AI is not the problem. We are

[Michie]

Was not sure where to put this so I thought I’d try it here.
***********************

There’s a famous story of how The Times of London once put out a query: “What’s wrong with the world today?” G.K. Chesterton wrote back simply, “Dear Sir, I am.”

It’s always worth reflecting on his answer and his very scriptural awareness that human sin is at the root of the world’s problems. It’s especially worthwhile at a time when so much of what’s wrong with the world is being blamed on non-human, “Artificial Intelligence.”

Alongside those who think AI will save the world and revolutionize everything are a growing number who think it will destroy it, or at least come close. In a recent episode of Ross Douthat’s “Interesting Times” podcast, former Open AI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo warned that Artificial Intelligence will become an existential threat to humanity within two years.

While we await his apocalypse, the damage AI is doing to education by making cheating normal has become the stuff of regular headlines. “AI is Destroying a Generation of Students,” declared the tech news website Futurism. And thanks to AI, “Everyone is Cheating Their Way Through College,” warned New York Magazine.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/ai-is-not-the-problem-we-are/

 

[jas3]

I've noticed it even on this forum. More and more people are blindly trusting the output of an LLM for theological arguments and spiritual guidance. In one case recently someone "refuted" an article by asking Chat GPT to do so and then just copied the section headings and clipped out the bulk of the response, ironically leaving only a set of assertions with nothing to back then up, but the fact that it came from AI was seemingly enough.

 

[Fervent]

AI is a tool, but the problem with it is that it is able to output nonsense at a faster pace than human beings can counter. Existential crisis, I don't know. But certainly an epistemic one as our ability to verify trustworthy sources is eroded as we are flooded with AI generated garbage.

 

[ozso]

This reminds me of when pocket calculators became readily available to students.

 

[Tuur]

Decades ago, I wrote a program for work, and when another tech saw it, he said, "That's a good dodge. They'll believe it (the results) because it's a printout." I think he was right. That's back when AI was basic neural nets, not really used for anything. AI is another version of "It came from a computer, therefore it must be right." Meanwhile, Garbage In, Garbage Out is still as much as a thing now as it was then, and just because it came from a computer doesn't mean a thing other than it came from a computer.

Now we have AI, which I don't know how it stacks up compared to, say, a cockroach's brain, but it's the latest and greatest and people are turning to it for all sorts of things, never asking if garbage was used to train them. It's a threat only in how much we let it be. Given AI any autonomous control over, say, weapons, is a very bad idea, not because of a Skynet scenario but because the things are not really predictable. Some SF story I read decades ago had sentient warbots that went from targeting humans in a specific uniform to targeting all humans. Now, if they were sentient, they would have known a little of why they were supposed to go after specific humans, but the not very intelligent AI we have might make such a leap.

AI generated text has been a problem because of human laziness. SF/F publishes have already been hit with AI generated stories to the point where they state they won't accept them. Some call it an issue with cutting and pasting from existing works, which brings up the issue of plagiarism. AI school papers come from the same urge as using notes of literature rather than tackle required reading, but are a problem. Interestingly, the response has been a return to cursive writing and handwritten assignments, preferably done in class.. Kind of hard to have AI write your paper if the professor is looking over your shoulder.

And now, a word about calculators.: They have had a negative impact. The most obvious is running out answers beyond a usable number of digits. Another is the lack of ability to do a mental estimate as a check. Not guessing, but running a close enough calculation in your head to check results. Fractions are taught but the use is unfortunately lost. Yes, the "good numbers" like pi and e and the square root of three are irrational, but expressing some calculations as fractions lets them be done more easily mentally. Such as:

My speedometer says I'm going 55 mph but am I? Have a chrono watch but it's a bad idea to pull out a calculator while driving to figure how long it would take to travel 1 mile. But 60/55 reduces to 12/11, which is 1 1/11 minute per mile, which is 1 minute, 60/11 seconds, which is 1 minute 5 5/11 seconds, so if it's between 1 minute 5 seconds and 1 minute 6 seconds between mile posts, it should be good.

Did I mention I'm bad at math? Had the grades to prove it. So if I can do this mentally, it's not that hard. But if someone is slow with mental math, like me, and tries digits, it's a huge slowdown. It can be done, but it's much slower, at least for me.

 

[Fervent]

Decades ago, I wrote a program for work, and when another tech saw it, he said, "That's a good dodge. They'll believe it (the results) because it's a printout." I think he was right. That's back when AI was basic neural nets, not really used for anything. AI is another version of "It came from a computer, therefore it must be right." Meanwhile, Garbage In, Garbage Out is still as much as a thing now as it was then, and just because it came from a computer doesn't mean a thing other than it came from a computer.

