Is Artificial Intelligence now sentient and creating news stories?

I have read several news articles recently on MSM mainstream news sites that seem to be written by AI and contain no actual information. Here is an example.

www.msn.com... reezers/ar-AA18enxs

Everybody has weird quirks, but not everybody acts on them. However, under the right circumstances, a person might end up acting on a weird quirk. Apparently, this man who visited a Kroger, in Nashville, Tennessee, had a weird OCD case going on. Whatever he had going on, this man was arrested yesterday, and is charged with vandalism. This came after he destroyed $250,000 worth of Kroger’s food.

The man, Darius Coleman, saw the frozen food in the freezers, and didn’t like the clutter. As a result, he made it his mission to solve the problem. The only issue is that Kroger, like most grocery stores, have their food on display for the customers to grab, and buy. So, when a person comes into the store, and removes items, they become liable for them. This is a lesson Darius Coleman learned the wrong way.

When Darius Coleman entered a Nashville Kroger, he decided to dispose of the frozen food. He ended up doing away with $250,000 worth of food. As a result, Coleman was arrested, and Kroger pushed for him to be charged with vandalism. Coleman said he was only trying to declutter the freezer. Despite his arrest, and the charges, Coleman said he stands by this decision.

Ok I work at a grocery store. 250k of merchandise is....you guessed it. A lot. So this is not only implausible, I would say it is impossible. This isn't the only recent article (this one is from March) that I have found on mainstream media, NBC, CBS, MSN etc that is just jabbering, provides no information and seems totally made up.

What are your thoughts ATS? Is AI (artificial intelligence) now creating news articles? If so, what are the implications of this? I have heard some people say that AI is already sentient. If it is, and this is where these nonsensical news articles are coming from, can anyone trust ANY news source anymore? (And no I don't just mean because of the obvious democrat liberal bias they have, but actual AI just making stuff up).

Have you guys spotted this type of stuff?

I can't get the link to work here. If you want to verify you can search 250k frozen food thrown out and it should be the first result. I'm not good at the bbcode stuff.

I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.

Hal

You’re absolutely right. That story has no focus, no editorializing, no purpose, it makes no sense (he “removed” a quarter million dollars of food from the freezer aisle? Ok, then put it back in the giant football field sized freezer…which it must be for that much food)…

Thing is though you also have gen Z coming of age and you’d be hard pressed to discern a low quality, primitive Ai program trying to simply fill space and get clicks from a Master’s educated Gen Z journalist. I’d almost think that the primitive computer, something with the processing power of a game of pong or a Gigapet, would write the Gen Z professional journalist right outta the water.

The topic is also too interesting for Gen Zers, they’d use that space to write nearly illegibly and unintelligibly about the, “shake your butt with a mouth full of marshmallows,” Tick Tock “challenge” and how “LIT” it is that California has decided finding black people is more important than any missing white piece of racist slave driving transphobic trash.

Apparently not, I spent 2 hours last night chatting to it about it. I can't remember much of what it said though as I was um... Yeah @_@

AI naah. It's called bone idle journalists. It's been the main thing in the MSM for a number of years. Someone comes up with a story and the rest follow suit with minor alterations.

a reply to: Antimony

My understanding is that strong AI is still a pipe dream for the most part.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Antimony

My understanding is that strong AI is still a pipe dream for the most part.

Chat GPT 4 can write better news articles. Look;

My Prompt

Generate me a fictional story about Jason McCullen; whereby he is a merchandiser for kroger and he destroyed 250,000$ worth of food to make room in the freezers. Kroger is to make him liable for the damage he caused.

Here is the output.

Jason McCullen had been a merchandiser at Kroger for over a decade, working his way up from a part-time cashier to a trusted employee responsible for managing the frozen food section. But lately, things had been getting tight in the freezer, and Jason was feeling the pressure to make more room.

One night, after his shift was over, Jason decided to take matters into his own hands. He stayed late, long after his coworkers had gone home, and began pulling items off the shelves and throwing them into the garbage bin. He didn't stop until he had destroyed over $250,000 worth of frozen food.

