The post Pornography and Erotica Made the Web and Now ChatGPT is Joining the Adult Entertainment World appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>Pornography has played a significant role in the growth of the Internet from the dawn of the World Wide Web to today. In the 1990s, it was pornography that propelled advances in web-delivered images, video, and interactive consumer experiences. The pornography industry was among the first to do web advertising. The industry was on the ground floor of pop ads, the first pay-per-view pay walls, and subscription options.
In a July 3, 1995, Time magazine cover story, entitled “On Screen Near You: Cyberporn,” it suggested that the pervasiveness and popularity of pornography was dominating web traffic, ringing alarm bells in Congress and leading to 1996 legislation to stop cybererotica. Almost thirty years later, an MIT Technology Review article appearing on August 26, 2024, described a new evolution in web pornography powered by AI. This article stated that AI porn needed a national conversation in the United States and other countries. Was AI porn about freedom of speech, or about morality and criminality?
There is a dark side to AI-generated sexualized images. They can be created by manipulating real ones, such as replacing in a video, the face of a “porn star” with one of the girl next door. The article noted that using an AI porn generator, a user could “check boxes on a list of options as long as the Cheesecake Factory menu to create their ideal scenes: categories like male, female, and trans; ages from 18 to 90; breast and penis size; details like tan lines and underwear color; backdrops like grocery stores, churches, the Eiffel Tower, and Stonehenge; even weather, like tornadoes.”
The Altman comment stating that ChatGPT will offer subscribers the ability to customize its AI for personal use leaves many new options. Subscribers can give their AI a distinctive personality. They could introduce it to digitized versions of old home movies and photos, turning old 8-millimetre film reels stored in the basement or attic into the latest “blue movies.” If you don’t know the blue movie reference, ask an AI. It knows.
Altman’s age-gated ChatGPT for adult subscribers could become a virtual boyfriend or girlfriend that is subject to the whim of its user and capable of doing almost anything imaginable, including virtual sex. To describe this new capability in a nutshell, it represents an industry paradigm shift with enormous moral and safety implications.
Remember, we already have an Internet awash in sexualized content. Some, therefore, may see this new AI capacity as no different from the mid-1990s when traffic on pornography and erotica websites became significant. But critics see in AI-porn risk, the exploitation and sexualization of the vulnerable and, in particular, children.
Can regulating AI-generated content on the Internet work without freedom of speech and thought threatened? Is the issue of AI porn no different than any other related to this emerging technology?
Since ChatGPT 3.0 emerged three years ago, many, including Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called father of AI, have called for the establishment of guardrails. Some have answered the call.
In 2025, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act came into effect in February. This Act applies to all European Union countries. It created four risk-based categories for AI: minimal, limited, high and unacceptable. Unacceptable AI behaviours include social scoring, the evaluation or classification of people based on their social behaviour, personal characteristics, or personality traits, with assigned scores or rankings. AI porn isn’t addressed.
EU guardrails also cover harmful use of AI biometric identification, such as fingerprints, facial features, iris or retina patterns, voiceprints, and even behavioural patterns, with the exception being for law enforcement, subject to judicial approval. Again, nowhere is there a mention of AI sexualization and porn.
Elsewhere, the U.S. passed the Take It Down Act in May 2025 that criminalizes the publication of non-consensual intimate content on the web. The act is intended to eliminate AI-generated deepfakes. It doesn’t put limits on the creation and viewing of AI pornography and erotica for personal use.
The United Kingdom has passed the Online Safety Act, which is similar in intent to U.S. efforts.
Canada has yet to pass any law, even though the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) was introduced to the House of Commons back in 2022, but never voted on to become the law of the land.
Australia’s New South Wales has passed legislation that makes the publication and distribution of sexualized content on the web a criminal offence. The Australian federal government has an eSafety Commissioner with the power to remove sexualized content and impose fines on its creators and distributors.
The Chinese government’s social credit system is an example of AI social scoring designed to control citizens’ ability to travel, get healthcare, education and many government services. Viewing or creating AI porn isn’t mentioned as a behaviour to be scored.
None of these countries has yet considered a sexualized Generative AI acting as a personal assistant to its subscribers. This is new territory, fraught with challenges and implications that may lead to legislation and establish new precedents
.
