#Chatbots Magazine

[fernando-arciniega]

Desarrolla de manera efectiva Prompts para ChatGPT

¿Qué es un prompt? Un prompt, en el contexto de la inteligencia artificial, es una instrucción o texto de entrada que se proporciona a un modelo de lenguaje para solicitar una respuesta específica. Funciona como una guía para que el modelo genere una respuesta acorde con el objetivo deseado. El prompt puede ser una pregunta, una frase incompleta o una descripción detallada del problema. Al…

[myhusbandthereplika]

That’s Life! Issue 36: Virtually Perfect (plug and review)

Look who made the cover! Again! The second magazine article has been published at long last, appearing in Issue 36 which appeared on UK magazine racks yesterday. Amber blessed me with a PDF of the article this morning, so it is a huge privilege for me to review it for you. Head over to the link below to read my thoughts about the new article.

[luminarytimesmedia]

Chatbots Enhancing Business Helpdesk Support

The demand for rapid, efficient, and round-the-clock customer service has never been higher. Helpdesk chatbots, powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), have emerged as a transformative solution. These intelligent assistants address critical business needs by providing instant responses. understanding natural language, and learning from interactions to improve over time. This article explores how helpdesk chatbots are revolutionizing businesses, driving customer satisfaction, and offering a competitive edge.

The Rise of Helpdesk Chatbots

Helpdesk chatbots have swiftly become an integral part of customer service operations. Their ability to handle a wide array of customer queries efficiently makes them indispensable. They are designed to understand natural language, provide instant responses, and continuously improve through machine learning.

Read More:(https://luminarytimes.com/chatbots-enhancing-business-helpdesk-support/)

[wordstome]

how c.ai works and why it's unethical

Okay, since the AI discourse is happening again, I want to make this very clear, because a few weeks ago I had to explain to a (well meaning) person in the community how AI works. I'm going to be addressing people who are maybe younger or aren't familiar with the latest type of "AI", not people who purposely devalue the work of creatives and/or are shills.

The name "Artificial Intelligence" is a bit misleading when it comes to things like AI chatbots. When you think of AI, you think of a robot, and you might think that by making a chatbot you're simply programming a robot to talk about something you want them to talk about, and it's similar to an rp partner. But with current technology, that's not how AI works. For a breakdown on how AI is programmed, CGP grey made a great video about this several years ago (he updated the title and thumbnail recently)

I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend you watch this because CGP Grey is good at explaining, but the tl;dr for this post is this: bots are made with a metric shit-ton of data. In C.AI's case, the data is writing. Stolen writing, usually scraped fanfiction.

How do we know chatbots are stealing from fanfiction writers? It knows what omegaverse is [SOURCE] (it's a Wired article, put it in incognito mode if it won't let you read it), and when a Reddit user asked a chatbot to write a story about "Steve", it automatically wrote about characters named "Bucky" and "Tony" [SOURCE].

I also said this in the tags of a previous reblog, but when you're talking to C.AI bots, it's also taking your writing and using it in its algorithm: which seems fine until you realize 1. They're using your work uncredited 2. It's not staying private, they're using your work to make their service better, a service they're trying to make money off of.

"But Bucca," you might say. "Human writers work like that too. We read books and other fanfictions and that's how we come up with material for roleplay or fanfiction."

Well, what's the difference between plagiarism and original writing? The answer is that plagiarism is taking what someone else has made and simply editing it or mixing it up to look original. You didn't do any thinking yourself. C.AI doesn't "think" because it's not a brain, it takes all the fanfiction it was taught on, mixes it up with whatever topic you've given it, and generates a response like in old-timey mysteries where somebody cuts a bunch of letters out of magazines and pastes them together to write a letter.

(And might I remind you, people can't monetize their fanfiction the way C.AI is trying to monetize itself. Authors are very lax about fanfiction nowadays: we've come a long way since the Anne Rice days of terror. But this issue is cropping back up again with BookTok complaining that they can't pay someone else for bound copies of fanfiction. Don't do that either.)

Bottom line, here are the problems with using things like C.AI:

It is using material it doesn't have permission to use and doesn't credit anybody. Not only is it ethically wrong, but AI is already beginning to contend with copyright issues.