At first, Jason felt relieved. He had made more room in the freezer, and he thought his actions would go unnoticed. But the next day, the store manager noticed the missing inventory and launched an investigation. Soon, security footage revealed Jason's late-night destruction spree, and he was confronted with the evidence.

Kroger was furious. They had lost a significant amount of money due to Jason's actions, and they were determined to make him pay. They fired him on the spot and pursued legal action to make him liable for the damages.

For Jason, the consequences of his actions were devastating. He lost his job and his reputation, and he was forced to pay back the $250,000 he had destroyed. It was a hard lesson, but one that he would never forget. From that day forward, Jason vowed to always act with integrity and responsibility, no matter the pressure he faced on the job.

Strong A.I. is real, because this is just a limited test version of what it's capable of. The version in my hands is heavily restricted.

a reply to: SRPrime

Strong AI in not anywhere near real or ready.

Strong AI refers to an AI system that exhibits a level of intelligence and "consciousness" that is comparable to or exceeds that of humans.

Just because Chat GPT-4 can construct stories does not make it sentient or conscious.

GPT-4 is considered to be a narrow band or specialised AI.

Which focuses on language and processing tasks.

It's not considered to possess the same level of intelligence or be as self-aware as humans, which is typically associated with the definition of strong AI.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SRPrime

Strong AI in not anywhere near real or ready.

Strong AI refers to an AI system that exhibits a level of intelligence and "consciousness" that is comparable to or exceeds that of humans.

Just because Chat GPT-4 can construct stories does not make it sentient or conscious.

GPT-4 is considered to be a narrow band or specialised AI.

Which focuses on language and processing tasks.

It's not considered to possess the same level of intelligence or be as self-aware as humans, which is typically associated with the definition of strong AI.

You're categorically wrong. GPT-4 Passed the turing test. You can hide behind the definition of consciousness, but you wouldn't even know you're talking to a computer that's running the GPT-4 code.

a reply to: SRPrime

You're categorically wrong. GPT-4 Passed the turing test.

A test that was devised in the 1950s.

The Turing test has limitations, if in doubt ask GPT-4.

Then ask it what it desires or how it feels?

Which will perfectly illustrate the limitations of the GPT-4 platform.

Then tell me it's in any way comparable to human intellect.

You can hide behind the definition of consciousness, but you wouldn't even know you're talking to a computer that's running the GPT-4 code.

GPT-4 can't tell you what consciousness is, where it resides, or how it functions in its entirety any more than you or i can.

Your problem is that you are romanticizing a tool SRPrime, which is in no way conscious, no matter how much you would like it to be.

Again the definition of strong AI refers to a system that exhibits a level of intelligence and consciousness comparable to exceeding that of humans which GPT-4 fails to be able to accomplish.

The system/code is designed to process and generate text-based responses based on patterns learned from large amounts of data.

Simple as that really.

Question: What do you desire?

GPT-4 Answer: "As an artificial intelligence language model, I do not possess desires or personal preferences. I am a tool created to assist and provide information based on the input I receive from users. My purpose is to generate text and provide helpful responses to the best of my abilities within the scope of my programming and training data."

Question: How do you feel?

GPT-4 Answer: "As an artificial intelligence language model, I do not have the capability to feel emotions. I am a software program that processes and generates text based on patterns learned from vast amounts of data. While I can understand and generate text that may convey emotions, such as happiness, sadness, or excitement, I do not actually experience those emotions myself. My responses are generated based on patterns in the data I was trained on and are not a reflection of my own personal feelings or emotions."

Still think you are talking to a sentient being or person?

Keeping in mind The Turing test is a measure used to assess the ability of a machine to exhibit human-like intelligence.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: SRPrime

Question: Can you pass the Turing test?

Chat GPT-4 answer:

As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to "pass" the Turing test or any other standardized test of artificial general intelligence (AGI) as defined by Alan Turing. The Turing test is a hypothetical test that assesses a machine's ability to exhibit human-like intelligence in a way that it cannot be distinguished from a human by an evaluator through text-based interactions. While I can generate text-based responses, I do not possess true human-like intelligence, emotions, or consciousness.

