civic
Well-known member
I'm not really into politics much but I know there are allot of people into the political scene with AI from an ethics, moral, political and society concerns. I know @armylngst has taken a deep dive into the topic.
Politics , Society, Ethics and A.I.
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
I am also looking from the outside, but I have had some experience in using some AI. (Not recommended.) I have some background from the military that has given me a rather realist take on it. It just automates what we have always done, and that includes manipulation, lies, and deceit. You aren't going to be able to believe what you see on television, what you see in the news, studies, reports, etc. Not because of the misinformation as we see today, but because with AI comes the power to create reality in the digital world. That is, things like deep fakes. Republicans have taken the first jump into AI (rather rudimentary), but if one sees that and considers what they want to be able to do with it, it's mind boggling. One candidate uses AI to answer people's questions, but for now it can only play video clips of the candidate where the information may be in the video. In the future, they want the AI to be able to generate it all on the fly, as told by a realistic avatar of the candidate. (They sort of have that right now, except it only uses video clips to respond.)
It interests me because it gives another gateway for possible demonic influence in the world. We only think we have control over what is going on, but do we really? Most of these things are left to run on their own. A Google engineer was fired from Google after claiming that their AI had gained sentience. Imagine what kind of mess that would create if people actually believed that?
civic
Well-known member
Thanks I talked to the owner of the company I work for who is a Believer and he has the same concerns about A.I.
My concern is how it brings some prophecies in Revelation closer to reality, through a technological means. It also gives concern when scripture talks about a great deception that could even deceive the elect. Seeing just how easy it is to manipulate information without AI gives pause for thought at what the output will be when AI is manipulating it. No one is policing the AI. No one will be able to police the AI, because no one truly knows how it works. Fact checking would be great, but when you have millions of articles output by AI in a day, who will be able to manage that?
civic
Well-known member
My boss had mentioned in the last days knowledge will increase which lines up with A.I. That is knowledge on steroids.
It seems that I am behind the times. Deep fake videos seem to be more stable then ever, so AI video could possibly be perfected in the next year or two to where it looks natural. That does not mean that the actual graphics will look right, though I could see that being improved within the next few years. The video is still janky on some AI engines, but they have cleaned it up a lot in some other programs. The color shifting, shadow changes, and other changes are not nearly as visible as they were in the past.
Sometimes I just don't want to think about it.
civic
Well-known member
I hear you brother .
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I messed around with ChatGPT concerning theology. Quick and knowledgeable when it comes to certain historical information. However, it is very biased when it comes to resources for information.
Ultimately, the goal of AI is to eliminate "dissenting views".
People today state all their opinions as "fact". The situation is worse when it comes to AI. When things are "seemingly equal", it will show a bias toward pre-programmed sources.
Ultimately, the goal of AI is to eliminate "dissenting views".
People today state all their opinions as "fact". The situation is worse when it comes to AI. When things are "seemingly equal", it will show a bias toward pre-programmed sources.
Rockson
Well-known member
So AI means Artificial Intelligence? Perhaps not the same thing but let me talk about baseball for a moment and the use of technology by and what I think will happen eventually. Today's game with the Pro League you have an advantage over the umpire. They have a rectangular box image inserted on your screen and when the pitcher throws the ball by a radar gun it defines with absolute accuracy where that ball was when crossing home place. Umpires do their best but the radar image thing is perfect. So years ago they didn't have this and when an UMP made a call, strike or ball it was always a mystery for the books was he right or wrong.
No mystery no more. A few years before they had a camera looking down at home plate you could see the ball crossing the plate but still a mystery if it was too high or low. Again what they've got now...no mystery. Every pitch they show the radar imagery. So how well do human umps really do? Not too bad I'd say but a surprising number of bad calls....quite a few strikes are really balls or vice versa. It must embarrass umpires after the games when they go back and watch and I wonder if their bosses judge their performance by using the radar thing.
Too many bad calls assessed at the end of a year and you lose your contract? I do think the human UMP will go by the way side in a few years. I mean why have batters upset and pitchers too at bad calls when a radar is exact? You could still have the human ump but he could call out what the computer is saying or some other things they could do. Or maybe they should get rid of the radar and stay with the mystery of the call being a part of the game. As long as sports last in this world I think there will be discussions about this in some day up ahead. I agree not important stuff here but interesting.
No mystery no more. A few years before they had a camera looking down at home plate you could see the ball crossing the plate but still a mystery if it was too high or low. Again what they've got now...no mystery. Every pitch they show the radar imagery. So how well do human umps really do? Not too bad I'd say but a surprising number of bad calls....quite a few strikes are really balls or vice versa. It must embarrass umpires after the games when they go back and watch and I wonder if their bosses judge their performance by using the radar thing.
Too many bad calls assessed at the end of a year and you lose your contract? I do think the human UMP will go by the way side in a few years. I mean why have batters upset and pitchers too at bad calls when a radar is exact? You could still have the human ump but he could call out what the computer is saying or some other things they could do. Or maybe they should get rid of the radar and stay with the mystery of the call being a part of the game. As long as sports last in this world I think there will be discussions about this in some day up ahead. I agree not important stuff here but interesting.