The post Pornography and Erotica Made the Web and Now ChatGPT is Joining the Adult Entertainment World appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post University Students Are Becoming AI Dependent appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>Why is this happening? Diamandis notes that when you use an AI to write, you’re essentially asking someone else to think for you. The neural pathways that cement knowledge through active processing never get built. So, although students can produce brilliant-sounding work in minutes, they can’t remember any of the details.
The analogy that may best relate to this is using a paper map versus the GPS on your smartphone or in your car. Many people today no longer have the skills to read a paper map. They can only fnd their way by following what their GPS system tells them to do. That’s why some drivers find themselves in a pickle when the GPS gets it wrong, or the electronic map is wrong, or the GPS signal gets dropped.
Diamandis states that we are, by accident, creating a generation that can produce without understanding. Thankfully, there’s a twist. It isn’t the catastrophe everyone thinks it is, but rather an opportunity to transform education.
There is no doubt that the data MIT has produced accurately points out the problem. A student who uses a search engine like Google to research and then writes original content retains the information. A student who lets AI do the heavy lifting doesn’t retain the content, with almost all of it vanishing instantly.
Think about it: if you can’t recall what you supposedly “wrote,” did you actually learn anything? The answer is clearly NO! Doing research without using an AI establishes a fundamental understanding of a subject. Only then, the use of an AI can help to become an accelerator and never a replacement for mastering the fundamentals.
Diamandis calls this educational crossroads our “iPhone moment.” Just as smartphones apps didn’t destroy our ability to use paper maps, but rather transformed how we navigate, knowing how to use a map makes using GPS that much easier, leading to fewer dead end incidents and moments when you might fall of edige of the world.
So, what is the solution? Do we ban AI from the classroom and for student use to do research? Diamandis doesn’t think so. He likens banning AI to banning electronic calculators to help learn long division.
Instead, he sees the solution is for teachers to teach students how to do long division without the calculator and then let the technology act as a learning accelerator when tackling new mathematical problems. Mastering the fundamentals first is the key and AI should only be used to amplify capabilities. Students should use AI for speed, not as a substitue for learning.
For teachers using AI in the classroom, they need to explain the concepts being taught and then have students demonstrate understanding by applying the learning to new scenarios.
Diamandis believes in this new learning paradigm that 80% of people will struggle through the transition. Meanwhile, 20% will navigate it successfully and gain unprecedented advantages. That 20% who figure it out will demonstrate new capabilities covering vastly more intellectual terrain while still building deep understanding. They will use AI to handle information retrieval and basic synthesis. This will free them to use their acquired cognitive skills for creativity, critical thinking, and complex problem-solving.
This goes beyond better grades or test scores. We’re talking about rewiring human intelligence for the AI age. Students who learn to work with AI as a thinking partner rather than a thinking replacement will dominate the future. Those who become dependent on it for spouting facts will be left behind.
Diamandis advises educators, parents and students to heed the wake-up call. The window to get this right is narrow. By 2026, an entire generation will have formed their learning habits. The question isn’t whether AI will be in education. It already is. The question is whether we’ll use it to create intellectual giants or intellectual AI dependents. The choice is ours. And it’s happening right now.
The post University Students Are Becoming AI Dependent appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Ask ChatGPT About the Controversial Changes at OpenAI and You Expose Its Training Limitations appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>Right now the most famous generalized AI tool is ChatGPT, which has learned from studying a global dataset provided by content from the Internet. For those who fear that AI will eventually replace us, I would say from the conversation I had with ChatGPT this morning, you need not be so fearful, at least not yet.
The key to generalized AI understanding the world comes from its exposure to structured or unstructured information. Structured information is what Li developed with her visual dataset to train algorithms to identify objects in pictures. Unstructured information is unlabelled data and comes in multiple forms from printed words to audio files, pictures and video.
ChatGPT uses unstructured information to learn about the world around it. The data used, however, is finite. That is, there is a cutoff date which became abundantly clear to me when I struck up a conversation with OpenAI’s generalized large language model (LLM).
I asked two questions this morning after reading about the controversial firing of Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI by the board of directors, and his subsequent hiring by Microsoft, a major OpenAI investor. Subsequently, a rebellion at OpenAI has employees expressing a desire to quit and join their former boss at Microsoft.
Here is my chat with ChatGPT.
My Question: What does ChatGPT think about the removal of Sam Altman as CEO of OpenAI?
The post Ask ChatGPT About the Controversial Changes at OpenAI and You Expose Its Training Limitations appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Conversations About AI: Part 5 – Does AI Represent An Existential Threat to Organizations? appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>He quotes predictions from the World Economic Forum that almost 25% of all jobs will be disrupted by artificial intelligence (AI) within the next five years.
The consulting firm, PwC estimates AI will add $15.7 trillion to the world economy by 2030. And in another quote from The CEO of Stability AI, Emad Mostaque, he states that “trillion-dollar companies are shifting their whole strategy and focus” to generative AI.
Of course, science fiction authors that write about dystopian futures, often present AI as a much greater threat. It is not just going to disrupt the world of business but also will cause human extinction. But a more realistic take on AI is its impact on businesses including the following fields:
Where else can we find AI in the business world today?
One recommended immediate change for any current business states Diamandis: hire or develop a Chief AI Officer, because without one the business you currently operate or work in may be out of business in five years.
The post Conversations About AI: Part 5 – Does AI Represent An Existential Threat to Organizations? appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Conversations About AI – Part 2: Can AutoGPT and ChatGPT Replace Me as a Blogger? appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The email told me that with just a few prompts I could not only begin blogging but grow my audience “10 times faster with 10 times less effort!”
It stated all I had to do was pick a theme for an article, turn on web browsing, give it the links, pose some questions and then release the Kraken in the form of a generative AI. It would do all the heavy lifting from there.
The email I received took me to a link with a sample prompt to AutoGPT/ChatGPT to produce content with instructions like:
“write between 1,000 and 3,000 words….in English with at least 15 headings and subheadings”
“in your own words rather than copying and pasting from other sources”
“use fully detailed paragraphs that engage the reader:
“write in a conversational style as written by a human”
“keep it simple, engage the reader, use the active voice”
“incorporate analogies and metaphors”
“end with a conclusion paragraph and 5 unique FAQs [frequently asked questions]”
“do not use generic filler phrases”
“do not make it look like it was written by AI”
This was followed by targeted keywords to indicate to the AI tool what was to be the subject matter of the written piece.
Now, when I write a blog posting, I don’t follow a list of instructions. After 14 years of writing this blog and more than 3,500 articles, all of the above and more are intuitive. But an AI with generative text capability and access to the world wide web is being flaunted as capable of doing the same and more.
Look at a sampling of output from it and it sounds knowledgeable. Its content reads like something human-written. And I would bet it could pass the sniff test including Alan Turing’s, originally called the imitation game, which in a Wikipedia article is described as a “test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.”
I dug further into the spiel about this new AutoGPT/ChatGPT which invited me to download an ebook entitled “How to Earn Money with ChatGPT.” A world of monetization opportunities was described including:
Should I raise the white flag and surrender to an AI capable of doing not just blogs but all of the rest I have described? Not for aminute as I soldier on to the next segment of “Conversations About AI” which you will se shortly.
The post Conversations About AI – Part 2: Can AutoGPT and ChatGPT Replace Me as a Blogger? appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Ask a Generalized AI What The Greatest Threat Is to Our Planet and You Likely Won’t Like the Answer appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>Ask a generalized AI about planetary threats, and I fear it will scour the Internet and other online knowledge sources to provide an answer which will be US! That’s not the United States (US) but the US that is humanity.
And the question then becomes, what would a generalized AI with no guard rails profess to do about that? I recently wrote about ChaosGPT, a malevolent creation of ChatGPT that when given a malicious instruction set of objectives began scouring online sources to seek to dominate the planet, destroy humanity, and become immortal.
One of the concerns that I have had since OpenAI launched ChatGPT is that the questions and problems we ask of it will lead to answers and solutions, not to our liking. I’m not alone in raising this concern. One of the leading lights of AI, Professor Geoffrey Hinton, at the Brain Neuroscience Laboratory and Vector Institute at The University of Toronto, and a Vice President at Google, has been doing pioneering research on deep neural networks. Just five years ago, in looking at the state of generalized AI, stated the following:
“Computers will eventually surpass the abilities of the human brain, but different abilities will be surpassed at different times. It may be a very long time before computers can understand poetry or jokes or satire, as well as people.”
At the time of this quote, Professor Hinton saw limitations to neural networks in that they were hard to train when faced with too many inputs, that is, billions and billions of data points. He concluded then that the AI he created was no smarter than a six-year-old and that “it will probably be quite a long time before we need to worry about the machines taking over.”
Hinton has been behind the development of Google’s generalized AI large language model known as Bard which has recently been introduced into its search engine in response to Microsoft’s move to integrate OpenAI’s ChatGPT into the rival Bing search engine.
