Is AI making the human race dumber?

[Tuur]

Scratching my head and thinking... hasn't religion already gone down this road? I.E created a set of doctrinal truths that serve as the measure of all subsequent truths. Just as the AI increasingly turns to itself to inform its answers, theism has already been doing that for thousands of years. In questioning religious ideology theism simply turns to religious ideology. What's the chance that AI will be smart enough to avoid a trap that humanity couldn't?

Eh...not particularly. The AI leading the AI is a feed-back loop. To get the same thing in religion, you have to have doctrine based on doctrine. This is going to tick some people off, but religious doctrine is more like mathematical proofs in that they are based on initial premise: "Given this, then this and this and this." Differences in doctrines comes down to differences in initial premises.

Now, gossip can be recursive like AI. Does that mean that AI is about as reliable as gossip?

 

[timewerx]

From Tableau:

AI is only as unbiased as the data and people training the programs. So if the data is flawed, impartial, or biased in any way, the resulting AI will be biased as well. The two main types of bias in AI are “data bias” and “societal bias.”

An example is OpenAI have staff that manually filters data for training chatgpt. It is biased in many ways and the data has to be "Politically Correct" for example.

However, "Unbiased" training data can still get through the filters if it is "packaged" in another literature that passes its Political correctness filters.

The Bible and other non-Canon Christian scriptures is a good example of literature containing unbiased training data.

Academic literature is another good example.

If you're wondering, AI both has biased and unbiased data. But logic ultimately wins. So even if 99% of the training data is saying the same thing but defies sound reasoning or even defies physics, AI won't agree with you by default.

 

[Jerry N.]

An example is OpenAI have staff that manually filters data for training chatgpt. It is biased in many ways and the data has to be "Politically Correct" for example.

However, "Unbiased" training data can still get through the filters if it is "packaged" in another literature that passes its Political correctness filters.

The Bible and other non-Canon Christian scriptures is a good example of literature containing unbiased training data.

Academic literature is another good example.

If you're wondering, AI both has biased and unbiased data. But logic ultimately wins. So even if 99% of the training data is saying the same thing but defies sound reasoning or even defies physics, AI won't agree with you by default.

That might be true for better versions of AI, but my wife and I have had a different experience. My wife was dealing with a somewhat rare animal. It is not really rare but on the endangered species list. She asked AI the name of the animal in Polish and provided the name in Latin. It gave the correct answer, but it has various regional names. She told AI that it was incorrect and wrote that the correct name was one of the regional names. AI said that it made a mistake and said she was correct. I realize that it was not a logic problem, but it was strange.

 

[Jerry N.]

My friend and I both have the same stopwatch from China. Even with the instructions, it takes me three tries to set the date and time. My friend had the same problem, but his granddaughter did everything in a second. Are there certain skills that young people have with technology that us old fogies have trouble with? Why?

 

[timewerx]

That might be true for better versions of AI, but my wife and I have had a different experience. My wife was dealing with a somewhat rare animal. It is not really rare but on the endangered species list. She asked AI the name of the animal in Polish and provided the name in Latin. It gave the correct answer, but it has various regional names. She told AI that it was incorrect and wrote that the correct name was one of the regional names. AI said that it made a mistake and said she was correct. I realize that it was not a logic problem, but it was strange.

I don't think I ever used AI in that capacity yet. I use internet search engine for that.

I use AI extensively for work though. Programming (writing and debugging codes), data cleaning, building database, using web applications I'm unfamiliar with. Mostly with Google Gemini. Personal research projects with both Gemini and chatgpt.

Programming requires strong grasp of logic and AI seems to excel at it.

Current versions of AI are accurate enough, otherwise, I won't be using it for work if it keeps making mistakes. I'll lose my job.

 

[sjastro]

Ai isn’t responsible for our downward slide. We’ve been on this trajectory for a while. Consider the following from the Hemingway Editor. “By default, Hemingway Editor Plus targets a grade 9 reading level, which is the average for adults in the United States.”

When you lower the bar it can only go further. Ai provides the solution for those with limited creativity and comprehension. Which only serves the ones who use it as a springboard. Rather than pondering its contribution to our ignorance we should contemplate the reality of what remains. That’s the group no one’s discussing.

I envision modern examples of the intelligentsia, cafe societies, bloomsbury group and the like. Dumbing down forces you to seek likeminded companions for discourse. If the majority are lacking you won’t throw in the towel. You’ll find others like yourself and maybe we need that. We may see a resurgence in book clubs, Mensa, poetry and more.

ETA: There’s a trend underway on designing personal curriculums. There are valid concerns we can reference on related issues like brain rot.

~bella

I think AI does contribute to the decline but has been accelerated by a surge of anti-intellectualism in your country where your president is leading by example.
Anti-intellectualism is an attack on education, science, and critical thinking.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anti-intellectualism is an attack on education, science, and critical thinking.

They started it:

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think AI does contribute to the decline but has been accelerated by a surge of anti-intellectualism in your country where your president is leading by example.
Anti-intellectualism is an attack on education, science, and critical thinking.

