Yes, sometimes I have to apply clear, simplified logic to "rationalize" why something stated cannot be true, or is at least contradictory, before the AI will capitulate and admit there was an error in their logic. Using a paid version of ChatGPT with, supposedly, the most advanced models.Here's a video I found interesting and which exposes a problem with AI I can relate to, as many of you I guess:

We certainly don't seem to need any AI for this to be a huge problem. The future seemed a lot less bleak before they made it easy enough for all the stupid people to get online. And I am not talking about "people who disagree with me" or "people who don't know calculus" or anything like that. I mean the people who are incredibly confident that the lizard people are injecting 5G into our chemtrails to control our minds. And even then, it would be mostly tolerable if they didn't insist on being in charge of the government. I'm not sure we'll get through this one without some pain.My mum showed me a video on Facebook earlier which purported to show Madeleine McCann (3yr old who went missing in Portugal 18years ago) being released from an concealed underground bunker in Portugal, it had thousands of likes/shares and many comments underneath. The ability of gullible folk to believe everything they see/hear on such gutter shit media sites has changed the world we live in for the worse. AI is not going to be the savour of the world, it will only fuck those who are not the 1%ers
![]()
Madeleine McCann search in Portugal ends after three days
Authorities carried out a fresh search near where the three-year-old vanished in Praia da Luz in 2007.www.bbc.co.uk
If I had my way you should need to provide a real name/ evidence of who you are before you get the ability to sign up for such platforms, this would obviously impact whistleblowers/political dissidents etc so some form of protection would need to be in place to maintain their anonymity but I don't have the brains to work out a solution for such scenarios
The thing that worries me is that soon (possibly sooner than we think), it will no longer be possible for *anyone* to tell the difference between real and fabricated content.The ability of gullible folk to believe everything they see/hear on such gutter shit media sites has changed the world we live in for the worse.
We'll have an AI for that. And it'll be just like the rest, we'll have to rely on our state structure and in democracy (the modern definition of democracy) as a whole to give us such tools.The thing that worries me is that soon (possibly sooner than we think), it will no longer be possible for *anyone* to tell the difference between real and fabricated content.
Where does it leave us if we cannot trust anything we see online?
Online you can do your own research to some degree. It is clear to me that many news outlets are heavily biased in their reporting. Some news or details just will be ignored.The thing that worries me is that soon (possibly sooner than we think), it will no longer be possible for *anyone* to tell the difference between real and fabricated content.
Where does it leave us if we cannot trust anything we see online?
I expect that soon (sooner than we think) we will get AI content that can't be distinguished from real content even by other AIWe'll have an AI for that. And it'll be just like the rest, we'll have to rely on our state structure and in democracy (the modern definition of democracy) as a whole to give us such tools.
This is where I think it gets scary. Hypothetical scenario: video is leaked of the CEO of a prominent public company snorting illicit drugs. CEO denies it saying it's AI generated. There'll be literally no way of knowing if they are telling the truth.But I agree that it will be difficult if videos or people talking are not real.
it will no longer be possible for *anyone* to tell the difference between real and fabricated content.
Where does it leave us if we cannot trust anything we see online?
I highly recommend this bookThe 'problem' with generative AI is not so much the technology itself, but who gets to set the agenda of how, where and why it gets used. Just as it has been for other forms of disruptive technology such as the wheel, the stirrup, the reed pen, moveable type, the steam engine, radio, television etc. ad infinitum ...
False narrative is central to human cohesion.Has it ever been possible? Could we ever trust the printed word, paint on canvas, or a stone inscription? Humans have, as long as they have been able to call themselves 'human', used the latest technologies to spread lies, fakery and disinformation to further their religious and/or political agendas while feathering their own nests. And people have largely been gullible enough to fall for most of it. It's not a coincidence that the spread of the major world religions began not long after the invention of writing itself. And there are still billions of people in the 21st century that believe in the stories of some stone-age middle-eastern and asian goat-herdsmen simply because they happened to have the bright idea of committing their fantasies to clay-tablet, papyrus and parchment.
The 'problem' with generative AI is not so much the technology itself, but who gets to set the agenda of how, where and why it gets used. Just as it has been for other forms of disruptive technology such as the wheel, the stirrup, the reed pen, moveable type, the steam engine, radio, television etc. ad infinitum ...
Have you read "Nexus"? He (Harari) talks about narratives and human cohesion at some length (actually that's a theme running through most of his books)False narrative is central to human cohesion.
I haven't read Nexus yet but read Sapiens and Homo deux.Have you read "Nexus"? He (Harari) talks about narratives and human cohesion at some length (actually that's a theme running through most of his books)
I highly recommend this book
it is completely unlike other forms of disruptive technology. It can make decisions and create ideas by itself.
Already happening. AI already decides who gets interviewed when applying for jobs in some companies. It decides what you see in your newsfeeds (take that Gutenberg) and it advises on court sentencing. There's a fully AI virtual hospital in China. An enormous percentage of all trades in financial markets happen with zero human intervention.I've yet to see any evidence that either of those claims are, or will be, true anytime within the next century or two ...
If you're regularly using a keyboard in your job, you will most likely be jobless within the next 5 years.Already happening. AI already decides who gets interviewed when applying for jobs in some companies. It decides what you see in your newsfeeds (take that Gutenberg) and it advises on court sentencing. There's a fully AI virtual hospital in China. An enormous percentage of all trades in financial markets happen with zero human intervention.