Fridge said:
Thanks for your reply, justB. I myself come from a family of teachers and even back when I went to school, programs existed that figured out whether google has been used or not. However just changing the sentence structure a bit allowed people to get away with it. I wonder how a program detects that AI has been used. Isn't the generated outcome always unique in some ways?
If you as a teacher suspect a student wasn't the author, but you can't prove it other than saying that it's a different style, would that provide you with enough leverage/evidence for the student to fail?
I am 100% with you here and I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I want to highlight that usually everything has good and bad sides and the better the one aspect of a thing, the worse the downsides tend to be. Look at nuclear energy for example.
AI can be used to solve many problems. If it saves or improves lives I am all for it. What I was trying to convey is the following: Who would want to study anything like medicine, if AI can do it just as good. The whole system we have established over millenia would be turned upside down. I don't know if that would be a good thing. Maybe it is, who knows.
If you want to use it, I am in no position to tell you not to. I just want to put out my perspective on this topic.
I really enjoy following this debate. It's good to see this is a place that allows a civilized discussion.
Thank you for being so generous with the last point. A whole lot of people I feel like live a very privlidged life and don't understand poverty deep enough to judge such a situation properly.
As for the first point, I use a sey of systems consisting of other measurements to determin if a student fails or not, and at the end of the day I can double check evereything without giving a prior notice. What I mean by the first part is, we use written tests sometimes, and sometimes we talk with students, and sometimes we give group sessions, and homeworks. All of this is evaluated and one chat gpt that can write them the written part (where I am not present) is faaaar far away from letting them truly cheat hahaha
The second part of course is, why would you tell the student they failed if you suspect they cheated? Why don't you just make them rewrite it as flawlessly as they can the next class =) I'm sure after writing that splendid remarkable (ChatGPT) essay, it takes no effort to them to recreate it live, hehehe.
The 2nd point is way more tricky. All I can say is that we need scientists and researchers to develop our society. And they need to go through all kinds fo schools from elementary to university, can not really skip a step. And AI can not take over research yet.
Think of it like this. First life unvails a problem > Then the upmost scientist tries to debunk it > then AI learns how to debunk it. After the AI has learned the research, our scientist is already debunking lifes next endevour
May be after a point AI can do it automatically? I don't know, that'd be a treat to watch hahaha and I have no clue where it would go.
As for other jobs right now AI can only be a sidekick, people need to manage and use them like other tools and I don't know at what point they can take over, but someone will need to develop and manage things so I don't feel like people will just stop learning.
Heck even now most ppl are un educated let's be honest. And it aint such a catastrophy. Most of my friends are bakers and farmers, they don't like books and use a traktor. We live happily
Voidmatrix said:
Apologies and full disclosure, I'm not in the best of moods today and am getting ready to start work.
My point has nothing to do the utilitarianism (the examples you gave about people making their way out of poverty). It's specifically directed at the sentiment that morality is a luxury. If one is treating it as a luxury then they're not really morals. One stands by their morals regardless of convenience, ease, or luxury.
To extend the racism example, I keep hearing people say things related to "it's here already, just accept it" with AI art. Let's use the same statement but have it be about slavery and racism 200 to 400 years ago. It was prevalent, it wad "here," so does that mean people shouldn't have risen up against it.
One love
No need to apologise to me man, friends can rarely hurt me
It's just that I come to this place to learn and grow, and those things take a bunch of failure that make me look arrogant and such.
It just feels like these people don't play by the rules and when their opposition tries to do that we always fail. Like politics, write down your own rules and play by them. You can not lose. If I was a corporate entity and my opposition was functioning on feelings of morality, I could target that and thus would have an easier time overcoming them. This is why I'm leaning more towards destroying them in any way possible and disregarding the moral stance on it. The will to destroy a toxic corporation is more valuable than the representation of the moral stand against it, and should it interfere with the process, one should temporaily hide or disguise it. I think we can agree on this right? You would use midjourney to destroy it.
I don't know man. Trying to look it from a different perspective, you pretty much use a belief system to create a set of rules, that do not impact the problem at hand at all, and possibly degrade your state of life aswell (which might negatively impact your ability to solve or go against the problem lol), in turn for some mental imaginary satisfaction.
Don't want to sound rude but When understanding something I think trying to describe it in different perspectives and try to figure out which one is correct... But the more we talk of morality the more I lean to the other side lol
It's disturbing that I can go and sign the lawsuit, do everything in my power to destroy this thing, and yet if I use it myself other people look down on me, even though I exhausted everything I possibly can to aid their cause. Just does not feel right. The moral standpoint in this instance is just a set of rules that you find suitable for your life and will judge others by it. The morality feels like is breaking a friendship with someone that did everything they could to prevent the problem and join the cause, but do not follow things that do not have an impact in it. It just does not feel right to me and if someone could explain it a bit better I would gladly read it.
The racism part I still do not get it. Are you comparing racism to the unethical part of the AI art, or the whole of it? Because people are right you know, even if we stop midjourney and the problematic part discussed here, developers will do it by the book and develop these systems the legal and ethical way. We are slowly developing other technologies as well, there is a lot of talk on quantum computers which would be way faster than what we currently use (like seriously, next level technology). Pair that with AI models that are way more developed than ours, and thats where you truly get the idea of were things are heading.