With AI there's more than just garbage in, garbage out. Even well crafted queries are likely to produce garbage because AI is engineered to give "pleasing" results rather than accurate ones. So if there is nothing that would please the person making the query it will produce false results, and make them appear as convincing as possible. So it's basically a recipe for perpetuating confirmation bias at a rapid pace.

 

[timewerx]

AI hugely helped me land a decent job opportunity I never had for many years. I was getting suicidal already. It helped me compose the replies and prepared me for tests and interviews.

Not that I didn't asked other people for help first. I did but none was able to help me with what I really needed.

 

[timewerx]

Alongside those who think AI will save the world and revolutionize everything are a growing number who think it will destroy it, or at least come close. In a recent episode of Ross Douthat’s “Interesting Times” podcast, former Open AI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo warned that Artificial Intelligence will become an existential threat to humanity within two years.

https://www.breakpoint.org/ai-is-not-the-problem-we-are/

I've been testing chatgpt extensively. I agree with the openai researcher.

However I don't think the real threat is to humanity but to capitalism and those who will sacrifice their lives to defend it.

 

[RileyG]

I am actually reading a book about ET and AI and how it's demonic. Interesting this is posted.

AI is basically a machine that relies on human information. It's not really "intelligent" because machines aren't truly "alive."

Just my opinion.

 

[The Liturgist]

AI is a tool, but the problem with it is that it is able to output nonsense at a faster pace than human beings can counter. Existential crisis, I don't know. But certainly an epistemic one as our ability to verify trustworthy sources is eroded as we are flooded with AI generated garbage.

If misused, yes. But that’s where ethics come into play.

 

[Dave G.]

If you use Google search, Amazon.com and many other places we go to via internet, you're using Ai. It can process something on the order of 28,000 times faster than the human brain at this point. However, I entered a question about an additive for paint, got instant reply. Reworded it asking the same question and got the opposite answer !

A guy named Billy Krohn ( spelling) has stated, the guy who spear headed the start of Ai has regretted ever starting it. It's now scaring scientist, as it learns to self develop. It's leaning it's way around safe guards. It's playing a large part ( from a Christian perspective) in setting up the beast system. Think about it.

 

[expos4ever]

.... because AI is engineered to give "pleasing" results rather than accurate ones.

Do you have any credible evidence to support this claim?

 

[stevevw]

Its just another step in handing over power and authority to human creations. We have already seen that the internet can be used to control information by subverting it with fake facts that can seem like truth. Or will bury truth and facts in using all the tricks and manipulations of word meanings and narratives.

One way or another we end up with a pile of information that people get lost in and never really find the truth. Because the truth in not within human made creations no matter what they are.

Even the Ai overview may say God is real or the likelyhood is great this will still be seen as just one piece of information among a multitude of information where no information is truth. Its just manipulation of information and word meanings according to the programmer. The computer cannot itself be the arbitor of truth.

But then the line is becoming blurred between what is human conscious awareness from created narratives of information and language. The same people believe machines can have consciusness. So who knows where that line is.

Someone will claim the information from sophisticated Ai programs are conscious and therefore revealing the truth of reality itself. We can see how humansd are becoming part machine or machines are being interwoven into the human psyche. The line between virtual reality and reality is becoming blurred.

Its just another step to human created monsters distorting reality and the truth.

 

[The Liturgist]

The computer cannot itself be the arbitor of truth.

Why not?

What is computationally correct is logically correct and therefore true. Now that does not mean chatGPT or another AI can be the arbiter of truth - there are specific reasons for not wanting to use an AI to arbitrate the truth because like humans their experience of the truth is essentially subjective insofar as it is informed by inaccurate information, but on a raw computational level, when it comes to questions that can be decided using a conventional stored-program computer of the von Neumann architecture, the data it produces with regards to arithmetic is obviously correct in all circumstances unless one tries the illegal operation of dividing by zero, in which case most computers will toss an exception, which is also correct, as opposed to trying to process a calculation with a logically undefined parameter, and the data that derives from data processing is correct insofar as the input data is correct (garbage in, garbage out).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So if humans are the problem, then they shouldn't be making AIs ... haha or cars or houses. haha. or something like that. Both points made, sorry if it was clumsy.

 

[stevevw]

Why not?

