Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 186
  1. #26
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    That data still needs human input and so it's more like artificial memory than artificial intelligence.
    You're barking up the wrong tree there.

    Yes it has absorbed everything textual on the public internet and more.

    No, it is not an enormous, searchable database.

    I gave examples above.

    Ask it to write some javascript to perform a specific function and it will not only churn out the code, but properly comment it as well.

    Ask it to analyze legacy code and it not only comments it but can explain what the functions of the program are.

    The next evolution is to incorporate sound, image and even moving video.

    Watch the video again, with a coffee, and take some time to let it soak in.

    I'm not a fan of Peterson by any means, but he makes some good points.

    Oh, and just for info:

    Time it took to reach 1 million users:
    Netflix - 3.5 years
    Facebook - 10 months
    Spotify - 5 months
    Instagram - 2.5 months
    ChatGPT - 5 days
    We know there are people already trying to pass off its output as their own.

    Smart money says there are already people using it to do their jobs on the sly.
    The next post may be brought to you by my little bitch Spamdreth

  2. #27
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by reinvented View Post
    It. Is. Fucking. Great.

    its transformational potential is amazing.

    it will destroy the pub quiz industry
    How's that then?

    I mean Google answers most pub quiz questions.

  3. #28
    กงเกวียนกำเกวียน HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    สุโขทัย
    Posts
    10,149
    Remember the good old days when we we're able to figure out things ourselves [or not]?

  4. #29
    or TizYou?
    TizMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    27-03-2024 @ 09:51 PM
    Location
    Bonifacio Global City, Taguig
    Posts
    6,451
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Smart money says there are already people using it to do their jobs on the sly.
    I use it quite often in my job, asking it questions, rather than scrolling through manuals.
    It's a long way off completely taking over my thinking, but it does speed up some research and does it better than google does.

  5. #30
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Aha! See?!



    ChatGPT is going to take over the world-325734105_664606655400248_3482618105697990533_n-jpg

  6. #31
    Thailand Expat
    reinvented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:05 AM
    Location
    top of soi 2
    Posts
    2,557
    ^
    that's what it is ultimately for Willy.
    the output is still dependent on critical thinking, asking the right questions, and discarding the useless

    i do a lot of desk research for my job, it will ultimately remove the need for me/ or transform how i need to do my job

    Softbank for example has been working towards this kind of development with their vision fund for years

    Harry

    it will transform it Again.

    if you are not sure how, ask the Open AI
    we won it at wemberlee
    we on it in gay paree...

  7. #32
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    8,004
    It already has advocates who were around before the internet arrived. I honestly thought some of them were smart enough to at least question its authenticity or the possible outcomes?

    Apparently not!

  8. #33
    5 4 Knoll
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    At Large
    Posts
    21,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    I honestly thought some of them were smart enough to at least question its authenticity or the possible outcomes?
    Like it or not the geni is out of the bottle and going viral.

    These early iterations will look like a typewriter or Shaker buggy to our kids and grandkids

  9. #34
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    48,105
    An AI Lawyer Is About to Defend a Human in a U.S. Courtroom

    When going to traffic court, the costs of wrangling an attorney to help plead your case can often exceed the ticket fine itself. And that’s assuming you can find a lawyer to take on such a low-stakes case. So why not skip legal fees altogether, and take counsel from artificial intelligence?


    That’s a solution Joshua Browder, CEO of consumer-liberation startup DoNotPay, is testing out next month, when his company will pay two defendants going to traffic court up to $1,000 each to wear smart glasses that will double up as their attorneys.


    Yes, we’re living in a simulation, and it involves sentient eyewear.

    Well, sort of. The glasses will record the proceedings and a chatbot—built on OpenAI’s GPT-3, famous for transcribing ballads and high school essays on demand—will offer legal arguments in real-time, which the defendants have pledged to repeat, Browder told The Daily Beast. The locations of the hearings have been kept secret, to prevent judges from derailing the stunts ahead of time. Each defendant will have the option to opt out if they choose.


    “My goal is that the ordinary, average consumer never has to hire a lawyer again,” said Browder.


