To AI or not to AI, the ongoing debate...

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, RSD1 said:

Would you really care if it's the real me (whom you don't know anyway) writing out these thoughts to you in some unintelligible text that I wrote myself or if I'm using an AI tool to assist me to articulate them?

How can the AI know what you thought and maybe intended to write? It doesn't!

The AI can only add things or rewrite things. And maybe that makes it sound good. But it's not the original thought.

If I want to communicate with an AI I know where to find it. If I write in a forum like this, I don't want to communicate with humans and (not clearly marked) AI at the same time. 

 

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

That said, some people write so poorly, using AI could make their content (responses) more readily understood.

If those people can't express what they think, or their thinking is so poorly, then it's good when that is obvious - not enhanced. 

[Kinnock]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If those people can't express what they think, or their thinking is so poorly, then it's good when that is obvious - not enhanced. 

Agree .... but only if you're writing in your own language.

 

I needed to write an email to our local 'Tessabahn' about a serious issue, but my written Thai is weak.  I wrote in English, then asked Chat GPT 4.0 to translate to polite yet precise Thai in the style of an official government memo.

 

I sent it to a Thai friend for review - and she thought it was good enough to send.

[RSD1]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How can the AI know what you thought and maybe intended to write? It doesn't!

The AI can only add things or rewrite things. And maybe that makes it sound good. But it's not the original thought.

I use AI to help with some of my work related documents that I write. I then reread after it edits my writing and I make sure the content is still factual, nothing added in that I didn't want, and that the writing still fully reflects my tone and writing style. This ensures authenticity. 
 

I may go back and forth with the AI 2-3 times before settling on a final draft. I assume anyone who uses AI as a tool for writing applies it in the same way. As I said earlier, it's just a tool and it doesn't control things. It's there to enhance and improve the result and that's what I use it for. 

[RSD1]

31 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If I write in a forum like this, I don't want to communicate with humans and (not clearly marked) AI at the same time. 

That's where I think it matters the least. When I write on a forum of this nature then I'm just responding to anonymous texts, most of which are either imaginative responses or sarcasm created by the poster in order to get a response or reaction. So the information could be false or misleading anyway. Thus, it doesn't matter if the fake thoughts are fully human or AI enhanced.
 

So when people flame on posts and say that they're AI, I think they are not really focused on what's important. To me what's more important is not who or what wrote it but whether or not the content reflects anything real or important. People should be questioning what's being portrayed to them in the text rather than how the text was arrived at.   
 

Also, forums are not the real world to begin with and I never treat them as such. If you see them otherwise then I think that's part of a slippery slope of living in an imaginary world. 

[cobra]

 ..... in a Stanford study, ChatGPT's version 4 tested within normal ranges for the five traits but showed itself only as agreeable as the bottom third of human respondents. The bot passed the Turing test, but it would not have won itself many friends.Feb 22, 2024 .....

 

hmm. sounds like a few well known posters we know, 🙄

[OneMoreFarang]

5 hours ago, RSD1 said:

That's where I think it matters the least. When I write on a forum of this nature then I'm just responding to anonymous texts, most of which are either imaginative responses or sarcasm created by the poster in order to get a response or reaction. So the information could be false or misleading anyway. Thus, it doesn't matter if the fake thoughts are fully human or AI enhanced.
 

So when people flame on posts and say that they're AI, I think they are not really focused on what's important. To me what's more important is not who or what wrote it but whether or not the content reflects anything real or important. People should be questioning what's being portrayed to them in the text rather than how the text was arrived at.   
 

Also, forums are not the real world to begin with and I never treat them as such. If you see them otherwise then I think that's part of a slippery slope of living in an imaginary world. 

 

Imagine you do what you describe above, and then one day someone would tell you that there wasn't any human involved. You wrote 100 posts and no human ever read it. Just AI. How would you feel about that?

 

I think this forum resembles the real world. In real life I talk sometimes with serious and competent people, and sometimes with people who just talk and don't know much. And then there are also tolls out there. In real life we filter what we listen and react to. And here we do the same. Here we even have an Ignore button to switch off unwanted "people" completely.

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, cobra said:

 ChatGPT's version 4 tested within normal ranges for the five traits but showed itself only as agreeable as the bottom third of human respondents.

I am less agreeable than that. And I don't consider that as negative.

The 5 traits show the differences in people. It doesn't mean people with higher or lower scores are better, they are just different.

 

From Jordan B Peterson - UnderstandMyself.com

"People high in agreeableness are nice: compliant, nurturing, kind, naively trusting and conciliatory. However, because of their tendency to avoid conflict, they often dissemble and hide what they think. People low in agreeableness are not so nice: stubborn, dominant, harsh, skeptical, competitive and, in the extreme, even predatory. However, they tend to be straightforward, even blunt, so you know where they stand."

