Will the rise of AI replace us all??

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Too much confusion here between getting information vs AI. Internet info on how to change a raw water impeller is great but it sure isn’t AI that will do the grunt work. Having spent a working lifetime dealing with control algorithms, feed forward feed back loops, digital controls and heavy equipment the ultimate efficiency depended upon the field mechanics and electricians doing their PM and repair work.

It is way too easy to confuse an “AI” Tesla or robot with the overall production of the raw materials to create it.

Now, about the grunt work of cleaning the aftercoolers
 
Last edited:
AI is a game changer on many levels. I have a Moen smart water valve just downstream of the PRV of our incoming water line to our house. For the first 10 days it “learned” our water use habits and categorizes them by type. If it sees an anomaly, the valve closes automatically and no flood. It also has a setting for “away”, when it is even more sensitive. We are currently not home, in “away mode” and I got an alert the valve closed yesterday. It’s still learning our system, so likely not an issue. I then shut down the water heater with a different App. Just a very simple example. AI will eventually be used to complete dangerous work tasks rather than humans, redundant tasks, medical research, improvements to health care…the list is long.
 
Several fields are and will be transformed.
The diagnostic aspects of medicine will be a decision matrix where AI decides which testing protocols have the highest yield. Then speaks directly to that machinery ( blood, cultures, sputum, biopsies, MRI/A, CTI/A etc.). Results read by and interpreted by AI. Then next battery of testing, if needed, ordered and repeated until a firm diagnosis reached.
Even now robotic surgery is commonplace. That will markly expand. Selection of treatment pharmaceuticals and delivery will also be done by AI. Now it’s commonplace to do stereotactic radio (or proton beam) neurosurgery utilizing AI lite. That will expand into other disciplines.
Similarly other than those interactions requiring in person appearances in court the whole range of lawyer activities can reasonably be replaced by AI.
Same for accountants and even forensic accountants.
Line workers in manufacturing and food stuffs are replaceable.
Most skilled crafts will be transformed.
In all these fields humans will be required but the nature of work will be very different.

Major issue is getting the public aware and concerned about the nature of AI. They also need to be educated so they can find gainful work in conjunction with the coming AI world. It’s the same issue as your current politics. Both the right and left aren’t sufficiently educated in basic civics. Nor affront immoral behavior. AI will evolve to allow immoral behavior. Only with public concern and education as to the realities of AI and basic understanding of how it works can the inevitable future world of AI improve the quality of human life. Knowing most people don’t understand how their cellphone works I do have some concern. I remain optimistic even serious thought about the moral implications and impacts on economics and quality of life is occurring.
 
I've seen the guidebook on how this ends

Man makes robots in human form to perform various tasks
Man weoponises machine
Machine becomes sentient
Man tries to shut machine down
Machine retaliates
The end
 
Interesting time to reread Isaac Asimov’s trilogy written over sixty years ago. Simi that’s hy you and the rest of us lay people need to be aware and engaged.
 
Fear not the smart robots or conspiracy theories. It’s just another tool being developed by smart humans on our evolutionary journey. As with all technology, some aspects of AI will likely have a negative impact but overall the net should be positive for future generations. Relax guys, go for a boat ride.
 
Fletcher500 said:
Fear not the smart robots or conspiracy theories. It’s just another tool being developed by smart humans on our evolutionary journey. As with all technology, some aspects of AI will likely have a negative impact but overall the net should be positive for future generations. Relax guys, go for a boat ride.
Click to expand...

Soon

:)
 
The funny thing I always found was that some people tend to 'believe' what the computer tells them more than if a person tells them. Maybe they think people are biased and computers unbiased. Of course we're not privy to how the algorythms are programmed. Without understanding that it becomes dangerous just to accept what it spits out since you have no idea how it treats the available data. Worse yet, I leared in technical fields the most intersting data isn't published on the internet, just like the drug companies don't release their actual study data (only their own analysis).
 
Slowmo said:
The funny thing I always found was that some people tend to 'believe' what the computer tells them more than if a person tells them. Maybe they think people are biased and computers unbiased. Of course we're not privy to how the algorythms are programmed. Without understanding that it becomes dangerous just to accept what it spits out since you have no idea how it treats the available data. Worse yet, I leared in technical fields the most intersting data isn't published on the internet, just like the drug companies don't release their actual study data (only their own analysis).
Click to expand...

Ah yes, reminds of the internet and strange sayings such as, ‘I read it on the internet so it must be true.’
 
