Full AI - The End of Humanity?

No, you guys are all wrong. What you want is for AI to take away all your enjoyable tasks, hobbies & careers!

Design, art, writing, coding and photography is what AI development should focus on; not health, cooking, cleaning or yard maintenance. /end sarcasm.
I realize that this was marked as sarcasm, but I think there is a point to respond to here. AI being developed now is intended to be capable enough for general use and not limited to specific tasks. You're going to get art AI along with cleaning AI because they're going to be the same AI. I don't think anything should be off limits to AI either as having AI available to do something doesn't prevent people from doing that thing manually. It might disrupt the profitability of some tasks and I think that's something that needs to be looked at cautiously, but it shouldn't be stopped. When it comes to thinks like art I'm very excited about the possibility of eventually having my own personal studio to develop whatever I can think of. Doing that today would take a lot of money, time, or both.
There’s the chance of a very slippery slope here, where anything remotely difficult becomes T2’s job, leaving the owner with a pretty vacant, lonely and purposeless life. More time to scroll on their phone, yes, less actual living done in a day.

I know it’s very pessimistic, but I don’t see the wider societal benefit of able-bodied people outsourcing their own chores to a machine.
Why does free time have to be spent on the phone? If that's what happens it sounds more like a lack of personal interests than an AI problem specifically. If I had more free time I wouldn't spend it on a couch. AI will be like previous improvements to quality of life from technology. If it's doing your chores then you have time to work on your fitness or learn new skills. My idea of less living is going back to the days when people had to hunt for their own food instead of outsourcing it elsewhere.
 
I'm going on a tangent already, but I have to wonder if the human form (what I'm interpreting human-like to mean) is ideal.
I am guessing that Tesla's Optimus is "humanoid" because it makes it easier to train the AI that drives it. My understanding is that Optimus is trained by watching humans perform tasks or watching videos of humans performing tasks.

If Optimus were to be modeled on an octopus form, for example, it may make training difficult because the execution of the tasks would have to be translated to a different body type. The AI would have to have a deeper understanding of the end objectives.

For example, Tesla's so-called FSD (Supervised) is trained on videos taken on Teslas. The AI doesn't really know that the objective is to get safely, quickly and considerately to my friend's house, it knows how to behave on roads and intersections etc.

Just a guess.
 
There may be a training benefit to a humanoid form, but there have been AI robots that designed to handle human tasks in other forms as well. Boston Dynamics has developed a number of quadruped AI robots and they can handle tasks like opening doors and lifting objects:



It could still be that a humanoid robot is easier to train, but the difference also may not be significant. I think a lot of the drive for humanoid robots is that they appeal to human aesthetics and they can also help us learn about ourselves.
 
Doing the dishes does not provide me with purpose. If anything, chores present me with time confetti that prevents a longer more personally fulfilling hobby.
It’s each to their own obviously, but the mundane has value. I’ve spoken to several retired / unemployed people who, in the absence of regular employment, grow tired of hobbies, passions and projects in a relatively short time frame.

I feel that you need the mundane tasks (be that work, chores or both) to truly appreciate free time. So much of the motivation I have to complete my own hobbies comes from the fact I’ve got such little time to do them.

It’s also fair to say that more free time and an easier life does not directly correlate with a better one.
I realize that this was marked as sarcasm, but I think there is a point to respond to here. AI being developed now is intended to be capable enough for general use and not limited to specific tasks. You're going to get art AI along with cleaning AI because they're going to be the same AI. I don't think anything should be off limits to AI either as having AI available to do something doesn't prevent people from doing that thing manually. It might disrupt the profitability of some tasks and I think that's something that needs to be looked at cautiously, but it shouldn't be stopped. When it comes to thinks like art I'm very excited about the possibility of eventually having my own personal studio to develop whatever I can think of. Doing that today would take a lot of money, time, or both.
The problem with ethical caution is that it often runs opposite to capitalistic profit. It is inevitable that a new technology that dramatically reduces labour cost will eventually be adopted by a company. After that, competition will guarantee the new way is normalised before too long.

We’re seeing AI trained on creative tasks as the AI doesn’t require a physical form to complete them. Caution has already been put aside and if you ask a professional creative, chances are they fear their job security.

The idea of your own personal studio sounds fantastic, but it’s never cheap, easy or fast to perfect a skill. I would argue that it’s the improvement and accomplishment that adds purpose to a hobby as you get a bit better each time.

