Hi,
Comments inlined below:
On 22/03/23 7:34, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users wrote:
Offray, and to all others,
you are missing the issue.
The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a
system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a
human.
This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by
millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true',
right?)
ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to
convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose,
chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait
pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices,
phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called.
They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that
ALL information about every single internet user in available and
is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use
this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the
useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his
internet activity.
These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms
with life like names, 'pretending' to be human.
These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most
social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology
to manufacture consent.
The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to
manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI
chat bots, right?
I don't think I have missed the point, as we agreed (I think) on
chatbots not being intelligent, just having such appearance. That
why
I'm calling "AI" #ApparentIntelligence (in the sense of look
alike, but
not real). Of course, something looking like a real thing without
being
the real thing can be used for manipulation since the first times
of
gossip, printing press and now automatization, with the changes in
scale/danger that such medium changes imply.
I don't think that manufactured consent is so easy, as this very
thread
shows. What is being automated is manufactured polarization (but
humans
can do pretty well by our own on polarization).
How can this be achieved?
Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to
- suppress awareness of the propaganda, then
- suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the
propaganda content, then
- reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as
something to wish for,
- achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals
of the propaganda content.
Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post
follows, Offray.
On the contrary, my post is advocating for a critical reading of
Apparent Intelligence, by reframing the terms and the acritical
technoutopic / technoapocalyptic readings/discourses that are
spreading
rapidly on the wider web, as I think that this community has shown
an
historical different position beyond/resisting hype and current
trends.
So I don't see how any of the steps you mention are "blueprint
followed"
in my post, and I think they will be difficult to locate without
specific examples.
This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our
conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics -
here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts
exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup.
Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color,
discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others
and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus
manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable
'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have
identified as an adversary.
Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with
'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of
collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader.
Heh, heh. On the contrary seems that the one seeing a scheme and a
enemies location/confrontation with deep plots and tactics is you.
Providing external creditable sources beyond opinion, belonging to
a
established discursive falsafiable tradition (i.e. one that you
can
criticize instead of blindly accept) is a way to enrich
discourse/argumentation beyond conspiracy theories. You could also
quote
your sources instead, which would allow the community to see where
our
positions are hold/sustained, even if we use different domain
frames,
which is better that claiming no domain or expertise in pursuit of
openness. So instead of this are my opinions without any external
source
or reference to pretend no expertise or domain framing, we could
advocate for openness by welcoming different expertise and
argumentation
and making our sources/bias as evident as possible.
I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to
promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have
been programmed to be a successful academic software developer,
because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn
to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in
the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may
be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret
service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your
post, though.
You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and
important informatics community to technical detail, when it is
neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the
narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to
the point of view where they can see what technology does in the
real world.
I offered a view point with sources. In no way the discussion
about
Apparent Intelligence was contained and, on the contrary, I tried
to
offer arguments from cognition and philosophy, beyond technical
details,
which have been pretty absent in the general discourse and rush
gold of
technoutopism / technoapocalypse, conspiracy and paranoia. Other
sources
could be added to enrich and inform de conversation and they would
be
pretty welcomed (at least from me and several members I've known
