The good thing about Wikipedia is you can edit the mistakes.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Why you should be frightened by AI
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
The problem is that many of the "sources" are just as inaccurate as the Wikipedia article.
It would take 1000 squared editors to correct all the errors ...
What about rounded editors?
Or triangulated?
Or Trapezoidal!
AI is probably having a field day with this thread. Or, it would if it had access to it (does it?)
c
I went back and found the source material. It's actually beyond "chatter":
OpenAI urges U.S. to allow AI models to train on copyrighted material
The tech giant behind ChatGPT urged the Trump administration to let go of “unnecessarily burdensome” regulations on artificial intelligence.
www.nbcnews.com
i read wikipedia for hours daily and that is simply not true .
AI is prolly too complex for me to explain, but it is wack, cocky, untrustworthy, unreliable as anything produced after like a certain date in the past when stuff wasn't made as good, and not developed the same as us and that is the reason why ai will never take over the music industry that's a buncha hoo ha
Folks in UFOS scare me too.
This week some articles in The Charlotte Observer have said things like "Previous Observer coverage was summarized by AI" and "This summary of the week's events was produced by AI and edited by people".
I just saw the wording online. "The summary above was drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories listed were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists."
The problem is that, on the practical level, the tech companies do not need a legal OK to datamine others' intellectual property. They already have done it, thanks to the use of non-profit webcrawlers that scoured the web for billions of photos and millions of terrabytes of other intellectual property (i.e., written data -- fiction books [including Steven King], nonfiction books, newspapers and websties, etc.). the webcrawler organizations called them 'datasets'. The AI companies in turn bought these 'datasets'. Stephen King knows his books have been datamined. He appears to be fine with it.:I went back and found the source material. It's actually beyond "chatter":
OpenAI urges U.S. to allow AI models to train on copyrighted material
The tech giant behind ChatGPT urged the Trump administration to let go of “unnecessarily burdensome” regulations on artificial intelligence.
Stephen King: My Books Were Used to Train AI
One prominent author responds to the revelation that his writing is being used to train artificial intelligence.
The NY Times and some other news publishers apparently sued Microsoft and some others for their AI services datamining their IP, but even if the courts somehow rule in favor of the papers, the genie is long out of the bottle. How, for example, is any IP owner going to prove that one particular sentence in one of their books or articles was stolen by AI? or a photo, for that matter, especially when photos, writing, can be manipulated so easily by an AI program?
AI is not even close to ready for prime time. Because for it to work convincingly, it has to think like a human. That is still going to take a very long time yet. Until then, AI is just running on one leg.
The voices are terrible. And can be detected easily by any careful listener. The mispronunciations and odd intonations (which are more frequent than the programmers admit) give it away. Anything requiring depth in understanding is a non-starter. And that's what keeps it presently and for the forseeable future, not much more than a gizmo to play with.
The voices are terrible. And can be detected easily by any careful listener. The mispronunciations and odd intonations (which are more frequent than the programmers admit) give it away. Anything requiring depth in understanding is a non-starter. And that's what keeps it presently and for the forseeable future, not much more than a gizmo to play with.
I saw a video of AI someone took in a Wal-Mart (or like store). It showed what looked like live pigs falling out of the ceiling from an open tile. It was so real looking it was scary, like what you see in movies. I suppose it pays the bills if you're working in the industry. The details were so real looking.
And then you get to the problem of which human.
I've looked up the bios of well-known radio/voiceover people and find articles that combine the bios of several people with the same name. Mark Elliot, in addition to his work at legendary radio stations was somehow also a renowned psychologist in Toronto according to the Wiki article. It also mixed up two Paul Youngs in the music business, making me wrong on the internet, which is the unpardonable sin LOL
And if people realized that AI will "make them wrong on the internet", this whole thing could just go away.
Here's another reason to be frightened by AI:
"In just 11 months since the company arrived in Memphis, xAI has become one of Shelby County’s largest emitters of smog-producing nitrogen oxides, according to calculations by environmental groups whose data has been reviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News. The plant is in an area whose air is already considered unhealthy due to smog.
The turbines spew nitrogen oxides, also known as NOx, at an estimated rate of 1,200 to 2,000 tons a year — far more than the gas-fired power plant across the street or the oil refinery down the road....
The Memphis xAI showdown could become a national test case for artificial intelligence, which demands more electricity than regular internet searches to complete even simple tasks."
"In just 11 months since the company arrived in Memphis, xAI has become one of Shelby County’s largest emitters of smog-producing nitrogen oxides, according to calculations by environmental groups whose data has been reviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News. The plant is in an area whose air is already considered unhealthy due to smog.
The turbines spew nitrogen oxides, also known as NOx, at an estimated rate of 1,200 to 2,000 tons a year — far more than the gas-fired power plant across the street or the oil refinery down the road....
The Memphis xAI showdown could become a national test case for artificial intelligence, which demands more electricity than regular internet searches to complete even simple tasks."
It's a big day for examples, I guess.
One of Google's top results for a search of "Habeas Corpus" (no reason, why do you ask?) is this AI graphic:
One of Google's top results for a search of "Habeas Corpus" (no reason, why do you ask?) is this AI graphic: