Politics and AI. Are you prepared?

1. 86

   tsmogposted 14 months ago

   Today, one hot topic is using AI to write content or create images by regular everyday people. Everyone knows about ChatGPT released in late 2022. There are many versions of content AI available now like with Grammarly or on Bing’s browser.
   
   How will AI affect our politics? Should we feel threatened by it? Let’s see what MIT Technology Review has to say. They share there will be six milestones to watch out for. They are:
   
   Milestone #1: The acceptance by a legislature or agency of a testimony or comment generated by, and submitted under the name of, an AI.
   
   Milestone #2: The adoption of the first novel legislative amendment to a bill written by AI.
   
   Milestone #3: AI-generated political messaging outscores campaign consultant recommendations in poll testing.
   
   Milestone #4: AI creates a political party with its own platform, attracting human candidates who win elections.
   
   Milestone #5: AI autonomously generates profit and makes political campaign contributions.
   
   Milestone #6: AI achieves a coordinated policy outcome across multiple jurisdictions.
   
   Six ways that AI could change politics by MIT Technology Review (07/28/23)
   https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/0 … -politics/
   
   What about today?
   
   From Catham House arrives their opening statement with an article, How AI could sway voters in 2024’s big elections (09/23/2023)
   
   “AI-generated fake videos, ‘rumour bombs’ and ‘disinfo’ threaten key votes in America, India and beyond, writes Helen Fitzwilliam.”
   
   “Truth has long been a casualty of war and political campaigns, but now there is a new weapon in the political disinformation arsenal – generative AI that can in an instant clone a candidate’s voice, create a fake film, or churn out bogus narratives to undermine the opposition’s messaging. This is already happening in the US.”
   https://www.chathamhouse.org/publicatio … -elections
   
   In an NPR article, AI-generated text is hard to spot. It could play a big role in the 2024 campaign excerpt stating;
   
   “Generative artificial intelligence applications have become accessible to the public in the past year, opening up vast opportunities for creativity as well as confusion. Just recently, presidential candidate Ron Desantis's campaign shared apparently faked images of Donald Trump and Antony Fauci made with artificial intelligence. A few weeks earlier, a likely AI-generated image of the Pentagon being bombed caused brief stock market dips and a statement from the Department of Defense.”
   https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/11836847 … 4-campaign
   
   And, caution is now being followed with actions. From the National Conference of State Legislators is the publication; Artificial Intelligence 2023 Legislation. (09/27/23)
   
   “In the 2023 legislative session, at least 25 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia introduced artificial intelligence bills, and 15 states and Puerto Rico adopted resolutions or enacted legislation.”
   
   Worth a peek at the brief summary, also, by sharing the bills enacted by each state with a short description along with their status we see what our state legislators are doing about it.
   https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-com … egislation
      
   One thought, not only organizations ‘may’ cause havoc, but any average person will have the capacity to use AI too. What do you think social media will be like in the short future? Talk about a wild, wild, west scenario!
   
   Have any concerns?
   
   Do you think there are positives not mentioned above?
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      The genie is out of the bottle. We may have already lost control of AI.
      
      While 'we' Google experts search for facts (or confirming speculations) to support an opinion (SkyNet is possible . . .  or it's bunk), here's what the 'Godfather' of AI says:
      
      "Godfather of AI" Geoffrey Hinton: The 60 Minutes Interview
      
      13 minutes will answer most questions. Hollywood's SkyNet scenario (the Terminator movies) is a real possibily—relative to the cognitive abilities of AI.
      
      To paraphrase one truth from Hinton: 'AI currently has the ability to write its own code to enhance its learning ability and perform new functions.' This was followed by: 'It's probable that the creators of the AI code won't know that the AI has written a piece of code, and, that they won't be able to control that code if they do know.'
      
      All of the mentioned milestones will be reached—sooner rather than later.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 86

         tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Howdy, GA!! Thanks for the video!
         
         I'm speechless, aghast, and curious! Speaking of curious. I have Grammarly downloaded to my PC at home. I asked it to do this; Write three paragraphs about AI and political campaigning. Following is what was produced. Note: I should have told it in short paragraphs.
         
         Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly prevalent in the world of political campaigning. Campaigns are using AI technology to analyze vast amounts of data about voters and their behavior, to target specific demographics with personalized messages. This allows campaigns to more effectively reach voters and tailor their messaging in a way that resonates with them. However, there are also concerns about the potential for AI to be used to manipulate voters and spread disinformation.
         
         One way that AI is being used in political campaigning is through social media. Campaigns are using AI algorithms to analyze data about users' behavior and preferences, to identify those who are most likely to support their candidate. They can then target those users with personalized ads and messages, designed to appeal to their specific interests and beliefs. This can be a powerful tool for campaigns, as it allows them to more efficiently allocate their resources and reach voters who are most likely to be receptive to their message.
         
         However, there are also concerns about the potential for AI to be used to spread disinformation and manipulate voters. AI algorithms can be programmed to identify and target vulnerable populations with false information, in an effort to sway their opinions. This can be particularly effective when combined with psychological profiling, which can be used to identify the most effective messaging for different types of voters. As AI technology continues to evolve, it will be increasingly important for policymakers to take steps to ensure that it is used ethically and responsibly in political campaigning.
         
         What do you think?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            It reads like many other AI content/posts I have read. Decently written, and mostly accurate, but bland in context (too vague/generalized). This one was a fence sitter. No mention of the obvious—the current sophistication of AI's deep-fake capabilities.
            
            Here's a 'channeling' of a bud to explain:
            
            Start with the basic known facts:
            
            The ultimate prize in the AI race (for everyone; individual to business to State entities, and from the most saintly driven actors to the most nefarious) is an algorithm that will have access to every piece of man's known information and have the reasoning capability (both logical and human-demonstrated emotional) to make decisions drawn from the information.
            
            That's real. That's happening now. From programmed autonomous robots to autonomous cars (vehicles) to autonomous task-capable drones.
            
            Consider this question: Chatgpt was released in 2022. It was an evolutionary concept — but it wasn't really very good or trustworthy. Fun and novel, but still sort of a toy.
            
            Now, less than a year later and we're at Chapgpt4(?) and the damn thing is developing its own sight and auditory senses. It is also learning to understand human nuances. In less than a year.
            
            It was in the neighborhood of only 18 months ago that Tesla (now the world's apparent king of the self-diving hill) was having serious FSD (Full Self-Driving) issues, both with disastrous crash failures and public opinion, and technical challenges. Now, Tesla's databank of billions (trillions?) of real-life data points used to train AIs is a valuable and sought-after commodity.
            
            The same examples are across most AI developments.
            
            We have gone from tottering first steps to teenage sports abilities in less than two years.
            
            How were these advances made so quickly is a question to ask. Have the creators and coders and brains behind AI development gotten so good that every week brings Eureka! breakthroughs?
            
            Or has AI currently developed to the point of teaching itself how to teach itself? Are the developers already passengers instead of drivers?
            
            The Genie is out. AI will become as capable as portrayed in most of Hollywood's best sci-fi movies.
            
            But, as pessimistic as that reality seems, Hinton did say there still may be time to semi-control it. Like instilling an Asimov-style 4-Laws of Robotics as the kernal coding all actions must start from. ;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 86

               tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               [giggling to myself with either a half smile or a half grimace]
               
               Thanks for turning me on to channeling leading me to go on a hunt. I discovered a lot on the topic. One I thought was interesting is the site ai|channels. I think it is in the Beta format as it has an invite to get updates from "Get updates on the AI Channels beta". It gives you the opportunity to submit your email address to them.
               
               ai|channels
               https://aichannels.app/
               
               Another Thanks, for the information with your sharing about AI with the content above. I gained a lot from it while expanding my imagination fed by my curiosity. You opened doors! Probably too many
               
               And, after watching the interview with Hinton again I am intrigued with the term 'layering', yet pondering it for us regular people. I mean that in what those neurons sending electrical pulses in our brain structure do. I am left pondering the mind . . . again.

               replyreport
   2. 91

      Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I have been watching developments, and obviously there are concerns; but I haven’t formulated any firm views or opinions yet on this subject.
      
      Although if interested:  A few years ago a robot gave evidence In the UK Parliament as part of an inquiry into the future of the arts; and part of her reply was “AI is 'threat and opportunity' to artists”:   https://youtu.be/aoQ5EUjN_LM
      
      This is a more recent interview with the same robot, by a British TV News Channel – in essence the interviewer asked the robot whether we should be scared of AI:  https://youtu.be/JFxDW2aDato
      
      Interestingly in the above interview with the British TV News presenter, the Robot in rely to a pertinent question makes reference to the Geoffrey Hinton that GA also referenced in his comment above.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks! I'm more and more intrigued by the growth/advancement of AI and robotics too! One of my nephews was heavily into robotics when in high school beginning as a freshman. (14-15 years old)  He was in a robotics club in high school all four years of it.
         
         He graduated from a technical university in Oregon with some kind of computer major. Now, employed he does something with programming while touching base with AI. And, it all started with him at about age 10 building a home computer with his dad. I would imagine some of the toys as a youngster came into play feeding his interest. 
         
         I found Aida quite interesting! I am not sure of her answers feeling somewhat wanting. They seemed to be as GA shared somewhat vague. Or, perhaps, my curiosity got the best of me with a need to ask Aida clarifying questions.
         
         I am very mixed with AI/robots regarding art. My Dear Friend in Sweden is an artist/Poet/Photographer. I am a poet I suppose. I think AI as it is can make logical steps, yet I don't think it can offer the uniqueness of the artists. For instance abstract art. Or, the qualities of poetry like tone. Or, I am just being defensive of humanness with all its qualities and unknown potentials. 
         
         I, also, have a question lingering in the recess of my mind. Will each robot doing art produce the same art since they have the same programming. Or, as Hinton shared regard layering alongside learning will each produce something unique?

         replyreport
         1. 91

            Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I too have become “more and more intrigued by the growth/advancement of AI and robotics”; I first learnt about neural networks (a fundamental part of AI) from the 1990s, from reading the ‘New Scientist’ magazines, watching it’s slow development over the years – a painfully slow process until 2012 because the technology just wasn’t advanced enough for any major breakthrough until 2012.
            
            A Neural Network works in much the same way as the human brain works e.g. a network of simple (on/off) computer chips (just like neurons in the human brain) interconnected (just like the human brain); which allows the computer to learn from its mistakes, and remember (rather than having to be programmed).
            
            This short video gives some insight into an overview of Neural Networks:  https://youtu.be/aIZtJqtzdQs
            
            Wow, your nephew’s path into robotics and computer science is impressive; I should imagine that you could have some really interesting discussions with him.
            
            Yes, I agree, Ai-Da’s answers to questions are somewhat lacking, and vague; but I guess (with the current level of technology) she is still a child!  We’ve come a long way in just 10 years, just think how advanced such robots like Ai-Da could be in another 10 years – with the opportunities and risks that imposes on us!
            
            Where in your penultimate paragraph you make a sensible suggestion that currently AI’s can’t “offer the uniqueness of art" e.g. "abstract art"; before responding, I made a quick check on what artwork Ai-Da has done, and found that yes, she also does do abstract painting – and at the bottom is a photo of her showing off one of her abstract paintings at one of her exhibitions (The exhibition in the photo being held at the University of Oxford, England).
            