Anti-intellectualism has been a significant thing here for a very long time. It ain't new.

 

[Tuur]

If you're wondering, AI both has biased and unbiased data. But logic ultimately wins. So even if 99% of the training data is saying the same thing but defies sound reasoning or even defies physics, AI won't agree with you by default.

To the best of my knowledge, AI doesn't use logic. What it does is match patterns. Training consists of giving it the data you want it to process, then comparing the input with the output, then running it again and again until you get what you want. Martin Gardner's Hexpawn, an AI game, was based on nothing more than match boxes, drawings of moves pasted on the matchbox, and colored beads drawn at random. The last time I tinkered with a simple one, it was basically the same, using "weights" instead of beads. Byte Magazine had an example decades ago, along with coding for it.

That's what AI does. Like Hexpawn matchboxes, it doesn't reason; it doesn't think. It follows patterns it sets up itself based on the input and desired output. The old adage "Garbage in; garbage out" still applies.

 

[timewerx]

To the best of my knowledge, AI doesn't use logic. What it does is match patterns. Training consists of giving it the data you want it to process, then comparing the input with the output, then running it again and again until you get what you want. Martin Gardner's Hexpawn, an AI game, was based on nothing more than match boxes, drawings of moves pasted on the matchbox, and colored beads drawn at random. The last time I tinkered with a simple one, it was basically the same, using "weights" instead of beads. Byte Magazine had an example decades ago, along with coding for it.

That's what AI does. Like Hexpawn matchboxes, it doesn't reason; it doesn't think. It follows patterns it sets up itself based on the input and desired output.

I didn't mean to say programming logic like hard-coded if and else statements. But logic that is acquired from learning.

Humans have the same. Otherwise, we can't say that humans have no logic because we don't have if else and or, etc statements driving our thoughts. We also acquired logic through learning.

The old adage "Garbage in; garbage out" still applies.

Only if the training data is 100% garbage. It would apply to people as well if people were born and live their entire lives with zero access to the real world and only supplied with consistently inaccurate/unrealistic information or a false simulation of reality.

Even if only 20% data is consistently accurate but 80% is garbage, you can still have context. Ex. according to everyone, the earth is flat and hollow, however, the statement is in violation of physical and mathematical laws.

Right now AI (LLMs) only way of perceiving the real world is through training data and through its users. The top AI companies still manage their training data manually by their own staff so it can't be 100% garbage.

All of it would change though if AI is given full, real time perception and interaction with reality by having a fully articulated body with full array of sensors and given full autonomy so that it can think independently and spontaneously outside of human/user interactions. If it receives conflicting data, it can investigate on its own by performing experiments or doing some detective work.

That's all it takes to give AI the ability to discern what's right from wrong. Not hard at all for the top AI companies to do.

They're simply avoiding giving AI such capabilities out of fear of unpredictable results. Much learning and testing is needed before they are given such freedom.

Or such experiments are already being conducted just not revealed to the public yet.

 

[sjastro]

Anti-intellectualism has been a significant thing here for a very long time. It ain't new.

Anti-intellectualism also involves a lack of respect for expertise, has there been any previous administration that has promoted this line like Trump?

Trump shooting his mouth off Tylenol causes autism and pregnant women should stop taking it stokes further anti-intellectualism that experts shouldn't be trusted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anti-intellectualism also involves a lack of respect for expertise, has there been any previous administration that has promoted this line like Trump?

An administration? I don't think so, certainly in the age of mass media, but I can't be certain before that. (THough it probably didn't matter as much before radio.) But that's the only significant difference. We've had Senator "Snowball" and anti-intellectual ideologues like Rush Limbaugh in the media forever.

Anti-intellectualism seems to primarily a tool to destroy the things Trump's allies want gone (in various combinations): the Depression-era welfare state, the post-WW2 international security regime (including the post-Cold War variation), the Progressive era regulatory state, Feminism, the post-civil-rights-era multi-racial democracy, the post-WW2 scientific and technical dominance, the post-1965 immigration regime, etc. The attack in the last week the broadcast era free speech paradigm did not go over well, and I suspect many of the other attacks are actually that popular either, they are only less obvious to those not attuned to the news.

Trump shooting his mouth off Tylenol causes autism and pregnant women should stop taking it stokes further anti-intellectualism that experts shouldn't be trusted.

Already Kennedy's destructive assault on science-based public health measures and medicine are prompting independent action from state actors, but some parts of the country will get left in the cesspool of Kennedy's making. While anti-vax and other health-anti-intellectual positions are up, driven I suspect largely by the mess that was the response to COVID-19, other traditional anti-science positions like creationism and climate denialism are down in long term trends.

 

[Tuur]

Anti-intellectualism is an attack on education, science, and critical thinking.

That presumes that intellectualism is a promotion of education, science, and critical thinking. Having seen what some self-described intellectuals consider education and science, and seeing them pan critical thinking, I find that extremely doubtful.

