Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Artificial Intelligence Will Take Over?


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

That’s nothin, I can start a rumor on twitter that eating tide pods gets you high and have all kinds of teenagers eating laundry detergent in a couple of days, I think the AI may be smarter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i keep thinking big brother but then im old and what we imagined might happen in 1984 has already occurred and been accepted , it will only get worse drom here , 

the interesting thing is kids today are not scared of it and will allow it to happen as if its just the normal path to utopia , at least we thought about our freedoms first and foremost then the government control , its sad when a society dies before your eyes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the lack of human intelligence being widely exhibited these days, particularly, at Foggy Bottom, and many other places, some artificial intelligence might be a major improvement...if it works. Wonder what Star Trek-The Next Generation's Cdr. Data would say, if he were real. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artificial intelligence and fast food are the same.  They are both neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna be interesting to see if the experiments with electronic baseball umpires pan out.  They have been trying to replace human umpires with a machine since the 1950s.  I’m betting on the human ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you argue at a robot umpire?  Sure, the human ones can miss a call, but we have instant replay for fielding decisions, and you can't argue balls and strikes without getting sent to the showers.  Replacing human umpires is as bad as replacing waycars (Burlington Route term for caboose) with an End-Of-Train device, or eliminating roof walks on boxcars! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

They cornered the market on artificial ignorance, too.

 

27 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

No, I think they got it right, their ignorance is real.

 

Actually, they’ve nearly cornered the market on STUPIDITY!!

 

Their ignorance is very real, but with proper education and a good supply of real information, that ignorance COULD be eliminated.

 

HOWEVER!!!  Their stupidity is deeply ingrained! It goes all the way to the bone.  Stupid like that is practically impossible to eliminate without eliminating its host.  Instead, we need to quarantine those who exhibit chronic stupidity and remove them from positions of power, authority, and influence!!  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

 

 

Actually, they’ve nearly cornered the market on STUPIDITY!!

 

Their ignorance is very real, but with proper education and a good supply of real information, that ignorance COULD be eliminated.

 

HOWEVER!!!  Their stupidity is deeply ingrained! It goes all the way to the bone.  Stupid like that is practically impossible to eliminate without eliminating its host.  Instead, we need to quarantine those who exhibit chronic stupidity and remove them from positions of power, authority, and influence!!  
 

 

 

    .... amen ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hopeful for AI to replace judges.
No bias, no activism, just the ability to search ALL case law to render a verdict from case law.

It will be up to the lawyers to input applicable case law as their arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bgavin said:

I am hopeful for AI to replace judges.
No bias, no activism, just the ability to search ALL case law to render a verdict from case law.

It will be up to the lawyers to input applicable case law as their arguments.

We could certainly count on them to go as they were programmed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto for vote counting machines.
Peer review is mandatory.

Part of the development process is running known test cases to prove system integrity and verify known results.
The Air Force locked down all system changes for months before a satellite launch was scheduled.

No changes, no exceptions.

Afterwards, when system changes were again allowed, these were followed by rigorous and extensive test cases.
Regression testing was done to ensure the new changes did not break old known results.

Integrity CAN be built into systems, but it takes people with integrity to do so.
Right now, there is abundant evidence we do NOT have people of integrity in law offices, the judicial bench, and the various gov't agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bgavin said:

Ditto for vote counting machines.
Peer review is mandatory.

Part of the development process is running known test cases to prove system integrity and verify known results.
The Air Force locked down all system changes for months before a satellite launch was scheduled.

No changes, no exceptions.

Afterwards, when system changes were again allowed, these were followed by rigorous and extensive test cases.
Regression testing was done to ensure the new changes did not break old known results.

Integrity CAN be built into systems, but it takes people with integrity to do so.
Right now, there is abundant evidence we do NOT have people of integrity in law offices, the judicial bench, and the various gov't agencies.

An example of why that’s essential:  somebody in DOD upgraded a significant piece of software the day before Desert Storm was to start.  SHTF!

 

(All logistical planning used it.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn’t matter WHO designs the program, it WILL reflect their values and biases.

 

I would dread the day that we turned our judicial system over to some machine or machines!!