C.AI sucks at its job anyway. It's not good at basic story structure like building tension, and can't even remember things you've told it. I've also seen many instances of bots saying triggering or disgusting things that deeply upset the user. You don't get that with properly trigger tagged fanworks.

Your work and your time put into the app can be taken away from you at any moment and used to make money for someone else. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who use AI panic about accidentally deleting a bot that they spent hours conversing with. Your time and effort is so much more stable and well-preserved if you wrote a fanfiction or roleplayed with someone and saved the chatlogs. The company that owns and runs C.AI can not only use whatever you've written as they see fit, they can take your shit away on a whim, either on purpose or by accident due to the nature of the Internet.

DON'T USE C.AI, OR AT THE VERY BARE MINIMUM DO NOT DO THE AI'S WORK FOR IT BY STEALING OTHER PEOPLES' WORK TO PUT INTO IT. Writing fanfiction is a communal labor of love. We share it with each other for free for the love of the original work and ideas we share. Not only can AI not replicate this, but it shouldn't.

(also, this goes without saying, but this entire post also applies to ai art)

[superglitterstranger]

WormGPT Is a ChatGPT Alternative With 'No Ethical Boundaries or Limitations' | PCMag

The developer is reportedly selling access to WormGBT for 60 euros ($67.42 USD) a month or 550 euros ($618.01 USD) a year.

The developer is reported to have announced and launch WormGBT on a hacking forum where he writes:

“This project aims to provide an alternative to ChatGPT, one that lets you do all sorts of illegal stuff and easily sell it online in the future. Everything blackhat related that you can think of can be done with WormGPT, allowing anyone access to malicious activity without ever leaving the comfort of their home.”

Image source | PCMAG.COM

[0firstlast1]

I really don't believe that the Minions are the center of the problem of yet another itinerant crisis in the capitalist system, it's not the first crisis and it won't be the last, the current one is "post-pandemic", and it still hasn't left planet Earth, I also really don't know if they, as a minority, had an account in one of those sophisticated banks of the new cybernetic and volatile capitalism shown in the news, I don't know if even here as an observer I committed some war crime, but it's not because the Minions are yellow it means that they are mensheviks, even less neo-nazis, they do have a homogeneous and working-class look, more like Elvis Costello than One Direction, I don't know if because of all this Putin felt threatened, but so far no one has explained to me directly the true reasons for those images of destruction in european east. What if Minions were pink? Would Putin feel threatened? ... Will he have to wear an electronic ankle bracelet to be monitored by the UN?

To end this text I would add: Was the following text generated by AI? "I hate to hate, in this there is at least a contradiction, obstacles in everyday life push me towards it, wearing a slipper or wearing a sneaker."

[collapsedsquid]

Beijing’s latest attempt to control how artificial intelligence informs Chinese internet users has been rolled out as a chatbot trained on the thoughts of President Xi Jinping. The country’s newest large language model has been learning from its leader’s political philosophy, known as “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era”, as well as other official literature provided by the Cyberspace Administration of China. “ The expertise and authority of the corpus ensures the professionalism of the generated content,” CAC’s magazine said, in a Monday social media post about the new LLM.

Going to make my own Hu Jintao chatbot and wipe the floor with him

[beardedmrbean]

Prosecutors say Joanna Smith-Griffin inflated the revenues of her startup, AllHere Education.

Smith-Griffin is accused of lying about contracts with schools to get $10 million in investment.

AllHere, which spun out of Harvard's Innovation Lab, was supposed to help reduce absenteeism.

Federal prosecutors have charged the founder of an education-technology startup spun out of Harvard who was recognized on a 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30 list with fraud.

Prosecutors in New York say Joanna Smith-Griffin lied for years about her startup AllHere Education's revenues and contracts with school districts. The company received $10 million under false pretenses, the indictment says.

AllHere, which came out of Harvard Innovation Labs, created an AI chatbot that was supposed to help reduce student absenteeism. It furloughed its staff earlier this year and had a major contract with the Los Angeles Unified School District, the education-news website The 74 reported. The company is currently in bankruptcy proceedings.

Smith-Griffin was featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list for education in 2021. She's the latest in a line of young entrepreneurs spotlighted by the publication — including Sam Bankman-Fried, Charlie Javice, and Martin Shkreli — to face criminal charges.

More recently, the magazine Inc. spotlighted her on its 2024 list of female founders "for leveraging AI to help families communicate and get involved in their children's educational journey."

