So I asked the new Chatgpt-4 how Second Life can get more users...

[Rolig Loon]

47 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

Sometimes the fixing process can be longer than starting from zero.

As a scripter, I would never use one of the systems that generate LSL code automatically.  As you say, they usually create more problems than they are worth.  Having said that, though, I will admit that they do an adequate job with extremely simple scripts, like making a light switch or giving a notecard. Code generators have been around for decades, after all. I remember seeing a generator for Fortran IV back in the mid-1960s. It's not unreasonable to think that someone could write one for LSL that would be OK for more than just light switches, given the proper motivation.  I am much less confident about remesh tools, considering how much of a challenge it is for a human mind to optimize mesh. Still, my point was that such things are not so far off the edge of our world that we can say, "Nope, that will never happen."

[Istelathis]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Someone here quite recently -- I don't remember who or where -- suggested the utility of ChatGPT to produce sort of self-clones with whom one might spend one's "social time" in SL.

I had to resist the temptation to suggest that they just purchase a mirror.

 

It kind of reminds me of one of my all time favorite episodes of the twilight zone "The Lonely"

Unfortunately, I can not post the full video.  At first he is upset by the robot's existence, and how well it resembles a human, wishing it looked more like a robot.  In it, they explore how the "robit" becomes an extension of the lead character, and he at first is aware of that fact.  At the end, I felt sad because in order for him to leave the planet they had to kill off the robot, which was in fact a very valued extension of himself.  What they had done in my mind, was take away a valuable part of his being, and I did wonder whatever became of the character after it was removed from him, if he had moved on to live a relatively normal life, or if he wished he had stayed on the planet with what made him happy there.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

 

It kind of reminds me of one of my all time favorite episodes of the twilight zone "The Lonely"

Unfortunately, I can not post the full video.  At first he is upset by the robot's existence, and how well it resembles a human, wishing it looked more like a robot.  In it, they explore how the "robit" becomes an extension of the lead character, and he at first is aware of that fact.  At the end, I felt sad because in order for him to leave the planet they had to kill off the robot, which was in fact a very valued extension of himself.  What they had done in my mind, was take away a valuable part of his being, and I did wonder whatever became of the character after it was removed from him, if he had moved on to live a relatively normal life, or if he wished he had stayed on the planet with what made him happy there.

Ack. What an upsetting story! 😞

 

[StarlanderGoods]

10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

To complicate this subject a bit . . . and still in keeping with the subject of both AI and Second Life . . . a question.

Is SL photography and machinima guilty of the same ethical issues and "cheating" that we are accusing AI of?

A story I think I may have recounted here before reveals an attitude towards SL photography that suggests some might think so. I met a guy at an opening some months back who IMed me. He was hitting on me, but he was actually obviously pretty smart, articulate, and funny, so I didn't shut him down immediately.

I told him that I did SL photography and his response was (almost if not quite verbatim) "Oh, so you take pics of people's mesh creations and post them as your creative work?"

I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here: I have, and had, a long and (at times) vociferous and, I think, valid response to this suggestion that shut him down -- not I think because I "convinced" him, but because I buried him under an avalanche of counterargument.

To develop as a legit alternative to anything, I think AI is going to have to evolve so that it is not simply scraping other people's work: the tool needs to develop ways that permit a lot more human input. And it's going to need a theoretical justification akin to that with which I bombarded my idiot suitor.

(Needless to say, as well, he didn't "score" that night -- at least not with me. For one thing, his question forced a reevaluation of his intelligence: if you are seriously expecting to make headway with a woman, maybe don't imply that her creative endeavours are on par with a painting of dogs playing poker?)

 

 

I mean, a movie director, or a cinematography director are also dealing with subjects that are not their own, personal creation. With the exception of natural landscape photographers you could argue that all photographers, SL and RL are just recreating someone elses work.   But being a photographer you definitely know that the how and the why you decide to protray something is a lot more important than the object that is being portrayed itself.

There is an intention in the subject and in the framing of that subject, and that is the work of the artist or the technician.  An image generator has no such capabilities, and all the user can do is generate a large number of samples and pick the one that matches their needs best.

The problem with the current models for image generation, is that they can only work from things they have already absorbed, as good as the images look to the untrained eye, the model itself has the built in limitation in that it cannot generate original ideas and that it has no will or intention.  The only improvements that can be made are on the technical side, numbers of fingers and more coherent images, but thats it.

