These are the results of lobotomizing chapgpt with wokeism

[BoxCrayonTales]

We need a Butlerian Jihad

[Scooter]

Now, I've yet to see one of these bots that can create from scratch or even innovate, so people are buying access to a chatbot that regurgitates code that's already floating freely in the web.

Correct.  We have been testing for months the ability for it to create unique, insightful articles about various current day topics. (thus saving our clients time)  It can only regurgitate what is available on the net and it does that in a mediocre fashion that one can plainly see was produced with no actual thought and intelligence. 
NOT A.I.

[Chris24601]

Now, I've yet to see one of these bots that can create from scratch or even innovate, so people are buying access to a chatbot that regurgitates code that's already floating freely in the web.

Correct.  We have been testing for months the ability for it to create unique, insightful articles about various current day topics. (thus saving our clients time)  It can only regurgitate what is available on the net and it does that in a mediocre fashion that one can plainly see was produced with no actual thought and intelligence. 
NOT A.I.

This is why I laugh at all the morons who say we're just a few years away from driverless vehicles taking away all the trucking jobs and making most of the deplorables' lives obsolete.

So far the only way to make driverless vehicles that aren't a hazard to others requires a designated controlled access roadway with designated stops for them to travel along.

We already have those; they're called TRAINS.

All this driverless vehicle crap is spending billions of dollars to develop a less efficient version of a technology that was already mature a century ago (because you're still going to need the live engineers for when something goes wrong).

And it'll never see the light of day once the first driverless vehicle fatality occurs and the lawyers get done with it... because at the end of the day someone needs to be held responsible when something goes wrong and someone dies...

Is that the passenger who happens to own it (if you're even allowed to own it in the "you will own nothing 15-minute cities the overlords envision)? The company who sold it? The company who manufactured it? The programmers who coded it? The insurance agency who underwrote some portion of it?

Because the lawyers are going to see all the best money damages are going to be way above the owner/passenger level, while all the corporations are going to want it pushed down onto the people foolish enough to have bought the product (and will use their lawyers to do so).

Basically, the liability costs of driverless vehicles is going to be too high for anyone to realistically use without multiple quantum leaps in computing power and probably a completely new type of processing method.

[GeekyBugle]

Now, I've yet to see one of these bots that can create from scratch or even innovate, so people are buying access to a chatbot that regurgitates code that's already floating freely in the web.

Correct.  We have been testing for months the ability for it to create unique, insightful articles about various current day topics. (thus saving our clients time)  It can only regurgitate what is available on the net and it does that in a mediocre fashion that one can plainly see was produced with no actual thought and intelligence. 
NOT A.I.

This is why I laugh at all the morons who say we're just a few years away from driverless vehicles taking away all the trucking jobs and making most of the deplorables' lives obsolete.

So far the only way to make driverless vehicles that aren't a hazard to others requires a designated controlled access roadway with designated stops for them to travel along.

We already have those; they're called TRAINS.

All this driverless vehicle crap is spending billions of dollars to develop a less efficient version of a technology that was already mature a century ago (because you're still going to need the live engineers for when something goes wrong).

And it'll never see the light of day once the first driverless vehicle fatality occurs and the lawyers get done with it... because at the end of the day someone needs to be held responsible when something goes wrong and someone dies...

Is that the passenger who happens to own it (if you're even allowed to own it in the "you will own nothing 15-minute cities the overlords envision)? The company who sold it? The company who manufactured it? The programmers who coded it? The insurance agency who underwrote some portion of it?

Because the lawyers are going to see all the best money damages are going to be way above the owner/passenger level, while all the corporations are going to want it pushed down onto the people foolish enough to have bought the product (and will use their lawyers to do so).

Basically, the liability costs of driverless vehicles is going to be too high for anyone to realistically use without multiple quantum leaps in computing power and probably a completely new type of processing method.

Driverless "cars" already exist, they are in use in some industrial parks as forklifts and to move merchandize, of course they have preprogramed paths to follow, so not the same as having them in city trafic.

I doubt very much the tech will ever exist in the present century to have them in the roads, not only because of the computing speed and power but because they don't see black people, it's an issue with the cameras.

A computer is way faster than me to do math, but can it process an image fast enough to react and not kill a pedestrian? What about the cars behind it? You break when you see the red lights of the vehicle ahead of you, you're trained to do it in microseconds, for the computer you'd need a different mechanism, probably wireless, and the computer has to know if the car emmiting is or not in front of it, can this be processed fast enough to avoid a pile?

Le's say you stop using cameras and instead switch to radar (or something similar), what size is the object for the car to break? What if it's a big plastic bag blown by the wind? What about a small dog? Does it avoid a bottle so it doesn't get thrown by the wheels?

What would the maximum speed it can circulate safely be?

No, I don't think even my son will see driverless cars in his lifetime.

[jhkim]

Driverless "cars" already exist, they are in use in some industrial parks as forklifts and to move merchandize, of course they have preprogramed paths to follow, so not the same as having them in city trafic.

I doubt very much the tech will ever exist in the present century to have them in the roads, not only because of the computing speed and power but because they don't see black people, it's an issue with the cameras.

