ChatGPT4-Questions/User:Darwin2049/Overview

OpenAI - ChatGPT4.
In what follows we attempt to address several basic questions about the onrushing progress with the current focus of artificial intelligence. There are several competing actors in this space. These include OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, and Cohere. A number of other competitors are active in the artificial intelligence market place. But for purposes of brevity and because of the overlap we will limit focus on ChatGPT4 (CG4). Further, we focus on several salient questions that that raise questions of safety, risk and prospects.
Specifically, risks that involve or are:

• Interfacing/Accessibility-Conformability - Synthesis. how will different groups interact with, respond to and be affected by it; might access modalities available to one group have positive or negative implications for other groups;
• Political/Competitive - Synthesis. how might different groups or actors gain or lose relative advantage; also, how might it be used as a tool of control;
• Evolutionary/Stratification - Synthesis. might new classifications of social categories emerge; were phenotypical bifurcations to emerge would or how would the manifest themselves;
  

Synthesis. Four question groups (indicated above interface, political, evolution and epistemological) are the foundation upon which the analysis as presented follows. Addressing these questions meant acknowledging that they entail both explicit and implicit questions.

Winners. Losers. What do these questions mean? They each point to the question of how the shift in power dynamics will change between existent groups. Put simply, regarding a relative balance of benefit - which group(s) gain vs. which groups lose (zero-sum game – who gains advantage, and who loses advantage; non-zero-sum game - what group(s) is/are a primary benefactor, what associated groups might also gain as a result; conversely, what group(s) loses benefit, and what associated groups might also lose as a result);

Word on the street. Addressing these question indicated that making a short survey of reporting with the intent to gauge the reported sentiment might offer some insight. The results suggested four major categories. These sentiments included (positives favor continued advances worried cautious, worried; alarmed petitioned for government intervention; battle stations! being overtaken by a rival is unacceptable);
The way that these sentiments were categorized in terms of risk involved describing the kind of risk that each seemed to be either stating explicitly or implying.
Operational Insights: - i.e. would understanding the internal mechanisms of CG4 offer insight into how one group might gain or lose advantage? might understanding how do similar Deep Learning systems work and what do they do offer insight as well?
Framing the observable sentiment into categories made describing CG4 into risk categories became considerably easier. Three primary categories emerged: systemic, malicious and theoretical. The category of theoretical obliged the recognition that CG4 is inherently dual-use. The result was the category of risks (systemic innate because the technology exists; malicious actors - old tasks new tools; theoretical and speculative: now possible, control of fire);
Wild card. IBM Quantum System Two (EOM 2023) has served notice that it will release 432 q-bit Osprey. Hosting Deep Learning - result will be a before/after event.
Impressions and Sentiment
Operation
Risks - Systemic
Risks - Malicious
Risks - Theoretical
Caveats
Recalibrations
Intermediate Synthesis
Speculations
Conclusions
Note & References
Back to root page: ChatGPT4-Questions