3 ms·

While I'm not an AI doomsday person by any means; if it does happen this will definitely be the event the historians point to.

• quenix 3y ago
  Why?
  • chaosbolt 3y ago
    GPT is censored in lots of subjects, the ones choosing these subjects are OpenAI/Microsoft, the government is supposedly chosen by the people...
    • anotherman554 3y ago
      This makes as much sense as saying the government's purchase of Microsoft Encarta (a digital encyclopedia product) will cause the downfall of civilization, because Encarta doesn't tell the "full story" about your pet topic.
      • __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
        I'd argue that a misleading source is a bit less harmful than a misleading assistant, and that AI is more like the latter.
        • jrm4 3y ago
          Yes. Moreover I'd argue that literally the most dangerous thing about "AI" is that it is actually like a misleading assistant, but all too many people believe it to be a reliable "source."
      • lukeschlather 3y ago
        ChatGPT's censorship goes beyond "not telling the full story." Someone I knew was being insulted by one of their coworkers in a foreign language, and they asked ChatGPT to translate - it refused. It's not hard to imagine that this sort of filtering could cost lives if used in a life-or-death situation as a replacement for a translator. And what's sad is ChatGPT is really the best machine translator in existence. It's not hard to imagine it making a serviceable substitute for a translator, at least in principle, if uncensored.
      • chaosbolt 3y ago
        It's because of people like you we have 0 privacy today, "oh the government is gathering our data? well nothing to hide and they use it to fight terrorism", "oh assange is arrested? well he had it coming", "oh the government is asking twitter to censor certain political posts? who cares are you a racist?", etc. I'd say you get the idea but I doubt you would. I explained the parent's comment to you, I didn't say this specific action would cause the end of civilization. And yes while we're at it the government using Microsoft Encarta or even Google to do research is also anti democratic, you'd want the government employees to use a non censored search engine instead of just seeing the snopes fact checked articles if they're going to base their life affecting decisions on it, and if Encarta had something like "the king of Gondor is a bad person" because some microsoft employee wrote it, and the CIA based their decision on that to assassinate him, then it'd be antidemocratic as well. I'll let you stare at the finger and miss the moon telling me how Gondor isn't real.
        • anotherman554 3y ago
          The parent comment you tried to explain was about A.I. Doomsday. If you think the A.I. will not cause doomsday I don't know why you are trying to "explain" it.
      • jrm4 3y ago
        I'd definitely have that flavor of concern if the government were able to purchase the thing that beat Encarta, namely Wikipedia.
• gsatic 3y ago
  It just can't be worse than a govt agency's daily bungling. And probably costs 100 times less than their pension bill. That was probably Microsofts sales pitch.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    Only 6.4% of GDP is spent on government pensions - and almost 60% of that comes from state and local pensions - meaning less than 13% of federal spending is on federal pensions. Government wages are already crap. How much crapier do you want them to get?
    • edgyquant 3y ago
      That’s a huge percentage of GDP? Why are you writing it off as “only.”
      • onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        Because you need to spend something on pensions... Compare it to any other remotely advanced economy in the world, and you'll see it's not out of line. Any problems that exist are mostly with local and state government pensions, not the federal government.
    • jtbayly 3y ago
      I’ll make you a deal. Bump the pay by 50% and cut the employees by 50%. Sound good to you? I’d love to see that. To hear that 6.4% of the GDP is spent on gov pensions is shocking to me. That means that we are spending 6.4% of everything on just the pensions of 16.1% of the workers. If we did the same for all workers, we’d be spending 39.8% of the GDP just on pensions. That seems outrageous to me, but I’m not an economist. Why would it be that high?
      • Evidlo 3y ago
        If you cut 50% of employees you should double wages.