    DoNotPay, founded by Browder in 2015 while he attended Stanford University, states on its website that its mission is to help consumers “fight against large corporations and solve their problems like beating parking tickets, appealing bank fees, and suing robocallers.” Its app is supposed to help users navigate modern-day bureaucracy that interferes with doing everything from canceling subscriptions, to disputing fines, to bringing up litigation against anyone they may wish to sue. The company started out by helping users contest $100 parking tickets, but thanks to advances in AI, said Browder, they’re now helping clients fight bigger claims, like $10,000 medical bills.

    The company’s latest trial will make use of CatXQ’s Smart Glasses. With square lenses and a spindly black frame, the glasses seem relatively unassuming, but they can connect to devices via Bluetooth and deliver sounds straight to the wearer’s cochlea (the hearing organ in the inner ear) through bone conduction (similar to how some hearing aids work). The chatbot will exist on the defendant’s phone as a regular app, absorbing audio through the device’s microphone, and dictating legal arguments through the glasses.


    The chatbot glasses won’t be a marketable product anytime soon due to legal restrictions. In the U.S., you need a license to practice law, which includes both representing parties in court as well providing official legal advice. Plus, many states prohibit recording in courtrooms.


    Nonetheless, Browder sees his company’s new experiment as an opportunity to reconceptualize how legal services could be democratized with AI.

    But putting one’s rights into the hands of an algorithm as a solution to insufficient or inequitable legal representation is ethically worrisome, legal experts warned. The use of AI in the courtroom could create separate legal consequences for the defendants that are far more complex than a traffic ticket. Chatbots may not be the means-for-justice that Browder and others are envisioning.


    With Prejudice


    GPT-3 is good at holding a conversation and spitting out some interesting ideas, but Browder admits it’s still bad at knowing the law. “It’s a great high school student, but we need to send it to law school,” he said.


    Like any AI, GPT-3 needs to be trained properly. DoNotPay’s law school for bots looks like mock trials run by team members at the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters in Palo Alto. The algorithms are nourished on datasets of legal documents from publicly available court records and DoNotPay’s own roster of 2.75 million cases, according to Browder, dating back to its conception in 2015. The bot going before a judge has been trained on recent traffic ticket cases taken from the same jurisdiction as the hearing, and a few adjacent countries in the state. A quarter of these cases are from DoNotPay’s own database, while the rest are from publicly available records.


    But all AI carries the risk of bias because society’s prejudices will find their way into these datasets. If the cases used to train an AI search engine are skewed toward finding people of color guilty, then the AI will begin to associate guilt with specific races, Nathalie Smuha, a legal scholar and philosopher at the KU Leuven in Belgium, told The Daily Beast.

    “There is a risk that the systemic bias that already exists in the legal system will be exacerbated by relying on systems that reflect those biases,” she said. “So, you kind of have a loop, where it never gets better, because the system is already not perfect.” Similarly, not all legal cases are public, and the algorithm may only be trained on a subset restricted by specific dates or geography—which can distort the bot’s accuracy, Smuha added.


    None of this is new to the American public, of course. Princeton researchers ran a study in 2017 to examine police officer discretion in speeding tickets in Florida, and found that a quarter of officers showed racial bias. The political scientist authors of the 2018 book Suspect Citizens ran an analysis of 20 million traffic stops in North Carolina spanning 14 years, finding that Black drivers were 95 percent more likely to be stopped.


    Any AI trained on those datasets would be at risk of developing unfair biases against certain demographics—affecting how they may deliver legal advice in traffic court. Browder told The Daily Beast that DoNotPay has taken steps to limit any potential bias by ensuring that the part of the bot responsible for absorbing the substance of the case and making legal arguments does not know the identity of the client or any major personal details beyond vehicle type and traffic signage.

    These bias concerns aren’t just for fighting traffic tickets. A justice system running on the automated legal utopia that Browder envisions, with more complex cases and an inability to hide client identities so easily, could exacerbate more severe systemic wrongs against marginalized groups.


