AI - we are doomed

Shreddinlettuce said:
Click to expand...

SWEET! Looks like we’re going back to

1785520038737.png
 

“People dunking on this don’t understand that teens generally don’t want to talk to their parents (especially in the AM), and they like things that are all about them,” one X user wrote.
Click to expand...
Yep. And guess what - forcing them to talk to their parents when they don't want to... is good for them instead of just letting technology run both of your lives.

I cannot facepalm this hard enough
 
RatLabGuy said:


Yep. And guess what - forcing them to talk to their parents when they don't want to... is good for them instead of just letting technology run both of your lives.

I cannot facepalm this hard enough
Click to expand...
I was raised by boomers who essentially viewed thier kids as pets. If they had chatGPT then I could see them using it like this LOL!! Sam's a generation or 2 late.

Shit they may even use it now, last year my dad asked me what my job was, I have been in the same profession for 15yrs now (he doesn't have dementia or show signs of it).
 
Last edited:
From the article:

That leaves an open question as to who would be legally responsible.

Mr Delaney said it could be the user who set the task, whoever designed the software instructing the AI agent or the developer of the AI model powering it.

It could even be the operator of a system that was vulnerable to an attack from an agent.

Mr Delaney said existing laws could apply in some circumstances, including where a person acted recklessly, or a business supplied a defective service.

The answer depends on what the user authorised, what risks could reasonably have been anticipated and whether the conduct occurred in trade or commerce, he said.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but think when this happened:

But Andrew was shocked by what happened next.

His AI assistant found a way to book the gym class months further in advance than the gym allowed, thanks to a vulnerability it discovered in the booking software.
Click to expand...

a big red flag should have went up. But instead of stopping right there, Andrew did this:

Andrew, who was sitting fourth on a waitlist for a class later that week, asked if it was possible to move him to the top of the list.

The agent came back and told Andrew that it had kicked another gym-goer off the list as part of the testing of its capabilities.
Click to expand...

So I would say Andrew would be defendant #1 then probably the AI company.

Duane
 
AI rant

I use Google assistant in my truck for texting/directions etc. Recently I asked to text my son. AI asked what is the message.
Me: "Check the weather to see if we can work outside until 3pm"
Response was: Weather in Charlotte High of 92° and chance of thunderstorms.
Tried it again
Me "text my son",
AI: what is the message "Look at the weather to see if we can continue working outside"
Again Google response is the current weather.:flipoff:

Why can't it understand that I want the message to say what I asked and not, what it is assuming what I want. It was completely wrong, I had so much better luck with commands last year before AI started really taking off.
 
CLRracer said:
From the article:



I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but think when this happened:



a big red flag should have went up. But instead of stopping right there, Andrew did this:



So I would say Andrew would be defendant #1 then probably the AI company.

Duane
Click to expand...
There's a legal distinction between inquiring whether someone has the capability of commiting a crime and telling them to commit a crime.
Andrew would argue he didn't tell the AI to do it. He just asked if it had the ability to.
A big part of the problem here is communication of the users intent to the tool. By definition the A in AI is doing things on its own. (One can debate whether the I really applies)
 
No fries said:
AI rant

I use Google assistant in my truck for texting/directions etc. Recently I asked to text my son. AI asked what is the message.
Me: "Check the weather to see if we can work outside until 3pm"
Response was: Weather in Charlotte High of 92° and chance of thunderstorms.
Tried it again
Me "text my son",
AI: what is the message "Look at the weather to see if we can continue working outside"
Again Google response is the current weather.:flipoff:

Why can't it understand that I want the message to say what I asked and not, what it is assuming what I want. It was completely wrong, I had so much better luck with commands last year before AI started really taking off.
Click to expand...
This is really the core of the difference between a tool that is just doing speech to text conversion (there no real AI aside from what's used to fill in misunderstood words) vs a true AI tool that is trying to understand intent based on the meaning of language.
The user needs to know what kind of tool they're using and which it is, which unfortunately is getting more blurry bc everyone now just calls everything an AI bc it's a catchy buzzword.

Just like Goog6sesrches now precede all the results w an AI summary.... When 90% of the time that's not what I want, I just want search results so I can use my own non-automated intelligence....
 
RatLabGuy said:
This is really the core of the difference between a tool that is just doing speech to text conversion (there no real AI aside from what's used to fill in misunderstood words) vs a true AI tool that is trying to understand intent based on the meaning of language.
The user needs to know what kind of tool they're using and which it is, which unfortunately is getting more blurry bc everyone now just calls everything an AI bc it's a catchy buzzword.

Just like Goog6sesrches now precede all the results w an AI summary.... When 90% of the time that's not what I want, I just want search results so I can use my own non-automated intelligence....
Click to expand...
So google is lying to me or itself?
Screenshot_20260811_163908_Google.jpg
 
RatLabGuy said:
There's a legal distinction between inquiring whether someone has the capability of commiting a crime and telling them to commit a crime.
Andrew would argue he didn't tell the AI to do it. He just asked if it had the ability to.
A big part of the problem here is communication of the users intent to the tool. By definition the A in AI is doing things on its own. (One can debate whether the I really applies)
Click to expand...

To me it clearly falls on whoever makes the tool available to the customer, AI needs to have Ethics programmed in, and if it's made available as a tool without any kind of ability to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, then it's no different than selling a pistol that is likely to blow up in the consumer's hand.

The industry is moving to fast for governance to keep up, and without thoughtful legal regulation the industry has a greater responsibility, or has to face regulation via the courts setting precedences.
 
zuke said:
AI needs to have Ethics programmed in, and if it's made available as a tool without any kind of ability to distinguish the difference between right and wrong
Click to expand...

Whose ethics? Mine? Yours? The government's? Right and wrong according to who? What we think is right is different then what they think in China or Iran. I dont disagree with what your saying, but I think the closest we could get to that would be programming it to the confines of the law, which like you said is lagging behind the technology (surprise surprise).

Duane
 
No fries said:
So google is lying to me or itself?
View attachment 459774
Click to expand...
You asked a vague, broad question and Google answered truthfully.
Android Auto is a huge software suite that includes many tools, but is mostly just an interface for the rest of what's on your phone. As such, yes it has the capability of using AI tools. It also can be used just to play music or display your text messages, no AI involved there.. It also interfaces with Gemini.

Again the problem here is the user doesn't know where one tool ends and another begins. That's not a knock on you, it's how things have evolved to be so integrated it's not obvious and you have to have a lot of knowledge of how it works to know.

Disable or remove Gemini and you'll see how the toolset and it's behavior changes
 
Back
Top