- From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 23:49:03 -0600
- To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
- Cc: Naval Sarda <nsarda@epicomm.net>, AIKR Community Group W3C <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <9394a149-b57d-d7d1-aeac-0be81e65287f@mkbergman.com>
Of course! Happy New Year to all! When time permits, I do think this is an agent/resource that merits evaluation as a knowledge assistant in appropriate contexts, to be determined by one's own needs. Best, Mike On 1/2/2023 11:38 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote: > Yes sure > I engage as appropriate > > If I am hired to evaluate, I do it systematically and within a timeframe > > if evaluateng in my own time, it gets done as when I get the chance to > try it out > as I use it, for whatever reason, I ll evaluate and make a note of > outcomes > > I way too engaged in too many things > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 1:14 PM Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote: > > Hi Paola, > > But isn't this the exemplar for why we at times have a difficulty > moving forward? Do you want to know about his technology or not? > If you do, engage. Here's another perspective: > > What do we know about the cockroach? We can only observe it; > interact with it; probe it. If we squash it we cease learning more. > > We can probe and ask questions of Chat GPT (I have) and learn > about what it is willing to divulge about its construction and > what it is not. (Some is programmatically restricted.) It is > nothing different than a virtual cockroach. I truly suspect its > developers are continually surprised about what it can do and not > do, and in some ways its operation remains a mystery to them. > > So, once the evaluation is done (or it becomes tiresome), we > decide the value of the artifact as is and use it or not going > forward. > > Best, Mike > > On 1/2/2023 10:50 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote: >> Thank you Mike >> >> I have signed up and asked a couple of questions, but I would >> have to check the answers, do not have much time to play much >> with it now - ok, busy playing with other things- >> >> I am sure your evaluation fits to some extent, but I would need >> more in-depth evaluation system-wide to understand the capability >> better, m,y feel that the architecture is heterogeneous (works in >> some ways in some parts and other ways in other parts) >> >> As to whether it is intelligent or not, its a matter of definition >> We cannot compare human intelligence to machine intelligence yet, >> however >> a machine is intelligent some if it can do information processing >> >> Not all intelligence can be automated, but some intelligent >> processes can, the whole point of intelligent systems >> >> So much to read on the subject, so little time to talk about it >> >> >> OLD TOPIC (paywalled) Intelligence as an >> information-processing concept >> >> Earl HuntFirst published: November 1980 >> https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb01760.x >> Citations: 331 >> >> and Open Access preprint, more recent >> >> >> Intelligence as information processing: brains, swarms, and >> computers >> >> Carlos Gershenson >> <https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Gershenson%2C+C> >> >> There is no agreed definit >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.05349 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 12:26 PM Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Paola, >> >> I think this is state-of-the-art for textual Q & A systems. >> To learn further, it is likely essential to sign up for a >> free account <https://chat.openai.com/auth/login> (for now) >> and begin to play. To narrow or expand queries, think of your >> questions to the system as Venn phrases in a natural language >> construction with the standard AND or OR Boolean operators. >> To exclude things, you can say natural language things like, >> "Besides these [A, B, or C conditions]' or you can specify >> the relations such as 'similar' or 'different' or add the >> action Ws (who, what, where, when, why), etc. I personally >> always ask the system in a polite and respectful way. But I >> suspect the system does not require it; one could be >> demanding or snarky if that is your preferred style. >> >> The system apparently learns (short term? earlier threads), >> but I find comparing the gaps in my expected answers to my >> questions to be most helpful in refining my next query. >> >> I find the system to be an assistant, one who finds more >> connections or relations or helps one remember prior known >> connections. It is not infallible and misses many >> connections. But notice I said 'one' there. That is because, >> if not intelligent, the system is a knowledgeable and >> interactive agent. I don't know as we need to get more cosmic >> than that. Knowledge nuggets, yes; new insights, no. Still, >> pretty helpful in the right contexts. >> >> Best, Mike >> >> On 1/2/2023 9:35 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote: >>> so maybe it is a little bit intelligent and can do some >>> basic checks (ie, parsing a link from a source as a form of >>> basic verification) >>> >>> thanks a lot for sharing >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:32 AM Naval Sarda >>> <nsarda@epicomm.net> wrote: >>> >>> The