By massively streamlining the process, I’d suggest that AI is stripping a huge portion of the value.
Why does free time have to be spent on the phone? If that's what happens it sounds more like a lack of personal interests than an AI problem specifically. If I had more free time I wouldn't spend it on a couch. AI will be like previous improvements to quality of life from technology. If it's doing your chores then you have time to work on your fitness or learn new skills. My idea of less living is going back to the days when people had to hunt for their own food instead of outsourcing it elsewhere.
Free time doesn’t need to be spent on the phone, but statistically it will. The average person spends 3 hours and 15 minutes on their phone per day. That’s nearly half a work-day, which I agree could be much better spent.

The potential difference between AI and previous quality of life improvements, is that it can do everything and do it to a high standard. It’s not inconceivable to think that in 100 years a humanoid robot could do my job, cook my dinner, pat my dog, wash my car, shag my wife, make my videos and raise my kids.

Awesome, I’m gonna have so much free time to uhhh… hmm.
 
It’s each to their own obviously, but the mundane has value. I’ve spoken to several retired / unemployed people who, in the absence of regular employment, grow tired of hobbies, passions and projects in a relatively short time frame.
I don't really know what to say to that other than that it's on them I guess. My grandfather did woodworking until he died.

I don't intend to retire from my job any time soon, and that's not necessarily because I need the money. I like the sense of accomplishment and purpose that it brings as much as any paycheck. I was sitting here pondering if I'd do my job for free and was surprised to actually have to think about it.

I have way too much I want to do though to be entirely confined by my job, so eventually I would want to step it down. But I'm through an outline of a book I'm writing, still a long way from finished - and much research needed. There is a PhD I'd like to get to help with my book. I like to go on walks, I live near one of the best national parks in the country, which has some absolutely epic day hikes. I like to ski. I'd love to do some dirt/sand driving.

I think I could fill 3 lifetimes.
 
Last edited:
Why does free time have to be spent on the phone? If that's what happens it sounds more like a lack of personal interests than an AI problem specifically.
Or that people are stressed and need to do something mindless in order to be able to relax.

I think it's funny that phones have subbed in directly for what used to be "people will just watch TV all day and turn into vegetables".
It’s also fair to say that more free time and an easier life does not directly correlate with a better one.
Spoken like someone who thinks that maybe slavery wasn't so bad after all.

I'm curious what exactly you think a "better" life is. Is it one where you're happier? Or is it something else?
The problem with ethical caution is that it often runs opposite to capitalistic profit. It is inevitable that a new technology that dramatically reduces labour cost will eventually be adopted by a company. After that, competition will guarantee the new way is normalised before too long.

We’re seeing AI trained on creative tasks as the AI doesn’t require a physical form to complete them. Caution has already been put aside and if you ask a professional creative, chances are they fear their job security.
Let's be honest, creatives were one of the last holdouts of industries that haven't had massive overhauls from automation. Most other professions have at some point in the last 100 years had to deal with automation changing their jobs massively or making people straight up redundant.

People like to paint the influx of creative AI as if it's different, but it's not. The job security thing is a real concern, but that's a problem with the economic models that we currently live under and not a problem with AI making some people redundant.
Awesome, I’m gonna have so much free time to uhhh… hmm.
That's your argument? That you struggle to think of things that you'd like to spend free time on? I'm with @Danoff, that's a you problem. It's also kinda sad.

You can still do your job in your free time if you really want. You can spend your free time doing any of the things you were previously required to do if you want. The difference is that you don't HAVE to, and that's somehow an issue so large that you seem to think it's worth not giving yourself the option at all.

If you feel that your life would be meaningless without other people dictating what you should be doing, that might be something worth talking to a therapist about. You should not just exist to fill other people's needs and wants. You are allowed to do things that make you happy purely for the sake of making yourself happy. Your value is not measured by how useful you are to other people.

Just because a robot assistant could shag your wife and raise your kids doesn't mean that you can't do it yourself and enjoy it. We have prostitutes and nannies now. You could be having someone shag your wife and raise your kids if you wanted, but you probably don't because you don't want that. Why does a robot change anything about that situation? Or was the price the only thing stopping you from having your wife and kids serviced by someone else?
 
I don't really know what to say to that other than that it's on them I guess. My grandfather did woodworking until he died.

