarding hype around GenAI. We underestimate how much human input is needed to train these tools.

So much so that even the most anti-human of the tech billionaires, Elon Musk, is worried that we are running out of training data a.k.a. high quality human knowledge:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/09/elon-musk-data-ai-training-artificial-intelligence?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Only a tiny proportion of the world's workforce will fulfill that 'high quality human knowledge'.

There's a significant amount of concern in academic circles about the extent to which students are starting to try to use AI LLMs as sources, and not just research tools.  They have a major problem of AI systems creating "facts", "legal precedents" and "publications" out of thin air.  Allied with either ideological or financial assaults on the liberal arts/social sciences in third level education, and it makes for a potentially very dangerous challenge to broader human knowledge and comprehension.

The widespread ripping off of copyrighted content and environmental impacts of AI operations are also of concern, to say nothing of the impact on future creative production.

But, there is a further problem, reportedly AI systems are now being trained on AI output, which will be likely to only accelerate the speed by which AI produces completely inaccurate materials, matched by an increased volume of such outputs.

I do think AI is likely to offer some valuable assistance when it comes to things like data mining, but I very much doubt that it will prove some kind of universal panacea.  The benefits are likely to be marginal, compared to the costs, including environmental.

For me, I just look back three hundred years or so and think of the South Sea Bubble.