 

 

[RSD1]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Imagine you do what you describe above, and then one day someone would tell you that there wasn't any human involved. You wrote 100 posts and no human ever read it. Just AI. How would you feel about that?

Some of the most popular topics on here are quite possibly AI. But since they are so heavily replied to then what does that tell you? People vote with their feet, but they also don't really care if it's AI or not. It's all about content as I mentioned. If you want the real world forums isn't the place.
 

Also, if you wrote 100 replies on a very popular AI post you would get far more other members reading and responding to what you wrote than if you commented on some unpopular post written by someone real. That's why so many people respond to those triggering threads. Often they aren't even addressing the OP. They have FOMO on the melee and all jump-in in a frenzy. 
 

17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think this forum resembles the real world. In real life I talk sometimes with serious and competent people, and sometimes with people who just talk and don't know much. And then there are also tolls out there. In real life we filter what we listen and react to. And here we do the same. Here we even have an Ignore button to switch off unwanted "people" completely.

Even the people that try to write real replies are just a bunch of anecdotal crowd-sourced data dumps. They are just opinions, often incorrect too. 

[KannikaP]

11 hours ago, Kinnock said:

I'm sure AI has a valuable place in our lives, and I use it at work for data analysis, but what is mentioned in the OP is the large language models (LLM) that utilise the web plus the ability to construct sentences to create human sounding phrases.

 

If you can write coherently in the required language, and are knowledgeable on the subject, LLM's add little value.  If you know nothing and can't string a sentence together, they are helpful.

 

Personally, I'd rather read something written by HI (Human intelligence) that  computer generated bull &#!£.

 

That's twice I have seen LLM. What is it please?

 

Just asked Leo on Brave = Large language Model. What's sad about that?

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, RSD1 said:

Even the people that try to write real replies are just a bunch of anecdotal crowd-sourced data dumps. They are just opinions, often incorrect too. 

 

That's what I want to see. What do others think? What are their opinions?

AI is a great topic for that. Opinions about that subject are all over the place. 

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

That's twice I have seen LLM. What is it please?

Large Language Model

ChatGPT is one of them.

 

Large language model - Wikipedia

 

[Gsxrnz]

I wonder what an Ai robot would identify as?

 

Probably not non-binary.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, Gsxrnz said:

I wonder what an Ai robot would identify as?

 

Probably not non-binary.

 

 

[Surasak]

Who the hell is this AI you keep on about!?🤣

[ignore it]

Chat GPT seemed to offer some neuterized wokeish safe story 

lines if asked.

 

Asking info from ChatGPT doesn't flood you with adverts (as yet) no references to wiki or Quora first. Just gives you neuterized, wokeish, inoffensive info.

[RSD1]

55 minutes ago, Surasak said:

Who the hell is this AI you keep on about!?🤣

Hi Shure-A-Sack. 😂

[OneMoreFarang]

One more AI, with sources where the info comes from.

 

Perplexity

 

 

[connda]

15 hours ago, RSD1 said:

Many people on here are quick to jump to conclusions about posts being written by AI. Does it really matter?

Yeah - it does.  I wish to hear opinions by a flesh and blood humans, not so-much silicon-and-solder programmed by Silicon Valley geeks.

[connda]

2 hours ago, RSD1 said:

Even the people that try to write real replies are just a bunch of anecdotal crowd-sourced data dumps. They are just opinions, often incorrect too. 

What's an AI response other then "a bunch of anecdotal crowd-sourced data dumps" that are "opinions, often incorrect too" which was generated by someone smart enough to give the AI some keywords which then in-turn generates "anecdotal crowd-sourced data dumps" reflective of the programmers own biases (left-progressive-woke) with which the individual agrees with, but is not smart-enough to write themselves.

[ChrisKC]

Some general observations:

 

There are professionals who have used "ghost writers" for much of their work. Those "ghost writers" are not so much in demand as it has been taken over by AI. 

 

Most people are not creative writers including non-proficient native English speakers are experimenting with AI to improve their grammar and to help make their content more aesthetically pleasing for the reader. 

 

In education, Examiners are being "tested" by their students with AI to see what thy can get away with. Passing off one's work as their own when AI is the writer is being addressed vigorouly by the establishment. 

 

I have no problem with it as a means of effective communication as it relates to the level of content - more important on this forum. 

[ChrisKC]

repeated above

[ChrisKC]

repeated upload

[ChrisKC]

See above

[Ralf001]

The debate over AI is indeed ongoing and multifaceted, touching on ethical, technological, and societal considerations.