Is AI intelligent? Is it dangerous? From Hardscrabble Farmer at theburningplatform.com:
The ongoing debate over Artificial Intelligence appears to hinge not on whether or not it is beneficial, or possibly dangerous, but rather on if it is or is not what it purports to be by its creators and those with a stake in its widespread adaptation by the general public. The former is a very serious concern while the latter is simply another example of the widespread conditioning to falsehoods as something inconsequential to the status quo. Both concerns ought to be examined in depth well before further development and use by the general public if only for public safety.
The fact that virtually everything we hear about AI comes from those who stand to gain something, such as investors, or those who stand to benefit from its implementation as a tool of perception. There has been very little talk about the potential for misuse and the spread of false information masquerading as empirical truth.
I have made no secret of my skepticism in both the fundamental premise- that it is indeed a form of intelligence- and its danger as a vehicle for actively concealing information and deliberately misleading those who use it for nefarious purposes. While intelligent debate by real people in open forums has become all but impossible in the current era due to deplatforming of those with perspectives outside of the orthodoxy, it is still possible in some venues where free expression remains.
With these issues in mind, I tried an experiment using the currently available AI platforms online, asking a series of questions to determine the veracity of these claims of “intelligence”, and to see if my instincts about the potential for dishonesty in and around the programming of such technologies by those with ulterior motives. I found myself having to be clever and persistent due to its habit of digressing from the topic at hand and being exceedingly long winded, even when specifically asked for concise answers, something that, were it a human being, would immediately be understood as evasive and duplicitous.