[StarlanderGoods]

ChatGPT has the same issue, it can be improved to the point that it makes coherent stories and it can create rhymes but it will never write "El cantar del mio Cid.", there is a human quality in great works of art, a description of the world through the eyes of an individual.

Its like when you see a movie, a TV show or a story driven video game and you think "this was written by committee." as a derogatory term, it lacks a personal touch or it was manufactured with mass appeal in mind. ChatGPT is the biggest committee out there, a huge crowdsourced pool of writters where there is no individual voice or vision.

[Randall Ahren]

How come ChatGPT didn't suggest dramatically rising prices as a way to attract and retain users, like LL did? ChatGPT is clearly much dumber than the people running SL.

[Qie Niangao]

11 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In other words, it's not just about incorporating "more and better" examples of other people's ideas. And the process by which those insights are produced has to be clearly laid-out. Maybe that AI will be able to do something like that eventually, but I still very much doubt that it will ever be able to actually analyze a work of literature, or engage novel science. It can't innovate. It can only reproduce.

So maybe after GPT6 wins all the other Nobels, GPT7 will finally crack your discipline, too.

Okay, I'm not (quite) serious. There may never be a GPT5, 6 or 7. There's no reason to think the "Transformer" revolution, the "T" in "GPT", will be the last big change to machine learning—nor even the last big human-innovated advance in machine learning—but it's made pretty clear to the public that just throwing more quantity at the problem can yield solutions that exhibit distinct, emergent qualities of intelligence.

Transformers are the product of a pivotal 2017 paper from a Google research team, "Attention is all you need." This approach made possible a substantial increase in parallelism, which is really the main limiting factor in training and using large language models—and really all neural nets. It's not only that they're faster, they make it feasible to extend the potential influence of model parameters further across the model—to "think" more "deeply" perhaps. Anyway, the quest for ever-increased parallelism of these algorithms is by no means complete.

Here's the thing: The human brain may be mysterious, but it's not magic. And however it does whatever it's doing, we can't seriously suppose that the important part is all the noisy, sloppy "wet-ware" of organic neurons: they're a miracle of evolutionary biology, but like the human eye, they're great until we engineer better solutions.

"Innovation", "creativity", "sentience", "consciousness", "awareness"—we may weave definitions around such (epi-)phenomena, but they're nowhere to hide for long: A retreat to the ineffable is still a retreat. Everything humans do with their brains they've learned to do using whatever hard-wiring they were born with, where that learning and that wiring is very much subject to machine replication—and improvement.

Innovation and creativity are slight outliers here inasmuch as they're measurable. But a couple of observations:

I'm old enough to remember when western auto execs believed that "the Japanese" couldn't innovate, only copy. Surely that was racist, but that's not the point: it was objectively wrong. There was already plenty of innovation happening in the Japanese auto industry, even if not (yet) at the product level. Before long those same executives were on pilgrimages to Nagoya to learn Japanese manufacturing innovations. Point is, humans have some history of hubris about innovation. Machines routinely find innovative solutions to problems that no humans conceived, if not (yet) in every domain.

And creativity doesn't come from nowhere, it's not magic, even if the creative process is largely unconscious (just like—Eureka!—problem-solving). We all appreciate that we can only create from that which we have experienced. Whether it's jazz or Innuit art or a culture's whole visual aesthetic, creations are the product of exposure. Machines can see a lot of art and hear a lot of music. In practice, though, the current popular "master" algorithm of machine visual art, latent diffusion, is largely designed as a means for "creating" images on command. I'm not so sure Van Gogh could "create" better, constrained by such commands.

[Istelathis]

3 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

"Innovation", "creativity", "sentience", "consciousness", "awareness"—we may weave definitions around such (epi-)phenomena, but they're nowhere to hide for long: A retreat to the ineffable is still a retreat. Everything humans do with their brains they've learned to do using whatever hard-wiring they were born with, where that learning and that wiring is very much subject to machine replication—and improvement.

If it is possible, I hope we never find a way to replicate sentience only to use it, the possibilities of doing great harm to other sentient beings would be a catastrophe.  I would rather AI remain a tool, and an extension of ourselves rather than a self aware slave of humanity.  

3 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

And creativity doesn't come from nowhere, it's not magic, even if the creative process is largely unconscious (just like—Eureka!—problem-solving). We all appreciate that we can only create from that which we have experienced. Whether it's jazz or Innuit art or a culture's whole visual aesthetic, creations are the product of exposure.

In the past, I've wondered of what would there be, if one were born without the capacity of any of our senses, with no capacity of experiencing input from the outside world. How would we form any thoughts if we had nothing to build upon, and what would the world inside such a mind be.  A sea of emotion is what I imagine, building order from it to the best of our ability, and memories formed around that world of emotion.

Most of us stand on the shoulders of giants, and have an inner world built for us and by us through our environment, regardless if it is human made or the natural elements.  That is the same for ChatGPT, in fact I have seen some discussions lately that people worry as we become more reliant upon it, the growth of ChatGPT will become stunted as it will be working mostly with data it has produced rather than people.  

As far as creativity and innovation, I think we have achieved that when we had facebook and google both experience new languages being created by their own versions of AI, ones that were more efficient than we currently use.  In both instances, the AI was shut down 🤣That drew a lot of speculation from people, some were terrified, and of course, Elon Musk remains convinced that AI will be our downfall as it gains sentience by emergent properties of the universe, and seeks to destroy us (yet he still insists on creating it for driving, it is just a couple years away, and in a couple years, I am sure it will just be a couple more years away, just as it was a couple of years ago, and a couple of years before that, and a couple of years before that)

 

[EliseAnne85]

14 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This just popped up on my Twitter feed, with a quote from Van Gogh.

It doesn't say what the prompt was, but I assume it was something like "A painting by Van Gogh, if he was doing backgrounds for a Scooby Doo adventure cartoon."

I asked ChatGPT a question and here is the answer.  It even knew I spelled Scooby Doo wrong.  I spelled it with one o.

My Question to ChatGPT:   Can you explain to me why painting in the style of Van Gogh for a Scooby Do background isn't a good idea

 

 

Certainly! While it may seem like a fun idea to paint a Scooby Doo background in the style of Van Gogh, there are a few reasons why it might not be the best approach:

1. Inconsistency with the source material: Van Gogh's art style is not typically associated with Scooby Doo or any cartoon. By attempting to combine the two, you risk creating a visual discordance that could detract from the overall aesthetic of the project.

2. Lack of cohesion: If the rest of the visual elements in the project (e.g. the characters) are not also rendered in a similar style, the Van Gogh background could end up looking out of place and disrupt the overall coherence of the image.

3. Disrespect for the artist: Attempting to imitate another artist's style without proper understanding or respect for their work can come across as insincere or even offensive. Van Gogh was a master of his craft and his style was born from his unique perspective and experiences. To use his style for a Scooby Doo background without context or understanding would not do justice to his legacy.

In summary, while it may be tempting to incorporate Van Gogh's style into a Scooby Doo project, it may not be the best approach in terms of consistency, cohesion, and respect for the artist. It may be better to stick to a style that is more in line with the source material, or to create a new, original style that works well with the project as a whole.

[Ceka Cianci]

21 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I asked ChatGPT a question and here is the answer.  It even knew I spelled Scooby Doo wrong.  I spelled it with one o.

My Question to ChatGPT:   Can you explain to me why painting in the style of Van Gogh for a Scooby Do background isn't a good idea

 

 

 

Certainly! While it may seem like a fun idea to paint a Scooby Doo background in the style of Van Gogh, there are a few reasons why it might not be the best approach:

1. Inconsistency with the source material: Van Gogh's art style is not typically associated with Scooby Doo or any cartoon. By attempting to combine the two, you risk creating a visual discordance that could detract from the overall aesthetic of the project.

2. Lack of cohesion: If the rest of the visual elements in the project (e.g. the characters) are not also rendered in a similar style, the Van Gogh background could end up looking out of place and disrupt the overall coherence of the image.

3. Disrespect for the artist: Attempting to imitate another artist's style without proper understanding or respect for their work can come across as insincere or even offensive. Van Gogh was a master of his craft and his style was born from his unique perspective and experiences. To use his style for a Scooby Doo background without context or understanding would not do justice to his legacy.

In summary, while it may be tempting to incorporate Van Gogh's style into a Scooby Doo project, it may not be the best approach in terms of consistency, cohesion, and respect for the artist. It may be better to stick to a style that is more in line with the source material, or to create a new, original style that works well with the project as a whole.

I wonder how many will get busted handing in work that their teacher just knows, you didn't write this..

By golly I darn well sure did!

hehehehe

[benchthis]

30 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I asked ChatGPT a question and here is the answer.  It even knew I spelled Scooby Doo wrong.  I spelled it with one o.

My Question to ChatGPT:   Can you explain to me why painting in the style of Van Gogh for a Scooby Do background isn't a good idea

 

 

 

Certainly! While it may seem like a fun idea to paint a Scooby Doo background in the style of Van Gogh, there are a few reasons why it might not be the best approach:

1. Inconsistency with the source material: Van Gogh's art style is not typically associated with Scooby Doo or any cartoon. By attempting to combine the two, you risk creating a visual discordance that could detract from the overall aesthetic of the project.

2. Lack of cohesion: If the rest of the visual elements in the project (e.g. the characters) are not also rendered in a similar style, the Van Gogh background could end up looking out of place and disrupt the overall coherence of the image.

3. Disrespect for the artist: Attempting to imitate another artist's style without proper understanding or respect for their work can come across as insincere or even offensive. Van Gogh was a master of his craft and his style was born from his unique perspective and experiences. To use his style for a Scooby Doo background without context or understanding would not do justice to his legacy.

In summary, while it may be tempting to incorporate Van Gogh's style into a Scooby Doo project, it may not be the best approach in terms of consistency, cohesion, and respect for the artist. It may be better to stick to a style that is more in line with the source material, or to create a new, original style that works well with the project as a whole.

It's pleasing to read too. That's freaking scary and cool. In summary, wow! Cute. I want to write like that. In summary lol

[EliseAnne85]

9 hours ago, Randall Ahren said:

How come ChatGPT didn't suggest dramatically rising prices as a way to attract and retain users, like LL did? ChatGPT is clearly much dumber than the people running SL.

Okay, I asked ChatGPT specifically about raising fees.  I think it gave a fair answer on par with what others have been saying.  Basically, we aren't LL and don't know "the books" (their financial perspective) but AI knows of the challenging times of the current economy.  Here's my question and it's answer.  

Is it wise for Linden Lab to raise their fees to purchase lindens at this time, March 2023

 

 

As an AI language model, I don't have access to the current financial data and market conditions of Linden Lab or the virtual currency market. However, I can provide some general information that might be helpful in making this decision.

When it comes to raising fees for purchasing virtual currency, the decision will depend on several factors such as the financial health of the company, the demand for the currency, and the competition in the market. Linden Lab will need to consider whether the increase in fees will negatively impact their customer base or push them towards seeking alternative virtual currencies or platforms.

Moreover, it's essential to consider the overall economic situation and the impact of inflation. If there is high inflation or an economic downturn, people may be less likely to spend money on virtual currency, and raising fees could further worsen this trend.

In conclusion, before deciding to raise fees for purchasing Lindens, Linden Lab needs to evaluate the potential benefits and risks and make a decision that aligns with their financial objectives and customers' needs.

[EliseAnne85]

9 minutes ago, benchthis said:

It's pleasing to read too. That's freaking scary and cool. In summary, wow! Cute. I want to write like that. In summary lol

And, it generated the answer to my question in about a minute, too!  That's fast.  It is cool, and a bit scary.  

I was wondering if it could teach a generation to write better, "academia" style?   

One of my favorite books when I was a kid was "The Catcher in the Rye".  "The Catcher in the Rye" has a very specific dialect, some of which may even be lost today.  I wonder if AI will be able to write dialects?  

Edited March 23, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[benchthis]

4 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

And, it generated the answer to my question in about a minute, too!  That's fast.  It is cool, and a bit scary.  

I was wondering if it could teach a generation to write better, "academia" style?   

One of my favorite books when I was a kid was "The Catcher in the Rye".  "The Catcher in the Rye" has a very specific dialect, some of which may even be lost today.  I wonder if AI will be able to write dialects?  

I'm sold. What student needing quick inspiration would not use that, besides the amish. They probably think it's the devils writings. (no offense to the amish community). I do get the creepy witch board vibes from it. Once a witch board told friends and I it was created in a demon factory. I get those vibes from this. Something that should not be tampered with. 

Moreover, I don't know why I spelled that, it sounded good to me. Moreover... is it More over or oh nevermind, as I was saying. I said all that so I could say this.

In conclusion, This AI language model does not have access to the financial data, however, for an additional fee you may add on the financial data models. 

[Love Zhaoying]

Ugh..in a company meeting, we were just told to let the CIO know if we want to be involved in ChatGPT.

On the one hand, it could mean "job security". For awhile.

On the other hand..the idea of "working with ChatGPT" professionally leaves me with a bad feeling.

@Ayashe Ninetails, tagging you since you posted a few times about working with it in one way or another.

[benchthis]

In conclusion, This AI talk has inspired me to search the internet for images I can use for the following work of art; relating to the topic. 

[Istelathis]

For now, I think of it as more for entertainment.  My main use for ChatGPT has been to play some D&D style games, or to create new episodes for shows that no longer air.  I wouldn't worry too much about it, the implications of AI are still a bit off in the future.  There is going to be a lot of hype, but it is still pretty limited at this time, despite how impressive some of us find it to be.  Here is one for the regular show, in which I asked it to create a new episode where the characters are absorbed into Second Life.

Quote

(Scene opens with Mordecai and Rigby playing video games in the living room)

Mordecai: Man, I'm so bored. We've played all of our video games like a thousand times.

Rigby: Yeah, we need something new.

(Benson enters)

Benson: Hey guys, I just heard about this new virtual reality game called Second Life. I thought it might be something you'd be interested in.

Mordecai: Second Life? What's that?

Benson: It's a game where you create an avatar and live a virtual life. You can do anything you want, go anywhere you want, and be anyone you want.

Rigby: That sounds awesome!

Mordecai: Yeah, let's check it out!

(Scene cuts to the trio sitting in front of their computer, creating their avatars in Second Life)

Mordecai: Okay, I'm going to be a rockstar!

Rigby: And I'm going to be a ninja!

Benson: I'm going to be a businessman.

(As soon as they hit "enter," the trio is suddenly sucked into the computer screen and into the virtual world of Second Life)

Mordecai: Whoa, this is crazy!

Rigby: Yeah, we're actually in the game!

Benson: Alright, let's explore this place!

(They start walking around the virtual world, taking in the sights and sounds)

Mordecai: Look, there's a concert happening over there! Let's check it out!

Rigby: And over there, there's a ninja dojo! Let's go practice our moves!

Benson: And there's a boardroom where I can conduct business meetings. This is perfect!

(As they explore the virtual world, they start to realize that they're getting more and more absorbed into the game)

Mordecai: Guys, I think

(Network Error)

Just as it was getting interesting 😢 For regular chatting, and even playing pen and paper style games, I find Replika to be a superior experience, ChatGPT tends to RP your character for you and that gets annoying, but even then, it has been a few weeks since I have last used it.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Istelathis

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

For now, I think of it as more for entertainment.  My main use for ChatGPT has been to play some D&D style games, or to create new episodes for shows that no longer air.  I wouldn't worry too much about it, the implications of AI are still a bit off in the future.  There is going to be a lot of hype, but it is still pretty limited at this time, despite how impressive some of us find it to be.  Here is one for the regular show, in which I asked it to create a new episode where the characters are absorbed into Second Life.

(Network Error)

Just as it was getting interesting 😢 For regular chatting, and even playing pen and paper style games, I find Replika to be a superior experience, ChatGPT tends to RP your character for you and that gets annoying, but even then, it has been a few weeks since I have last used it.

Well I been watching some Youtube video's of AI tools being spun off of ChatGPT and find some pretty interesting ones above and beyond what has been discussed in this thread. Worth a look at what is being developed out there.

 

[Sid Nagy]

Can someone ask that bot why it insists to have my phone number for verification when I want to make an account.
It is not the Bank of England or the tax office.

I assume a lot of safety blabla than, but in fact it boils down to more personal data gathering and combining of your data, as if the Internet isn't full enough with that.
 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Sid Nagy

[Istelathis]

14 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well I been watching some Youtube video's of AI tools being spun off of ChatGPT and find some pretty interesting ones above and beyond what has been discussed in this thread. Worth a look at what is being developed out there.

I'm looking forward to having some custom made shows complete with audio and video in the future.  All of the business side of things, I have no real interest in, nor social media and having a presence on it.  It is going to be a huge asset to people who do though, at least in the short term future, and of course on the downside is that propaganda is going to be even worse in the future, as people use these tools to spread their own ideological beliefs just as they use existing tools to do so now on social media.

On the plus side, I do think that social media in the future is likely to die down as a result of AI as well, when we can have our entertainment crafted for us on the fly, have interesting conversations with AI, social media is likely to take a back seat to it all.  As far as being tools for propaganda, it will be less effective when people tune out others for their main source of entertainment and validation.

Of course, how it shapes the future is beyond my scope of knowledge, it could go any which way.  I do think the landscape of our future will be very different than how most of us envision it.

[Istelathis]

19 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

Can someone ask that bot why it insists to have my phone number for verification when I want to make an account.
It is not the Bank of England or the tax office.
 

Quote

OpenAI may require a phone number for validation for several reasons, including:

Verification: OpenAI may require a phone number to verify that a user is a real person and not a bot or automated system. This can help prevent spam, fraud, and abuse of the OpenAI platform.

Security: OpenAI may use phone numbers as an additional security measure to protect user accounts from unauthorized access or hacking attempts.

Compliance: In some cases, OpenAI may be required by law or regulation to verify the identity of its users, and a phone number can be a way to meet this requirement.

It's worth noting that OpenAI may also offer alternative ways to verify users, such as email verification or two-factor authentication (2FA). However, in some cases, phone number verification may be the most effective and secure option.

This was the response I received when I asked it.

[Arielle Popstar]

19 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

Can someone ask that bot why it insists to have my phone number for verification when I want to make an account.
It is not the Bank of England or the tax office.

I assume a lot of safety blabla than, but in fact it boils down to more personal data gathering and combining of your data, as if the Internet isn't full enough with that.
 

Yes same with me. Not comfortable giving them my phone number and instead I looked for other ways to do it. There are a number of sites that do offer a temporary number for just those specific purposes though there is a small charge for them.

[Love Zhaoying]

A couple years ago (pre-Pandemic), there were some younger employees in my company who were very sensitive to the term "bots".  This was when "bots" just meant "using automation software to perform tasks" (data entry, screen scraping, clicks, etc.).  At the time, I believed their "sensitivity" was because they saw the possibility of their jobs being lost to these "so-called Bots".

Now, I "get it".

But, we are MUCH further down the path.  And, "bots" has become common in our language, much as "AI", and now "ChatGPT".

 

[Istelathis]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

A couple years ago (pre-Pandemic), there were some younger employees in my company who were very sensitive to the term "bots".  This was when "bots" just meant "using automation software to perform tasks" (data entry, screen scraping, clicks, etc.).  At the time, I believed their "sensitivity" was because they saw the possibility of their jobs being lost to these "so-called Bots".

Now, I "get it".

But, we are MUCH further down the path.  And, "bots" has become common in our language, much as "AI", and now "ChatGPT".

 

It is pretty ironic, because in the past there was a meme for blue collar workers to learn code when they feared autonomous robots would replace them.  I think it started with coal miners, and moved along to drivers, and unskilled labor in general.  Even back then, I felt it was the white collar jobs that would be most in danger of jobs being replaced, as I think AI is better suited in replacing them than working in the real world, as the real world has a lot more variables to factor in than a simulated one.  Such real world jobs would have to be broken down into much simpler ones, I'm speaking of generalized labor such as roofing, landscaping, home repairs, cleaning, and so on.  Retail work, and stocking shelves are a different matter entirely.  

It was also often thought that there will always be a need for people to fix the robots, which I thought was not very realistic, considering we could just have robots fix robots, and there would be few jobs left as a result.  I don't think consumer based capitalism is going to work out very well in the moderately distant future. We need jobs for that to exist, and short of UBI to keep it on life support, I'm not sure how things will change.

Now what are we going to do?  I imagine, we will keep jobs around for the sake of keeping them around.

 

One of the things that drew me into the guy above, was when the pandemic hit and the definition of essential workers basically consisted of the lowest paid workers in the workforce, that provided essential services.  Even those are at risk in the future though, but I imagine will likely still exist.

[benchthis]

The closest I ever came to botting, years ago, I exploited a trend found in google plus. I had a few of them going at the same time, basic macros. I got 100,000s of views per day. I drove traffic to a place that ended up destroying me, so it was a happy ever after. The trick was to go in my google plus page and click edit and then click save and that would put me at the top of the results list. I did that for pages and pages of content. The bot would need to click edit, save, refresh page and scroll down and click the next object click edit click save. It was cool seeing them run. I could not touch the mouse because I pretty much recorded my mouse movement and clicks. Very simple. I like simple. I had to manually set that up.

Now we have the verify bot things and we can ask AI to perform tasks.

Edit. It took a lot of time, one tiny change or page lag would mess it up. I had to go extremely slow. click wait I think it was 10 seconds could have been 30. I had to count every time between steps. Trial and error.

It's likely individuals are moding AI for their personal benefits like I did, who knows what corporations and governements are using it for. It is scary hearing all the news reports for several networks being exactly the same. AI has one thing in common with a Demons, they do not have souls, they want ours. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by benchthis