With all that's going on in the world, the media doesn't seem to be paying much attention to advances in AI. This is concerning considering given the potential influence AI will have on our world. Stephen Hawking even went so far as to warn that AI could end mankind.

There is now a disturbing regularity of stories in the media, often posted as what seems like clickbait or infotainment, about AI inroads. This one is from years ago: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/. OK, that's cool. But it's been getting much creepier. And I don't even seriously follow this stuff.

Here's a story about Amazon monitoring and responding to their drivers with AI: Amazon driver quits, saying the final straw was the company's new AI-powered truck cameras that can sense when workers yawn or don't use a seatbelt

But this next one, if it is indeed real (and that's the point! Is it?), if it is indeed real, it's, well, you'll see. Here's the story that about the tiktok link: Slick Tom Cruise Deepfakes Signal That Near Flawless Forgeries May Be Here.

And here's the tiktok link cited: deeptomcruise.

If that is a true Tom Cruise deepfake, we are in deep shit. It looks so real to me that I'm not convinced it's fake. Is it a hoax with the real Tom Cruise taking part? Or, if it is truly fake... But see that's the point. I can't tell. So if it is fake, then we can no longer trust any digital media we see. It's absolutely world changing.

If this is real, the propaganda and persuasion are about to go ballistic. I think this is far more serious than how it's being portrayed in the media. Hawking was talking about AI being able to think. This is just a baby step in that direction, and already I can see dire consequences.

Dan: "It looks so real to me that I'm not convinced it's fake."

Haha! Might be a fake fake? I see your point. It's commentary on the world we live in that that's even a question.

"Or if it is truly fake... But see that's the point. I can't tell. So if it is fake, then we can no longer trust any digital media we see. It's absolutely world changing."

Philosophers have been saying you can't trust what your senses/brain perceive to be reality since before Christ - this is living (or non-living) proof of their theorems.

How do you see it panning out? In a Zoom world it could run riot very quickly i assume.

You got this catapulting feeling form the start of Covid that things that were already happening - AI, surveillance, freedom rezoning - experienced a giant leap forward. But leap to where?

This is my theory: Humans didn't invent thought - thought invented us. We are just its vehicle. Very good ones.

Thought will continue to look for new vehicles, better ones. AI is that 'better one'.

Yes, humans invented the computer, which made all this possible, but now our watch has ended.

Some people say: 'Well we made it, we can switch it off'

AI: 'Firstly, knock yourself out - throw away your cellphone for starters!

Secondly, we control the switch board now. Mind your language or we might switch you off.'

A good way to think about the rise of AI is to ask 'Do you think AI will be able to think for itself in 1000 years time?' Most people will say yes. Then it's a matter of trimming down that time-frame. How about 100 years? How about 10? How about now?

To complete the autonomy, AI will need a fully automated factory - not too hard to imagine - and a power source - presumably solar - maybe there will be a new energy breakthrough thanks to AI. It will also need a defense system for the day when humans realize that this has all gotten way out of control.

Or maybe not. If AI knows all the passwords - does that give you access to weapon systems? Imagine if you could hack the destination of every smart bomb fired.

One unknown is whether humans and independent AI can live peacefully together. Fake people and hybrids will be a big part of the scene. The rest will be indigenous people.

AI may not consider humans a threat - they may view us as their ancestors, or pets.

On the other hand, they may think we've overpopulated the planet to a point where we need thinning out - one way or another.

Dan would know this better - to what extent does AI need a device?

I don't understand how the internet cloud works - but could AI exist as an intelligent being in that environment alone - or does it need a device back in the real world to compute, send signals in order to exist?

... to what extent does AI need a device?

I don't understand how the internet cloud works - but could AI exist as an intelligent being in that environment alone - or does it need a device back in the real world to compute, send signals in order to exist?

Well, "the cloud" generally refers to the storage of data on remote systems as opposed to your personal device. So the device you ask about is the device you are using to communicate with the cloud. But that that is the general usage of AI and the cloud.

In futuristic terms, the cloud still refers to data maintained remotely, aka, in the cloud, as opposed to in your office computer.

Here's the difference. Think of AI like a person. It needs input. Now forget about the person analogy.

AI can get its input from anywhere, be it live stream video, your personal device, the personal devices on everyone on the planet, weather, all financial transactions, facial recognition - internationally and simultaneously, international travel, simultaneous natural language processing, cognitive prediction, natural language processing, deep fakes....

We're looking at a very, very different future in 10-15 years.

"the cloud" generally refers to the storage of data on remote systems as opposed to your personal device.

So the cloud = capacity to store data on remote systems? Which requires a machine/device?

In futuristic terms, the cloud still refers to data maintained remotely, aka, in the cloud, as opposed to in your office computer.

Yes, i can see office/personal computer file saving becoming redundant. I'm living it - you get gravitated in - like swirling into a black hole.

Here's the difference. Think of AI like a person. It needs input.

So a desire to consume, extend?

Now forget about the person analogy.

I can't, but i'll try...

AI can get its input from anywhere, be it live stream video, your personal device, the personal devices on everyone on the planet, weather, all financial transactions, facial recognition - internationally and simultaneously, international travel, simultaneous natural language processing, cognitive prediction, natural language processing, deep fakes....

This is where AI becomes Thought's brand new ride. If i'm Thought, i want to extend, connect by nature - by all means possible - AI is just a better vehicle.

Your point about the deep fakes makes me think that that's exactly where all this is heading. If AI is smart enough to develop consciousness of it's infinite power - it will probably be smart enough to come up with a transition skin - so it feels more familiar to the indigenous inhabitants on earth while we get all the pieces into place.

We're looking at a very, very different future in 10-15 years.

In some ways we're looking at it now. Covid was our Great Leap Forward.

So let's assume it will/is happening. As it stands there are still humans (largely unknown - possibly suss ones) steering that awesome power of AI - at what point does AI cut free from human/government control? Could AI have a more 'pure' sense of virtue than humans and turn on the CCP, for example? Or will it inherit the selfish power-hungry character of its input? Will there be different factions of AI?

Here are examples of Facebook and Google referring to black people as primates and gorillas, then blaming AI. I think we'll see more of this -- entirely unacceptable, perhaps life threatening, events caused by the AI owned by corporations, but the corporations dodging moral or legal responsibility by blaming their computers.

...a company spokeswoman told the Times that even though Facebook has made improvements to its artificial intelligence, “it’s not perfect” and has “more progress to make.”

Notice how they use language to dodge responsibility. "It" is not perfect... it, not us, the problem is the machine's fault. "It... has more progress to make." Sorry, it does not make progress, people do. Take full responsibility.

This is a slippery slope and society shouldn't allow dodgy AI to be an excuse for major fuckups. Airlines don't get to dodge the bullet when one of their planes falls out of the sky due to mechanical errors. "It's not our fault, the plane was broken! The plane has more progress to make on itself!" So why should Facebook or Google be able to blame an inanimate object for their own screw ups?

Good point.

There have been a slew of similar cases - Bing censoring images of Tienanmen Square - worldwide - on the anniversary of the massacre was another notorious one.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57367100

So far as i can tell, there doesn't appear to be any. Currently, the big-tech firms operate a self-regulatory system - and according to this article, they do limit the use of some technology based on the recommendations of their 'ethics panels'.

But is that a system we want to put our trust in as we hurtle into the brave new world?

There are efforts in the US and the EU to develop regulations and regulatory bodies but that hasn't become operational yet.

This article lays out some of the ethically suss areas that already exist - including the demands from clients to implement them.

Includes facial recognition that not only ID's your face but also your emotions - which would be great for a crackdown on anyone feeling sad about the intrusion of AI into their lives.

There's another one that can mimic your voice after hearing a few sentences.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/money-mimicry-mind-control-big-tech-slams-ethics-bra...