 

These programs have NO CONCEPT of right or wrong! They only have the ability to take information and apply some algorithm with set parameters to the information and apply a predetermined response to that information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 5:03 PM, Blackwater 53393 said:

It doesn’t matter WHO designs the program, it WILL reflect their values and biases.

 

Golly...
After 50 years in the computer business, I am shocked to find out that a computer program has a bias.

And to think that all those programs I've written over this period of time, have a bias.
This must be why new vehicles break down... the author of the software in the chips has an intetional bias against reliability.

Or Quickbooks has a bias because it phonies up extra charges to your business account, to keep you broke, because you voted Conservative.

If you want to see machines programmed WITH a bias, look no further than the vote counting machines.
Any decent programmer, myself included, has the chops to write a fraudulent counting routine that will escape detection from all except forensic examination of the actual source code.

The manufacturer hides behind the veil of "trade secrets" to avoid their code being examined.
By the time that is resolved in the courts, all the plaintiffs will die of old age.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If you want to see machines programmed WITH a bias, look no further than the vote counting machines.
Any decent programmer, myself included, has the chops to write a fraudulent counting routine that will escape detection from all except forensic examination of the actual source code.“

 

What you say here DIRECTLY backs up my point.  Where a program is written to make judgments, it cannot help but reflect the judgments of the writer.  It isn’t deliberate in many cases, but it’s, shall we say, human nature when creating something that involves “judgment” to, intentionally or otherwise, insert ones own perspective and perception into the product.

 

The use of examples like accounting and automotive control programs is disingenuous. Those programs are in no way meant to make judgements.  They simply take measurements and apply the desired response to those measurements. They do not make moral or ethical judgments.

 

The computer program is no better or worse than the human/humans that write that program.  That is unlikely to ever change.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advances made in AI and other technology are staggering.  There is already growing controversy over a program called ChatGPT.  This thing IS writing thesis papers for college students that is virtually impossible to detect.  The program has also taken and gotten very high scores on final exams at several major universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful! In past years, I interviewed folks with great school creds, references, etc.  Many were superb in the interviews.  I set up actual tests of work they would have to do at the final interview.  Many just left without a word, others failed.  However folks bend the system, if they can't deliver, they don't get hired, or if they manage to sneak in, stay long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bgavin said:

Golly...
After 50 years in the computer business, I am shocked to find out that a computer program has a bias.

And to think that all those programs I've written over this period of time, have a bias.
This must be why new vehicles break down... the author of the software in the chips has an intetional bias against reliability.

Or Quickbooks has a bias because it phonies up extra charges to your business account, to keep you broke, because you voted Conservative.

If you want to see machines programmed WITH a bias, look no further than the vote counting machines.
Any decent programmer, myself included, has the chops to write a fraudulent counting routine that will escape detection from all except forensic examination of the actual source code.

The manufacturer hides behind the veil of "trade secrets" to avoid their code being examined.
By the time that is resolved in the courts, all the plaintiffs will die of old age.
 

 

Make the code open source and the errors and bias will be quickly identified.  There is ZERO justification for voting machines to have software 1/2 as complicated as it is.  Any first year programmer can write a simple counting application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open Source is great stuff, but there is no guarantee the unadulterated code will be the final executable code.
The voting machine company could have used open source, then refactored it for fraudulent purposes.

A forensic examination of the source code, compiled to a matching digital signature of the existing executable code, would show cheating.
Any mismatch in the two digital signatures indicates the source code is different than that used to produce the current executable.
Version control has been in place for a very long time, so there is no excuse such as "the code has moved on".

Cui bono... "who benefits" = "follow the money".

It should be apparent to the most casual observer, the morals of today are not those of our forefathers.
Widespread cheating the military academies today would have been unheard of in my Dad's time at Annapolis.
The penalty for cheating would have been massively severe.

The wide spread sleaziness in the gov't, in the media, in the courts and the schools is appalling.

Those fearful of an unbiased, and absolutely fair judicial system have nothing to fear.
A system such as this will never come to be, and most certainly not in our life times.

Cui bono.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.