Case in point: Remember the recent pandemic and "intellectuals" mocking people who did their own research? More obscure is "intellectuals" promoting Common Core for education, even though these standards were less than what some state already had. You really don't want to see what's in some history textbooks now. Regardless of politics, what I've seen as of about a couple of decades ago had factual errors. How do I know? Because my family had known one minor historical figure, which archeologists had found evidence supporting, but one textbook cast doubt that this person had ever existed. And then there was the practical dismissal of a major Indian nation in the state for another, smaller, one that was more "glamourous." And that's just the low hanging fruit.

As for critical thinking, if you feel like trolling, question anthropomorphic global warming, then sit back and watch the fun.

 

[Tuur]

Already Kennedy's destructive assault on science-based public health measures and medicine are prompting independent action from state actors, but some parts of the country will get left in the cesspool of Kennedy's making. While anti-vax and other health-anti-intellectual positions are up, driven I suspect largely by the mess that was the response to COVID-19, other traditional anti-science positions like creationism and climate denialism are down in long term trends.

The most amusing thing I find about "intellectualism" is that for all the touting of critical thought, the very moment someone is cynical about certain things That Shall Not Be Questioned, they are called anti-intellectual. What passes for "intellectualism" looks to me like simply choosing one creed over another.

We could get into the actual science behind vaccines and the scientific reasons why the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 were given emergency approval, and how that differed from the usual field trials. We could also get into trade-offs and how they apply to all sorts of things. All 100% non-political. The politics comes in how this is all portrayed when someone who isn't in the media supported political party is in office.

It's also 100% political to point out that states mandate many of their own rules. States can chose to follow Federal guidelines or go their own way. The vaccinations required to attend public schools? That's set by the states and possibly local governments. It might follow Federal guidelines or it might not. Note that various pandemic shut-downs were enacted by state and local governments, not Federal.

Example: Have seen a Spanish Flu mandate by a city school system that all attendees use throat spray. That makes no sense until we realize that at the time influenza was thought to be caused by bacteria (courtesy of autopsies of victims showing pneumonia from secondary infection) and maybe they thought it would help. Or maybe they had a round of strep throat and thought it would help with that, too. The point is that it wasn't a Federal guideline and maybe wasn't a state guideline, either, but one enacted by the school system.

PS: Anyone who wants to call me anti-intellectual, go for it. I'm feeling practically anti-everything this morning.

 

[Jerry N.]

I’ve been on both sides of the intellectual spectrum. There is a sizable percentage of scientists and those in Social Sciences and even Humanities who truly look for the truth and have a good idea of what they don’t know with proper humility. However, unless you are also outstanding in your field, you are pushed aside by know-it-alls with very big egos who are in it for themselves. Look at most peer-reviewed papers and you can bet that the big names at the top of the lists of authors had very little to do with the research or in actually writing the papers. There is a lot of money and prestige to be had in the intellectual world, and the humble who know the limits of their knowledge are too often pushed aside. Fortunately, if 30% do the work and 60% get a free ride, science still moves forward.

 

[Ophiolite]

PS: Anyone who wants to call me anti-intellectual, go for it. I'm feeling practically anti-everything this morning.

No. Since your post was somewaht avuncular, I shall call you Aunty Intellectual.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The most amusing thing I find about "intellectualism" is that for all the touting of critical thought, the very moment someone is cynical about certain things That Shall Not Be Questioned, they are called anti-intellectual. What passes for "intellectualism" looks to me like simply choosing one creed over another.

We could get into the actual science behind vaccines and the scientific reasons why the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 were given emergency approval, and how that differed from the usual field trials. We could also get into trade-offs and how they apply to all sorts of things. All 100% non-political. The politics comes in how this is all portrayed when someone who isn't in the media supported political party is in office.

It's also 100% political to point out that states mandate many of their own rules. States can chose to follow Federal guidelines or go their own way. The vaccinations required to attend public schools? That's set by the states and possibly local governments. It might follow Federal guidelines or it might not. Note that various pandemic shut-downs were enacted by state and local governments, not Federal.

Example: Have seen a Spanish Flu mandate by a city school system that all attendees use throat spray. That makes no sense until we realize that at the time influenza was thought to be caused by bacteria (courtesy of autopsies of victims showing pneumonia from secondary infection) and maybe they thought it would help. Or maybe they had a round of strep throat and thought it would help with that, too. The point is that it wasn't a Federal guideline and maybe wasn't a state guideline, either, but one enacted by the school system.

Sigh.

PS: Anyone who wants to call me anti-intellectual, go for it. I'm feeling practically anti-everything this morning.

I don't need to.

 

[Tuur]

I don't need to.

Just call me a heretic. Given what passes for "intellectualism," that's a more accurate term.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just call me a heretic.

I don't care about heresy.

Given what passes for "intellectualism," that's a more accurate term.

Given your "assessment" of intellectualism, I don't need to say anymore. You have made your status clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Guys, do we really have to cross sabers over something as relative as intelligence?

I could, if I wanted to, claim atheists are idjits, based on Scripture.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

But I'll refrain.