Greetings,
Mr. (Dr.) H. Asimov, indeed. I've long had the opinion that a good part of today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality.
 
RTF,
I will not believe it until one of your relatives gives their unbiased opinion.
I miss their input.
 
The problem of garbage in, garbage out is real. Trust the science? One third of published scientific studies found to be just made up or plagiarized. But which third?


Could you please post any evidence this statement is true. Yes retractions do occur as do corrections. Any questions about validity are immediately brought brought up in letters to the editors. Having been reading and following the scientific literature in peer reviewed journals for 4+ decades firmly hold a third is false to be untrue. The issue is the amount of pseudoscience appearing in the lay literature or obscure trashy journals which publish non randomized, studies with inadequate study numbers and non controlled crap loaded with bias. Usually if you looked at funding sources its evident it’s garbage.
 
I, AI, evolution and happenstance in relation to "Form" Infinity:

Everything: That has ever existed in any form and everything that now exists in any form and everything that may or will exist in any form... always existed and always will exist in capability to be formed. Be that form engineering composition, drafting composition, material composition, subconscious composition and/or any other way of composition... inside and outside alongside and surrounding or consumed by the infinity of infinity.

Example - The Coffee Cup: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Example - The Empire State Building: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Example - The Computer: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Which brings us to this juncture...

Three "forms" of items mentioned above were brought about by Human Intelligence, not AI. And, our forming process of creating forms of AI is being formed by human intelligence. Therefore, AI will only get out of hand IF we let it. We can always curtail AI's capabilities by basically "pulling the plug" on portions of AI that may become so powerful they need to be tamed back down.

Which brings us to this super interesting conjecture...

Seeing as - - - Everything: That has ever existed in any form and everything that now exists in any form and everything that may or will exist in any form... always existed and always will exist in capability to be formed.

Means This: We all were a "form" waiting to be created. Hello God!! What's up, and, Thanks!!

IMHO... "Created in the likeness of..." does not mean physical likeness; but rather, a gifted, limited ability to, in minor fashion to, begin to self-create inanimate object-forms... found in and taken out from infinity!

Ain't Life Great! :dance:
 
SteveK said:
RTF,
I will not believe it until one of your relatives gives their unbiased opinion.
I miss their input.
Click to expand...



images
 
Hippocampus said:
The problem of garbage in, garbage out is real. Trust the science? One third of published scientific studies found to be just made up or plagiarized. But which third?


Could you please post any evidence this statement is true. Yes retractions do occur as do corrections. Any questions about validity are immediately brought brought up in letters to the editors. Having been reading and following the scientific literature in peer reviewed journals for 4+ decades firmly hold a third is false to be untrue. The issue is the amount of pseudoscience appearing in the lay literature or obscure trashy journals which publish non randomized, studies with inadequate study numbers and non controlled crap loaded with bias. Usually if you looked at funding sources its evident it’s garbage.
Click to expand...

I did. The link was in the post you quoted
 
Art said:
I, AI, evolution and happenstance in relation to "Form" Infinity:

Everything: That has ever existed in any form and everything that now exists in any form and everything that may or will exist in any form... always existed and always will exist in capability to be formed. Be that form engineering composition, drafting composition, material composition, subconscious composition and/or any other way of composition... inside and outside alongside and surrounding or consumed by the infinity of infinity.

Example - The Coffee Cup: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Example - The Empire State Building: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Example - The Computer: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Which brings us to this juncture...

Three "forms" of items mentioned above were brought about by Human Intelligence, not AI. And, our forming process of creating forms of AI is being formed by human intelligence. Therefore, AI will only get out of hand IF we let it. We can always curtail AI's capabilities by basically "pulling the plug" on portions of AI that may become so powerful they need to be tamed back down.

Which brings us to this super interesting conjecture...

Seeing as - - - Everything: That has ever existed in any form and everything that now exists in any form and everything that may or will exist in any form... always existed and always will exist in capability to be formed.

Means This: We all were a "form" waiting to be created. Hello God!! What's up, and, Thanks!!

IMHO... "Created in the likeness of..." does not mean physical likeness; but rather, a gifted, limited ability to, in minor fashion to, begin to self-create inanimate object-forms... found in and taken out from infinity!

Ain't Life Great! :dance:
Click to expand...

Art- beg to differ. Please read Thomas Kuhn on how shifts in paradigms occur. See there are truly new things in the world. Truly novel ways of thinking and novel objects. We fairly routinely make things that never existed in nature before regardless of how far back you go. Nor ever existed in nature in any form.
 
Here’s the salient statement
“ When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report.”

