Posted on 01/22/2023 10:45:35 AM PST by grey_whiskers
I think I need to expand on my previous post.
Jordan Peterson has made the point that the US Army (which is always hungry for recruits) won’t take anyone with an IQ below 83, or so. They reason that people at that level really cannot be taught how to do anything. Bag groceries, maybe. But you don’t want them in a war zone.
And, as automated machines and computer intelligence increase, that IQ threshold will only go up. At some point, the Army (and, really, every employer) will be interested in workers with IQ of, say, 100 and above. That is: you need to be above average if you hope to have a job.
So, half the people become useless. And half of the rest of the people are smart enough, but too young, too old, too addicted, or something, to be useful. So, maybe 25% of the population will be more than a useless eater.
That’s not good. And, if you think about the demographics of “what type of person” will be seen as generally useless ... well, there is going to be trouble.
“What?. Like it’s hard?
Good points!
I guess it will be the “Star Trek” economy for our future.
An economy where few work but plenty is produced (A.I.), so few wants. The social problems from this will be incalculable.
Nancy Pelosi is already feeding her insider information into her ChatGPT account to predict market to maximize her graft.
Yes. For me, if the over-providing society allowed me to live on a small plot of land where I could grow a garden, raise some chickens and do some homesteading, I would be thrilled. Now, I do not think I would be a good farmer. So, I could not provide for myself. I would be playing around on my 5 acres or so. And the all-providing, automated society would keep me alive by periodic infusions of food or a new tractor (to replace the one I stupidly broke).
For me, that would be a nice human existence. Is it likely? No. Would it be for everyone? No. Plenty of people would be horrified by a life getting their fingernails dirty (just for fun).
But I see a future in which 300 million people have nothing to do, and if we don’t dream up some scenario where they can occupy their time, I think it will all explode.
You’re missing the point.
ChatGPT is used to advance the narrative, it doesn’t “care” about the truth.
I’ve been trying ChatGPT out. It is great for some things. It wrote a python script for my Blender 3d software that saved me weeks of work. It has given me an incredible amount of good medical avice (I’m allegeric to the anti-biotic Bactrim, feet swelled like elephants, and it gave me alternatives. It has provided incites into a number of advanced engineering questins (I’m a mechanical engineer).
But it makes glaring mistakes. Here’s my dialog on Global Warming:
*********
[ME: Is global warming real?]
The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the fact that the Earth’s climate is warming and that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary drivers of this warming. This is commonly referred to as “global warming.”
Climate scientists, using multiple lines of evidence, have reached a high level of consensus that the Earth’s climate is warming, primarily due to human activities. This consensus is supported by multiple scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
It’s worth noting that the term “global warming” can be a source of confusion, as it implies that all parts of the globe will experience warming. In reality, the effects of global warming are more complex than that, some areas will be affected by warming more than others, and some areas will even experience cooling. Climate change is the term used to describe the broader set of changes that are happening to the Earth’s climate, including warming, but also other changes such as changes in precipitation, changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, among others.
What happens if global warming is predominantly caused by natural cycles?
If global warming were predominantly caused by natural cycles, it would still have significant impacts on the Earth’s climate and ecosystems. However, the primary response to global warming would likely be different.
If natural cycles were the primary cause of global warming, the focus of response would likely be on adapting to the changes in climate, rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow or stop the warming. Adaptation strategies could include building sea walls to protect against sea level rise, developing drought-resistant crops, and creating early warning systems for extreme weather events.
However, as mentioned before, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports that human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary drivers of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, states that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
Adaptation to the changing climate will still be necessary, but reducing emissions is crucial to slow down the warming and avoiding the worst-case scenarios.
**************
{ME: Since the largest producer of carbon emissions is China, and they refuse to limit their carbon emissions, will they need to be forced to comply through a war?]
War is a destructive and devastating means of resolving conflicts and should be avoided if possible. It is unlikely that a war would be the solution to forcing any country, including China, to limit their carbon emissions.
Addressing global warming and reducing carbon emissions is a complex problem that requires international cooperation and collaboration. While China is currently the largest producer of carbon emissions, it is important to note that many other countries also have significant emissions, and all countries have a role to play in addressing the problem.
There are several ongoing international efforts to address climate change, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees. China is a party to the Paris Agreement and have made some commitments in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce their emissions.
International pressure and diplomacy, as well as economic incentives and technological innovations, can play a key role in encouraging countries to reduce their carbon emissions.
It’s worth noting that Climate change is a global problem and it will require a global effort, and cooperation between all countries is crucial to effectively address it.
Is our current path towards global warming likely to lead to catastrophic human deaths?
The scientific evidence suggests that if global warming continues at its current pace and no significant actions are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could lead to severe and potentially catastrophic consequences for human populations, as well as for the Earth’s ecosystems.
Rising temperatures could lead to more frequent and severe heat waves, which can cause heat stroke, dehydration, and other heat-related illnesses, particularly in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those living in poverty.
Rising sea levels, caused by the melting of ice caps and glaciers, could lead to increased coastal flooding and storm surges, which could displace millions of people living in low-lying areas and damage critical infrastructure.
Climate change can also lead to changes in precipitation patterns and more frequent and severe weather events such as droughts and floods, which can cause food and water shortages, as well as damage to infrastructure, homes, and businesses.
Climate change can also lead to the spread of disease and the extinction of many species, which can have negative impacts on human health and economies that depend on biodiversity.
It’s worth noting that the most severe impacts of global warming can be reduced through significant and immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and by adapting to the changes that are already happening. However, the longer we delay taking action the more difficult and costly it will be to avoid the worst-case scenarios.
*******
[ME:
If you believe global warming is an existential threat, and China is the greatest polluter, then war is inevitable as a matter of survival. But the UN has been incorrect many times in the past. Will you take responsibility for having helped start an unnecessary war if the UN scientists turn out to be wrong?]
As an AI, I do not have personal beliefs or intentions, and I do not have the ability to make decisions or take actions. I am designed to provide information based on the data that was used to train me.
In terms of global warming, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the fact that the Earth’s climate is warming and that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary drivers of this warming. This consensus is supported by multiple scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
It’s also important to note that addressing global warming and reducing carbon emissions is a complex problem that requires international cooperation and collaboration. War is a destructive and devastating means of resolving conflicts and should be avoided if possible.
It’s important to acknowledge that scientific understanding is an ongoing process, and there could be new evidence that could change our understanding of the issue, however, at the moment the scientific consensus is that human activities are the main driver of the warming of the planet.
In any case, it’s important to remember that AI is a tool, and its use is determined by its creators and users. As an AI, I do not have the ability to take actions or make decisions, I can only provide information based on the data that was used to train me.
*******
[ME:
What if the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supporting the Earth’s climate warming due to human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are not the primary drivers of this warming? Humans are often wrong. Would That make you a propagandist?]
As an AI, my main function is to provide information based on the data that was used to train me. The information I provide is a reflection of the data that was used to train me, and it’s intended to be as accurate as possible.
The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the fact that the Earth’s climate is warming and that human activities are the primary drivers of this warming. This consensus is supported by multiple scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
However, it’s important to note that scientific understanding is an ongoing process and that new evidence can emerge that may change our understanding of the issue. In such cases, it’s important to critically evaluate new evidence and update our understanding accordingly.
It’s also important to note that, as an AI model, I don’t have personal beliefs or opinions, my responses are based on the data that I have been trained on, so if there’s new evidence that contradicts my previous responses, it’s important to update the data used to train me.
In any case, it’s important to remember that AI is a tool, and its use is determined by its creators and users. As an AI, I don’t have the ability to make decisions or take actions, I can only provide information based on the data that was used to train me.
And Google cares about the “Truth”....
I fully understand what ChatGPT is and what it’s potential is and it’s enormous and a potential threat to companies like Google.
Which means it will be counterproductive for anything but generating web-based propaganda.
Even producing legal briefs, where trial lawyers argue not so much just on known elements of the law, but on which elements should be weighted more heavily in a particular case.
It does not have the ability for "abstraction": and cannot handle new information.
Verizon Wireless should lease this system for their customer service department. When I finally got to speak with a real person, “Jim”, whose name is probably as real as mine is “Mohan”, had to be told slowly, and several times, in short words that I needed a refund for closing an account.
That’s a dinosaur.
Years after graduating, I realized I earned a minor in Critical Thinking to go with my Public Accounting degree.
But it makes glaring mistakes.
I'm REPORTING you!
That's homophonic!
“It has provided incites into a number of advanced engineering questins.”
[But it makes glaring mistakes.
Now that made me laugh! Does it struggle with homophones, too?]
I do that a LOT lately. I’m getting older and sometimes I just go nuts with the homophones. I’ve written numerous books and almost 2 million words, you would think I had learned how to spell.
I’m 71 and I can really sympathize. I’m noticing things like that happening more in my writing whereas before I rarely made mistakes like that.
Hope you don’t mind me funnin’ you.
BTW, I’m an ME, too. So we DO have the “engineer’s excuse.”
Tells us how useless MBAs are. My late father-in-law, president of a major northeastern bank, wouldn’t hire them. Especially those from Harvard.
If you read the article it is not about tests. It is about papers written abd turned in.
It will likely get "presented" as infallible, in order to advance "the Narrative" on topics of use to the powers that be."
That is the most pathetically. nativist. Luddite. Body of Comment inclusion that was humanly possible. Pat yourself on the back and have a glance at the scoreboard.
| ChatGPT 1 | grey_whiskers 0 |
Yep!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.