            Certainly; at the current level of technology AI systems like Ai-Da still have limited brains e.g. only a modest number of artificial neurons.  I don’t know how many artificial neurons Ai-Da has in her brain, but I guess it’s limited.   Currently, the most extensive artificial neural network currently known is the Google Brain, which was reported to have over 100 billion artificial neurons in 2020:  In comparison, the human brain has 86 billion neurons.
            
            In answer to your question “Will each robot doing art produce the same art since they have the same programming.” the answer is ‘no’; because AI’s learn by using their neural networks (rather than being programmed), so like humans each one will be an individual.
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 86

               tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Interesting, Arthur! Thanks for sharing and feeding my curiosity. On art, I remain stuck for now. Though the art is aesthetic in nature from what Ai-Da produces I am left it was in my mind mechanically produced, though of a somewhat thinking machine.
               
               I question myself through introspection, the concept of original thought. Yes, I know supposedly that does not exist today. Supporting that is a short article sketching it out. The website is Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist.
               
               The question asked was, Is it possible to have a completely original thought? The answer by 'Physicist' is; "Nope!  At least, not for the last 27 years." The article was written in 2014, so that means for 36 years instead of 27.
               
               The comments following the article were interesting to read too.
               
               https://www.askamathematician.com/2014/ … l-thought/
               
               With reflection, perhaps in defense of my Dear Friend an artist, I remain her creativity is original if anything to herself. That is powerful in my mind as it relates to human potential and growth as a unique individual.
               
               Since I know her quite well having written to each other over ten years, though haven't met, and have had the opportunity of seeing her work over that time period I have seen 'change' with different aspects of form, line, shape, value, color, texture, and space. She transitioned from doing children's book illustrations to abstract art while maintaining each. Along, with that her history. I say, yes, originality does exist! But, that is just me.
               
               What are your thoughts?

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Ai-Da, built in 2019 and named after Ada Lovelace (1815-1852) was built in collaboration with a robotics company in Cornwall, England, Oxford University and Leeds University.
                  
                  Reading more about Ai-Da, she has her sceptics and critics, especially in the art world who quite understandably try to dumb down her creativity by stressing that it’s no more than computer algorithms; there’s no doubt that the art world does feel threatened by her, especially as sales of her paintings have topped $1 million.
                  
                  But in my view, she is more than just computer algorithms – She is more than the sum of her parts:-
                  
                  With camera eyes fixed on her subject, AI algorithms prompt Ai-Da’s neuron network to interrogate, select, decision-make, and ultimately create a painting.  And it’s not a quick process, she takes more than five hours to do a painting, and no two works are ever exactly the same.
                  
                  At the bottom is a couple of works, showing different painting styles by Ai-Da; the first is a self-portrait, and the second is a portrait of the Queen.
                  
                  While reading up on Ai-Da’s life, it was interesting to learn that in 2021 on her visit to Egypt for an Exhibition at the Great Pyramid of Giza, she was seized by Egyptian border agents and held for 10 days, being accused of being a spy; it created a bit of a diplomatic incident for a while between the UK and Egypt!
                  
                  So the point I’m getting to is that there needs to  debate and discussion globally on this issue, and decisions need to be made globally on whether AI should be Regulated, and if so, what Regulation, and to what level?  That seems to be already happening to some extent with the Movie Makers in Hollywood.
                  
                  I found your link another interesting dimension to consider:  It is difficult to define what an original thought is, and to what extent a thought is original, when in fact the thoughts we have are only an extension built upon the foundations of our previous knowledge and experience (our programming). 
                  
                  And with such a large population, duplication of thought is going to be common; an example that sprang to mind, from reading your link, is the reference to Laurie Anderson’s “three minutes and forty-four seconds of white-noise while wearing an extraneous prosthesis”, which not only draws a parallel to John Cage’s 4’33” referenced in the article; but also reminds me of single (45) record my mum once bought called ‘Rest’ by the ‘Mutes’ e.g. 3 minutes of silence (a blank record) (nothing other than the white noise of the needle), my mum enjoyed it because it was a novelty?
                  
                  Below:  Ai-Da Self Portrait
                  
                  
                  Below:  Ad-Da's portrait of The Queen
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     First, in my original OP the fourth link at the bottom of the page is the legislation by states for AI regulation. Our National Congress has had hearings on the topic for quite a while now as they mull over the whys and how to regulate it.
                     
                     Yes, both AI and humans facilitate layering for learning, yet I am not sure if those two parallel with thinking. I don't think neuroscience quite has a grasp on it as yet since there is more than one theory on the mind, though they seek evidence for one or the other
                     
                     I have been doing an on-off study on 'belief' over the recent years. So, I wonder if AI has beliefs? Or, only rules. From what I have gathered thus far beliefs are not static, they are dynamic. Is not AI dependent on static data? And, entrenched rules?

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Thanks, I’ll have a closer look at your fourth link more closely when we get back from holiday.
                        
                        Yes, we are still a long way from understanding all of the intricacies of the workings of the human brain and mind, and exactly what consciousness, intelligence and thought are etc.  – We’re still only scratching the surface.  Although, when making parallels between AI and humans, we should remind ourselves that in humans most of our thought processes don’t happen in our conscious mind, but in our subconscious mind.
                        
                        I very much doubt that AI’s (at least at present) have ‘belief’, but the AIs that use neural networks have more than just ‘rules’.  AI’s using neural networks aren’t just dependent on static data, nor entrenched rules, they are capable of grasping concepts beyond their computer algorithms ( just as humans are capable of grasping concepts beyond our programming); that’s what distinguishes AI’s like Ai-Da from just smart programmes in games that give the appearance of AI through clever computer algorithms.
                        
                        This video (25 minutes) provides some deep insight into the similarities and differences between the workings of a neuron network in the human brain, and neural networks in an AI’s brain:  https://youtu.be/hmtQPrH-gC4
                        
                        Interestingly, at about 21 minutes and 20 seconds into the video, a point is made (in passing), whereby the computer neural network used in an experimental study, on how neuron networks work in the human brain, was able to grasp concepts that wasn’t specified to it!  Although you’d probably need to start watching a few minutes before that point to grasp what is being said!

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Thanks for the video reference. Very interesting! I knew about neurons, axons, and dendrites from a psychology class that spent about a third of the semester on the brain. Yet, the math part of it in the video was new.
                           
                           Also, in a power reading class I took we studied layering for learning. So, that laid my foundation for my path to understanding programming concepts leading to algorithms. If you think about it the formulas used for Microsoft Excel are algorithms.
                           
                           I will ponder 'beliefs' in the context of AI contrasting the human mind as time goes on.

                           replyreport
                           1. 91

                              Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                              Following the UK Government Press Conference on AI risks yesterday I did some quick background research on some of the points raised in the Q&A section of the Press Conference and in the process learnt about AGI – which is a fascinating subject in itself.
                              
                              AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) in a nut shell is the next evolutionary step from AI (Artificial Intelligence); AGI is a hypothetical AI that would have the same level of intelligence (or higher) as humans.  For those who fear the ‘Skynet’ AI scenario, it’s not AI that would pose that kind of threat, it’s an AGI system that could have the potential for a Skynet type risk.
                              
                              Current expert opinion is divided on if and when we may have AGI, although some are arguing that some of today’s most advanced AI systems could be described as an early primitive form of AGI?
                              
                              This short video gives a brief overview on the subject of AGI; where we currently are, and how it’s rapidly evolving:  https://youtu.be/Rog9oHtVmjM
                              
                              In context to your last point, I doubt AI's have beliefs, but in watching the video above, it may raise the question of whether AGI's will develop beliefs?  Thought provoking perhaps?

                              replyreport
                     2. 91

                        Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        One final thought (for “food for thought”):
                        
                        Physically the human brain is little more that billions of interconnected ‘on/off’ switches (neurons) that are pre-programmed at birth; which is how computer neuron networks are designed and made (to mimic the human brain) e.g. loads of simple on/off silicon switches that are pre-programmed when the network is built (simple computer algorithms), and it’s the mimicking of the human brain in design and build which make true AI possible – So that in essence, computer neuron networks fundamentally work in a similar manor to the human brain (mimicking nature).

                        replyreport
                     3. 91

                        Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        I had a quick glance at your fourth link; I’ll read it in more detail when we get back from holiday - It looks interesting.
                        
                        I had a quick check to see what is happening in the UK; and the UK Government published a White Paper (3 months consultation period) in March, entitled “AI regulation: a pro-innovation approach”, seeking views from ‘all’ interested parties prior to the Government formulating any Government Policy/Legislation/Regulations.
                        
                        https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati … hite-paper

                        replyreport
                     4. 91

                        Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        I’ve finally got around to having a good look at your fourth link in your original OP; I didn’t read every section in detail, but I did skim through it, and I read a lot of the AI related Legislation by California.  One thing that struck me is currently any such Regulations on AI in America is uncoordinated e.g. State laws rather than Federal laws – but I did see one Californian Bill that requests that AI Regulation be done at Federal level; which I think would be a good thing, and which may well soon be facilitated by the UK, as explained below:-
                        
                        As I previously mentioned, the UK Government published a White Paper (Consolation paper) on AI in March; the consultation period being from March to June.  Based on that consultation, yesterday the UK Government held a Press Conference, launching its Government Policy on AI and announcing the first ever ‘Global Safety Summit’, to be held next week, organised and hosted by the UK Government at Bletchley Park (home of Britain's Second World War codebreakers).
                        
                        In next week’s ‘Global Safety Summit’, which the UK Government is modelling on the successful Global Climate Change summits, over 100 interested parties (key players) from around the world have been invited, including the EU, USA Government, China and Google (as a leading expert in AI) – my understanding is that America is sending the vice President to the AI summit in the UK next week.
                        
                        The current status globally is that the EU is currently passing Legislation, which will become law by the end of the year, with a 2 year delay before it becomes active to allow time for Industry to adapt.  And China passed similar laws in August this year – so other countries are already taking AI risks seriously.
                        
                        The UK’s stance, as explained by the Prime Minister in yesterday’s press conference, is on a continual basis, as AI continues to develop and evolve, to assess and monitor emerging and potential risks so that the Government can make Regulations to mitigate those risks in an informed and proactive way that’s proportionate.  In that respect, the UK Government has now set up a Government Department that will, independently to the AI industry itself, assess and monitor emerging and potential risks; and to aid this new Government Department not only is the Government investing in a supercomputer, but will also be building a quantum computer.
                        
                        For clarity, a supercomputer is a conventional computer that’s thousands of times more powerful than the computers we have on our office or home desk e.g. the type of computer used by the UK Meteorological Office to accurately predict the UK weather in the short and medium term.  While a Quantum Computer is a computer that uses quantum physics to work e.g. of the type jointly owned by NASA and Google – A quantum computer can solve problems within just a few minutes, that even the most powerful supercomputers would take tens of thousands of years to solve.
                        
                        But also, as explained in yesterday’s press conference, the UK Government, recognising and taking steps to mitigate against the risks, wants the UK to become a world leader in AI because of the job opportunities (employment) and economic growth that being a world leader attracts.
                        