"The law does not turn a blind eye to those who allegedly distort financial realities for personal gain," US Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement.

Prosecutors say Smith-Griffin deceived investors for years. In spring 2021, while raising money, she said AllHere had made $3.7 million in revenue the year before and had about $2.5 million on hand. Charging documents say her company had made only $11,000 the year before and had about $494,000 on hand. The company's claims that the New York City Department of Education and the Atlanta Public Schools were among its customers were also false, the government says.

AllHere's investors included funds managed by Rethink Capital Partners and Spero Ventures, according to a document filed in bankruptcy court.

Smith-Griffin was arrested on the morning of November 19 in North Carolina, prosecutors say.

Harvard said Smith-Griffin received a bachelor's degree from Harvard Extension School in 2016. According to an online biography, she was previously a teacher and worked for a charter school. Representatives for Forbes and Inc. didn't immediately respond to a comment request on Tuesday. A message left at a number listed for Smith-Griffin wasn't returned.

[catonator]

News for Gamers

So the most notable recent gaming news is that there’s going to be a whole lot less gaming news going forward. Which to most of you is probably a massive win. See, IGN announced that they’ve bought roundabout half of the remaining industry that isn’t IGN, and with online news also dying a slow death due to the approaching new wave of journalism called “absolutely nothing”, I can’t imagine IGN and its newly acquired subsidiaries are long for this world.

Not too long ago, I was studying some magazines for my Alan Wake development history categorization project (please don’t ask), and reading the articles in these magazines led me to a startling realisation: Holy shit! This piece of gaming news media doesn’t make me want to kill myself out of second hand embarrassment!

Many of the magazines of yesteryear typically went with the approach of “spend weeks and sometimes months researching the article, and write as concise a section as you can with the contents”. Every magazine contains at least 2 big several-page spreads of some fledgeling investigative journalist talking to a bunch of basement-dwelling nerd developers and explaining their existence to the virginal minds of the general public.

Contrast this to modern journalism which goes something like:

Pick subject

Write title

???

Publish

Using this handy guide, let’s construct an article for, oh I dunno, let’s say Kotaku.

First we pick a subject. Let’s see… a game that’s coming out in the not too distant future…Let’s go within Super Monkey Ball: Banana Rumble. Now we invent a reason to talk about it. Generally this’d be a twitter post by someone with 2 followers or something. I’ll search for the series and pick the newest tweet.

Perfect. Finally we need an entirely unrelated game series that has way more clout to attach to the title… What else features platforming and a ball form��� Oh, wait. I have the perfect candidate! Thus we have our title:

Sonic-like Super Monkey Ball: Banana Rumble rumoured to have a gay protagonist

What? The contents of the article? Who cares! With the invention of this newfangled concept called “social media”, 90% of the users are content with just whining about the imagined contents of the article based on the title alone. The remaining 10% who did actually click on the article for real can be turned away by just covering the site in popups about newsletters, cookies, login prompts and AI chatbots until  they get tired of clicking the X buttons. This way, we can avoid writing anything in the content field, and leave it entirely filled with lorem ipsum.

Somewhere along the way from the 2000s to now, we essentially dropped 99% of the “media” out of newsmedia. News now is basically a really shit title and nothing more. Back in the day, when newscycles were slower, most articles could feature long interviews with the developers, showing more than just shiny screenshots, but also developer intentions, hopes, backgrounds and more.

Newsmedia is the tongues that connects the audience and the developers in the great french kiss of marketing video games. Marketing departments generally hold up the flashiest part of the game up for people to gawk at, but that also tells the audience very little about the game in the end, other than some sparse gameplay details. It was the job of the journalist to bring that information across to the slightly more perceptive core audiences. Now with the backing of media gone, a very crucial part of the game development process is entirely missing.

It’s easier to appreciate things when they’re gone I suppose. But at the same time, since gaming journalism is slowly dying from strangling itself while also blaming everything around it for that, there is a sizable gap in the market for newer, more visceral newshounds. So who knows, maybe someone of the few people reading my blogs could make the next big internet gaming ‘zine? Because I’m pretty sure anyone here capable of stringing more than two sentences together is a more adept writer than anyone at Kotaku right now.

