AI Thread - The End Of Civilization As We Know It

**ShaDynasty** · 12-12-2022, 07:10 AM

Check out this app - you can use it to write novels, rap songs, computer code, have philosophical conversations with and more.

https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

**TSA** · 12-18-2022, 08:47 PM

This is something complete dweebs think 'will catch on' because they like the internet more than a normal person.

**ShaDynasty** · 12-19-2022, 03:38 AM

Whats that mean?

**TSA** · 12-19-2022, 09:32 AM

im pretty sure i've said as much before, but nobody is trying to be more online and have less human interaction. arts are about the person that makes them. Nobody wants/cares about something shat out by an internet and nobody is trying to do something that makes them more online. It's fake futurism. The internet trying to create what at its peak will be 'a person' is a cool trick but there are billions of ppl on earth and most ppl don't care about more than about 3 of them.

I don't consider anything in the digital space an innovation. The digital space has given of a place to give imagination a form and that's the innovation of it. Everything else is more imaginary shit. Nobody announced 'im going to start pretending to talk to another person' and expects anyone to be impressed, even if the imaginary person they're talking to is hyper realistic or whatever they think will make AI impressive. The ai art thing was a phase for a few days. Nobody cares about humans making doodles, let alone a pretend human.

**ShaDynasty** · 12-20-2022, 10:20 AM

I really think you're wrong. Thats a short sighted view.

There are obviously infinite applications for AI in business. Its not a fad that will just go away, it will be incorporated more and more into daily tasks to lower the bottom line. Its not even that AI would instantly replace human work, but over time it can take over a lot of the workload. And yeah eventually it will become difficult for humans to compete.

Just as a thought experiment, what do you think the world will look like in 20 years, or 100 years?

**IrOnMaN** · 12-21-2022, 10:46 AM

I see that more people want to work from home. I remember someone saying that they only work 3 hours out of the day but they're online for 8 hours. Some people aren't productive.

What do you guys think about AI killing jobs?

**TSA** · 12-21-2022, 11:46 AM

white collar work schedules are based on blue collar production cycles and there's no match. Most ppl in offices have about 4 hrs worth of actual work to do on a busy day, 2 hrs on average. I think the workday needs to be shorter but that won't happen either. It has most of a chance than AI music though lol

Originally Posted by ShaDynasty

I really think you're wrong. Thats a short sighted view.

There are obviously infinite applications for AI in business. Its not a fad that will just go away, it will be incorporated more and more into daily tasks to lower the bottom line. Its not even that AI would instantly replace human work, but over time it can take over a lot of the workload. And yeah eventually it will become difficult for humans to compete.

Just as a thought experiment, what do you think the world will look like in 20 years, or 100 years?

Application and possiblity are two entirely different things. For one, companies don't like changing their processes and you'll have a hard time finding a process that already hasn't been technically innovated away. I'm an early adapter for technology that helps me do what I do, but that's a rare personality type and in an organization that voice loses everytime. We really don't need a human to take orders at resturants, we really don't need the home to prep the food and we don't need a human to hand it to you. In a logical world, this wouldn't exist. But humans aren't logical and a lot of the 'innovation for innovation sake' banks on a narrow understanding of human motivation and wants.

Companies use the amount of people they control (employ) as a metric of success. At a certain point you're asking someone who's a multi-millionaire to penny pinch by having a robot do something. Because she/he has money already, the success metric of leading humans becomes a greater emphasis. Most companies can be 2 robots and a computer but the irrational desire to walk into an office (also outdated) and see the humans you control working towards your betterment is why a lot of ppl start businesses. Otherwise they can just take their money and leverage/speculate which they do too. If humans were logical most business owners would liquidate their companies and make their money their business, not AI out the company or process.

I think there will of course be uses for this stuff but the whole 'we're going to be in the metaverse' 'we're going to have AI girlfriends' 'we're going to AI concerts' fake futurism is the modern equivalent of this

**Rev Jones** · 12-21-2022, 05:00 PM

https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-dall-e-a...04617/slides/2

^^they had it write a Lovecraft type weird story. it reads like a 12 year old's story. it comes across as mechanical

also the people who gave the prompts filtered out all the program's repetitions (some bug it still has) in the story, changed some of the sentences, titled the chapters and titled the story. lol I guess they still had to do a lot

I'm sure it will continue to improve but I'm not losing sleep over that. it's all the rage right now among writers to feed chatgpt prompts and share and discuss the AI written story with their fellow writers. come mid January people will have moved on online

**ShaDynasty** · 12-21-2022, 05:42 PM

I think your perspective only works up to a point TSA. For instance most companies cannot be 2 robots and a computer. Yet. But if the tech is there and easy to manipulate?

Okay, some people just want to lord it over their subjects but what about a businessman who finds they can make a quick buck by exploiting a gap in the market with something AI driven. As soon as one person makes it successful, they force the competition to adapt.

**b-dolo** · 12-22-2022, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by TSA

Application and possiblity are two entirely different things. For one, companies don't like changing their processes

This is wrong. I don't know what industry you are in. But companies love changing shit up constantly. They hire this so called efficiency analysts whose basic job is to waste money to find some way to save money by adopting some new app or means of production that was sold to them by some fly by night operation that is great at being an ultimate con job. Every major corp. has a ton of middle managers who do nothing but get suckered in to trying a great new idea to justify their existence but ultimately is a colossal fail.

**TSA** · 12-22-2022, 05:40 PM

You can recommend pity patty change like 'like use (glorified excel) rather than Excel' but decades of those ppl existing and corporate operations are exactly what they were in the 60s. People aren't making those structures cause of efficiency, they're doing it because of vibes and vested interest. If we were being efficient, would we be in offices? Covid gave us a chance to drop that, but immediately 'after' companies started going out of their way to try to get ppl back in the office despite. So they can keep renting multi million dollar spaces, so they can keep reserving millions in parking, so they can subject everyone to risk of accident and waste of gas, etc etc etc.

Why? Because walking into a room full of ppl you control is a vibe, having an office in a glass building is a vibe, the geographical location is a vibe, having an office and having ppl aware that this is your office is a vibe, leaving your house to run something is a vibe, and most systems have a vested interest committed to keeping it that way. So if the efficiency officer recommends (glorified excel) and it's accepted, he has a vested interest in assuring that it's used and isn't proven ineffective even if it is. If another person comes with a better idea, and the first person has sense to him, he will lead or be a part of the pushback.

This is how everything is in a company, it's a bunch of less resistence agreements and vested interests based on everything but logic. Kanye west is a deep space idiot and isn't serious about anything in life, but lets say he was serious about opening a factory in the US to make shoes. Someone with that ambition isn't doing it because it's logical, they're doing it because 'creating a factory in the US, hiring ppl in the US, being contrary' is the vibe he's looking for. If you introduce an app or program that will make the shoes at 10% the cost of effort but it's in Pakistan and doesn't require a physical factory, it's a no. We're talking about rich people, money isn't the main motivator at a point.