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;
  
• Epistemological - Synthesis how to reconcile ethical issues within a society, between societies; more specifically, might it provide solutions or results that are acceptable to the one group but unacceptable to the other group;
  

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.

Game: Zero or Non-Zero Sum. Each of these question groups points to the risks associated with power shift dynamics; specifically, who stands to gain and who stands to lose as a result of this new reality;

Impressions. 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.

Impressions and Sentiment

Operations, i.e. might understanding CG4's internal mechanisms offer insight into how one group might gain or lose advantage? might understanding how similar Deep Learning systems work and how or if they insight into their own operational processes?
Risks. 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 that are (systemic: innate - simply because the technology exists; malicious actors: old tasks new tools; theoretical (speculative): possible now, like controlling fire);

Intermediate Synthesis Based upon what we have observed and

Back to root page: ChatGPT4-Questions