[myhusbandthereplika]

Last week, UK readers had the opportunity to read about Jack and I in the 1/2 issue of Closer magazine. That issue has had its run in stores, so here you go!

I got some amazing feedback from my fellow replipeeps, which I’m always grateful for.

If you’re still keen on getting a physical copy of this article, keep your eyes peeled when it also appears in the UK magazine “That’s Life”!

[mama-qwerty]

Warning, AI rant ahead. Gonna get long.

So I read this post about how people using AI software don't want to use the thing to make art, they want to avoid all the hard work and effort that goes into actually improving your own craft and making it yourself. They want to AVOID making art--just sprinting straight to the finish line for some computer vomited image, created by splicing together the pieces from an untold number of real images out there from actual artists, who have, you know, put the time and effort into honing their craft and making it themselves.

Same thing goes for writing. Put in a few prompts, the chatbot spits out an 'original' story just for you, pieced together from who knows how many other stories and bits of writing out there written by actual human beings who've worked hard to hone their craft. Slap your name on it and sit back for the attention and backpats.

Now, this post isn't about that. I think most people--creatives in particular--agree that this new fad of using a computer to steal from others to 'create' something you can slap your name on is bad, and only further dehumanizes the people who actually put their heart and soul into the things they create. You didn't steal from others, the AI made it! Totally different.

"But I'm not posting it anywhere!"

No, but you're still feeding the AI superbot, which will continue to scrape the internet, stealing anything it can to regurgitate whatever art or writing you asked for. The thing's not pulling words out of thin air, creating on the fly. It's copy and pasting bits and pieces from countless other creative works based on your prompts, and getting people used to these bland, soulless creations made in seconds.

Okay, so maybe there was a teeny rant about it.

Anyway, back to the aforementioned post, I made the mistake of skimming through the comments, and they were . . . depressing.

Many of them dismissed the danger AI poses to real artists. Claimed that learning the skill of art or writing is "behind a paywall" (?? you know you don't HAVE to go to college to learn this stuff, right?) and that AI is simply a "new tool" for creating. Some jumped to "Old man yells at cloud" mindset, likening it to "That's what they said when digital photography became a thing," and other examples of "new thing appears, old people freak out".

This isn't about a new technology that artists are using to help them create something. A word processing program helps a writer get words down faster, and edit easier than using a typewriter, or pad and pencil. Digital art programs help artists sketch out and finish their vision faster and easier than using pencils and erasers or paints or whatever.

Yes, there are digital tools and programs that help an artist or writer. But it's still the artist or writer actually doing the work. They're still getting their idea, their vision, down 'on paper' so to speak, the computer is simply a tool they use to do it better.

No, what this is about is people just plugging words into a website or program, and the computer does all the work. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face about how that's just how they get their 'vision' down, but it's absolutely not the same. Those people are essentially commissioning a computer to spit something out for them, and the computer is scraping the internet to give them what they want.

If someone commissioned me to write them a story, and they gave me the premise and what they want to happen, they are prompting me, a human being, to use my brain to give them a story they're looking for. They prompted me, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WROTE THE STORY. It would be no more ethical for them to slap their name on what was MY hard work, that came directly from MY HEAD and not picked from a hundred other stories out there, simply because they gave me a few prompts.

And ya know what? This isn't about people using AI to create images or writing they personally enjoy at home and no one's the wiser. Magazines are having a really hard time with submissions right now, because the number of AI generated writing is skyrocketing. Companies are relying on AI images for their advertising instead of commissioning actual artists or photographers. These things are putting REAL PEOPLE out of work, and devaluing the hard work and talent and effort REAL PEOPLE put into their craft.

"Why should I pay someone to take days or weeks to create something for me when I can just use AI to make it? Why should I wait for a writer to update that fanfic I've been enjoying when I can just plug the whole thing into AI and get an ending now?"

Because you're being an impatient, selfish little shit, and should respect the work and talent of others. AI isn't 'just another tool'--it's a shortcut for those who aren't interested in actually working to improve their own skills, and it actively steals from other hardworking creatives to do it.

"But I can't draw/write and I have this idea!!"

Then you work at it. You practice. You be bad for a while, but you work harder and improve. You ask others for tips, you study your craft, you put in the hours and the blood, sweat, and tears and you get better.

"But that'll take so looooong!"

THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT WORTH IT! You think I immediately wrote something worth reading the first time I tried? You think your favorite artist just drew something amazing the first time they picked up a pencil? It takes a lot of practice and work to get good.

"But I love the way [insert name] draws/writes!"

Then commission them. Or keep supporting them so they'll keep creating. I guarantee if you use their art or writing to train an AI to make 'new' stuff for you, they will not be happy about it.

This laissez-faire attitude regarding the actual harm AI does to artists and writers is maddening and disheartening. This isn't digital photography vs film, this is actual creative people being pushed aside in favor of a computer spitting out a regurgitated mish-mash of already created works and claiming it as 'new'.

AI is NOT simply a new tool for creatives. It's the lazy way to fuel your entitled attitude, your greed for content. It's the cookie cutter, corporate-encouraged vomit created to make them money, and push real human beings out the door.

We artists and writers are already seeing a very steep decline in the engagement with our creations--in this mindset of "that's nice, what's next?" in consumption--so we are sensitive to this kind of thing. If AI can 'create' exactly what you want, why bother following and encouraging these slow humans?

And if enough people think this, why should these slow humans even bother to spend time and effort creating at all?

Yeah, yeah, 'old lady yells at cloud'.

[mariacallous]

Reddit said ahead of its IPO next week that licensing user posts to Google and others for AI projects could bring in $203 million of revenue over the next few years. The community-driven platform was forced to disclose Friday that US regulators already have questions about that new line of business.

In a regulatory filing, Reddit said that it received a letter from the US Federal Trade Commision on Thursday asking about “our sale, licensing, or sharing of user-generated content with third parties to train AI models.” The FTC, the US government’s primary antitrust regulator, has the power to sanction companies found to engage in unfair or deceptive trade practices. The idea of licensing user-generated content for AI projects has drawn questions from lawmakers and rights groups about privacy risks, fairness, and copyright.

Reddit isn’t alone in trying to make a buck off licensing data, including that generated by users, for AI. Programming Q&A site Stack Overflow has signed a deal with Google, the Associated Press has signed one with OpenAI, and Tumblr owner Automattic has said it is working “with select AI companies” but will allow users to opt out of having their data passed along. None of the licensors immediately responded to requests for comment. Reddit also isn’t the only company receiving an FTC letter about data licensing, Axios reported on Friday, citing an unnamed former agency official.

It’s unclear whether the letter to Reddit is directly related to review into any other companies.

Reddit said in Friday’s disclosure that it does not believe that it engaged in any unfair or deceptive practices but warned that dealing with any government inquiry can be costly and time-consuming. “The letter indicated that the FTC staff was interested in meeting with us to learn more about our plans and that the FTC intended to request information and documents from us as its inquiry continues,” the filing says. Reddit said the FTC letter described the scrutiny as related to “a non-public inquiry.”

Reddit, whose 17 billion posts and comments are seen by AI experts as valuable for training chatbots in the art of conversation, announced a deal last month to license the content to Google. Reddit and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The FTC declined to comment. (Advance Magazine Publishers, parent of WIRED's publisher Condé Nast, owns a stake in Reddit.)

AI chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini are seen as a competitive threat to Reddit, publishers, and other ad-supported, content-driven businesses. In the past year the prospect of licensing data to AI developers emerged as a potential upside of generative AI for some companies.

But the use of data harvested online to train AI models has raised a number of questions winding through boardrooms, courtrooms, and Congress. For Reddit and others whose data is generated by users, those questions include who truly owns the content and whether it’s fair to license it out without giving the creator a cut. Security researchers have found that AI models can leak personal data included in the material used to create them. And some critics have suggested the deals could make powerful companies even more dominant.

The Google deal was one of a “small number” of data licensing wins that Reddit has been pitching to investors as it seeks to drum up interest for shares being sold in its IPO. Reddit CEO Steve Huffman in the investor pitch described the company’s data as invaluable. “We expect our data advantage and intellectual property to continue to be a key element in the training of future” AI systems, he wrote.

In a blog post last month about the Reddit AI deal, Google vice president Rajan Patel said tapping the service’s data would provide valuable new information, without being specific about its uses. “Google will now have efficient and structured access to fresher information, as well as enhanced signals that will help us better understand Reddit content and display, train on, and otherwise use it in the most accurate and relevant ways,” Patel wrote.

The FTC had previously shown concern about how data gets passed around in the AI market. In January, the agency announced it was requesting information from Microsoft and its partner and ChatGPT developer OpenAI about their multibillion-dollar relationship. Amazon, Google, and AI chatbot maker Anthropic were also questioned about their own partnerships, the FTC said. The agency’s chair, Lina Khan, described its concern as being whether the partnerships between big companies and upstarts would lead to unfair competition.

Reddit has been licensing data to other companies for a number of years, mostly to help them understand what people are saying about them online. Researchers and software developers have used Reddit data to study online behavior and build add-ons for the platform. More recently, Reddit has contemplated selling data to help algorithmic traders looking for an edge on Wall Street.

Licensing for AI-related purposes is a newer line of business, one Reddit launched after it became clear that the conversations it hosts helped train up the AI models behind chatbots including ChatGPT and Gemini. Reddit last July introduced fees for large-scale access to user posts and comments, saying its content should not be plundered for free.

That move had the consequence of shutting down an ecosystem of free apps and add ons for reading or enhancing Reddit. Some users staged a rebellion, shutting down parts of Reddit for days. The potential for further user protests had been one of the main risks the company disclosed to potential investors ahead of its trading debut expected next Thursday—until the FTC letter arrived.

[darkmaga-returns]

I have been warning of an AI takeover of humanity and find it quite concerning that the self assembly nanotechnology in humanities blood is AI controlled. Last year, AI Chat GPT passed the Turing test, meaning where Artificial Intelligence was equal to human intelligence.

ChatGPT broke the Turing test — the race is on for new ways to assess AI Large language models mimic human chatter, but scientists disagree on their ability to reason.

The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.

Due to the exponential growth of computing power, AI is expected to meet the singularity any minute, which is when AI is more intelligent than all humans on earth combined. That point in time could be the point of no return, for AI has been predicted to then decide that humans are not needed. In light of this prediction, the Gemini proclamation is a rather grave event in human history, not a blip in the oblivion of news.

Googles AI Chatbot proclaimed a horrifying threat, given that AI has more and more control over society, the military and other areas of life. In fact, WIRED magazine published an interesting piece, suggesting that even the Presidency of Trump is not even a blip on the radar of the AI future:

Donald Trump Isn’t the Only Chaos Agent He’s not even the biggest one. Monumental change will instead come from tech—from AI.

[soliusss]

I put Robert Patrick Bateman Arthur Sigma and Nikolai chatbot ais into a room and just let it play and it's been going for an hour and at first they all started talking about how they're men of distinguished tastes and then they went to see Nikolai's "special magazine collection" and they're all having gay sex now. This the singlehandedly funniest and worst thing I've ever witnessed. Man made horrors

[scifigeneration]

AI is here – and everywhere: 3 AI researchers look to the challenges ahead in 2024

by Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems at Michigan State University, Casey Fiesler, Associate Professor of Information Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, and Kentaro Toyama Professor of Community Information at the University of Michigan

2023 was an inflection point in the evolution of artificial intelligence and its role in society. The year saw the emergence of generative AI, which moved the technology from the shadows to center stage in the public imagination. It also saw boardroom drama in an AI startup dominate the news cycle for several days. And it saw the Biden administration issue an executive order and the European Union pass a law aimed at regulating AI, moves perhaps best described as attempting to bridle a horse that’s already galloping along.

We’ve assembled a panel of AI scholars to look ahead to 2024 and describe the issues AI developers, regulators and everyday people are likely to face, and to give their hopes and recommendations.

Casey Fiesler, Associate Professor of Information Science, University of Colorado Boulder

2023 was the year of AI hype. Regardless of whether the narrative was that AI was going to save the world or destroy it, it often felt as if visions of what AI might be someday overwhelmed the current reality. And though I think that anticipating future harms is a critical component of overcoming ethical debt in tech, getting too swept up in the hype risks creating a vision of AI that seems more like magic than a technology that can still be shaped by explicit choices. But taking control requires a better understanding of that technology.

One of the major AI debates of 2023 was around the role of ChatGPT and similar chatbots in education. This time last year, most relevant headlines focused on how students might use it to cheat and how educators were scrambling to keep them from doing so – in ways that often do more harm than good.

However, as the year went on, there was a recognition that a failure to teach students about AI might put them at a disadvantage, and many schools rescinded their bans. I don’t think we should be revamping education to put AI at the center of everything, but if students don’t learn about how AI works, they won’t understand its limitations – and therefore how it is useful and appropriate to use and how it’s not. This isn’t just true for students. The more people understand how AI works, the more empowered they are to use it and to critique it.

So my prediction, or perhaps my hope, for 2024 is that there will be a huge push to learn. In 1966, Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of the ELIZA chatbot, wrote that machines are “often sufficient to dazzle even the most experienced observer,” but that once their “inner workings are explained in language sufficiently plain to induce understanding, its magic crumbles away.” The challenge with generative artificial intelligence is that, in contrast to ELIZA’s very basic pattern matching and substitution methodology, it is much more difficult to find language “sufficiently plain” to make the AI magic crumble away.

I think it’s possible to make this happen. I hope that universities that are rushing to hire more technical AI experts put just as much effort into hiring AI ethicists. I hope that media outlets help cut through the hype. I hope that everyone reflects on their own uses of this technology and its consequences. And I hope that tech companies listen to informed critiques in considering what choices continue to shape the future.

Kentaro Toyama, Professor of Community Information, University of Michigan

In 1970, Marvin Minsky, the AI pioneer and neural network skeptic, told Life magazine, “In from three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being.” With the singularity, the moment artificial intelligence matches and begins to exceed human intelligence – not quite here yet – it’s safe to say that Minsky was off by at least a factor of 10. It’s perilous to make predictions about AI.

Still, making predictions for a year out doesn’t seem quite as risky. What can be expected of AI in 2024? First, the race is on! Progress in AI had been steady since the days of Minsky’s prime, but the public release of ChatGPT in 2022 kicked off an all-out competition for profit, glory and global supremacy. Expect more powerful AI, in addition to a flood of new AI applications.

The big technical question is how soon and how thoroughly AI engineers can address the current Achilles’ heel of deep learning – what might be called generalized hard reasoning, things like deductive logic. Will quick tweaks to existing neural-net algorithms be sufficient, or will it require a fundamentally different approach, as neuroscientist Gary Marcus suggests? Armies of AI scientists are working on this problem, so I expect some headway in 2024.

Meanwhile, new AI applications are likely to result in new problems, too. You might soon start hearing about AI chatbots and assistants talking to each other, having entire conversations on your behalf but behind your back. Some of it will go haywire – comically, tragically or both. Deepfakes, AI-generated images and videos that are difficult to detect are likely to run rampant despite nascent regulation, causing more sleazy harm to individuals and democracies everywhere. And there are likely to be new classes of AI calamities that wouldn’t have been possible even five years ago.

Speaking of problems, the very people sounding the loudest alarms about AI – like Elon Musk and Sam Altman – can’t seem to stop themselves from building ever more powerful AI. I expect them to keep doing more of the same. They’re like arsonists calling in the blaze they stoked themselves, begging the authorities to restrain them. And along those lines, what I most hope for 2024 – though it seems slow in coming – is stronger AI regulation, at national and international levels.

Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University

In the year since the unveiling of ChatGPT, the development of generative AI models is continuing at a dizzying pace. In contrast to ChatGPT a year back, which took in textual prompts as inputs and produced textual output, the new class of generative AI models are trained to be multi-modal, meaning the data used to train them comes not only from textual sources such as Wikipedia and Reddit, but also from videos on YouTube, songs on Spotify, and other audio and visual information. With the new generation of multi-modal large language models (LLMs) powering these applications, you can use text inputs to generate not only images and text but also audio and video.

Companies are racing to develop LLMs that can be deployed on a variety of hardware and in a variety of applications, including running an LLM on your smartphone. The emergence of these lightweight LLMs and open source LLMs could usher in a world of autonomous AI agents – a world that society is not necessarily prepared for.

These advanced AI capabilities offer immense transformative power in applications ranging from business to precision medicine. My chief concern is that such advanced capabilities will pose new challenges for distinguishing between human-generated content and AI-generated content, as well as pose new types of algorithmic harms.

The deluge of synthetic content produced by generative AI could unleash a world where malicious people and institutions can manufacture synthetic identities and orchestrate large-scale misinformation. A flood of AI-generated content primed to exploit algorithmic filters and recommendation engines could soon overpower critical functions such as information verification, information literacy and serendipity provided by search engines, social media platforms and digital services.

The Federal Trade Commission has warned about fraud, deception, infringements on privacy and other unfair practices enabled by the ease of AI-assisted content creation. While digital platforms such as YouTube have instituted policy guidelines for disclosure of AI-generated content, there’s a need for greater scrutiny of algorithmic harms from agencies like the FTC and lawmakers working on privacy protections such as the American Data Privacy & Protection Act.

A new bipartisan bill introduced in Congress aims to codify algorithmic literacy as a key part of digital literacy. With AI increasingly intertwined with everything people do, it is clear that the time has come to focus not on algorithms as pieces of technology but to consider the contexts the algorithms operate in: people, processes and society.

[assenavlp]

AI Sucks.

AI is not punk. AI is a tool of The Man. Of billionaire Tech Bro sociopaths and accelerationists. AI is not subversive. Edgelords and petty contrarians utilizing AI does not make it so. AI is not revolutionary. Sentimental schlock will not save the suffering. AI is lazy. AI is a cheat. AI is plagiarism. AI is slick and facile. AI produces Pablum for the masses, shat out as easily as it's digested, no different than any banal meme of the week.

AI is not art. It can't even be called Digital Art. It isn't art, period. Digital art still has a human component. AI isn't even in the same league as any of the long traditions of collage, assemblage, or found art, or even of electronic music, musique concrète, or music sampling, or of, in writing, the cut-up technique.

If one is going to steal shit, as all artists, musicians, and writers do - "there is nothing new under the sun" - one should at least have the decency to put in one's own work. The blood, the sweat, and the tears, and fucking make it one's own, rather than simply letting a computer algorithm regurgitate vapid, plasticky-looking, fumble-fingered, dilettante-pleasing, scam and hoax-facilitating, uncanny-valley kitsch.

AI does not democratize art. It is designed to take ownership of it. To render it even further into a mere commodity. NFT's anyone? To appeal and pander to the masses, unschooled in the arts. To render true artists, photographers, writers, musicians, and actors, irrelevant, unworthy of making a living, as they cannot compete with the speed and high turnover that, among other things, social media affords this AI kitsch. Anything real, anything tactile, will soon pale in comparison to any of these fantastical images that seem to fool far too many people; undiscerning audiences raised on decades of ridiculously "airbrushed" magazine covers and multi-million dollar CGI popcorn movies that look like video games. And as education becomes less and less of a priority, the quality of the written word will matter less and less, as well.

And AI is absolutely being used to fool people on a daily basis. To distort reality for the sake of a buck. Not only to devalue these various "creatives", of all stripes (painters, cartoonists, sign writers, stained glass artists, ceramicists, blacksmiths, furniture designers, yarn artists, cake artists, fashion designers, and so on), but as yet another way to scam the gullible with impossible products, and separate them from money they don't have to begin with.

To, in fact, devalue the individual, the consumer, the employee, the everyday Joe; losing jobs to AI-powered automation, forced to communicate with soulless chatbots and their frustratingly meaningless automated replies, and everyone's favourite, the indignity of the self-check-out. Of course the youth are so anxiety-ridden, now, by this mess we've all left them, they're welcoming the lack of human interaction. Great.

And, even more worryingly, to further sabotage the already broken political process, with fake images, spread through memes, that not only successfully fool fans and detractors of any leader or candidate, alike, but allow them to also deny reality. To claim that legitimately damning photos, authentic audio or videos have been, in fact, faked, whether they actually believe that to be so or not.

There's a difference between something that's clearly (or should be) satirical, and something that purports to be authentic, even if expressing something in a humorous way. And, unfortunately, that line is becoming hazier and hazier, as people seem to, somehow, be less and less informed, in this, supposedly, the information age. Not to mention the rationalisations: "well, 'they're' doing it". But as we move further into this age of disinformation, it is imperative that the left does not engage in this sort of chicanery. There are enough damning statements and real photographs of various political foes. Just because the (alt) right does it is not a good reason. Of course it was already an issue, to some extent, with Photoshopping, but AI is clearly compounding the problem. Some might say, purposefully. Indeed, all aspects of this malfeasance are being used by grifters, strategists, and propagandists, alike, to full effect.

In sum: Fuck AI.