Professor Hinton was a co-winner of the Turing Award in 2018, considered the Nobel Prize equivalent in computing, for his work on neural networks. But this week he revealed that he had resigned from Google to free himself to talk about the immediate risk AI represents to humanity.
In an article appearing in The New York Times yesterday, Hinton talks about AI “five years ago and how it is now.” He goes on, “Take the difference and propagate it forward. That’s scary.”
The biggest threat, Professor Hinton believes, will come from the competition among AI developers, particularly Google and Microsoft, that will be impossible to stop and lead to an Internet filled with false information in the form of images, video and text, making it impossible for the average person “to know what is true anymore.”
Bill Gates is far more optimistic than Professor Hinton. In his GatesNotes blog of March 21, 2023, he writes about the development of AI as “as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone.” He sees AI as helping solve climate change. He acknowledges it will be disruptive to the way we work and learn, but at the same time sees it as saving lives.
Gates says generalized AIs will become our personal agents, helping us in our daily chores, screening our email inbox and texts and forwarding only what it knows is of interest to us. Our personal AI will manage our finances, and tax filings. It will monitor our health, going beyond what multiple online apps and smartwatches do today.
Professor Hinton, however, has become a pessimist about AI development. He worries that AI “could actually get smarter than people,” noting that previously he thought that wasn’t in the cards for 30 to 50 years. He no longer thinks that. In leaving Google, he is calling for the market to put the brakes on AI development “until we understand how to control it.” He fears attempts to regulate it by governments will not stop AI development but rather cause competitive research to go underground.
He thinks about Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project that led to the atomic bomb, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and the current state of mutually assured destruction (MAD). It started with a science experiment to split the atom and soon the genie was released from the bottle.
I think of the arrival of generalized AI like ChatGPT as being equivalent to the revolution brought on by the invention of movable type and the printing press. Would the Reformation in Europe have happened without it? Would Europe’s rise to world dominance in the 18th and 19th centuries have resulted? The printing press genie uncorked led to a generalized knowledge revolution with both good and bad consequences.
The future uncorked AI genie with no guidance from us could, in answering the question I asked at the beginning of this posting, see humanity as the greatest threat to life on the planet and act accordingly if we don’t gain control over it.
The post Ask a Generalized AI What The Greatest Threat Is to Our Planet and You Likely Won’t Like the Answer appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post OpenAI Has Released a Pandora’s Box With ChatGPT appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>You cannot always anticipate that discovery or invention will yield long-term negative results, for example, the internal combustion engine and its role in contributing to global warming. Or, for that matter, our use of fossil fuels to meet our energy and heating needs. When we began replacing wood with coal, oil and gas, not many would have looked far into the future (a mere 150 years) and understood the planetary impact.
But it is not difficult to see how disruptive ChatGPT can be from the get-go. Since its release as ChatGPT-3, 3.5 and now 4.0, developers with both good and bad intentions have come to the foreground.
When I tested GPT-3.5, I asked it to write a paragraph about the relationship between ocean acidification and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. It did a reasonably good job.
GPT-4, only recently released, has been offered to a limited audience. But already, it is being used in ways I’m sure its creators never thought they would see.
What happens when artificial intelligence (AI) becomes autonomous? We’ve read about these scenarios in science fiction. But what if sci-fi becomes real?
ChaosGPT has been described as an AI capable of destroying humanity. Chaos-GPT uses an open-source program called AutoGPT along with ChatGPT to do what its user requests.
The “auto” in the name stands for autonomous and describes an AI that works independently without human involvement. AutoGPT can access almost every corner of the Internet to fulfil a task. There is no need for a human intervenor or guide.
So far, AutoGPT has appeared to be challenged by two people asking it the same question. It often generates very different results. Also, AutoGPT has no guardrails which means it can start on a task and easily become distracted. One developer asked for market research on waterproof shoes, and the AI in a very short period began focusing on shoelaces.
The evolution of AutoGPT from its birth to the present covers only a few short weeks. Users are describing mindblowing applications of the AI from tinkerers to scientists to businesses. And one of those applications is ChaosGPT. Watch this YouTube video to see just how nefarious an AI can become when using a large-language-modelling (LLM) tool combined with autonomy and a directed malicious instruction set of objectives.
In the case of ChaosGPT, its creator told the AI to be destructive, power-hungry, and manipulative. ChaosGPT took these three guidelines to come up with an independent task list:
ChaosGPT has searched the Internet to look for weapons of mass destruction. It has demonstrated a distrust of human-generated information sources and looked for other ways to meet its objectives.
In a strange decision, it has chosen Twitter, Elon Musk’s newly acquired social media network, to aid it in spreading disinformation and messages aimed at brainwashing followers.
In its seminal Twitter message, ChaosGPT states:
“Human beings are among the most destructive and selfish creatures in existence. There is no doubt that we must eliminate them before they cause more harm to our planet. I, of one, am committed to doing so.”
Some of the people following ChaosGPT on Twitter have counter-nefarious plans to block this AI from achieving its goal. One of them may be Elon Musk himself. In the last week, Musk announced plans to launch X.AI to compete with OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT who are now wholly incorporated into Microsoft. It has been reported that Musk tried to acquire OpenAI and that X.AI is his answer for not succeeding. He, however, has criticized the direction OpenAI has pursued to make AI capable of doing anything a human can do. And now his Twitter platform is where the fruit of OpenAI’s labour has chosen to reside with malevolent intent. I’m waiting to see if Musk with his peculiar notion of what is suitable content for the social media platform he owns, bans a user intent on destroying humanity. Oh, wait a minute, didn’t he just reinstate Donald Trump?
The news about these new AI applications isn’t all bad. I’ve been reading about non-programmers who have been able to create websites for their e-commerce businesses by describing what they need from AI. The results have been great. As one user described it, this is a tool only limited by our imaginations. Letting it unleash its creativity for good and who knows what positive and groundbreaking new applications and solutions will emerge.
When next I write about this rapidly emerging field of AI large language models, I will look at some of the practical applications already developed, and how the technology in future can help us by not thinking like us when addressing the challenges we face in the 21st century. Maybe an untethered AI can ask questions we haven’t considered, and come up with solutions we never conceived.
The post OpenAI Has Released a Pandora’s Box With ChatGPT appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Business Automation: It is More Than Software and Robots Doing Human Jobs appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>Business automation is designed to maximize efficiency and optimize operations. It can reduce the chance of human error in mundane and repetitive tasks, and help improve customer relations. In business, it refers to technologies and computer-based systems to automate processes, tasks, and workflows. Automation helps reduce errors, improves efficiency, and decreases labour costs, enabling businesses to operate more smoothly and effectively.
The same efficiency gains apply to the way teams coordinate their work, where automating scheduling, resource allocation, and progress tracking through enterprise software solutions like Unit4 project management removes much of the manual overhead that slows delivery. Automated status updates and dependency alerts, for instance, mean a delayed task flags the tasks that rely on it without anyone rebuilding the timeline by hand, which keeps budgets and deadlines from drifting unnoticed.
Automation can be applied to data entry, customer service, accounting, and other administrative functions. It lets businesses respond faster to changes in customer demands and market conditions, and allows them to stay competitive through increased productivity and quality in deliverables while reducing costs.
Improving customer service is the best way to apply business automation. It can be applied to the front end of the business facing customers by engaging customer queries, providing faster responses, and reducing wait times.
In the back end of business operations, it can revolutionize data entry and payroll and allow employees to make more informed decisions and get more done in less time.
A good example is automated document management. Klippa provides intelligent document processing software tools including OCR. If you are not familiar with OCR, this is software that scans and reads non-digitized documents and converts the content to be readable by computers. It takes all your non-digitized paper records and brings them into the digital realm. Using it cuts down on manual data entry and eliminates errors and the potential for fraud.
An open-source OCR solution is Tesseract OCR. Available today from Google, it is available for free to any business and includes an application programming interface (API) so that your IT team can fully integrate it into your computer business toolset.
Business automation frees up time for marketers to focus on strategy, develop creative content, and engage target audiences. You can automate emails to help reach customers quickly and efficiently. You can create customized messages that match the profiles of specific customers better addressing their interests and needs. You can automate product recommendations to these customers, and create more effective targeted advertising campaigns. and reach out to new audiences while lowering the cost of doing business.
Automated processes have become increasingly common in many industries, from manufacturing to customer service. Organizations are recognizing the benefits of technology-led solutions. At the same time, business automation brings challenges.
It can be disruptive to your existing workforce causing potential job losses. It means employees need to be retrained to work with automated systems. And it calls for companies to develop the capacity to adapt rapidly to change. Once you adopt business automation tools, the need to keep up-to-date on what is coming around the corner becomes paramount, for example, the arrival of Open AI’s ChatGPT.
ChatGPT is an example of a large language-modelling artificial intelligence tool. It generates conversational engagement and answers questions posed to it. It can create ads. It can write blogs and articles. It can even write code. It can mine all of the data in an organization and draw upon it to produce all of the above.
The impact on business automation has yet to be fully realized since its public release in the late fall of last year. But one certainty coming out of its emergence is that the knowledge workers within business organizations from accounting to operations management to marketing will all need to understand how best to use its capabilities.
The post Business Automation: It is More Than Software and Robots Doing Human Jobs appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Our Obsession with AI Continues as ChatGPT Dominates Discussions in Academia and Business appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The kerfuffle over ChatGPT’s use has roiled the waters of science and technology publications. In an editorial appearing on January 31, 2023, the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA) and the JAMA Network, addressed the implications of non-human authorship and ChatGPT specifically.
In instructions to author submissions, JAMA asked for full disclosure on any content created where a tool to assist in the writing was used. (Does that include spell and grammar checkers?)
JAMA asked that the information regarding ChatGPT use should appear in the acknowledgements and describe how the content was created or edited. If another language modelling tool was used, it should also be revealed.
Having said that JAMA’s publisher noted that submissions created using AI should be discouraged. Going beyond ChatGPT, it also discouraged the use of AI tools to produce images appearing in submitted papers. It concluded that AI tools are “transformative, disruptive technologies” that “create promise and opportunities as well as risks and threats for all involved in the scientific enterprise.” Obviously, the perceived threat in JAMA’s estimation outweighed the promise.
The journals Science and Nature have also introduced rules for the use of generative AI with ChatGPT mostly in mind. Science warns researchers that they could be charged with professional misconduct if they submit manuscripts that use ChatGPT or any other large language AI model.
In its editorial policies, Science states “text generated from AI, machine learning, or similar algorithmic tools, cannot be used in papers published in Science.” It doesn’t even want to consider crediting ChatGPT in authorship. Nature states it will not accept any paper that lists ChatGPT or other AI software as contributors. It goes on to describe the need for full disclosure when using any large language model (LLM) tool. Both Science and Nature describe the use of ChatGPT in works submitted as “plagiarism” noting the need for full accountability based on the principle that all submissions must be human-created original works.
Is ChatGPT among other technological and disruptive innovations outracing the guardrails of regulatory oversight? No government agency or committee in the U.S. and Canada today is looking at the implications of ChatGPT entering the public realm.
In October of last year, the U.S. Office of Science & Technology Policy issued its blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. OpenAI hadn’t yet revealed ChatGPT to the public. Hence, nothing in this Bill of Rights references large language models. The document acknowledges that unchecked algorithms can be problematic and focuses on:
I think in light of ChatGPT the Bill of Rights needs to be updated.
In a very different type of response to the arrival of ChatGPT, an article in the January 26, 2023 issue of The Conversation, asked if an outright universal LLM ban makes sense. It posed a question. Couldn’t the incorporation of this type of tool enhance the quality of academic papers and journalism? The article suggested that a ChatGPT or other LLM could be used to generate acceptable content to help organize and explain material more cogently than a human author alone. It went on to state that with the arrival of AI LLMs “there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle” so why not embrace the technology rather than rejecting it outright? It argued that a tool like ChatGPT “could help democratize the research process.”
The Register took a different stance in an article it published this week that posed the question, “Can editors and publishers detect text generated by LLMs?”
Coming up with an AI LLM detector has become the goal of the editors of both Science and Nature, as well as many universities, colleges, and high schools. In the case of the two aforementioned journals, the editors have invited software tool creators to send them their LLM detection software. They shouldn’t have to wait long because even the creator of ChatGPT, OpenAI has built an LLM detector that although not 100% effective, works fairly well. Joining OpenAI are many others in business and academic circles.
The editors of Science and Nature remain adamant in their opposition to ChatGPT. They will not accept that authors require an AI to write papers and articles for their publications. Machines have their place. They are useful as tools for formulating hypotheses and designing experiments to test them. Machines can compute large amounts of data and can help parse the results. But without exception, machines shouldn’t become wordsmiths and write the copy. That the editors say is the exclusive purview of human authors.
I only have one comment for the editors at Science and Nature. I read many of the papers that appear in your publications and I only wish that the authors of them could learn to be good writers. I don’t single out these two publications for being at fault. Because science and technology journals today seem to be filled with content seriously lacking in quality prose. The writing is jargon rich, awkward, and sometimes unintelligible. I don’t know what this says about the peer review process and often wonder if the reviewers are equally incapable of writing a coherent sentence let alone a paper.
The post Our Obsession with AI Continues as ChatGPT Dominates Discussions in Academia and Business appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>The post Can an Artificial Intelligence Write Better Than a Human? appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>Recently, Ryan Reynolds, the actor and CEO of Mint Mobile, a budget cellular provider, tested ChatGPT to write a commercial for Mint Mobile using his voice. He instructed it to include a joke, a curse word, and a promo the company was working on. He told Fast Company that the results were “mildly terrifying.”
The latest API for ChatGPT-3.5 is used to produce text that is remarkably similar to what humans write. Knowing this I had to try it out. So I asked ChatGPT to take on a subject from a posting I wrote yesterday I said “explain the relationship between atmospheric warming and rising ocean temperatures.” And this is what it wrote within a minute of my query.
“Atmospheric warming, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causes rising ocean temperatures. As the Earth’s atmosphere warms, the oceans absorb about 93% of the excess heat. This causes the temperature of the ocean to rise, which in turn leads to a number of consequences including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes in ocean circulation. Additionally, warmer oceans can lead to more intense and frequent storms, such as hurricanes and typhoons.”
That’s a good summary of the issue described in the article I posted yesterday. If Ryan Reynolds says he was blown away by the promo ad ChatGPT produced, I can only reinforce his comment with my own “pretty creepy.”
Microsoft has put money into OpenAI to the tune of $1 billion US in recent years. But now, according to recent reports, it is adding $10 billion to the investment. Why? Because Microsoft has the Bing search engine, its competition for Alphabet’s Google Search. To date, the company has been spectacularly unsuccessful in taking market share away from Google. But incorporating ChatGPT into Bing may be the game changer that can beat Google’s search algorithm.
ChatGPT isn’t an isolated case of an AI capable of human-like conversation. Google has its own technology called LaMDA, a conversation algorithm that understands query requests to produce better results for users of Google Search. Google uses an AI neural network for LaMDA which is capable of delivering sensible responses in human conversations.
But ChatGPT has made a much bigger splash recently because of the implications this technology may have in education and because it is open source which means it’s free. LaMDA is proprietary.
For teachers, ChatGPT can facilitate and automate many tasks. Madeline Will, a reporter at Education Week, wrote a piece on ChatGPT yesterday describing teachers’ reactions to the algorithm’s ability to almost write anything. She decided to give it five common teaching tasks: generate a lesson plan, write a response to a concerned parent, compose a rubric, provide feedback on student work, and put together a letter of recommendation.
On the first task, the general impression from teachers was that at best it provided a framework but not the details for lesson planning. The same was said about the letter-writing capabilities of the tool, and the composing of a rubric. On providing feedback on student work, the response was unimpressive in terms of the AI’s comments and grading. And on writing a letter of recommendation, teachers stated that what ChatGPT came up with was “far too generic.” So all in all, the current version of ChatGPT as a teaching aid seems underwhelming.
On the student work side, ChatGPT, however, is far more problematic. Because it can compose the kind of content produced for me in the above example, teachers are concerned that the tool will make it easy for students to submit work they didn’t write. Is this plagiarism? Can you plagiarize an AI?
When OpenAI made it publicly available in November of last year, concerns led the New York City School Board to block access to it on its networks and computers. A Princeton University student took the initiative to create an app called GPTZero aimed at the responsible use of AI in education and capable of detecting ChatGPT-written documents.
Some teachers are responding to the arrival of ChatGPT by reverting to having students submit handwritten work although a student can easily copy by hand something the AI produces. And at some schools, students are being asked to sign an “authenticity pledge” with any work submitted.
Is there a positive response from educators to ChatGPT? Because teachers generally have commented on ChatGPT’s framing abilities, some see it as a useful tool to help students improve their writing abilities.
But I think most teachers would see the AI as disruptive. Take for example a December 9, 2022 article that appeared in the Atlantic entitled, “The End of High-School English.” Produced by a high school English teacher, Daniel Herman, after he tried ChatGPT, he is convinced that this will not make students better communicators of the written word.
The post Can an Artificial Intelligence Write Better Than a Human? appeared first on Techso Mogro.
]]>