At the moment AI cannot sharpen anything because it has no need to plus it has no limbs, again as yet. When it becomes more android and could sharpen a chisel it still will not because it will decide that it is illogical to cut trees down for wood when you can make everything on a 3d printer.
If AI gets to the point where it wants to build things, it will need to mine or otherwise acquire raw materials for it's 3D printer. Cutting down trees (which are self replicating) is more logical than using a finite resource such as oil.
I think you're correct about the trees being the better choice but I thought I would look up what PLA is made up of. It's the general go-to filament for 3D printing:
In some cases, the lack of motivation or purpose might lead to more honesty.
Your point on source material is valid but keep in mind the false material is mainly created and regurgitated by humans. Who are even more adept at drawing poor conclusions than LLM, to say nothing of hallucinations…I have worked in Technology nearly all my life and whilst generally it has been advantageous I'm starting to see pitfalls, mainly as we go down a more automated/automation/generative AI route.
I could start at the point where people are looking for employment and now CV's are autoscanned not read by a person, potentially the CV has been written for a candidate there is a removal of human interaction, often the best hires don't have the best CV but those people aren't even getting into the process anymore so what are we losing?
Leaving that aside and going to Gen (Generative) AI (Artificial Intelligence) this is the process of using LLM (large Language Models) to effectively decide an outcome... so like we as humans would do, we take what we know, or have heard or believe, and a set of contributory factors to make an ultimate decision, sounds good right...
BUT... let me paint this scenario the LLM or lets use layman's terms (or plain English as best I can so it won't be perfect (geeks take note) for the non geeks or techies) and call them data sources, such as the internet can be flawed, how so, well how I'm sure everyone has heard of fake news, well if the fake news is included in the source or reference data, it effectively has validation, the more often it is used or quoted the more validated it gets, until it now appears to be primary response and then is treated like the most obvious answer as it has been quoted and referenced most often.... see the paradox forming?
Now people will be talking about controls etc. but I think we have to be very careful how much control we start to hand over to machines and logic, artificial intelligence, etc....
I'm not doom mongering but I am an advocate of ensuring we retain or develop proper control mechanisms and that the entire population understands the implication of the road upon which we are travelling, and that doesn't even scrape the surface....
Never thought I'd be spouting this on a woodworking forum!
I'd almost prefer starting a thread on sharpening
It doesn't have the first clue about how logic works. It's remarkably good at extracting and parroting strands of logic within source material.
In some ways the data is key to the running of the modern NHS, when you visit any hospital it is more than evident that all this patient data is often in paper form and being wheeled around the building by some porter. You watch a nurse take patient data on some machine, write it on the back of her hand and then transfers it into a computer terminal why is the machine not interfaced to the system ?
The entire premise of AI is logically based. Every result you get is logically constructed. Of course AI doesn’t ’know’ logic. That would imply it can reason which is not the case yet. The same is not true of humans where entrenched positions can not be budged by any amount of logic.
That one of the perceived benefits of digitisation, sure. Though you have to factor in that entering the data into the system is way slower than using paper in the initial data entry space, and it is also way more expensive. This wasn't the point I was making though. The point I was making is that the AI, which is a further additionality (on top of that digitisation), has some very serious negatives, which ally very strongly with our economy and the limits thereof.
The entire premise of LLMs is statistically based, not logically based, and the results are constructed from statistical probabilities not from logical deductions. LLMs will never be able to reason because of how they are constructed. Unlike humans, some of whom can, at least some of the time.
I was using logical in the terms of human usage. I.e. is the output defendable rather than in terms of technical rules or algorithmic logic. AI doesn’t base output on the voices it hears in its head for example.
I don't know if this is my ignorance of how people speak when speaking of AI, but that post means little to me, Paul.
My point was that the results from an AI are arguably more likely to be a ‘realistic’ or ‘logical’ summation of the input rather than human output which is often coloured by prejudices and opinions. It was not a definition of how AI works.
