When my 4 kids were younger, it was often boring-repetitious to go thru things with them. A "Young Ladies Illustrated Primer", to be a guidebook/ tablet that talks to kids, repeats lessons, but also allows the kids to play is certainly coming. For many kids, it will be great - perhaps it will also be terrible for many other kids, but I suspect that group to be smaller than 20%.
I still suspect one of the first widely successful products in this are will be a B3 - C1/ C2/ C3 English Language assistant (advanced) - with both oral & text input & output.
For smaller kids, a small nice device with, literally, more bells & whistles; more changing colors and buttons that do something, even without much ai, will be bought if offered at fairly low prices.
Ethan's work on AI & creativity seem spot on - AI more creative than most folks, already. (Human BS vs AI BS?) But since I'm not working now, don't have much use for it. Maybe ask for more summaries of the more prolific writers, like Zvi & Scott A; and Freddie; and Rod Dreher (who Arnold seldom reads).
There might well be anti-deepfake legislation. We should expect some big million $ scandals involving criminal use of AI, and a rapidly growing call for some kind of protection from the criminals. I hesitate (but continue nonetheless) to speculate that criminals will use ai to come up with ideas for how to use ai to cheat others. Maybe I'll ask Pi about it.
'AI teddy bears could respond in personalized ways to baby coos and toddler questions. Computer-assisted “nannies” who never tire of reading the same book over and over would make bedtime a breeze. Advanced nursery versions of Alexa could sing and teach favorite songs on demand, play games and even deduce why a baby is crying.'
I had the same shuddering reaction. I’m not an AI doomer but if humanity is interested in using AI to do those things then humanity really is doomed. Doing those things for a child is *what makes life worth living.*
Thankfully, I think the author is wrong. As fertility rates continue to fall, those that have children will have already self selected into being active, loving parents. Those that would want AI nannies won’t have children in the first place.
I’m left hoping there’s a sane person somewhere developing AI solutions for children that actually matter - better detection of hidden health problems like SIDS, etc.
A simple test of GPT/LLM will always be how it responds to "woke" persuasion. If the system is persuaded to be woke or to rationalize woke ideology than what good is it? How beneficial is a machine that cannot be trusted to yield the right answers?
A related limitation is if GPT/LLM is programmed to be have superior logic & morality - such that if asked how to handle wildfires in Maui it answers using ample water to suppress fires and to warn citizens early of fire - would woke bureaucrats follow its advice? If not, how is GPT/LLM better than your typical internet pundit? We have plenty of smart people on the Web whose advice is ignored by the government already.
"Even more impressive, from a business perspective, was that the purchase intent from outside judges was higher for the AI-generated ideas as well! Of the 40 best ideas rated by the judges, 35 came from ChatGPT."
Were these Wharton students locked in a room with no Internet access? Otherwise I can't believe the students weren't able to spend more time crafting the right queries to ChatGPT than the researchers.
No I don't see legislation for awhile in this nascent area of growth in so many directions. It's just to way early. Its like a start of a road race that,when the guns go off, the runners can determine their own course...their own finish line.
When my 4 kids were younger, it was often boring-repetitious to go thru things with them. A "Young Ladies Illustrated Primer", to be a guidebook/ tablet that talks to kids, repeats lessons, but also allows the kids to play is certainly coming. For many kids, it will be great - perhaps it will also be terrible for many other kids, but I suspect that group to be smaller than 20%.
I still suspect one of the first widely successful products in this are will be a B3 - C1/ C2/ C3 English Language assistant (advanced) - with both oral & text input & output.
For smaller kids, a small nice device with, literally, more bells & whistles; more changing colors and buttons that do something, even without much ai, will be bought if offered at fairly low prices.
Ethan's work on AI & creativity seem spot on - AI more creative than most folks, already. (Human BS vs AI BS?) But since I'm not working now, don't have much use for it. Maybe ask for more summaries of the more prolific writers, like Zvi & Scott A; and Freddie; and Rod Dreher (who Arnold seldom reads).
There might well be anti-deepfake legislation. We should expect some big million $ scandals involving criminal use of AI, and a rapidly growing call for some kind of protection from the criminals. I hesitate (but continue nonetheless) to speculate that criminals will use ai to come up with ideas for how to use ai to cheat others. Maybe I'll ask Pi about it.
'AI teddy bears could respond in personalized ways to baby coos and toddler questions. Computer-assisted “nannies” who never tire of reading the same book over and over would make bedtime a breeze. Advanced nursery versions of Alexa could sing and teach favorite songs on demand, play games and even deduce why a baby is crying.'
I shudder.
I had the same shuddering reaction. I’m not an AI doomer but if humanity is interested in using AI to do those things then humanity really is doomed. Doing those things for a child is *what makes life worth living.*
Thankfully, I think the author is wrong. As fertility rates continue to fall, those that have children will have already self selected into being active, loving parents. Those that would want AI nannies won’t have children in the first place.
I’m left hoping there’s a sane person somewhere developing AI solutions for children that actually matter - better detection of hidden health problems like SIDS, etc.
A simple test of GPT/LLM will always be how it responds to "woke" persuasion. If the system is persuaded to be woke or to rationalize woke ideology than what good is it? How beneficial is a machine that cannot be trusted to yield the right answers?
A related limitation is if GPT/LLM is programmed to be have superior logic & morality - such that if asked how to handle wildfires in Maui it answers using ample water to suppress fires and to warn citizens early of fire - would woke bureaucrats follow its advice? If not, how is GPT/LLM better than your typical internet pundit? We have plenty of smart people on the Web whose advice is ignored by the government already.
If the bet is about the timing of premature action by the legislature based on incomplete information and anxiety, ...
"Even more impressive, from a business perspective, was that the purchase intent from outside judges was higher for the AI-generated ideas as well! Of the 40 best ideas rated by the judges, 35 came from ChatGPT."
Were these Wharton students locked in a room with no Internet access? Otherwise I can't believe the students weren't able to spend more time crafting the right queries to ChatGPT than the researchers.
No I don't see legislation for awhile in this nascent area of growth in so many directions. It's just to way early. Its like a start of a road race that,when the guns go off, the runners can determine their own course...their own finish line.