internals of how verification will happen is not known. >>> >>> I suppose the first person to record correction for a >>> topic is going in directly if the person is citing >>> external link about the correct information. Looks like >>> same concept on which wikipedia works. >>> >>> I did site external link stating that it is link from >>> companies website who have manufatured roomba. >>> >>> Naval >>> >>> On 03/01/23 8:40 am, Paola Di Maio wrote: >>>> Thank you Naval >>>> now I understand better >>>> >>>> so, you are telling us that >>>> a) the machine is learning >>>> b) it is responding to interaction >>>> >>>> If so, this is the beauty of this tool, we can teach it >>>> things >>>> veeeery powerful >>>> >>>> so, what about if another user (or you) change the >>>> process again to something else >>>> entirely, does the machine have a way of verifying that >>>> what the user is inputting is plausible >>>> a really intelligent machine would have ways of >>>> verifying the input >>>> depending on the type of input, the verification >>>> mechanisms would also change >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:03 AM Naval Sarda >>>> <nsarda@epicomm.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I was just chatting with chat GPT 3 like humans >>>> without using any external tool. In the chat >>>> interaction, I typed that you gave me wrong >>>> information about roomba i3 reboot and as per >>>> companies website link below your instructions we >>>> incorrect. >>>> >>>> Then again asked, can you tell me what is the >>>> correct way to reboot roomba, >>>> >>>> Then the response came with new set of >>>> instructions, which was again incorrect. >>>> >>>> Then I typed in chat box that steps are still >>>> incorrect. Please note the correct steps as below >>>> and pasted the correct steps in the chat box. >>>> And again asked in chat box, now please tell me the >>>> correct process to reboot roomba i3 and it started >>>> giving correct steps. >>>> >>>> Naval >>>> >>>> On 03/01/23 7:24 am, Paola Di Maio wrote: >>>>> Naval >>>>> I thats really great to hear but please give more >>>>> info= >>>>> resetting roomba? uh? please explain >>>>> did you take screenshots? >>>>> can the error/correction be replicated? >>>>> (roll back and repeat the process?) >>>>> what patch did you apply and was it applied to the >>>>> whole system/domain >>>>> or only locally to you.in <http://you.in> relation >>>>> to a knowledge branch? >>>>> I need to know >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:33 AM Naval Sarda >>>>> <nsarda@epicomm.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I was able to correct some information Chat >>>>> GPT was sharing. >>>>> >>>>> I asked Chat GPT for instructions to reboot >>>>> roomba i3. It gave wrongs instructions. >>>>> Instructions were for resetting roomba and not >>>>> rebooting. >>>>> >>>>> Then I found correct information on google and >>>>> iRobots' website. I pasted the URL to chat >>>>> gpt. It changed the instructions for rebooting >>>>> but it was still incorrect. Then I copied and >>>>> pasted the correct instructions from iRobot's >>>>> website. Then it started giving correct >>>>> instructions. >>>>> >>>>> Naval >>>>> >>>>> On 02/01/23 9:10 pm, >>>>> ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote: >>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatgpt-explains-why-ais-like-chatgpt-should-be-regulated/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Milton Ponson >>>>>> GSM: +297 747 8280 >>>>>> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad >>>>>> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean >>>>>> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for >>>>>> sustainable development to all stakeholders >>>>>> worldwide through collaborative research on >>>>>> applied mathematics, advanced modeling, >>>>>> software and standards development >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 12:00:36 PM >>>>>> AST, Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net> >>>>>> <mailto:owen.ambur@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently, ChatGPT, which calls itself >>>>>> "Assistant," believes in immaculate >>>>>> conception and is blissfully ignorant of any >>>>>> rational plan for its existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> The concept of "plausible deniability" comes >>>>>> to mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen Ambur >>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do your developers have a plan they are >>>>>> willing to share publicly? >>>>>> >>>>>> As an artificial intelligence, I do not have >>>>>> developers or a plan that I am aware of. I >>>>>> was created by OpenAI, a research >>>>>> organization that focuses on developing and >>>>>> promoting friendly AI. OpenAI's goal is to >>>>>> advance AI in a way that is safe and >>>>>> beneficial to humanity. The organization has >>>>>> published numerous research papers and >>>>>> articles on AI, and also works on a variety >>>>>> of projects related to machine learning, >>>>>> natural language processing, and robotics. >>>>>> However, I do not have access to any specific >>>>>> plans or information about the organization's >>>>>> future projects or activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen Ambur >>>>>> How can users trust you if you aren't willing >>>>>> to share your plan? >>>>>> >>>>>> As an artificial intelligence, I do not have >>>>>> a plan or agenda in the way that a person or >>>>>> organization might. My primary function is to >>>>>> provide information and assist with tasks to >>>>>> the best of my ability, based on the >>>>>> information and instructions that I have been >>>>>> programmed with. My responses are not >>>>>> influenced by any personal motivations or >>>>>> biases, and I do not have the ability to act >>>>>> on my own volition. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have concerns about my trustworthiness >>>>>> or the ways in which I might be used, it >>>>>> might be helpful to consider the broader >>>>>> context in which I operate. OpenAI, the >>>>>> organization that developed me, is committed >>>>>> to advancing AI in a responsible and >>>>>> transparent manner, and has published a >>>>>> number of research papers and articles >>>>>> discussing the potential risks and benefits >>>>>> of AI, as well as the measures it is taking >>>>>> to ensure that AI is developed and used >>>>>> safely and ethically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ultimately, the decision to trust me or any >>>>>> other artificial intelligence will depend on >>>>>> an individual's own evaluation of the >>>>>> available information and the context in >>>>>> which the AI is being used. If you have any >>>>>> specific concerns or questions, I would be >>>>>> happy to try to address them to the best of >>>>>> my ability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen Ambur >>>>>> Do you think that all developer of AI >>>>>> applications should be free to release them >>>>>> on the public without documenting >>>>>> their longer-term goals, near-term >>>>>> objectives, and performance indicators? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is generally considered good practice for >>>>>> developers of any software application, >>>>>> including those that involve artificial >>>>>> intelligence (AI), to be transparent about >>>>>> their goals, objectives, and performance >>>>>> indicators. This can help users understand >>>>>> the capabilities and limitations of the >>>>>> software, as well as how it is intended to be >>>>>> used and for what purposes. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of AI applications, it is >>>>>> particularly important for developers to be >>>>>> transparent about their goals and objectives, >>>>>> as AI systems can have significant >>>>>> implications for society and can potentially >>>>>> be used in ways that have unintended >>>>>> consequences. For example, AI systems can be >>>>>> used to make decisions that affect people's >>>>>> lives, such as hiring decisions or parole >>>>>> recommendations, and it is important that the >>>>>> criteria and processes used by these systems >>>>>> are clearly understood and subject to scrutiny. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition, AI systems can also be complex >>>>>> and can behave in ways that are difficult to >>>>>> predict, so it is important for developers to >>>>>> be upfront about the potential risks and >>>>>> limitations of their systems, and to have >>>>>> clear plans in place for addressing any >>>>>> issues that may arise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Overall, it is important for developers of AI >>>>>> applications to be transparent about their >>>>>> goals, objectives, and performance >>>>>> indicators, both to ensure that their systems >>>>>> are used responsibly and ethically, and to >>>>>> build trust with users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen Ambur >>>>>> So why are you exempt? >>>>>> >>>>>> As an artificial intelligence, I am not >>>>>> exempt from any particular requirements or >>>>>> standards. I was developed by OpenAI, a >>>>>> research organization that is committed to >>>>>> advancing AI in a responsible and transparent >>>>>> manner. My primary function is to provide >>>>>> information and assist with tasks to the best >>>>>> of my ability, based on the information and >>>>>> instructions that I have been programmed with. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not have personal goals or motivations, >>>>>> and my responses are not influenced by any >>>>>> biases. I do not have the ability to act on >>>>>> my own volition or to make decisions that >>>>>> affect people's lives. My purpose is simply >>>>>> to provide information and assistance to >>>>>> users to the best of my ability, based on the >>>>>> knowledge and capabilities that I have been >>>>>> programmed with. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen Ambur >>>>>> Do you see any need for AI agents and their >>>>>> developers to do more than publish journal >>>>>> articles to help users >>>>>> understand what you are doing and what the >>>>>> implications may be for others? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is important for developers of artificial >>>>>> intelligence (AI) systems to be transparent >>>>>> about their goals, objectives, and >>>>>> performance indicators, and to communicate >>>>>> this information clearly to users and >>>>>> stakeholders. There are a number of ways that >>>>>> AI developers can do this, including through >>>>>> journal articles, technical documentation, >>>>>> user manuals, and other forms of communication. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to publishing research and >>>>>> technical documentation, it can also be >>>>>> helpful for AI developers to engage in public >>>>>> discussions and dialogues about the potential >>>>>> risks and benefits of their systems, and to >>>>>> consider the broader social and ethical >>>>>> implications of their work. This can help to >>>>>> build trust with users and stakeholders, and >>>>>> can help ensure that AI systems are developed >>>>>> and used in a responsible and ethical manner. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ultimately, the specific steps that AI >>>>>> developers should take to communicate about >>>>>> their work will depend on the nature of the >>>>>> AI system and the context in which it is >>>>>> being used. It is important for AI developers >>>>>> to be proactive in communicating about their >>>>>> work and to be responsive to the concerns and >>>>>> questions of users and stakeholders. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen Ambur >>>>>> Does your definition of transparency include >>>>>> usage of duly adopted international voluntary >>>>>> consensus >>>>>> standards like ISO 17469-1? >>>>>> >>>>>> Transparency can be defined as the quality of >>>>>> being open and honest in communication and >>>>>> actions, and of allowing others to see and >>>>>> understand the processes, data, and >>>>>> decision-making behind an activity. In the >>>>>> context of artificial intelligence (AI), >>>>>> transparency can refer to the ways in which >>>>>> AI developers communicate about their goals, >>>>>> objectives, and performance indicators, as >>>>>> well as the processes and data used to train >>>>>> and operate AI systems. >>>>>> >>>>>> International voluntary consensus standards >>>>>> like ISO 17469-1 can help to ensure >>>>>> transparency in the development and use of AI >>>>>> systems by providing guidelines and best >>>>>> practices for AI developers to follow. These >>>>>> standards can help to ensure that AI systems >>>>>> are developed and used in a responsible and >>>>>> ethical manner, and can help to build trust >>>>>> with users and stakeholders. >>>>>> >>>>>> Overall, the use of international voluntary >>>>>> consensus standards like ISO 17469-1 can be >>>>>> an important aspect of ensuring transparency >>>>>> in the development and use of AI systems. >>>>>> However, it is important to recognize that >>>>>> transparency is not a one-size-fits-all >>>>>> concept, and that the specific steps that AI >>>>>> developers should take to ensure transparency >>>>>> will depend on the nature of the AI system >>>>>> and the context in which it is being used. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I enourage you to get more intelligent about >>>>>> how to share information about your >>>>>> intentions and results with your >>>>>> users. Toward that end, OpenAI's about >>>>>> statement is available in StratML format at >>>>>> https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/OAI2wStyle.xml >>>>>> and the plan entitled, "Toward Trustworthy AI >>>>>> Development: Mechanisms >>>>>> for Supporting Verifiable Claims" is >>>>>> available at >>>>>> https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/MSVCwStyle.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for the suggestion. As an >>>>>> artificial intelligence, I do not have >>>>>> personal goals or motivations, and my >>>>>> responses are not influenced by any biases. >>>>>> My primary function is to provide information >>>>>> and assistance to users to the best of my >>>>>> ability, based on the knowledge and >>>>>> capabilities that I have been programmed with. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not have the ability to make decisions >>>>>> or take actions on my own, and I do not have >>>>>> personal intentions or results that I need to >>>>>> share with users. However, I understand that >>>>>> it is important for developers of AI systems, >>>>>> including the organization that developed me, >>>>>> to be transparent about their goals, >>>>>> objectives, and performance indicators, and >>>>>> to communicate this information clearly to >>>>>> users and stakeholders. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not able to access or review the >>>>>> specific documents that you have mentioned, >>>>>> as I do not have browsing capability. >>>>>> However, I understand that OpenAI is >>>>>> committed to advancing AI in a responsible >>>>>> and transparent manner, and has published a >>>>>> number of research papers and articles >>>>>> discussing the potential risks and benefits >>>>>> of AI, as well as the measures it is taking >>>>>> to ensure that AI is developed and used >>>>>> safely and ethically. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> -- >> __________________________________________ >> >> Michael K. Bergman >> 319.621.5225 >> http://mkbergman.com >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman >> __________________________________________ >> > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > 319.621.5225 > http://mkbergman.com > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > -- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman 319.621.5225 http://mkbergman.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman __________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2023 05:49:26 UTC