    In fact, we’re already seeing this unfold. Criminal risk assessment tools that use socioeconomic factors like education, employment, income and housing are already used by some judges to inform sentencing, and have been found to worsen disparities. The NYPD uses predictive policing algorithms to inform where they deploy facial recognition technology, what Amnesty International has called “digital stop-and-frisk.” In 2013, The Verge reported on how the Chicago Police Department used a predictive policing program to determine that Robert McDaniel was a “person of interest” in a shooting, despite having no record of violence. Last month, facial recognition algorithms led to the wrongful arrest of a man in Louisiana.


    When asked about algorithmic biases, Browder said that people can use AI to fight AI—the bot puts algorithms into the hands of civilians. “So, rather than these companies using it to charge fees, or these governments using it to put people in jail, we want people to be able to fight back,” he said. “Power to the people.”


    The lack of regulation around AI means this kind of outcome is far from certain.


    A Can of Worms


    Bias aside, defendants could also end up in hot water for the use of technology and recording—uncharted waters for the legal community. “Is [Browder] going to help erase their criminal conviction for contempt?” Jerome Greco, a public defender in the Legal Aid Society’s digital forensics unit, told The Daily Beast.


    While DoNotPay has committed to paying any fines or court fees for clients that use its chatbot services, Browder does worry what could happen if the bot is rude to the judge—a misdemeanor could normally land a physical person in jail. And Smuha predicts that the chatbot’s malfunction wouldn’t be an adequate alibi: “A courtroom is where you defend yourself and take responsibility for your actions and words—not a place to test the latest innovation.”


    And of course, there’s a risk that the algorithm could simply mess up and provide the wrong answers. If an attorney flubs your case through negligence, there are systems in place to make them liable, from filing complaints to suing. If the chatbot botches the legal arguments, the framework to protect you is unclear. Who is to blame: you? The scientists who trained the bot? The biases in the training datasets?

    The technology is imperfect, said Smuha, because the software analyzes data without understanding what it means. “Take the sentence ‘that man is not guilty,’” she said. “The software has no idea what ‘man’ is or what the concept of ‘guilty’ is.” That’s in stark contrast to the years of training and ethical standards that lawyers are held accountable to. “There will be a risk that the system will speak nonsense.”


    As a result, AI-enabled databases and pattern-spotting tools simply speed up the legal process, as opposed to determining a case’s outcome, “because the tech is just not accurate enough yet,” Smuha said.


    Browder seems undeterred, and is responding to such criticisms brashly. Last week, he trolled the law community on Twitter by promising $1 million to any person or attorney with an upcoming Supreme Court case to follow the chatbot’s counsel. “I got so much hate from all the lawyers,” he said. The next day, he tweeted he would raise this reward to $5 million, later deleting the post.

    Greco finds the whole spectacle unsettling, and takes issue with DoNotPay finding willing participants to test its experimental AI via poorer clients who can’t afford a physical attorney. “Using them as guinea pigs to test an algorithm? I have a real problem with that,” he said. “And I think it overlooks the other solution… Why don’t we put more money into people having proper representation?”


    But Browder thinks this is just the beginning for consumer rights. “Courts should allow it, because if people can’t afford lawyers, at least they can have some help.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/ai-law...urt?ref=scroll

  10. #35
    Thailand Expat
    Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    03-08-2023 @ 01:50 PM
    Location
    My couch
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Aha! See?!



    ChatGPT is going to take over the world-325734105_664606655400248_3482618105697990533_n-jpg
    Green owed!

  11. #36
    Thailand Expat
    Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    03-08-2023 @ 01:50 PM
    Location
    My couch
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by misskit View Post
    An AI Lawyer Is About to Defend a Human in a U.S. Courtroom
    This is just a warm up to develop the software without doing any real damage
    Lawyers starting up in the profesion, when working for large law firms, spend most of their time researching relevant past cases for successful arguments, and legal precedent. This and their jobs is effectively over.
    Law firms would have no choice that to use such AI, or have the floor wiped my them.

    The Genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting in back in.
    The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

  12. #37
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:06 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,900
    When a teen I read nothing but science fiction. Clark, Wells, Asimov, Heinlein..
    At the time was enthralled with it and never thought would see in my lifetime but now could be.