So you have one study which makes a statement that was derived by an algorithm the author invented. You have no information as to how the algorithm decides if a paper is untrue or plagiarized. Most importantly no statistical analysis of the strength of the algorithm.

Think much of the public due to not being actively engaged in the activity doesn’t grasp how the system works. I worked at the Framingham Heart Study for awhile. During that period I was not tenured at my institution so was under the publish or perish pressure. Anything I published was reviewed internally by my department . Then sent out to journals I thought would interested in publishing it. There a body of reviewers who were knowledgeable in that aspect of science reviewed it again. Only then would it be published. That’s peer review.
However after publication interested readers would write letters to the editor trying to pick apart your paper. You’re then obligated to defend your results and responded to each notable critique. After that entire process the findings were still not accepted by the scientific community. Rather that acceptance occurred when your results were confirmed by labs or studies that reproduced your results in other independent studies. Or your study was used for the basis of other studies that confirmed its validity. The laity my read one study. Scientists in that field are reading that literature. Scientists have understanding as how to judge the strength of the study. The laity often does not. The scientists in that field can judge the strength of the methodology, the statistics, and critique for bias. The laity often doesn’t have the background to do so nor the opportunity as they aren’t conversant with the rest of the literature in that subject.
Yes there’s definite abuse as careers are at stake and even misdirected lines of thought. Even ethical scientists can go off in a major misdirection. An example is the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease. But the overwhelming trend in science is its self correcting. Scientific thought between scientists in a given field is a constant fight. Studies are constantly challenged. Studies are constantly discarded from the knowledge base as new studies prove they need to be supplanted by further understandings. Yes all scientists stand on the shoulders of giants but on occasion we shift paradigms when a series of studies show us our premise is incomplete or flawed.
 
Last edited:
Slowmo said:
The funny thing I always found was that some people tend to 'believe' what the computer tells them more than if a person tells them. Maybe they think people are biased and computers unbiased. Of course we're not privy to how the algorythms are programmed. Without understanding that it becomes dangerous just to accept what it spits out since you have no idea how it treats the available data. Worse yet, I leared in technical fields the most intersting data isn't published on the internet, just like the drug companies don't release their actual study data (only their own analysis).
Click to expand...


And now for a little comic relief,,,,
 
This statement is untrue.

“just like the drug companies don't release their actual study data (only their own analysis)”.

I’ve done multiple licensing trials. They are published upon completion. Read any packet insert for any drug and you will find them. Go to the FDA or NIH web pages and the entire study is published. Negative trials where the drug doesn’t meet criteria for licensure remain proprietary. Usually negative trials are published in the specialty literature but the pharmaceutical company isn’t obligated to do so. But if it’s a licensed drug the government insists upon publication of all the studies used that supported its licensure.
Three levels are done.
Phase one- basically poof of purpose and safety.
Phase two- larger N (number of people in the study) to show efficacy and safety.
Phase three- the licensing trial where there’s a much larger N allowing demonstration of adverse events expected in one hundred thousand patient years and efficacy with statistical reliability of greate than 95%.
As said above much said on the internet is patently false.
 
Should further mention though out a phase three licensing trial the government goes to your study site periodically and reviews your case study data for the subjects in the study. You are obligated to report any adverse event to the central study coordinator and those are reported to the government as well. Before the study commences your study protocol is reviewed by the government and they will decide if your study meets criteria for licensure if it is positive and has an acceptable rate of adverse events.
The quoted statement above is total nonsense. All licensed drugs are extensively studied. All phase three trials are published including their entire data sets. All phase three studies are reviewed by industry, governmental agencies, and there are independent committees not paid for by industry of knowledgeable individuals in that field nor part of the study who review them as well.
This is true in the US and EU.
I have no interest in debating the morality of abortion or birth control. But the current debacle about the safety of medical abortion is ridiculous. Drug involved has many thousands of patient years of use. Incidence of adverse events is well known. Safety profile is well known. No rational basis based on science for this attack regardless of issues of morality. Its statements like that here questioning FDA approved drugs undercuts trust with no basis in fact.
One should further note all clinicians (MD,PA, NPs) are obligated to report any serious adverse event for any licensed drug. This obligation remains long after the drug is licensed and only terminates when the drug is taken off the market.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art View Post
I, AI, evolution and happenstance in relation to "Form" Infinity:

Everything: That has ever existed in any form and everything that now exists in any form and everything that may or will exist in any form... always existed and always will exist in capability to be formed. Be that form engineering composition, drafting composition, material composition, subconscious composition and/or any other way of composition... inside and outside alongside and surrounding or consumed by the infinity of infinity.

