AI - A force for Good or Bad?

[openspaceman]

12 hours ago, Squaredy said:

I have no doubt many businesses are rushing to embrace AI

This is true of many technological advances, initially there is little uptake because of the expense, then a few people with borrowed money and little to lose buy into it. Many fail but the technology doesn't go away so a new batch of entrepreneurs acquire it cheaply, they now undercut the previous businesses in the field who pack up. Look at how harvesters took over in the forestry world. The winners are not the users of the technology but the sellers of it.

[sime42]

12 hours ago, Squaredy said:

Ironically AI itself could no doubt be involved in suggesting what could usefully be done with all the available labour.  But I don’t think it is difficult to think of examples.  So much more could be done to encourage children to interact with the real world For example.  Local groups getting children involved in ecology, history, politics, culture.  This on its own could employ hundreds of thousands.  How about really great practical help for people who never work and have never worked.  Currently if you answer the questions right in the form that is pretty much the end of it.  How about if every person stuck in a rut had a caseworker who helps them out if that rut?  Creative doesn’t just mean art or music!  Rehabilitation of prisoners is another one that is currently a disaster and could really benefit from a whole new army of workers.

 

Now you might say how are we to pay for all these extra workers?  Well I am talking about where existing employers have freed up large numbers of people due to AI.  If the local public sector employers drastically reduced their workforce this could work perfectly.  In the private sector it is a bit different.  If supermarkets (for example) end up with no workers they could undercut even Aldi and Lidl.  I think many people would avoid them, but that is the beauty of a free market - we would have a choice - super cheap food bought from a bot or more expensive food bought in a shop with humans.

 

By the way when you say human oversight isn’t really happening think about it at a macro level.  I have no doubt many businesses are rushing to embrace AI and the ones that ruin their product or services will quickly disappear or reverse, or improve their management and use of AI.  The public sector is more difficult as if they introduce major AI into, for instance, schools or hospitals we don’t really have much choice.  But if AI can reduce the cost of running a hospital so they can have enough staff we all win.  So the oness is on senior leadership to make wise decisions in their departments.  God help us in my area!  But the point is, no-one will be forced to adopt a poor AI.

 

Do you really think that supermarkets are replacing people with self service checkouts to make food cheaper for us, the consumers? Call me cynical, but I don't think so. Profit is king in the beautiful free market. I'd happily pay a premium on a weekly shop to have the privilege of using a traditional checkout, staffed by a real life human. Food is too cheap anyway.

 

Similarly; do you think that AI is being forced on all of us to make our lives better? I don't, and I don't think I'm being cynical either. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Trump and the other handful of individuals pushing it out don't strike me as altruistic types. Quite the opposite in fact. 

 

We are all very much being forced to adopt a poor AI. 

[Squaredy]

15 minutes ago, sime42 said:

 

Do you really think that supermarkets are replacing people with self service checkouts to make food cheaper for us, the consumers? Call me cynical, but I don't think so. Profit is king in the beautiful free market. I'd happily pay a premium on a weekly shop to have the privilege of using a traditional checkout, staffed by a real life human. Food is too cheap anyway.

 

Similarly; do you think that AI is being forced on all of us to make our lives better? I don't, and I don't think I'm being cynical either. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Trump and the other handful of individuals pushing it out don't strike me as altruistic types. Quite the opposite in fact. 

 

We are all very much being forced to adopt a poor AI. 

Well you miss my point a little.  Of course the supermarkets are all trying to maximise profit.  But in so doing we end up with a choice.  If price is your only concern you shop at Aldi/Lidl.  If you want a slightly more relaxed experience you might use Sainsbury’s or Tesco, but you will pay more.

 

So no they will not invest in self-service checkouts because they want to give us cheap food, but to survive and make money.  Same with AI.  If you prefer a more inclusive non capitalist experience I guess there is always the Co-op.  But despite having no shareholders they are actually more expensive.

[Squaredy]

21 minutes ago, sime42 said:

 

Do you really think that supermarkets are replacing people with self service checkouts to make food cheaper for us, the consumers? Call me cynical, but I don't think so. Profit is king in the beautiful free market. I'd happily pay a premium on a weekly shop to have the privilege of using a traditional checkout, staffed by a real life human. Food is too cheap anyway.

 

Similarly; do you think that AI is being forced on all of us to make our lives better? I don't, and I don't think I'm being cynical either. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Trump and the other handful of individuals pushing it out don't strike me as altruistic types. Quite the opposite in fact. 

 

We are all very much being forced to adopt a poor AI. 

By the way I totally agree food in the UK is too cheap.  We got used to super cheap food prices over the decades and few now choose to remember what food cost before every town had a supermarket.  In 1960 food absorbed about 25% of average wages in the UK.  Now it is around 6% (one of the lowest ratios in the world).

[sime42]

Hence the public health and food and farming crises in the UK.

 

 

[Macpherson]

4 hours ago, Steven P said:

Just another radio signal, high frequency, low power (unlike say the TV signals, lower frequency but much more powerful - example 1 transmitter to cover 40+ miles, opposed to many covering 1 mile each)

 

If that's what you think then you need to do some reading, I recently watched someone explain how it will work but there was an awful lot to take in as as I've already said this is not a subject that I know much about.

 

But from what I took in the frequencies to be used will be Terahertz.

1 Terahertz = 10 to the power 12 Hz, or 1000 GHz, and run autonomously by AI.

 

From a quick search the maximum frequency used with 4 and 5G is 40 GHz but more commonly around 700 MHz to 3.6 GHz.

 

So with 6G we'll be getting flooded much much higher frequency radiation than ever before.... But I may have this wrong and if I have, I'll be happy to be corrected.

[Steven P]

Higher frequency yes, but the power at that frequency you might receive is tiny.. and it is the power that will fry things. Many transmitters operating at a low power to get the coverage. Noting also that every time you double the distance away from the transmitter you quarter the power you receive - so while the transmitters might send out what sounds powerful, by the time you get out the towers enclosures and at ground level, even close up that power level is very small.

 

 

So, am the opposite of you, not worried by the tech itself, more worried by the 'brain rot' caused by what that tech is delivering.

[Macpherson]

1 hour ago, Steven P said:

So, am the opposite of you, not worried by the tech itself, more worried by the 'brain rot' caused by what that tech is delivering.

 

This is the shortest explanation I could find but there are many others, why on earth do we need this... I do not want any of this, sorry about the machine voice.

 

 

[Steven P]

That's just the use of tech though they can do all that now if they wanted to, 6G just means the communications can go faster - in fact they could have done most of that 10 years and at 4G too...

 

I said above 6G as a tech doesn't worry me as much as the brain rot that we will use it for

[Oldfeller]

Search engines, google,ebay, and others, 

anyone else notice how difficult it has become to search for any given item or information without the results being swamped with a myriad of non related items.

ask for information on any subject and ai will usually come up with something totally unrelated and  inaccurate.

it's as if every piece of online information that ever was is placed in one specific place and whatever the search is for ai just takes anything from it and projects it as the answer.

as an example I asked ebay to save a search for "TWO MAN OPERATED CHAINSAWS" among some of the totally unrelated items the search sent me were, an action man childs toy, ? and a rusty  victorian pram?in addition to anything with SAW in the title.

if this is how ai fails on such a simple request,, how confident can we be it won't feckup something far more serious. 

how reliable will it be using it's own polluted, corrupted view of the world.