‘There’s a make-believe quality to this vast spectacle of violent power and false innocence that baffles the mind. To see and hear the corporate masked media magicians’ daily reports is to enter a world of pure illusion that deserves only sardonic laughter but sadly captivates so many adult children desperate to believe.’ —Edward Curtin,
Someone I love had that done, the robot arm surgery. I wasn't happy then and I am not happy now. It's tough out there. No one will take advise. All you can do if hope for their most successful outcome and never mention it again. Good gosh. And I guarantee you all they told this person is "you don't have to stay in the hospital as long".
BTW, not to deny AI has a wicked creative streak (or is that all in the talent of the prompter?) ;) But better set loose in the art gallery, not the operating room! :)
Ha, well it's mostly the AI :) *wink. I would say 90/10. I get the 10. I hear ya. I was thinking though, how creepy it is that if they keep doing robot surgeries that will become the norm. Right now you have a "choice" for a surgeon or a robot. But how long will that last? Or what about if they do them so much with the robot that they forget how to do it with skilled human hands? I don't know. Eventually, the doctors in schools would only learn the using a robot method? After reading that article on that woman, I will pass on the robot. The weird thing was, when I searched it Google had page after page after page. EVERYONE reported that story EVERYwhere. I was surprised by that. After about 10 pages of results on GOOGLE I gave up trying to find any other story like it. It was the only one. She had her surgery in 2011 or something, so quite a while ago. He is just suing as of February 2024. That's quite a long time in between the event and the lawsuit. My suspicious mind was starting to wonder if it was a bs story for some reason. I just REALLY don't trust the news :) Especially when they all agree. Like maybe they are trying to set some kind of precedent buy setting up the lawsuit and having it go a certain way, like they do. But anyway, just based on the principle of the thing, I will put my money on a human for that kind of surgery, better yet, I will do everything in my power to avoid needing one. The person I know who had it done had it done at a hospital that's 5 minutes away from me. They do a lot of robot surgeries there too, I looked it up. That's creepy. I wonder if they are always telling people that it's a robot situation when it is?
Oh, and regarding who gets credit for the art AI makes, there are also the myriad human artists whose work it pulls from to come up with it's final piece. That would put me at less than 5%. Maybe a 1 or a 2 :)
Is there an assertion that we cannot know anything or obain any clarity on anything?If we cannot be certain about anything, how can decide that all of our efforts to understand, all of our conclusions, are meaningless? Isnt this called postmodernism? Is postmodernism absolute truth?
Ah, you discovered the ultimate irony! But seriously... I see your point. The thing is to get past the binary: It's either true or false (and you better choose wisely). Or, everything I say is true, or all of it is false. More like, if we rule out both those extremities, what in between can we make a provisional agreement on, using some mutually relevant language.
Another way to put it would be, rather than "Accept everything we say" or "Deny everything they say," instead, "Question everything." (Though I admit, evidence compels me to lean more and more to door #2!). BTW, earth-based survival truths are those we deny at our peril. So that's a reasonable "bedrock" to rely on.
Good highlighting of the lack of nuance and lessening of ability to back-and-forth amicably. Also, though trees may be wordless to us, that doesn't mean they aren't communicating, as recent studies show they communicate via underground mycelium, and probably other ways known to Indigenous People, plus anyone open to receiving a message via intuition or dreams.
When AI hallucinates, it's not a bug, but a feature they put in there.
Example: The Google bard interview on a pre recorded show "hallucinated" fake books and authors. They could have redone the segment, but they left it in the final edit.
Why?
To make us think that this AI is really aware.
How else could the AI make things up if it's designed to cite other writings by default?
Someone I love had that done, the robot arm surgery. I wasn't happy then and I am not happy now. It's tough out there. No one will take advise. All you can do if hope for their most successful outcome and never mention it again. Good gosh. And I guarantee you all they told this person is "you don't have to stay in the hospital as long".
BTW, not to deny AI has a wicked creative streak (or is that all in the talent of the prompter?) ;) But better set loose in the art gallery, not the operating room! :)
Ha, well it's mostly the AI :) *wink. I would say 90/10. I get the 10. I hear ya. I was thinking though, how creepy it is that if they keep doing robot surgeries that will become the norm. Right now you have a "choice" for a surgeon or a robot. But how long will that last? Or what about if they do them so much with the robot that they forget how to do it with skilled human hands? I don't know. Eventually, the doctors in schools would only learn the using a robot method? After reading that article on that woman, I will pass on the robot. The weird thing was, when I searched it Google had page after page after page. EVERYONE reported that story EVERYwhere. I was surprised by that. After about 10 pages of results on GOOGLE I gave up trying to find any other story like it. It was the only one. She had her surgery in 2011 or something, so quite a while ago. He is just suing as of February 2024. That's quite a long time in between the event and the lawsuit. My suspicious mind was starting to wonder if it was a bs story for some reason. I just REALLY don't trust the news :) Especially when they all agree. Like maybe they are trying to set some kind of precedent buy setting up the lawsuit and having it go a certain way, like they do. But anyway, just based on the principle of the thing, I will put my money on a human for that kind of surgery, better yet, I will do everything in my power to avoid needing one. The person I know who had it done had it done at a hospital that's 5 minutes away from me. They do a lot of robot surgeries there too, I looked it up. That's creepy. I wonder if they are always telling people that it's a robot situation when it is?
Oh, and regarding who gets credit for the art AI makes, there are also the myriad human artists whose work it pulls from to come up with it's final piece. That would put me at less than 5%. Maybe a 1 or a 2 :)
That's a great point. And sort of like how human artists do it, too! ;)
Is there an assertion that we cannot know anything or obain any clarity on anything?If we cannot be certain about anything, how can decide that all of our efforts to understand, all of our conclusions, are meaningless? Isnt this called postmodernism? Is postmodernism absolute truth?
Ah, you discovered the ultimate irony! But seriously... I see your point. The thing is to get past the binary: It's either true or false (and you better choose wisely). Or, everything I say is true, or all of it is false. More like, if we rule out both those extremities, what in between can we make a provisional agreement on, using some mutually relevant language.
Another way to put it would be, rather than "Accept everything we say" or "Deny everything they say," instead, "Question everything." (Though I admit, evidence compels me to lean more and more to door #2!). BTW, earth-based survival truths are those we deny at our peril. So that's a reasonable "bedrock" to rely on.
Good highlighting of the lack of nuance and lessening of ability to back-and-forth amicably. Also, though trees may be wordless to us, that doesn't mean they aren't communicating, as recent studies show they communicate via underground mycelium, and probably other ways known to Indigenous People, plus anyone open to receiving a message via intuition or dreams.
When AI hallucinates, it's not a bug, but a feature they put in there.
Example: The Google bard interview on a pre recorded show "hallucinated" fake books and authors. They could have redone the segment, but they left it in the final edit.
Why?
To make us think that this AI is really aware.
How else could the AI make things up if it's designed to cite other writings by default?
Right! Now it's Creative as well as Artificially Intelligent. Hmm, does that make it CAI? ;)