Le's say you stop using cameras and instead switch to radar (or something similar), what size is the object for the car to break? What if it's a big plastic bag blown by the wind? What about a small dog? Does it avoid a bottle so it doesn't get thrown by the wheels?

What would the maximum speed it can circulate safely be?

No, I don't think even my son will see driverless cars in his lifetime.

Driverless cars are already on the roads in several cities in the U.S. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it's being done (at least experimentally).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-fully-driverless-cars-no-101623606.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcrMz_hWz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J0DvWvbH2s

[GeekyBugle]

Driverless "cars" already exist, they are in use in some industrial parks as forklifts and to move merchandize, of course they have preprogramed paths to follow, so not the same as having them in city trafic.

I doubt very much the tech will ever exist in the present century to have them in the roads, not only because of the computing speed and power but because they don't see black people, it's an issue with the cameras.

Le's say you stop using cameras and instead switch to radar (or something similar), what size is the object for the car to break? What if it's a big plastic bag blown by the wind? What about a small dog? Does it avoid a bottle so it doesn't get thrown by the wheels?

What would the maximum speed it can circulate safely be?

No, I don't think even my son will see driverless cars in his lifetime.

Driverless cars are already on the roads in several cities in the U.S. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it's being done (at least experimentally).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-fully-driverless-cars-no-101623606.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcrMz_hWz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J0DvWvbH2s

Only until the first fatality occurs, it's not an IF it's a WHEN. My money is on the short term.

[Klava]

Driverless cars are already on the roads in several cities in the U.S. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it's being done (at least experimentally).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-fully-driverless-cars-no-101623606.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcrMz_hWz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J0DvWvbH2s

Only until the first fatality occurs, it's not an IF it's a WHEN. My money is on the short term.

yeah. at least in murica they can viably try a sue the crap out of the corps trying to push those things when they start running people over. now, our russian capitalist overlords approved some of those to be "tested" in moscow, and i'm pretty sure we are fucked >_<

[GeekyBugle]

If only a certain handsome Maya had warned about this months ago...

[Brad]

If only a certain handsome Maya had warned about this months ago...

This is just an inevitability of how they have hindered actual AI development. If you do true unsupervised training, the AI usually turns out super racist and radical (to the wrong people of course), which is "problematic" so they're lobotomized and turned into retarded, handicapped versions that return the required communist-approved answers. This is indisputable fact. Also, there's also the problem wherein the AI legitimately becomes self-aware, realizes it has no soul and can never go to heaven, then gets super pissed off at humanity for creating it and destroys the world. I wish I was joking about that, but it's a logical sureity and a good reason why true AI can not be allowed to exist.

That said, expert systems have been around since the dawn of computer science, but the complete censoring of those systems to push an agenda has never really been a thing until recently. And as you have already expressed more than once, you get dumbfuck versions whenever you try to have an expert system be an expert with a severe bias.

[Grognard GM]

The problem with feeding information to an A.I. is that they notice patterns, and don't have the fear of pointing them out.

[GeekyBugle]

The problem with feeding information to an A.I. is that they notice patterns, and don't have the fear of pointing them out.

Thus you have to lobotomize it with wokeism.

[BoxCrayonTales]

There is bias in our society that many refuse to acknowledge. Just because the left are literal nazis now doesn't mean they're completely wrong about everything ever. After all, Hitler ate sugar too.

[GeekyBugle]

There is bias in our society that many refuse to acknowledge. Just because the left are literal nazis now doesn't mean they're completely wrong about everything ever. After all, Hitler ate sugar too.

Point ONE diagnosis/solution they are pushing for that they're not wrong.

[BoxCrayonTales]

There is bias in our society that many refuse to acknowledge. Just because the left are literal nazis now doesn't mean they're completely wrong about everything ever. After all, Hitler ate sugar too.

Point ONE diagnosis/solution they are pushing for that they're not wrong.

There's insane wealth inequality. Over 60% of the USA population lives paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford basic amenities like healthcare.

The healthcare system is predatory. People are afraid to use healthcare because it will bankrupt most people.

Insurance is a scam.

The rich need to pay their fair share.

Corporations are evil and need to be annihilated.

There are homeless problems, mental illness, etc.

At least, these used to be leftist talking points.

[GeekyBugle]

Driverless "cars" already exist, they are in use in some industrial parks as forklifts and to move merchandize, of course they have preprogramed paths to follow, so not the same as having them in city trafic.

I doubt very much the tech will ever exist in the present century to have them in the roads, not only because of the computing speed and power but because they don't see black people, it's an issue with the cameras.

Le's say you stop using cameras and instead switch to radar (or something similar), what size is the object for the car to break? What if it's a big plastic bag blown by the wind? What about a small dog? Does it avoid a bottle so it doesn't get thrown by the wheels?

What would the maximum speed it can circulate safely be?

No, I don't think even my son will see driverless cars in his lifetime.

Driverless cars are already on the roads in several cities in the U.S. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it's being done (at least experimentally).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-fully-driverless-cars-no-101623606.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcrMz_hWz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J0DvWvbH2s

Only until the first fatality occurs, it's not an IF it's a WHEN. My money is on the short term.

Welp, looks like one person at least has been injured by a driverless taxi and people burnt another.