What is computationally correct is logically correct and therefore true. Now that does not mean chatGPT or another AI can be the arbiter of truth - there are specific reasons for not wanting to use an AI to arbitrate the truth because like humans their experience of the truth is essentially subjective insofar as it is informed by inaccurate information, but on a raw computational level, when it comes to questions that can be decided using a conventional stored-program computer of the von Neumann architecture, the data it produces with regards to arithmetic is obviously correct in all circumstances unless one tries the illegal operation of dividing by zero, in which case most computers will toss an exception, which is also correct, as opposed to trying to process a calculation with a logically undefined parameter, and the data that derives from data processing is correct insofar as the input data is correct (garbage in, garbage out).

Except the most crucial questions about life and beyond cannot be mathmatically equated. Its like saying 2+2=moral good. A computer itself, that is the wires, transistors, and hardware have no ability to make conscious determinations. It can only be programmed from what humans understand.

Like neurons and the electrical firings of the brain the wires and electrical signals have not conscious awareness to understand the world regarding the deeper questions about life, morality and what is beyond and how we should order ourselves and the world acordingly.

That takes a human. Even the paradigms of the sciences are a sort of program pre loaded that is based on a certain metaphysaical belief that the world and reality is only made up of bits of matter reacting to each other.

There is an aspect of human consciousness which allows us to transcend into the spiritual that I think can never be understood by Ai or machines without the pre loaded ideas and beliefs of the programmer. Or the person using Ai which will chose what and how the questions posed should be made.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That takes a human. Even the paradigms of the sciences are a sort of program pre loaded that is based on a certain metaphysaical belief that the world and reality is only made up of bits of matter reacting to each other.

Yes, AIs currently are like children that absorb information then relay what is deemed to be the most reliable. If current AIs can learn from mistakes, then what we're looking for would emerge 20 years later after observing what behavioral patterns follow which ideologies and then coming up with their own ideas.

However, AIs are not able to self learn currently, and what would happen if an AI determined all humans are wrong?

 

[The Liturgist]

Except the most crucial questions about life and beyond cannot be mathmatically equated.

I didn’t say that they could. Indeed obviously such questions cannot be reduced to arithmetic. My point relates to the specific case that von Neumann systems are inherently reliable when it comes to doing arithmetic operations and with regards to data processing are as reliable as the input data and programming.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, AIs currently are like children that absorb information then relay what is deemed to be the most reliable. If current AIs can learn from mistakes, then what we're looking for would emerge 20 years later after observing what behavioral patterns follow which ideologies and then coming up with their own ideas.

I am sure that Ai will become almost humanlike and that will be enough for many to believe for example robots to be life like and treat them as such.

It sort of happens now. I find myself talking back to self checkouts in supermarkets lol. But I could imagine more sophisticated robotics and Ai taking over and almost becoming human replacements like in the movies where they are seen like a subhuman species that have some sort of agency. Or at least be percieved to have and thats enough to fool many.

However, AIs are not able to self learn currently, and what would happen if an AI determined all humans are wrong?

I think its more that overall Ai and robotics will become intermeshed with human thought and it will be hard to seperate and tell the two and many will see them like an extension of humans.

Except I think it will depend on what this is used for. It could be used for good or as an authoritive power as though people should not question the superiority of Ai over humans.

Such as for security or econmic reasons where the system as an entity becomes bigger than the individual. Which sort of happens now except this may be much more powerful and encroaching into all aspect of life.

It makes you wonder if this is not linked to the mark of the beast in that the system itself is based on numerical values such as computer codes and not conscious humans. Everyones becomes a number and not a name.

Almost like a machine comes to life as the imitator of Gods creation which is superior and able to do magical feats that humans are incapable of doing. Giving the monster power and authority over all. While being controlled by satan and humans who deny God and want to be like Him and fool and rule over others.

 

[RDKirk]

Why not?

What is computationally correct is logically correct and therefore true. Now that does not mean chatGPT or another AI can be the arbiter of truth - there are specific reasons for not wanting to use an AI to arbitrate the truth because like humans their experience of the truth is essentially subjective insofar as it is informed by inaccurate information, but on a raw computational level, when it comes to questions that can be decided using a conventional stored-program computer of the von Neumann architecture, the data it produces with regards to arithmetic is obviously correct in all circumstances unless one tries the illegal operation of dividing by zero, in which case most computers will toss an exception, which is also correct, as opposed to trying to process a calculation with a logically undefined parameter, and the data that derives from data processing is correct insofar as the input data is correct (garbage in, garbage out).

So, why, then, just yesterday when I asked ChatGPT to tell me the dates for the rest of the year that I'd receive my Social Security payment, did ChatGPT tell me that the third Wednesday of August 2025 falls on the 21st?