I’m not saying this lightly, but the technology is one of the most awe-inspiring and terrifying I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been writing about technology for almost two decades. Not only because of its capabilities today, with its ability to produce truly “creative” text (or at least seemingly creative text), but also because of the possibility of this technology in a year or two. to—and the amount of work it can (or should I say “will”) replace when it gets there. For example, when I ask ChatGPT to list 50 jobs that could be replaced by ChatGPT, it pulls up this list in less than a second: customer service rep, tech support specialist, rep. salesperson, receptionist, data entry clerk, operator, transcriptionist, legal secretary, medical secretary, executive assistant, personal assistant, journalist, novelist, agent travel agents, insurance agents, retail staff, bookkeepers, court reporters, marketing directors, public relations directors, advertising directors, etc.
While there are already examples of rudimentary AI writing simple articles for news agencies today—some basic articles stock reportsports updates and weather-related stories are written by robots—the advent of ChatGPT and upcoming versions of the technology suggests that in about a year, editors My (if they are still employed) may not ask me or another journalist to write a story with an analysis of what Elon Musk what to do with Twitter or detail how people vote in Georgia to determine how they might vote in 2024; instead, they can simply enter the reminder into an app like ChatGPT. The same is true for art, design, and illustration, as we’ve seen a slew of other new AI products released in recent months that are threatening all areas of the arts and creative careers. create. There are many types of text, like GPT-3, which is the foundation for ChatGPT and is able to read and write like a human. And then there’s the incredible computer-generated visuals, like DALL·E 2 and Stable Diffusion, that can draw or paint anything in seconds, in any style you want, based on a single command.
Now, I’ve heard anecdotal reports from friends with high school and college kids that some professors and teachers who learned about the technology are panicking after seeing ChatGPT and its capabilities. it, with some claiming the impending death of ChatGPT. high school and college essays. ChatGPT has been used to automatically generate essays based on prompts or topics, which makes the traditional brainstorming, research and essay writing process obsolete. Why waste your time doing all that when you can simply put your homework reminder in ChatGPT and get a complete essay in seconds? You might think that a professor or teacher could decipher the difference between something written by an AI and something written by a human, but that is impossible and neither can the AI. One of the things you can do with ChatGPT is give it a paragraph or a sentence and let it continue writing the rest of the essay. I did this with a made-up sci-fi story and asked people to tell me which parts of the essay were written by me and which parts were written by AI. No one can tell the difference; it’s like the Pepsi Challenge. Then I gave the same text back to the AI and asked it to tell me which part is computer-written and which part is human-written and ChatGPT guessed wrong.
In 2017, a research paper titled “Attention is all you need” has appeared on the internet with little fanfare outside of the esoteric technologie of people interested in the most advanced technologies of natural language processing and artificial intelligence. The paper talks about “dominant sequence transduction models”, an idea known as “Transformers” and “regressive neural networks”, and for 99.999999% of society, trying to Reading the theories in this 11-page report is like trying to read a book written in a language you’ve never heard of before, blindfolded. But the paper, written by a team of researchers at Google Brain, an AI research group within Google’s AI division, proposes a new approach to natural language processing—the branch of artificial intelligence. involves giving computers the ability to understand human language. in much the same way that humans can—that is said to have changed the field forever.
Basically, the article has simulated the way of modeling information processing. The traditional models, the researchers argue, act like a librarian who carefully arranges each book in its right place on the shelf, ensuring that everything is organized and easy to find – is ineffective. Instead, they propose an “attention-based model”. It works like this: When a reader is searching for something, it scans through all the books and focuses their attention on those that contain the information they need without having to worry about sorting them all. all books on the shelf.
Since then, these programs have provided millions of examples of human writing, art, music, and creativity, and since then, machines have learned to copy these styles. All of this makes me wonder: What does it mean for humans in a future when robots can be more creative than we are? Could the next version of AI (or the version after it) have better ideas than humans? Or will these only become tools to help us?
Members of the pro-AI technology group admit that the technology is capable of automating many of today’s tasks that require human creativity, but they point out that machines are not really capable of understanding. or appreciate art just like humans. Machines have no consciousness; a computer can’t feel the feeling of loving or losing a loved one or being so tormented that you have to cut off your ears. The argument is: Machines can mimic our creations, but they can’t really understand the emotions and experiences that inspire us to create. But to me, if machines can imitate art with emotion and depth because they are learning from things that humans have created for hundreds of years, then machines in turn are extensions. of those human emotions. A machine doesn’t have to have the consciousness or ability to experience emotions to create artwork that makes sense to us. The value and meaning of art does not lie in the machine’s ability to perceive it, but in the viewer’s ability to appreciate it.