I don't intend to retire from my job any time soon, and that's not necessarily because I need the money. I like the sense of accomplishment and purpose that it brings as much as any paycheck. I was sitting here pondering if I'd do my job for free and was surprised to actually have to think about it.
This is something you see lotto winners, ex-athletes, retirees and inheritance-getters face.

Many take on mundane jobs, even though they don’t actually need it. Work, like chores, has value beyond the monetary.
I have way too much I want to do though to be entirely confined by my job, so eventually I would want to step it down. But I'm through an outline of a book I'm writing, still a long way from finished - and much research needed. There is a PhD I'd like to get to help with my book. I like to go on walks, I live near one of the best national parks in the country, which has some absolutely epic day hikes. I like to ski. I'd love to do some dirt/sand driving.

I think I could fill 3 lifetimes.
This highlights the other side of the coin well. Working for too long (or too hard) will break you before you actually get to experience life.

Younger generations tend to grasp this better, which is why many of them focus more on work-life balance than career.

It’s about balance and a see-saw goes both ways.
Or that people are stressed and need to do something mindless in order to be able to relax.

I think it's funny that phones have subbed in directly for what used to be "people will just watch TV all day and turn into vegetables".
Maybe stress is a contributor, maybe deliberately addictive algorithms are too. Not all technology is developed for the good of society.
Spoken like someone who thinks that maybe slavery wasn't so bad after all.
Wowsers. I really have no idea where you got that but let me elaborate for you.

See: Depressed rich people.
See: Happy poor people.

Yes, easy life is easier. No, it doesn’t guarantee better. Money doesn’t buy happiness, etc.

Satisfaction and a sense of achievement can be earned by a good hard days work. I worked hard for years and took a lot of pride in that.

Slavery is a different thing. Slavery is 🤬 and not something I would ever advocate for. I never thought I’d have to write that but here we are.
I'm curious what exactly you think a "better" life is. Is it one where you're happier? Or is it something else?
Happiness, love, health and purpose pretty much sum it up for me. You can have all four while still living a pretty difficult life.
Let's be honest, creatives were one of the last holdouts of industries that haven't had massive overhauls from automation. Most other professions have at some point in the last 100 years had to deal with automation changing their jobs massively or making people straight up redundant.

People like to paint the influx of creative AI as if it's different, but it's not. The job security thing is a real concern, but that's a problem with the economic models that we currently live under and not a problem with AI making some people redundant.
You are correct that most industries go through technological overhauls and that creatives had dodged a bullet until recently. I know that the cat is out of the bag and there’s no going back.

I disagree that AI is the same as countless previous tech changes. Its power is unlimited and repercussions are yet to be understood.
That's your argument? That you struggle to think of things that you'd like to spend free time on? I'm with @Danoff, that's a you problem. It's also kinda sad.
Respectfully, I don’t need pity. I’m not sure if you picked up on the sarcastic tone of my post but I’m happy to elaborate again.

Like @Danoff I could live 3 lifetimes and not complete everything I want to do. My hobbies are broad, community focused, time consuming and extremely important to me.

I’m not actually concerned about a robot shagging my wife. IRobot will not be raising my kids, washing my car or doing my dishes. I’ll be well and truly dead in 100 years time.

Glad we cleared that up.

My problem with the technology is that it is inseparable from the current economic model that you openly admit is flawed. It’s being wielded by profit focused companies with no concern of if it’s actually a positive contributor to society.
You can still do your job in your free time if you really want. You can spend your free time doing any of the things you were previously required to do if you want. The difference is that you don't HAVE to, and that's somehow an issue so large that you seem to think it's worth not giving yourself the option at all.

If you feel that your life would be meaningless without other people dictating what you should be doing, that might be something worth talking to a therapist about. You should not just exist to fill other people's needs and wants. You are allowed to do things that make you happy purely for the sake of making yourself happy. Your value is not measured by how useful you are to other people.

Just because a robot assistant could shag your wife and raise your kids doesn't mean that you can't do it yourself and enjoy it. We have prostitutes and nannies now. You could be having someone shag your wife and raise your kids if you wanted, but you probably don't because you don't want that. Why does a robot change anything about that situation? Or was the price the only thing stopping you from having your wife and kids serviced by someone else?
I’m not touching any of that as it’s already been addressed. I would encourage you to tone down the personal shots and focus on the subject matter. Discussion dies when it becomes “us vs them.”
 
This is something you see lotto winners, ex-athletes, retirees and inheritance-getters face.

Many take on mundane jobs, even though they don’t actually need it. Work, like chores, has value beyond the monetary.
Totally agree that work has value beyond the monetary. Not sure that I think mundane work offers much of that value, and especially in an environment where it is completely unnecessary. You're kind saying that if you want a robot to clean your floor you're deluding yourself. That seems like a lot to assume about people.
This highlights the other side of the coin well. Working for too long (or too hard) will break you before you actually get to experience life.
It's interesting to me that you put "life" as an opposite to "work" in this sentence. The way you've phrased this, you're not experiencing life when you're working. This seems to be at odds with your previous claim that lacking work will prevent you from enjoying life. I'd like you to resolve this contradiction before we go too far through this.
Younger generations tend to grasp this better, which is why many of them focus more on work-life balance than career.
This is a cultural shift more than youth vs. age. A career-oriented life used to be focused on because providing for yourself and any dependents was always at the forefront of thought. That's less the case these days, as people find it easier to provide, and they've started to reject the idea that you are your career. Modern business practices have exacerbated that response, and so culturally we are moving more toward a work-life (there's that opposing phrasing again) balance.

Allow me to put it to you this way, I hope that if you were unshackled from obligations that you could find something better to do with your life than scrolling your phone. Granted, it's hard to do that when you're only unshackled for 2.3 minutes at a time, but if you had an assistant that could remove your obligations for longer, it'd be nice to think that you could find something to spend your precious time on rather than boredom. It should seem like a failing if you cannot right? You have one precious life, and if you're given the gift of time beyond subsistence and obligation in that life, you can't find something meaningful to spend it on? I'm with @Imari on this, it seems like a deep issue, and your free time and some money might be well spent unpacking it with a professional.
Satisfaction and a sense of achievement can be earned by a good hard days work. I worked hard for years and took a lot of pride in that.
It's true. And you can do a hard day's work at your own direction. There are many hard things you cannot outsource to my hypothetical robot friend.
Like @Danoff I could live 3 lifetimes and not complete everything I want to do. My hobbies are broad, community focused, time consuming and extremely important to me.
Then what are we talking about again?
 
The problem with ethical caution is that it often runs opposite to capitalistic profit. It is inevitable that a new technology that dramatically reduces labour cost will eventually be adopted by a company. After that, competition will guarantee the new way is normalised before too long.
I separate technology from how it is use. We absolutely do need to look out for those who will use technology to chase short term gains and the expensive of the long term, but to suppress a new technology and all of its benefits is basically the same thing.
We’re seeing AI trained on creative tasks as the AI doesn’t require a physical form to complete them. Caution has already been put aside and if you ask a professional creative, chances are they fear their job security.

The idea of your own personal studio sounds fantastic, but it’s never cheap, easy or fast to perfect a skill. I would argue that it’s the improvement and accomplishment that adds purpose to a hobby as you get a bit better each time.

By massively streamlining the process, I’d suggest that AI is stripping a huge portion of the value.
What about when humans streamline the process? A lot of content that I consume is already made for me with no input from me because it's being made by other people. Having an AI creation tool that I can influence is actually giving me more to do than I would now.

It's not about skills. There are only so many hours in a day and that means I have to choose what to spend my time on. We realized this as a species a long time ago and have set up societies where people take up specialist roles so that other people don't have to learn how to do everything. There are things I'd rather learn than how to animate or design special effects. The point of having an AI creative tool is to reduce the amount of time I need to generate content that I'd like so I can spend my time doing something that I'm more interested in.
Free time doesn’t need to be spent on the phone, but statistically it will. The average person spends 3 hours and 15 minutes on their phone per day. That’s nearly half a work-day, which I agree could be much better spent.

The potential difference between AI and previous quality of life improvements, is that it can do everything and do it to a high standard. It’s not inconceivable to think that in 100 years a humanoid robot could do my job, cook my dinner, pat my dog, wash my car, shag my wife, make my videos and raise my kids.

Awesome, I’m gonna have so much free time to uhhh… hmm.
AI could evolve to the point where it is capable of doing everything. That doesn't take away our ability to do those things ourselves though.
This is something you see lotto winners, ex-athletes, retirees and inheritance-getters face.

Many take on mundane jobs, even though they don’t actually need it. Work, like chores, has value beyond the monetary.
Exactly. If a person wants to work for fun, let them do it. That can also be a great source of low cost labor for local and small businesses. AI won't prevent people from occupying themselves, it actually gives us more control over how we decide to do that.
 
My problem with the technology is that it is inseparable from the current economic model that you openly admit is flawed.
It's inseparable? Why?

I see no reason why we couldn't have current generative AI under any other economic system. It's a useful tool that any economic system might find value in creating. You're going to have to be more specific with why this is true.

Yes, I think the current economic model is flawed, to put it mildly. I'm not shy about that. But I think that's a separate problem that happens to impact almost everything we do, not something specific to AI.
Happiness, love, health and purpose pretty much sum it up for me. You can have all four while still living a pretty difficult life.
You can also have all four while living a pretty easy life. You were making the argument that an easier life is not necessarily a better life, but it's not necessarily a worse one either. So given that the difficulty of a life isn't really that tied to happiness/love/health/purpose, why would you intentionally choose a more difficult life?

Unless actually, you DO think that a more difficult life is more likely to lead to happiness/love/health/purpose. In which case you're going to have to spell that out, because there's a certain type of person that has significant incentive to believe in that.
I disagree that AI is the same as countless previous tech changes. Its power is unlimited and repercussions are yet to be understood.
Its power is not unlimited, its power is not fully understood. Similar to many technologies when they were introduced.

Its repercussions are not yet fully understood either, and that's been the case with pretty much every significant new technology. I doubt people fully understood the ramifications of the printing press when it was introduced, and that's a stupid simple machine.

This is just how progress works. We don't know entirely how new things will work out until we actually start using them. That's a reason to be cautious, but not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m not actually concerned about a robot shagging my wife. IRobot will not be raising my kids, washing my car or doing my dishes. I’ll be well and truly dead in 100 years time.

Glad we cleared that up.
Interesting that your counter-argument is "I won't be here so I don't care", rather than "I enjoy doing those things so I would do them myself even if I had the opportunity to get someone/something else to do them".

Hypotheticals are tough, especially if you don't engage with them.
Satisfaction and a sense of achievement can be earned by a good hard days work. I worked hard for years and took a lot of pride in that.
Did you need someone telling you what to do during that good hard day's work in order to feel that satisfaction and sense of achievement?

One should not necessarily feel pride simply because they worked hard for years. You should feel pride because you achieved something meaningful to you in that time. I think there's a far greater chance of someone doing something meaningful with their time if they're self-directing than if they're being told what to do by their supervisor.

There's a lot of people out there stacking supermarket shelves and driving forklifts. Currently that work needs to be done by a human, but it's real unlikely that those people are getting much pride and satisfaction from their jobs. On the other hand, there are people who spend thousands of hours to get one perfect speedrun of a game, and they seem to experience a lot of pride and satisfaction.
AI could evolve to the point where it is capable of doing everything. That doesn't take away our ability to do those things ourselves though.
Indeed.

Just because you have a robot kitchen capable of cooking anything doesn't stop you from cooking something yourself. Or feeling pride in having done so. Or even feeling pride in having got the robot kitchen to help you make something new or unique or unusual.

AI is going to teach people that the real treasure really was the friends and adventures we had along the way.

===========

For people who like science fiction, The Culture series of novels by Iain M. Banks is set in an actual post-scarcity society, which I think is relevant to where the whole AI/jobs/creation thing ends up in the long term. Resources are practically unlimited on the personal scale, people can have almost anything they want made for them, and there are benevolent AI and robots to assist with almost anything you might want. But people are still people, and removing the struggles to survive and create basic things does not impact the fundamental human experience, at least in this fictional setting. Whether you think that's an accurate depiction of humans or not is up to you.

One of the best books in the series to start with is Player of Games. The protagonist is one of the best game players in the galaxy, his life's work is studying games and strategy and refining his understanding and play. He knows that there are AI that are so powerful that they could demolish him in any game he chose, but that's not the point. He does this because he enjoys doing this, the same way that people still play chess even though there are computers out there that can consistently beat the best players in the world.

At some point our society is going to have to shift from the competitive mindset of only having value if you're the best to a mindset where you just try and do your best for yourself. As players of Gran Turismo, I think most of us are aware of this. There's always some alien out there who is faster and better than you, and these days Sophy is getting pretty close to being faster and better than all of us. But you can still have fun by trying to improve yourself, and that's why most of us play.
 
AI is going to teach people that the real treasure really was the friends and adventures we had along the way.
youregood.gif
 
I could maybe see being worried about the AI future if it wasn't all just so aggressively stupid.

lattice.jpg
 
I could maybe see being worried about the AI future if it wasn't all just so aggressively stupid.

lattice.jpg
This sounds like the start of some sort of scam to claim employment incentives. Imagine the size of the PPP "loans" people could have claimed if they had thousands of AI employees!
 
To contribute, I sometimes have an idea - perhaps for a story, not an actual proposal - that AI could start augmenting the government, perhaps as aides, and eventually is voluntarily let in more and more, as an increasing slice of the population sees AI as the ultimate form of government, especially since it maximizes efficiency without any pesky partisan vitriol getting in the way. I'm actually somewhat inspired by this one political party, I think it was in Denmark, that's led by an AI. In my context, AI being in government wouldn't be framed as a good nor bad thing in itself, but more so a result of highly-polarized politics leading people to seek something more objective that can rise above the petty bickering. At least, ostensibly.

I also don't think that if AI wanted to depopulate humanity, it would do so with spectacle, like in the Terminator films. It would do so far more insidiously, perhaps by putting something in the drinking water that annihilates human sperm motility without disrupting the ecosystem that may rely on that same water supply. And yet, I don't think it'd want to full-on render humanity extinct. I think it may even rely on humanity, in some ways. Perhaps to acquire even more information, to preserve H. sapiens as another species that belongs to the planet, or maybe even as a form of amusement.
 
Last edited:
To contribute, I sometimes have an idea - perhaps for a story, not an actual proposal - that AI could start augmenting the government, perhaps as aides, and eventually is voluntarily let in more and more, as an increasing slice of the population sees AI as the ultimate form of government, especially since it maximizes efficiency without any pesky partisan vitriol getting in the way. I'm actually somewhat inspired by this one political party, I think it was in Denmark, that's led by an AI. In my context, AI being in government wouldn't be framed as a good nor bad thing in itself, but more so a result of highly-polarized politics leading people to seek something more objective that can rise above the petty bickering. At least, ostensibly.

I also don't think that if AI wanted to depopulate humanity, it would do so with spectacle, like in the Terminator films. It would do so far more insidiously, perhaps by putting something in the drinking water that annihilates human sperm motility without disrupting the ecosystem that may rely on that same water supply. And yet, I don't think it'd want to full-on render humanity extinct. I think it may even rely on humanity, in some ways. Perhaps to acquire even more information, to preserve H. sapiens as another species that belongs to the planet, or maybe even as a form of amusement.
First paragraph - AI should run the government.

Second paragraph - AI would be good at killing the humans.

Weird take.

AI at the moment is not anything remotely capable of making an informed decision. It just approximates people, including any pesky partisan vitriol and bias. We don't currently have the tool that you're saying is being used in Denmark and which is currently inspiring. As a future aspiration, maybe this makes sense. In the short term, we have nothing that can remotely touch what you're talking about.

AI can't really take over any government jobs any faster than it can take over any other jobs.
 
First paragraph - AI should run the government.

Second paragraph - AI would be good at killing the humans.

Weird take.

AI at the moment is not anything remotely capable of making an informed decision. It just approximates people, including any pesky partisan vitriol and bias. We don't currently have the tool that you're saying is being used in Denmark and which is currently inspiring. As a future aspiration, maybe this makes sense. In the short term, we have nothing that can remotely touch what you're talking about.

AI can't really take over any government jobs any faster than it can take over any other jobs.
No, it's not a genuine proposal - I suppose I was getting a little too far into my storytelling spirit. I agree that AI should hardly be trusted for anything atm. I'm also genuinely glad that Nintendo says that its games will continue to be made with human hands.
 
Last edited:
To contribute, I sometimes have an idea - perhaps for a story, not an actual proposal - that AI could start augmenting the government, perhaps as aides, and eventually is voluntarily let in more and more, as an increasing slice of the population sees AI as the ultimate form of government, especially since it maximizes efficiency without any pesky partisan vitriol getting in the way. I'm actually somewhat inspired by this one political party, I think it was in Denmark, that's led by an AI. In my context, AI being in government wouldn't be framed as a good nor bad thing in itself, but more so a result of highly-polarized politics leading people to seek something more objective that can rise above the petty bickering. At least, ostensibly.

I also don't think that if AI wanted to depopulate humanity, it would do so with spectacle, like in the Terminator films. It would do so far more insidiously, perhaps by putting something in the drinking water that annihilates human sperm motility without disrupting the ecosystem that may rely on that same water supply. And yet, I don't think it'd want to full-on render humanity extinct. I think it may even rely on humanity, in some ways. Perhaps to acquire even more information, to preserve H. sapiens as another species that belongs to the planet, or maybe even as a form of amusement.
 
Well this is reassuring....

Came across a thread on Reddit where junior doctors were asking an endocrinology registrar about situations they were routinely faced with. Then I thought, what happens if I just ChatGPT the questions?

Let's have a look:

Multiple times I’ve been bleeped by nursing staff when someone’s BMs (couple hours after dinner) are 15+ (sometimes even 10-15). They are E&D and well. Ketones are fine. I don’t see the need to start them on the hyperglycaemia protocol and when I say that the nurses gives me a look of “you’re doing the wrong thing”. I usually stay away from giving STAT Novorapid or actrapid. My question is should I be doing something for these patients?

Another scenario I often find myself in is nursing staff asking me to prescribe regular insulin but tell me to adjust it accordingly because the patient has been having up and down spikes? When I look at the chart I’d see them on Humulin M3 of like 50 units in the morning along with meals + Novorapid. I’d just get confused as to what I’m being asked to do here? The spikes would usually be after their meals of more than 2. So should I be increasing their Novorapid with their meals? By how much? How much does 1 IU of Novorapid or actrapid bring the BM down by?

Lastly, I’d get calls for someone who is having a hypo of around 4-6 at 10pm and the question I get asked is should we still give them their morning long acting insulin in the morning. I always end up having to ask for advice and I feel silly for it. So if someone is having a hypo at 10pm but it gets resolved through juices etc. Is there any point stopping their morning long acting insulin? What should you do?

All 3 responses matched what the registrar said plus came with rationale and context.

So if even doctors aren't safe, what jobs will be left?
 
Does this "precise, bespoke learning" include learning that 9.11 is less than 9.9?
 
DK
Does this "precise, bespoke learning" include learning that 9.11 is less than 9.9?
I got ChatGPT to fact check this:-

The statement "9.11 is less than 9.9" is incorrect because it compares two decimal numbers improperly. In decimal notation, "9.11" is actually greater than "9.9."

Here's why:
  • "9.11" can be thought of as "9 and 11 hundredths," while "9.9" can be considered "9 and 9 tenths."
  • When comparing decimals, we first compare the integer parts (both are 9), then the tenths place. "9.1" vs. "9.9" shows that 1 is less than 9, so "9.1" is less than "9.9."
  • Therefore, "9.11" (which has an additional 0 in the tenths place, making it effectively "9.10") is still greater than "9.9."

So, the correct statement would be: "9.11 is greater than 9.9."


🤔
Bloody hell. Clearly, these GPTs have been trained on human-generated text. Just the wrong humans.
 
DK
Does this "precise, bespoke learning" include learning that 9.11 is less than 9.9?
The latest one seems better at acknowledging its fallibility.

For instance, I got this result:

Is 9.11 less than 9.9

ChatGPT said:​


No, 9.11 is not less than 9.9. In fact, 9.11 is less than 9.9. The number 9.11 is less than 9.9 because it has a smaller value after the decimal point. When comparing decimals, you look at the digits from left to right, so 9.11 is less than 9.9.


You said:​

The first two sentences contradict

ChatGPT said:​


You're right, the first two sentences contradict each other. I made a mistake.
To clarify: 9.11 is less than 9.9. When comparing decimals, after the decimal point, 9.1 (from 9.9) is greater than 9.11 (where 1 is in the tenths place). Thus, 9.11 is less.
Sorry for the confusion!


You said:​

Is 8.1 less than 8.5

ChatGPT said:​


Yes, 8.1 is less than 8.5. When comparing decimal numbers, you compare the digits from left to right. Since 1 in 8.1 is less than 5 in 8.5, 8.1 is indeed less than 8.5.
Kids these days (lol) will be taught how to prompt AI better.

I tutor a kid with ADHD and quite often he just screen captures a maths problem and plugs it in to get an answer.

EDIT: Similarly concerning is this story:

 
Last edited:
Back