                        Below - Link to yesterday’s press conference, given by the UK’s Prime Minister; the Prime Ministers speech is about 15 minutes, the remaining 25 minutes are the Q&A for UK News Media.
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/live/hSup6mgNhzQ

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                           That is amazing that the UK as well as the EU have taken the initiative to move forward on legislation and develop an official government sector for AI usage. I feel it is important to protect the average Joe and Jill of the streets. And, still allow businesses to make good and 'proper' use of AI. I have reservations about governments using it. I know our military is capitalizing on it. I ponder that.
                           
                           Our Congress had hearings in Sept about AI. There were a handful of experts for it at the hearing that were questioned. From the wrap of the hearing comes key takeaways:
                           
                           ** Artificial Intelligence, if harnessed correctly, creates an opportunity for federal agencies to better achieve their mission.
                           
                           ** The federal government must responsibly govern its use of AI systems, and it must do so with appropriate oversight and accountability.
                           
                           ** The Biden Administration is delinquent in complying with laws and regulations intended to facilitate the appropriate use of AI by federal agencies. The Subcommittee has and will continue to lead and press for action on this issue.
                           
                           Hearing Wrap Up: Federal Government Use of Artificial Intelligence Poses Promise, Peril from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability (There are a couple of videos of the questioning)
                           https://oversight.house.gov/release/hea … ise-peril/
                           
                           I skimmed through the video you offered. It is of length and now I am working on an article I want to publish today here on HP. I will go back and watch it at length later today. However, I like what I heard stopping here and there. Thanks for sharing!!
                           
                           For info: In the other forum area for writing on HP are several OP threads on AI. Most are related to its effect on its usage with writing content and its viability affecting us everyday writers. Specifically, our content/articles being able to be seen on the web as well as making a buck. In other words, will AI articles overrun the web? Many freelancers have shared their views on it on the web. One big contention is copyright laws.

                           replyreport
                           1. 91

                              Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                              Yep, I appreciate your reservations of governments using IA e.g. American military capitalising on it etc.  It’s consistent with attitudes I frequently see from Americans on HP forums.   It’s a concern which generally isn’t as strong in Europe, as Europeans tend to have more trust in our governments (establishment) and the military isn’t so prominent in politics in Europe e.g. our British Ministry of Defence have to beg for funding from the UK Government just as much as every other UK Government Department.
                              
                              Thanks for highlighting to me that there are other HP forums on the subject AI, which when I’m less busy will be something I can look out for and browse.
                              
                              As you may be aware, today is the 2nd day of the world’s first global summit on AI Safety; yesterday Elon Musk gave his warnings to the summit, the King gave his views, and USA Vice President Kamala Harris gave a lengthy speech at the USA Embassy in London just prior to attending the summit.
                              
                              If you haven’t seen it, Vice President Kamala Harris speech on AI: https://www.youtube.com/live/o2e45CpQiMc
                              
                              Elon Musk’s views at the AI Summit:  https://youtu.be/UvAR8wESFaw

                              replyreport
   3. 74

      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Can't imagine anything over taking the humans imagination. For everything in life achieved was all once immigrated. Same for any tool like AI that comes along. It's alway the human abused, fears and harm that comes from that kind of tool that changes the laws to it's healthier human condition usage. The fear of nuclear war or climate change is another fear mongering tool method for empowering them and giving less to the rest of us. That plays on our emotion intelligence over our mental intelligence. Won't see a machine that out thinks my EIQ holistically in my lifetime.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Cool! There is a lot of direction one could go with speculating about AI, right? It is a new field in its infancy. For some that is the fear. And, as GA inferred with Skynet from the Terminator movie series with Arnold Schwarzenegger who knows where it may lead? See the link next from Wikipedia about Skynet. Did you see any of the Terminator movies?
         
         Skynet (Terminator)
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(Terminator)

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Arnold got the part because he showed he could think and act like a robot. Hollywood is a testing ground on how far the globalist can take an inch and see how far they can take it for a mile, where is the happy ending?. Like big experiment on human reactions. Hollywood has become an corrupted art form. See how Disney has failed in genderism box office sales. I love the old movie with greater meanings and well being fulfilment. Like wizard of Oz. It was light and deep meanings with a happy ending like (No place like home)

            replyreport
2. 81

   Credence2posted 14 months ago

   I may be considered an alarmist but the quote from this film "Terminator" seem to remain in my memory
   
   "Kyle Reese: New, powerful, hooked into everything, trusted to run it all. They say it got smart - a new order of intelligence. Then it saw all people as a threat. Not just the ones on the other side. It decided our fate in a microsecond. Extermination."
   
   ----
   
   Only human beings can create, while machines can only mimic. I fear that the technology is just another way for the malevolent to take advantage of others just that more quickly.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      ***

      replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, Cred, a stark warning especially considering what Sci-fi has shown the future may be. From ancient days through today, what was told eerily came to fruition. Agreed, caution very much is to be exercised toward how products of science are put to use.

      replyreport
3. 91

   Nathanvilleposted 13 months ago

   UK AI safety summit: 28 countries sign up to the Bletchley declaration (including the USA & China):  https://youtu.be/ta1PKX4F1e0
   
   In summary - The Bletchley Declaration:-
   
   "28 countries at the summit, including the United States, China, and the European Union, have issued an agreement known as the "Bletchley Declaration", calling for international co-operation to manage the challenges and risks of artificial intelligence.
   
   Emphasis has been placed on regulating "Frontier AI", a term for the latest and most powerful AI systems.
   
   President of the United States Joe Biden signed an executive order requiring AI developers to share safety results with the US government.  The US Government also announced the creation of an American AI Safety Institute, as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
   
   Future:
   The next AI Safety Summit is planned to be hosted by South Korea in mid-2024, followed by France around late-2024.
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_AI_S … t#Outcomes

   replyreport
   1. 86

      tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks Nathan for the up-to-date info. I wonder if they can keep up with the pace of the quickly advancing AI.
      
      BTW . . . what do you think of the Beatles song, Now and Then, just released using AI? I see it is getting mixed reviews. I haven't heard the song in full yet.
      
      The Beatles’ final song is now streaming thanks to AI by the Verge (11/02/2023)
      https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/2/2394 … ew-song-ai
      
      Well, I see there is an official video for it posted on YouTube. I will listen to it now.
      
      The Beatles - Now And Then (Official Audio)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW55J2zE3N4

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, it is going to be challenging for world leaders to “keep up with the pace of the quickly advancing AI.”; that’s why, I think, the first three summits are just 6 months apart, rather than just annually like the COP (Climate Change) summits e.g. the next two being in South Korea next summer, and in France next winter.
         
         Thanks for the link to the new Beatles song; using your link is the first time I’ve heard it – and my first impression was that it seemed rather sombre?  Not their usual upbeat music.
         
         A couple of my favourite artists from that era includes Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon, Echoes, Another Brick in Wall) etc., and White Noise by An Electric Storm.
         
         White Noise - An Electric Storm [FULL ALBUM 1969]:  https://youtu.be/2jLa7eEaFjk

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I know that during the 1920s, England had the largest empire the world had ever seen.  It was larger than the Roman Empire or the Mongolian Empire.
            
            Quite impressive for an island of people.
            
            In your estimation, what happened to change things?

            replyreport
            1. 91

               Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               In short simple terms -Two reasons mainly:-
               
               1.    The British Empire was held together by suppression, and many that were suppressed by the English rebelled e.g. the American war of Independence (1775-83), India’s rebellion against the British in 1857, the Irish war of Independence against Britain in the 1920s etc.
               
               2.    The second reason was largely due to the world wars.  Both wars left Britain weakened and less able to maintain its grip on its Empire. And Britain had become economically devastated by the wars, and became more financially reliant on the USA, who then became the more dominant force in the world.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  When I was in England, I had a rather interesting discussion with a University professor.  He made some very valid point.
                  
                  He claims the United States could not have grown and become as successful as it has should any country other than England have colonized it. 
                  
                  I have to agree.  Our court system, laws, etc. came from an English model.  Our military is modeled after England's military. 
                  
                  The other point was that the countries colonized by England are some of the most successful countries in the world. The United States, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
                  
                  So, his point to me was England's empire gave much to the world.
                  
                  I couldn't argue that point.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Yep, I agree

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        Yep, I figured that you would, and I agree with you.
                        
                        I remember the Queen Elizabeth's 70 year in reign celebration when all the nations that were part of the British Commonwealth were there with their flags and proud to participate.

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                           Yep, absolutely
                           
                           By the end of the 19th century England owned and occupied 25% of the world, and although it was achieved through suppression, the legacy left behind by the British Empire is more positive, as stated by Readmikenow.

                           replyreport
            2. 69

               Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Did things really change?
               
               Or did the appearance of things change?
               
               The Royal family is still quite powerful, though some put their net worth at only 80 billion or so, one of the greatest banking dynasties of all time, the London-based Rothschild Group is still controlled and managed by the family, they are worth a trillion or two.
               
               But you also have to consider, these same families that have been around controlling things for centuries know how to hide their wealth in offshore accounts, companies, trusts, Swiss accounts, etc. who knows how much wealth and influence they really have.
               
               Control and power come in all forms, the UK does not dominate the way it used to... but it isn't exactly subservient to anyone... and the UK is still meddling in matters all over the world.

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  The Rothschild’s are steeped in conspiracy theories; so you need to divorce fact from fiction before making such claims e.g. most of the claims you read about the Rothschild’s on the web have been debunked as false information (conspiracy theories).

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Do I?
                     
                     I think it far more reasonable to assume those with control over trillions of dollars influence a great deal that occurs in this world.
                     
                     Some of them do it behind the scenes, some of them are far more public.
                     
                     Th Royal Family is in the public eye, Elon Musk is in the public eye, for those who are known, there are just as many relatively unknown powerful and immensely rich people influencing a great deal more than most realize.

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        And hence the perpetuation of conspiracy theories; such as for example the conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds control the Bank of England, which is totally untrue.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                           Conspiracy theories quite often prove to be true these days.
                           
                           I haven't researched the Rothschilds, but one has to be naive to think that a family controlling trillions hasn't had major impact on society and politics.
                           
                           So, on a quick search I find:
                           
                           Meyer Amschel Rothschild, who founded the great international banking house of Rothschild which, through its affiliation with the European Central Banks, still dominates the financial policies of practically every country in the world, said: ‘Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.’
                           
                           "The real power is not corporate; it is private. They choose not to have a name. It is a dynasty of banking families - Rothschild and Rockefeller being two - that operate chiefly out of London, in the boardrooms out of the city of London and the Bank of England, which they own."
                           — Betty Dodson
                           
                           "By remaining behind the scenes, they (the Rothschilds) were able to avoid the brunt of public anger which was directed, instead, at the political figures which they largely controlled. This is a technique which has been practiced by financial manipulators ever since, and it is fully utilized by those who operate the Federal Reserve System today."
                           — G. Edward Griffin
                           
                           "Though they control scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, not one bears the name Rothschild. Being private partnerships, the family houses never need to, and never do, publish a single public balance sheet, or any report of their financial condition."
                           — Frederic Morton
                           
                           I think only a fool would discard the realities of what has been shown by example time and again. 
                           
                           We see what wealthy men have done, the impacts they had on nations and societies, Carnagie and Rockefeller are two that many Americans are familiar with, and the Rothschilds were far richer than that.
                           
                           We can see that influence today, in Bezos and Musk, who buy up social media sites, newspapers, communications corporations, etc.
                           
                           We can see that in the billions donated by Soros through his Open Society Foundations and the impact his beliefs have on policy and politics.
                           
                           https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are
                           
                           Open Boders, a Nation-less world, decriminalizing crime, some of the most anarchistic politicians and non-profits are funded through his efforts.

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                              "Conspiracy theories quite often prove to be true these days."
                              
                              However, far too many are still BS, Qanon?

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                 Credence, you follow the Qanon all you like.
                                 
                                 I'll stick to the real voices that stand up, in person, and tell the truth.
                                 
                                 Tulsi Gabbard is one such person, with nothing to gain and plenty to lose, she sat in Congress and spoke to the House Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee hearing, explaining how agencies are being weaponized against those who hold controversial opinions.
                                 
                                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GYW10F2MSc
                                 
                                 Yes, I listen to those who have served and sacrificed, I listen to the people like her, and others based on their experience and expertise, just like I listen to people like Elon Musk when it comes to rockets and electric vehicles and AI.
                                 
                                 Where my views and opinions come from are well founded, if I am influenced, it is by those that are doing more, risking more, and are more vocal than I am.
                                 
                                 I could care less about what some site that is probably run by the FBI or CIA says.  Those that pay it any attention are easily duped.  It is an obvious insult anytime you bring it up or try to associate such nonsense with what I express.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 81

                                    Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                    Where my views and opinions come from are well founded, if I am influenced, it is by those that are doing more, risking more, and are more vocal than I am.
                                    -------
                                    Your views are always well founded, do you believe views by others are not?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 69

                                       Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                       Of course not.
                                       
                                       A person who watches CNN and takes what they say as gospel, does not  check the information they are given, does not have the same depth of understanding, a solid foundation to build their opinions on that I do.
                                       
                                       That doesn't mean I am smarter, it just means I am better informed, have a stronger foundation and understanding of a topic, if I have taken the time to delve deeper into sources of information to determine for myself the truth of the matter.
                                       
                                       I have conversations with people all the time and I am often astounded by their lack of knowledge on the subject we are discussing.  Yet they can regurgitate some basic splash of information they picked up from CNN or FOX.
                                       
                                       As an example, how often over the course of the last several months have you read about Ukraine's victory being just days away?
                                       
                                       Be Prepared for Ukrainian Victory Over Russia
                                       https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/10/uk … rn-europe/
                                       
                                       Why Ukraine Will Win
                                       https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/why- … -will-win/
                                       
                                       Could Ukraine win and Russia lose the war? - NPR
                                       https://www.npr.org/2022/03/18/10873143 … t-analysis
                                       
                                       If you looked over the headlines the last year, you should have seen such more than once.  Point being, many Americans think Ukraine is winning the war, that Russia is losing badly.
                                       
                                       As you know, I've dug a bit deeper into this topic, from Ukraine and Russia's histories, to the political issues within the nation, the differing cultures, who supported the overthrow and install of a new regime, why and how, what Crimeans really felt and why they wanted to separate from Ukraine, etc. etc.
                                       
                                       So no, I don't think the majority of Americans have a well founded idea about what is going on in the world, or in their country. 
                                       
                                       Its probably why I return here to Hubpages, to debate, with people who offer informed counters, with people living in other nations.

                                       report
                                       1. 81

                                          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                          I am not blind to the knowledge that you bring to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. And you have delved into it more than I have had time to do so, it is noteworthy. But, I certainly would not grant you the same level of knowledge and expertise on other topics, as I do know something about many of them.
                                          
                                          Mike seems to have at least as much of knowledge about the Ukraine situation as you do, yet you two have totally different opinions. So your knowledge is relative depending upon your point of view.

                                          report
                                          1. 69

                                             Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                             That is true, there is a wealth of topics out there I know nothing or little about.
                                             
                                             That is the enjoyable part of interaction here, often I will go and research something I otherwise would not have, sometimes people bring a great perspective on the matter.
                                             
                                             Most people find there way to Hubpages because of a desire to write, that in and of itself puts them in a minority of people that go above and beyond the norm when it comes to researching information, articulating knowledge to others, etc.
                                             
                                             In regards to Mike, typically our views are closely aligned in regards to most topics discussed here. 
                                             
                                             The issue with this topic is Mike is emotionally invested into this war, much in the same as someone Jewish or Palestinian who has ties to people living in that part of the world is invested into that ongoing conflict.
                                             
                                             Mike's perspectives therefore are heavily biased.

                                             report
                                             1. 86

                                                tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                                Interjecting . . . one element is from my perspective there is a difference between being passionate about a topic contrast knowing enough to support a position contrasting cursory knowledge contrasting knowing enough to get by and that varies over a lifetime for most.
                                                
                                                For example, I did not give a diddly squat about politics until 2015. I was 61 at that time. And, it probably is third in my passion list. 
                                                
                                                And, of importance, time! From observation, the participants in this forum topic have time, though I may be wrong. And, have a higher-than-average passion for the topic of Politics and social issues.

                                                report
                                                1. 69

                                                   Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                                   Of course, for example, when the Ukraine war started I knew very little in regards to Russian/Ukranian history, the current status of Russia's army, its economy, same for Ukraine.
                                                   
                                                   So much of those first few months it was a process of gathering information, reviewing a variety of sources, including what Mike had to say.
                                                   
                                                   The war has lasted 620+ days, I have easily put in 620+ hours watching and reading about it.  More than just the war itself, but about the people, the cultures, what happened ten years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago that all ties into what is going on now and the various perspectives and beliefs. 
                                                   
                                                   So that today, in comparison to 99.9% of the American public, I am fairly well informed about the matter.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 86

                                                      tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                                      Passion!!! Kudos!

                                                      report
                                                      1. 69

                                                         Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                                         Hmmm... well, I suppose.
                                                         
                                                         I typically research the heck out of something that catches my interest.
                                                         
                                                         But that doesn't translate too much into me writing about the topics unless they come up in a thread here.
                                                         
                                                         I think the issue with me for the Ukaine war is I know it was not only avoidable but was agitated for by the Biden Administration... and that really pisses me off.
                                                         
                                                         It pisses me off because its a combination of arrogance and insanity to instigate conflict with the nation that has the largest amount of nuclear weapons.
                                                         
                                                         It pisses me off because millions of lives were going to suffer immensely for the arrogance and idiocy of those in this Administration who are gleefully doing this evil for the benefit of corporations and corruption.
                                                         
                                                         It pisses me off because so many people buy the BS the MSM and DC hacks put out about this war.  Its really a combination of disgust and demoralizing to see how easily the American public is duped into supporting senseless war that could have easily been avoided.
                                                         
                                                         So curiosity combined with being pissed goes a long way into me digging deep into something... yeah, I guess that qualifies as passion.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 95

                                                            Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                                            "Of course, for example, when the Ukraine war started I knew very little in regards to Russian/Ukranian history, the current status of Russia's army, its economy, same for Ukraine."
                                                            
                                                            You still know very little about it.

                                                            report
                                                            1. 69

                                                               Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                                               Sorry, you're not the expert, you're just emotionally tied in.
                                                               
                                                               Not the same thing, at all.

                                                               report
                                 2. 91

                                    Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                    I agree with Credence; Conspiracy Theories are only real to those who get dragged down into rabbit holes, such as those that are common on social media sites like Twitter.
                                    
                                    As regards your reference to the conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds own the Bank of England; if you fact-check the claims in that conspiracy, part of the confusion that led to the conspiracy theory is that the Rothschild Bank in England is headquartered in London, and in the conspiracy theory often gets that confused with the Bank of England (also in London) – even though they are two separate banks that having nothing to do with each other.
                                    
                                    And, for a brief period Alfred de Rothschild (1842-1918) was a director of the Bank of England for 20 years; and Baron George (who is not a Rothschild) was the Governor of the Bank of England from 1992 to 2003, and also sat on the board of the Rothschild Bank in England.
                                    
                                    And in 1825 the Rothschild supplied the Bank of England with enough coins to advert a liquidity crisis.
                                    
                                    But beyond that the Rothschilds do not own or control the Bank of England in anyway – I suggest you do research into who runs the Bank of England, how it’s managed and what its role is in the British economy:  If you do you will see that the Rothschilds do not have any involvement or influence in the control or running of the Bank of England.

                                    replyreport
                           2. 91

                              Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                              Yep, a “quick search shows” this, that and the other; but that doesn’t make it true e.g. they do NOT own or control the Bank of England in any way….

                              replyreport
         2. 86

            tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I thought 'Meh' listening to Now and Then. I expected more maybe because of the hype that TV programs made it out to be like TMZ Live did. Yet, I appreciate its uniqueness.
            
            Thanks for the link to White Noise. I had not heard of them. I am listening now to it. It is different. My favorite music genre is Progressive Rock, so Pink Floyd is a definite fav of mine. Yes, King Crimson, Tangerine Dream, The Moody Blues, Mike Oldfield, and Jethro Tull are just a few on my list. I have a station I programmed on Pandora with Progressive Rock that I listen to while sitting at my PC.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               Nathanvilleposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Yep, what you list are also some of my favourites.  And yes White Noise is quite different – It’s even better on the original vinyl LP played on an analogue hi-fi because some of the sound frequencies are beyond the hearing range (which are chopped off in the modern digital formats), which add to the atmospheric effect e.g. listening to it on a hi-fi with your eyes closed, it’s fully immersive.
               
               I also like the music by Mike Oldfield’s sister (Sally Oldfield) e.g. Mirrors:  https://youtu.be/7-jzTSm-0hk
               
               These days the only radio station I listen to is Boom Radio.  It was launched by DJ’s from the Baby Boomer era during the pandemic, many of whom started their career as DJ’s on the illegal radio pirate ships just outside of British jurisdiction during the 1960s; playing music (such as the Beatles music) which at the time the BBC refused to play. 
               
               Then following the UK’s Government introduction of new Legislation (with the consent of other countries) to allow the British Authorities to go into International waters to close down the pirate ships, the BBC subsequently hired most of the pirate radio station DJs, and gave them free range to play the music that the BBC had previously prohibited – So it its defeat, a victory for pirate radio.
               
               A film called ‘The Boat that Rocked’ based on true events of the time, covers the historic events of those days was made in 2009.  The Boat that Rocked (British 2009 comedy-drama film), 2 hrs and 15 minutes long; re-edited for the USA under the name of ‘Pirate Radio’, with 18 minutes (mostly the sex scenes) cut-out for the American market!
               
               The Boat that Rocked – Trailer (based on true events, and historically correct):  https://youtu.be/pyXu0mC38SE
               
               When on holiday in Essex a few years ago we visited the only remaining pirate radio ship in existence – now a tourist attraction and of historic value.
               
               What makes Boom Radio different is that it is a Radio station run by baby boomers for baby boomers; and unequally, it’s not run from a radio station, but operates from the individual homes of the baby boomer DJ’s around the country.
               
               The Launch of Boom Radio:  https://youtu.be/dxqz93_2jno

               replyreport