    AI and robotics technology very near making Asimov's I Robot a non fiction tale.

  13. #38
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    ChatGPT (well OpenAI) are already talking about a subscription model for professional use.

    Who can blame them?

  14. #39
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    8,004
    ‘’The lack of regulation around AI means this kind of outcome is far from certain’

    Even in its current for the app is vulnerable to incompetent hackers and other bad actors who might wish to utilize the app for cyber attacks and other nefarious purposes.

    Harry quoted the owners desire to monetize it! As they are already in debt, they have no choice. Another potential flaw perhaps.

  15. #40
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by reinvented View Post
    ^
    that's what it is ultimately for Willy.
    the output is still dependent on critical thinking, asking the right questions, and discarding the useless
    Yes, but the major difference is in the speed.

    Has anyone every dumped 100 pages of code on your desk and asked you to check it and comment it?

  16. #41
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    I agree, unless Google adapts, it will put them out of business.
    You don't honestly think Google have been sitting on their hands, do you?

    AI is already involved in most of their products.

  17. #42
    5 4 Knoll
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    At Large
    Posts
    21,088
    Harry is write some our Chinese AI bottys here spell butter than eye all ready.

    It zonely a matter of thyme.

  18. #43
    Thailand Expat
    Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    03-08-2023 @ 01:50 PM
    Location
    My couch
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    You don't honestly think Google have been sitting on their hands, do you?

    AI is already involved in most of their products.
    No I am sure they are working on it, but I don't see how their business model can survive.
    Of course these are early days , but Open AI is the opposite of proprietary algorithms.
    So It would be interesting to see.

  19. #44
    Thailand Expat
    reinvented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:05 AM
    Location
    top of soi 2
    Posts
    2,557
    no but if Google don't play it right it destroys its core business (reliability)
    also, AI means you don't click adds. that is also their core business

  20. #45
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    No I am sure they are working on it, but I don't see how their business model can survive.
    Of course these are early days , but Open AI is the opposite of proprietary algorithms.
    So It would be interesting to see.
    So you would pay for a subscription search engine would you?

    Quote Originally Posted by reinvented View Post
    no but if Google don't play it right it destroys its core business (reliability)
    also, AI means you don't click adds. that is also their core business
    Same question to you.

  21. #46
    Thailand Expat
    malmomike77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,674
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    So you would pay for a subscription search engine would you?
    if it meant the bias that ad revenue introduces is removed then yes I would

  22. #47
    Thailand Expat
    reinvented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:05 AM
    Location
    top of soi 2
    Posts
    2,557
    OpenAI eyes $29 billion valuation, incorporation into Microsoft Bing | Fortune

    maybe dont need to!

    to be honest yes i would for work purposes
    as a regulat joe looking for porn and football results, dont see the need


    there was a US college that built an AI as a teaching assistant with IBM, it just answered questions and such, end of the year the students all voted "Jill" Watson (i think thye name) nest adviosr/ tutor. never realized it was a Bot

    when a service is developed to that level then yes, i think many people would

  23. #48
    Thailand Expat
    reinvented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:05 AM
    Location
    top of soi 2
    Posts
    2,557

  24. #49
    Thailand Expat
    Buckaroo Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    03-08-2023 @ 01:50 PM
    Location
    My couch
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    So you would pay for a subscription search engine would you?
    Nothing in life is free. Don't think you don't pay for Google.
    So the question is , would I pay for it directly?
    Like anything else, what determines if I will pay ,and how much ,is the value it represents to me.
    Years ago if you asked someone if they would pay for TV when the over the air service was free, they would have told you , NO, are you crazy? Yet here we are today with cable.
    So it remains to be seen what the value of the service is and whether I , or anyone else will pay for it.

  25. #50
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai View Post
    Years ago if you asked someone if they would pay for TV when the over the air service was free, they would have told you , NO, are you crazy? Yet here we are today with cable.
    That's because you were essentially forced to if you wanted to keep watching. That's a different argument altogether.

    There are ad-free search engines. No-one uses them because they're nowhere near at the Google level.

    Few people even use Bing and that's a mature product.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •