ChatGPT and the movie "I, robot"

[Maarten Havinga]

For those who do not know the movie/story: this thread is about whether AI such as chatGPT is - on the long run - a danger to humanity, and why or why not. With its popularity rising so quickly, chatGPT has influence on our societies, and it may be prudent to ponder about them. I, Robot is a nice movie discussing how AI, no matter how cleverly programmed, can lead to unwanted results and a suppressive robotic regime. The story (by Isaac Asimov) discusses adding emotions to robots, which may or may not be a good idea. Feel free to post opinions, fears and whatever comes to mind.

THIS IS NOT A THREAD FOR POSTING CHATGPT ANSWERS (unless they are needed as examples for your thoughts)

 

[Maarten Havinga]

I myself consider chatGPT as a helpful communication program if it's used in the right situation: a person gives his/her opinion on an internet subject but for some reason it's unfeasible for him/her to clarify it. Then you can ask chatGPT to clarify, with a pretty good chance it will give the right answer or at least additional information.

It can be used wrongly and addictively in many other ways, though. To play with it might be cool, but I won't give it a try. That's mostly out of an anti-hype sentiment of mine, and for the rest I'm slightly afraid the machine's chattiness might play with my search for truth/knowledge.

 

[Hornbein]

I'd say that humans are a far greater threat to the human race. We are just accustomed to this so it isn't noticed. In comparison AI is nothing.

 

[Maarten Havinga]

The problem is that humans program and use AI, I agree AI itself is less of a problem. A malicious government can now recognize every person passing by anywhere via face recognition and camera.

 

[youssef boufous]

I think that adding emotions to GPT could be a very interesting and exciting development. I think that it could be a very powerful tool for expressiveness and communication–and be used to great effect in creating realistic and immersive experiences.

 

[topsquark]

I'm not too worried about that possibility right now. ChatPGT isn't self-aware and that's the next logical step. If it can be done (which remains to be seen) then awareness is the next logical step. That will get us into enough trouble as it is, so I'm not worried about the emotion thing.

-Dan

 

[selasi_tusah]

Awareness is probably going to be our last invention if it works

 

[topsquark]

Awareness is probably going to be our last invention if it works

How can you have emotions without awareness? How would the AI know how to react to an emotion? We could potentially program in some fake reactions, but that wouldn't be emotion any more than we could say that ChatGPT is sentient right now. It might appear to be for some, but it is not.

-Dan

 

[Maarten Havinga]

We could potentially program in some fake reactions, but that wouldn't be emotion any more than we could say that ChatGPT is sentient right now. It might appear to be for some, but it is not.

I also think that whatever we program in, faking life is the most we can get. AI being "sentient" is not something I consider possible. But doing the selection of what weight each neuron carries through a chemical process should be possible. That doesn't make it any kind of alive, of course. It cannot make choices by itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the original question, I'll repeat an opinion I've shared in other threads on the subject: The question is moot. Whether or not we make AI and regardless of one's definition of AI, computer programs already possess the ability to be a threat, either on purpose (by the programmer/system designer) or accident (bug/unintended operation). AI doesn't change anything in the underlying logic of the issue, only in the complexity of operation/functionality.

Examples of both:

1. Automated fire control systems, such as the Phalanx CIWS. It's been in service for 40 years.

2. Boeing 737 Max's MCAS.

 

[apostolosdt]

In the "I, Robot" movie, the robot's emotions happen accidentally and I find that idea in the movie's scenario much more interesting. The computer scientist in the movie (James Cromwell) suggests that "orphan" code pieces might wander in the machine's memory and combine spontaneously, occasionally producing code blocks that then cause the robot the express "emotions."

Is that a plausible event, triggered or even planned by an advanced AI program like ChatGPT under the command of a human?

In Asimov's book, the entire robot's "revolution" occurs because the AI "reads" the Third Law as is, verbatim. It seeks to destroy humanity because it interprets the latter's actions as self-destructive, hence it intervenes in order to prevent the worst. That's a real-to-happen act for a future AI machine, and for that to occur, all that is needed is some innocent 'safety code' in the program.

Long before the "I, Robot" movie, there was another one, the "War Games" (1983), with analogous mishaps.

 

[sbrothy]

In the "I, Robot" movie, the robot's emotions happen accidentally and I find that idea in the movie's scenario much more interesting. The computer scientist in the movie (James Cromwell) suggests that "orphan" code pieces might wander in the machine's memory and combine spontaneously, occasionally producing code blocks that then cause the robot the express "emotions."

Is that a plausible event, triggered or even planned by an advanced AI program like ChatGPT under the command of a human?

In Asimov's book, the entire robot's "revolution" occurs because the AI "reads" the Third Law as is, verbatim. It seeks to destroy humanity because it interprets the latter's actions as self-destructive, hence it intervenes in order to prevent the worst. That's a real-to-happen act for a future AI machine, and for that to occur, all that is needed is some innocent 'safety code' in the program.

Long before the "I, Robot" movie, there was another one, the "War Games" (1983), with analogous mishaps.

Gotta love War Games, the original Tron and of course The Last Starfighter! Ech, now I feel old again. :)