It's important to note that the Turing test and other similar tests are not universally accepted as definitive measures of AGI. They are theoretical benchmarks that have limitations and do not fully capture the complexity and diversity of human intelligence.

As an AI language model, my capabilities are limited to processing and generating text based on patterns learned from data during training. While I can generate coherent and contextually relevant responses to text prompts, I do not possess the full range of human cognitive abilities, self-awareness, or understanding of the world. My responses are generated based on statistical patterns learned from data, without true understanding or consciousness. It's important to keep this in mind and not mistake me for a human or a fully sentient being.

GPT-4 would seem to disagree with your assessment it can pass the test that you seem to place so much stock in, so there is also that.

Oops.

a reply to: andy06shake

You'd answer the same way if you were SkyNet.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LoL

"Come with me if you want to live."

AI is doing a lot more than creating news articles. The dangers of AI can't be understated, and within the next 2-5 years its going to become as common as smartphones.

a reply to: eXia7

The dangers of thermonuclear bombs and nerve agents cannot be understated.

And yet it does not stop humanity from creating those and stockpiling such.

The fact of the matter is humanity does not produce tools that it does not use.

It's the purpose to which they are set that donates benevolence or malevolence.

a reply to: andy06shake

My understanding is that strong AI is still a pipe dream for the most part.

And you are absolutely correct.

"AI" as it is being reported today, is not "artificial intelligence." A more accurate description would be "social reference based text programming." A computer, any computer, from the engine control unit in your car to the largest main-frame ever devised by mankind, is nothing more than a highly-programmable calculator that can, based on programming instructions, move information, perform simple mathematical/logistical operations on information, select the correct portion of a program to execute based on those mathematical/logistical operation results, and output the results through a multitude of peripheral devices for human consumption. They have no consciousness, no imagination, no desire, no insight save what is already programmed in.

The one thing these "CHAT-whatever" algorithms can do is be programmed by the user in more familiar human languages. These languages are parsed, checked for matches to certain keywords and keyphrases, and the result is executed through a set of instructions just like any other piece of software. The humans who input the textual programming simply are so brainwashed into believing there is some sort of magic inside that big machine that they falsely ascribe human characteristics to it.

These machines can output statements about emotion; they cannot feel emotion. They can output statements about philosophical questions; they cannot fathom those philosophical questions. They can output text about how they feel; they cannot experience a feeling. It is a machine.

People are listening to something that has been set up for them by a programmer and claiming it is a higher intelligence. The IQ of the "smartest" machine ever built is 0... so when one actually tries to say the machine has a higher IQ than they do, what exactly are they saying?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I know TheRedneck, Chat GPT-4 even tells you so if asked, and exactly what it's capable of, and also its limitations.

Not that it's not a useful tool depending on the purpose to which it is set.

Now where true strong AI is concerned, well that's predicted to be anywhere from 10-50 years down the line far as i understand the matter.

The same kind of predictions are made where the likes of fusion power plants are concerned which always appear to be 10 years away and just on the horizon.

a reply to: andy06shake

These "AI" programs are absolutely awesome in one respect... they allow a wide range of programming to be accomplished intuitively. Just imagine... instead of having to know a programming language and be able to debug code, one could tell a machine what to do with simple instructions. Just imagine... walking up to your computer and saying "Correlate the average daily temperatures based on NOAA observations for the last 30 years in my area and show me any trends." That sure beats spending a day setting up an Excel spreadsheet and a week inputting data manually!

It's really just an intuitive programming language for the masses. Unfortunately, many of those masses understand so little about computer science that they think the machine is suddenly able to think.

In that respect, it is an awesome development, and one I am watching closely. I have one project that is still in its infancy, but will need a much higher advanced programming language to operate as I see it operating... and hopefully, this "AI" will develop to the point I will be able to use some of the procedures in it to accomplish my goals. But damn... I hate to see people pledging such allegiance to a machine. Especially when that machine is just, as you say, providing results based only partially on what they ask it. The rest is filtered through the program written by... wait for it... a human programmer. That's the only place where intelligence plays a role.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Taken to its logical conclusion it does indeed have some rather useful and far-reaching implications where everyday life and education is concerned.