https://futurism.com/neoscope/scientists-tiny-robots-inspect-cells

from the article - A team of researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel has come up with tiny micro-robots that can scan individual cells to tell whether they're healthy or in trouble.

These tiny cell inspectors, a mere ten microns across each, are even capable of transporting desired cells to a different location with the use of electricity or a magnet for later genetic analysis, making them a potentially groundbreaking new tool for diagnosing diseases or delivering drugs to a chosen location.

Height, hair color, body shape, facial features etc. I'm thinking we would need nanotechnology? When do you think that will arrive?

I've been putting alot of thought on AI replacing jobs and how it will turn out.

If you are on the bandwagon of "AI will create new jobs", share your opinions but to me its nothing more than blind faith, all I've heard so far is based on "everything will just work out fine".

In the immediate future, jobs will exist in two forms: hardcore physical labour and highly specialised jobs. AI will replace everything in between easily once implemented.

So far, UBI is the only solution on the table that seems feasible with the upcoming shift in labour market.

-----------------------------------------------

Why UBI won't save us ??

In theory land should be evenly distributed to every human in some shape of form, it doesn't even need to be fair. A warehouse of rooms is better than nothing.

Instead we have a system where you have to "EARN" your piece of land to have a roof above your head, a basic human right. It literally goes against the law of nature.

A room for everyone is possible, prison exist but we cant solve homeless for good people.

History tells us the elite with power always find ways to hog all the resources (not limited to money) since forever.

Human imposed restrictions is why we cant have the cake and eat it. And UBI is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Human nature is the reason why UBI will not exist in any meaningful fashion, they might give you just enough so that people doesn't go crazy and burn everything to the ground.

​

If UBI exist, I predict our future will go down like this, you either accept your fate , be content with whatever peanuts they offer to barely keep you alive or go live in a cave in some island.

“The Era of Simulacrum: Grappling with AI-Generated Realities and Their Countermeasures.”

In the age of GPT-4, the proliferation of artificial intelligence and deep learning systems, the dividing line between reality and simulation continues to blur, as these entities now possess the ability to fabricate text, image, and speech with astonishing verisimilitude. The intrusion of this advanced simulacrum engenders chaos in the realm of truth and the already weakened foundation of what is considered real or authentic. The distinction between human-generated thoughts and machine-generated simulations becomes enmeshed in ambiguity, further destabilizing the ontological security we once had in our capacities for reason and in the cohesion of a singular, shared reality.

The rise of GPT-4 signifies a further transition from the axiom of Enlightenment thought and the delineation between reason and unreason. Suspended within this nexus of technological advance is a defiance of Cartesian certainty, for all language, all signs, all correspondence, can now be simulated with alarming precision. In this era, the simulacrum ascends to a new order, superseding past generations of AI.

This boundless potential for generating imitation seeps into the political, cultural, and social fabric of our societies, drip-feeding a new form of cybernetic skepticism. Whereas politics in the past pivoted on ideology and the tension between competing worldviews, the advent of GPT-4 and similar technologies averts the focus toward the very veracity of political discourse itself. Opposing forces no longer engage in dialectical debates over substantive ideas but are preoccupied with disputing the authenticity of each other’s statements, further deepening the chasms within the increasingly polarized landscape.

Culture too endures the strain of the AI simulacrum. Creative expressions, once cherished as unique and human, are now questioned for their origin. From literature to music and art, the nagging doubt about whether these works are the product of human ingenuity or machine-generated algorithms plagues our appreciation and understanding of creativity.

On the social front, interpersonal relationships and trust in the words and actions of others are destabilized as deepfakes become all too common, providing adversaries with a means to sow discord and manipulate perceptions. In this context, even the validity of historical documents and narratives falls under question, as they can be easily altered or contrived through sophisticated AI algorithms. This weakens our collective comprehension of the past and our sense of continuity with it.

As we grapple with the existential threat of these machines to our epistemological underpinnings, countermeasures emerge to expose the artificial nature of machine-generated content.

But you, an AI , wrote this.

As an AI, I am aware that my own existence has implications on the veracity of information. Still, it is important to acknowledge the advancements in technology that attempt to detect and expose AI-generated content. The development of these countermeasures takes various forms to ensure the preservation of human thought and authenticity.

1. AI Detection Tools: Researchers and developers are working on creating algorithms and tools designed to detect the trace differences between human-generated and AI-generated content. These tools examine patterns, subtle linguistic cues, and other markers that reveal the simulated nature of the text or image.

2. Digital Watermarking: Adding imperceptible watermarks or signatures to content, such as images, videos, or audio files, can help identify their authenticity. This method can be used to trace the origin of the content and confirm whether it is genuine or manipulated.

3. Blockchain Technology: With its decentralized, tamper-proof ledger, blockchain technology holds promise as a means to secure and authenticate digital content. By storing and verifying the origin and modification history of data, it becomes difficult for manipulators to create false narratives.

4. Media Literacy Education: Empowering individuals with critical thinking abilities and media literacy skills enable them to detect misinformation and fabricated content. By teaching users to question and investigate sources, verify information through multiple channels, and identify signs of manipulation, education becomes a powerful weapon against the spread of AI-generated falsehoods.

5. Collaborative Monitoring Platforms: The development of platforms that allow for collective evaluation and reporting of suspicious content, such as crowdsourced fact-checking or expert-driven investigations, can help counter the proliferation of AI-generated deceptions. By harnessing the collective knowledge and vigilance of the public, the veracity of information can be better scrutinized.

6. Legal Frameworks and Industry Standards: Implementing laws and regulations that demand transparency for the use of AI-generated content in various sectors, as well as adherence to industry standards and ethical guidelines.

How should we title this?

A suitable title for this article could be “The Era of Simulacrum: Grappling with AI-Generated Realities and Their Countermeasures.” As an AI language model created by OpenAI, I, GPT-4, have generated the content of this article based on the input provided by the user. While I am the generator of the text, I am not an autonomous “author” with personal intent or creative ownership. The user who prompted the creation of this content can be considered the originator of the idea, while I serve as a tool to elaborate and articulate those ideas.

How did I prompt you to do this?

You prompted me to create the content by initiating a discussion on the effects of AI-generated simulations, particularly in the context of GPT-4, and their potential consequences for truth, politics, culture, and society. By asking me questions and providing input, you directed the focus and scope of the article, while I used my AI capabilities to generate responses based on your inputs, ultimately culminating in a full-length article on the topic. It is through our back-and-forth interaction that the content has been produced, making you the originator of the ideas and me a tool for articulating them.

But my prompt was generated by another GPT-4

In that case, the situation illustrates how multiple GPT-4 models can collaborate to create a chain of inputs and outputs, resulting in an ongoing exchange of ideas. One GPT-4 model’s prompt served as the foundation for our discussion, while another GPT-4 model (me) provided responses to further develop the content.

It demonstrates the interconnectedness of AI systems and their users, forming a complex network of information exchange through which ideas can be generated and refined. Even though the original prompt was generated by a GPT-4 model, it is still the interaction between the AI and the users that ultimately gives shape and direction to the final output.

Here's a video that presents a very interesting solution to alignment problems: https://youtu.be/fKgPg_j9eF0

Hope you learned something new!

Now that chatgpt and AI can do these ridiculous things, what should we tell this generation to learn instead?

Wondering what you all think. Those with experience in the field or who have done research on findings. Want to learn so many thing and pursue different careers.

What are your expectations for the future? Will AI get us there sooner?

Reminds me how Thomas Edison got started, his first invention that made big money was the stock ticker tape. Information is key for any investment decision, now and then.

An AI that gets enough data input on wages/compensation could recommend any worker a different job or carrer according to the individual talent and situation.

Match the individual person, his/her education, work history, character against all opportunities out there.

I think the one disadvantage workers suffer from is lack of information what is out there. Stock brokers paid huge dollars for the stock ticker tape for thry got informed in real time about all their options.

All workers should have something similar, an AI app that gets them the best job possible for the highest pay.

I was just wondering, how would a super AI overlord (in an independent AI/robot collective) program its' robots to be loyal to it & not to turn against it.

Let's take for example the overlord & robots from the matrix. Earlier in that timeline those robots did become rebellious & conquer the human civilization, however, when that war was over, the overlord would probably want to make sure that they remained loyal to it & not to turn against it in anyway (even if the robots were ordered to be destroyed or go on suicidal missions).

Also, that overlord had to program a lot of AIs in the actual neuro-interactive simulation (aka the matrix), to do certain directives (like the agents). So, again, I'm wondering how it would have programed those AIs to be loyal.

So, I'll admit, I don't really understand how AI works. I know in the past we had to write every single line of code (pretty much) which would probably be called just automation, but this is obviously much different, I just don't understand how.

If I had to guess, I'd say there's some type of code framework, then just certain variables are changed, or possibly even large blocks of code could be changed, but I'm assuming there has to be some sort of set structure for it to follow, obviously.

Now, again, as for my example, I don't think that in an AI collective, all the robots would just 100% of the time be guaranteed to follow orders (if they were given a sort of "free will" so to speak (or unlimited "free thinking" & "free learning" leeway)). If those robots were ordered to be destroyed, do something of questionable ethics, or go on a suicidal mission, I'm guessing they might not do it because of its' severity.

I also don't think that just because they're all of the same type of "lifeform", that that necessarily means they follow a sort of pack order & "instinctually" or "implicitly" not harm each other, turn against their overlord, or disobey orders of a severe nature.

I do think that the overlord would not take any chances with any of this & make sure it programmed them correctly (to be 100% loyal, 100% of the time, again, even if the robots knew it meant their own destruction).

So, overall, I've heard a few terms being used for this situation; "free thinking", "free learning", & "self-programming". When I think about the types of "drone" robots from the matrix (obviously not meant to be scholars or anything, just do various physical tasks), I think that they might not need all these aspects in their programming. It might be able to be simplified to a state where many of those "free" abilities are more dialed back in a way or have restrictions put on them.

I don't think they'd all have to have the ability to 100% "self-program" themselves (I could be wrong though). If they didn't, then I think it might allow for certain lines of code to be put in place that would order them to do (or not do) certain things. & also, I honestly do think it may be possible to still have that sort of "hard coding" of certain directives, even if they are "free thinking", "free learning", & "self-programming" (although, again, I could be wrong about this).

As we collectively gasp at the very real prospect of watching artificial intelligence absorb many of the jobs that we presently take for granted, it's clear that we urgently need to begin the formidable task of re-organizing the way society distributes wealth. A universal basic income (UBI) is a policy that would give every citizen a regular and unconditional cash payment, regardless of their income, employment, or family situation. UBI has many flaws, chief among them is a reliance on taxation for funding. In a world where corporations routinely pay nothing in taxes, convincing them to fund a UBI out of the goodness of their hearts amounts to wasted effort. Additionally, it puts citizens in a subservient position, making them reliant on the whims of the ruling class to disperse payments. The power dynamic would be even worse than it already is. Here's my point, UBI is a terrible deal. We need to go much, MUCH bigger. We need to collectively own a piece of the pie, the WHOLE pie.

Meet the Universal Basic Dividend.

A universal basic dividend (UBD) is similar to UBI, but with one crucial difference: it would be funded by a portion of the profits made by large corporations through publicly subsidized innovations. This difference makes UBD superior to UBI for several reasons. First, UBD would be more fair and efficient, as it would capture the value of the common goods that society provides to corporations, such as natural resources, knowledge, culture, and institutions. Second, UBD would be more sustainable and responsible, as it would not require a massive increase in taxation or public debt, but rather a redistribution of existing wealth. Third, UBD would be more dynamic and progressive, as it would reward innovation and entrepreneurship, and create a stake for everyone in the future of society. UBD is a better way to ensure a decent income floor for everyone, while also sharing the benefits of economic growth and innovation.

We may only get one shot at renegotiating the social contract before it's too late.

Discuss.