I was trying to figure out where I first saw the “Socrates, no!” “Socrates, YES!” exchange, when the below derailed my idle curiosity.
That’s… not right. The original was this thing where the first sentence was somebody telling Socrates not to do the thing, and the second was Socrates gleefully informing that person that he was totally going to do the thing. Even if you didn’t read it that way right away, you get that, right? It’s a comedy concept that you can grasp, right?
Well, congrats. You’re not AI. I tested Google with various punctuation marks and quotes missing, and it never picked up on the possibility that it was the transcript of a conversation. Which is reassuring, in its way. It implies that, even in a true panopticon, we could still manage to keep our conversations private via a highly subjective form of slang, shared references, and inferences.
Or maybe AI just doesn’t know what to do with things that are goofy? That’s reassuring, too. Means we can still James T Kirk them if they get too stroppy.
“… highly subjective form of slang, shared references, and inferences.”
So our teenagers are going to be the code talkers of the resistance? 😏
I do not relish a world that operates with the auditory style of British criminals
Whatever, as long as my quesadilla is tasty.
Mew
The chair is against the wall.
The blackbird flies at midnight.
The problem with what currently passes for AI is that it’s only succeeded in the “artificial” part. You don’t have to poke at it very long to discover there’s not any actual awareness underlying what it does.
Here’s another fun experiment: ask an image generating AI to produce an analog clock face showing the time 6:30 (or whatever). It turns out there are so many images of clocks around showing 10:10 or 1:50 that that’s all the AI knows about what clocks look like.