Example - The Coffee Cup: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Example - The Empire State Building: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Example - The Computer: Millions of years ago and millions of years from now that "form" exists. Just waiting for some sort of intelligence to conceive of its "forms" existence and then to engineer it, draft it and build it.

Which brings us to this juncture...

Three "forms" of items mentioned above were brought about by Human Intelligence, not AI. And, our forming process of creating forms of AI is being formed by human intelligence. Therefore, AI will only get out of hand IF we let it. We can always curtail AI's capabilities by basically "pulling the plug" on portions of AI that may become so powerful they need to be tamed back down.

Which brings us to this super interesting conjecture...

Seeing as - - - Everything: That has ever existed in any form and everything that now exists in any form and everything that may or will exist in any form... always existed and always will exist in capability to be formed.

Means This: We all were a "form" waiting to be created. Hello God!! What's up, and, Thanks!!

IMHO... "Created in the likeness of..." does not mean physical likeness; but rather, a gifted, limited ability to, in minor fashion to, begin to self-create inanimate object-forms... found in and taken out from infinity!

Ain't Life Great!

Hippocampus said:
Art- beg to differ. Please read Thomas Kuhn on how shifts in paradigms occur. See there are truly new things in the world. Truly novel ways of thinking and novel objects. We fairly routinely make things that never existed in nature before regardless of how far back you go. Nor ever existed in nature in any form.
Click to expand...

Hipp - That's the point... you prove my point.

Please read here and my copied text/post above your post very carefully.

The "form" of [any] new item of any sort or context already does exist [in the unlimited realm of infinity] before we [or any intelligence capable of creation] reaches into the realm of infinity and finds it [i.e. pulls it out and constructs it]. Infinity's all things already exist in "form-available" that we [or any other entity] finds/creates.

Via extrapolation, as infinity has all "forms" [things] available to be located and created into existence... every living thing's "form's" premise was therefore available to be created by a "creator" [of some sort]; with enhanced evolution attached wherefrom that "form" proceeds to changes ongoing and eventual end apparent... wherefrom it [the "form"] disintegrates back into infinity's realm of unlimited "forms-available".

Thus as you say: "There are truly new things in the world." Truly novel ways of thinking and novel objects". "We fairly routinely make things that never existed in nature before regardless of how far back you go. "Nor ever existed in nature in any form" That IS - - - > So True!! Until we pull that "form" [of anything] out of infinity to substantiate/create its existence.

:D
 
Last edited:
Guess we are arguing whether parallel lines ever meet or not when extended forever.
Philosophically reminded of heiggers “being and time” when you refer to “infinity”. Good to **** gears occasionally. When talking physics personally use one usage of infiinity
 
Last edited:
Hippocampus said:
Guess we are arguing whether parallel lines ever meet or not when extended forever.
Philosophical reminded of heiggers “being and time” when you refer to “infinity.
Click to expand...

While I reach into infinity [best as I can] to pull out some "forms" for creating items: Being a child of the fifties and adolescent of the 60's... I can affirmatively say!

"Far Out Man"! LOL :thumb:
 
Two parallel lines into infinity that will never meet?

An example of this is like two members on TF having a debate. ;) :rofl:
 
SteveK said:
Two parallel lines into infinity that will never meet?

An example of this is like two members on TF having a debate. ;) :rofl:
Click to expand...


Debate or discussion? The objective of a discussion is the truth. The objective of a debate is victory.
 
ronobrien said:
Debate or discussion? The objective of a discussion is the truth. The objective of a debate is victory.
Click to expand...

The objective of an objective is to reach some objective... i.e., parallel lines that eventually meet! :thumb:
 
This just in, saw it on the news just now.
Absolute Vodka is making cocktails for demographics based on AI technology
 
KnotYet said:
I know!
Absolute's AI just IG'd me suggesting I stick to belly shots. :huh:
Click to expand...

Having spent considerable time in Russia I can attest that Russian vodka imbues one with AI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ben
Navigation Software
Replies
8
Views
1K
Moonfish
Moonfish
Adopo
US Couple in Caribbean feared dead
2 3
Replies
62
Views
8K
Hippocampus
H
P
Changing name on AIS
Replies
14
Views
2K
rgano
rgano
JDCAVE
AIS Noise
Replies
20
Views
1K
sunchaser
S
E
AIS question. Raymarine AIS700
Replies
19
Views
2K
twistedtree
twistedtree

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom