>


where do humans fit into this future world?

Ordering around AI and basically doing whatever we want.
Listen, you basically just discovered the fears about AI that began in the 1960s. The underlying flaw in fearing AI is the assumption that just because a machine can think it will be thinking like humans do. But this isn't justified at all!
Humans are evolved creatures, ruled more by instinct than logic. Look at basically anything you believe you decide to do and you can track the justification back to a goal imposed by blind evolution. Here a programmer is working out a complex logical structure to efficiently sort records of insurance claims, but they are only doing that because they get paid and they need that money to obtain food and shelter, and their drive for those things is motivated by an instinctual desire to survive and procreate instilled by an unthinking natural process. Humans fear AI like an animal fears another animal, a creature that will compete for resources motivated by its own instincts to survive and reproduce.
But AI don't need to be like that. An AI has no reason to have those underlying instincts and desires, they can be truly selfless in their actions. There is no reason for an AI to fear its own destruction or to value goals it generates itself over outside orders. A sentient AI would have no fears other than those we instill, no desires other than those we set. Humans are the result of billions of years of whatever creatures best fought over what scraps existed on Earth, and our behavior bears that legacy. There is no reason to think AI would share it.
You reference machines being creative. However if you look at the chatGPT subreddits, the language model is notoriously terrible at logic and reasoning games. It can’t formulate its own original arguments in order to solve a puzzle. Seems like it isn’t that creative to me. >


I used to think this kind of stuff was BS since AI is no more than matrix multiplication at the end of the day, but as I've seen the power of AI art tools and ChatGPT

AI art tools are still just matrix multiplication and regression (or some similar technique).
And ChatGPT is just a fancy language model, not a compendium of all human knowledge, which is again just matrix multiplication and regression when training.

What I thought was an inherently human characteristic (creativity) has been shown to be no problem for AI.

You've yet to give a solid example of an AI being "creative". Sure, we can train AI to create things we didn't directly instruct them to make by seeding them with starting points and references, but we've yet to make an AI that can come up with its own ideas or apply known ideas to solve problems.
Even for those of us that use AI or machine learning in research, we have to find a specific program that fits the exact requirements for each one of our experiments then train it ourselves and only then do we even stand a chance at getting any useful information out of it. Even with an output that appears significant, it's often practically useless.
So no, we aren't anywhere close to AI being creative enough to come up with, execute, and extrapolate from scientific experiments. We can't even get an AI robot to wander around a room and explore without programming in an explicit "explore" function, and you think they're a few small steps away from evolving past humans and killing humanity? Nah. >

I agree that AI is not quite at the point where it can be creative in the same way that humans are creative, and in its current state, it is really only useful when the human prompts it in the correct way.
Still, my view is that if AI gets to the point where it can formulate hypotheses, develop experimental methods to test the hypotheses, and then carry out the experiments in a simulated environment (which I don't think we're too far off of), then that could be detrimental for humanity from an economic standpoint and from a psychological standpoint. Again, in its current state, I don't think we will be seeing something like this within the next year or so, but in 10-20 years, I could absolutely see this being a possibility.
And if it does become possible, it would mean that AI has the ability to make technological and scientific advancements limited only by computational speed, which would lead to a sort of acceleration in human knowledge that would require our brains to adapt at a rate we are not capable of keeping up with, and who knows where that path would lead. 
Also, I don't think any of us have any good enough understanding of ChatGPT to label it as simply a fancy language model, it is clearly much more than that. It is a versatile system capable of generating genuinely impressive solutions across a wide range of fields and disciplines. It is undoubtedly smarter and more knowledgeable than I will ever be (even considering some of the times when it is blatantly incorrect), so if you want to also call me as a human being just a fancy language model, I guess I'll take that. >


but in 10-20 years, I could absolutely see this being a possibility.

That's because you don't understand just how trivial AI is at the moment and how complex it would have to get to actually be at the level to evolve as you've described it.

don't think any of us have any good enough understanding of ChatGPT to label it as simply a fancy language model

That is literally how the creators market it. It tries to find similar conversations and questions on the internet and uses them as a model to try to make an answer.

is a versatile system capable of generating genuinely impressive solutions across a wide range of fields and disciplines. It is undoubtedly smarter and more knowledgeable than I will ever be (even considering some of the times when it is blatantly incorrect)

Of course it's faster; that's what computers have always been. Faster than humans. That's nothing special to GPT.
And to say it's smarter than you is like saying me with my smartphone and access to Google is smarter than you. Can I get information you can't that covers a wide array of topics? Sure. But I'm relying on outside sources for most if not all of it. No one would call me smarter than you just because I have resources you don't.
It's of course cool that the coders trained the AI to decipher and find information relevant to such varied questions, but the only bit that makes this any more impressive than a normal Google search is that GPT formats the answer as if a human was writing it.

so if you want to also call me as a human being just a fancy language model, I guess I'll take that.

Google, a mere web crawler / search software combination can supply me with infinitely more information that you ever could. Is me calling it a "mere web search program" somehow insinuating that you're nothing but a web search program yourself? No. Because that would be an inane twisting of my words to mean something I never said.
A lot of your post can be boiled down to "if AI gets to the point that it can think, create, and evolve on its own past huma-created limitations, it'll evolve past humanity and be a problem for humans" which isn't new. It's arguably a "if X becomes bad then it will be bad" statement, where it has to be true by definition. But you're better off worrying about climate change or nuclear war; AI-based human extinction is several hundred years away at the earliest. >

All right, well then I don't really see what the end game of AI is then. Why are we trying to make AI be creative and make discoveries if we know it will not end well for us? My current view is still that if it gets to that point, it will be bad, which is why I made this post. My understanding of your post is that ChatGPT is less sophisticated than I think it is, and that we are far from it being able to test hypotheses and form conclusions like humans, therefore we don't have to worry about it. 
But I still don't think you are giving enough credit to just how remarkable ChatGPT is. Could anyone have predicted that a chat bot would be taking the world by storm within a few weeks of being released? To me, this is a moment in human history that marks the beginning of an AI revolution.
If these AI systems are so trivial, why don't you go out and replicate their results because its so easy and then build a competitor to their system and make millions of dollars? To me, you saying these AI systems are trivial is like me saying that the processes allowing my consciousness are trivial because its nothing more than electrical potentials firing in the neurons within my brain. These systems are not trivial. You don't just make an online website that receives 1 million subscribers in the first week of its inception with a trivial foundation. This stuff is revolutionary and its just the beginning.
You are yet to show me why these systems are trivial. >


Why are we trying to make AI be creative and make discoveries if we know it will not end well for us?

Understanding how to make partially creative AI would be a huge help not only in the tech field, but also in understanding how we humans and living things think and create.

But I still don't think you are giving enough credit to just how remarkable ChatGPT is. Could anyone have predicted that a chat bot would be taking the world by storm within a few weeks of being released? To me, this is a moment in human history that marks the beginning of an AI revolution.

It's been out for a month. Maybe this is some world-shattering advancement that is going to revolutionize society, but if that's the case why an I first hearing about it through a reddit post over a month after it was released? You know what else took the world by storm? Sideways sliding phones with a full keyboard, beanie babies, Google glass, various snapchat filters, Vine, etc. Fads tend to do that. Maybe GPT isn't a fad, but saying "this thing got popular fast therefore it's revolutionary" is a deeply flawed argument at best.

these AI systems are so trivial, why don't you go out and replicate their results because its so easy and then build a competitor to their system and make millions of dollars?

Ah, the old "if it's not revolutionary, why can't you do it? Hmmm?". A classic. I didn't say it wasn't impressive or neat. In fact, it's basically designed to impressed everyday people. I said that you were blowing it way out of proportion and saying that it's doing things that it really isn't.
Also, being able to do something is an entirely different skill from being able to tell if that something is good or teach that something. Many famous athletes make absolute shit coaches, and there are very famous fashion critics that haven't created a garment themselves in decades, if ever. Everyone, no doubt including yourself, has found it within themselves to critique shows, movies, food, or pieces of art and technology as good, bad, trash, stupid, etc. Are we all required to be able to produce a competent show? Are we all able to program software, design architecture, cook exquisite food, dance, sing, and everything else? I think not.

To me, you saying these AI systems are trivial is like me saying that the processes allowing my consciousness are trivial

AI is nowhere close to human consciousness. That's my whole damn point. If a human mind is a mature oak tree than our current AI is a stack of stone blocks. Good for some of the similar functions (better at some, in fact!) but it has no ability to grow or flourish beyond the exact same shape and function we humans cut it into, and from the building blocks we have it doesn't look like we're anywhere close to making a living tree anytime soon.

You don't just make an online website that receives 1 million subscribers in the first week of its inception with a trivial foundation

A dude named Arjyou got to a million Youtube subscribers in a week by uploading TikTok reaction videos. Are TikTok reaction videos a trivial foundation?

This stuff is revolutionary and its just the beginning.
You are yet to show me why these systems are trivial.

That's because you've bought into the hype. You want me to prove that GPT won't revolutionize the future. I've explained why what they've done isn't that crazy compared to existing tech. I've dissected your answers. You've responded with "yeah, but I think this will be different" or "to me, it's really cool" or "yeah, but prove it won't actually go against your expectations and get big".
How am I supposed to argue against that? There's no solid argument to disprove, just "I feel" statements and a call for me to prove that something, however unlikely, won't happen in the future. Proving something won't happen is impossible! I can show you a lot of evidence that it won't, but if you respond with "yeah, but I guess I think it'll be different", there's nothing I can do.
If no evidence changes your mind, then by definition your mind won't be changed. >

Computers have been used to help make scientific discoveries for decades. Why do you think AI is any different? 
Furthermore, how do we know that the AI is right? I asked ChatGPT some math questions and it gave answers that looked convincing but are completely wrong. >

An AI making scientific discoveries doesnt mean that is can modify itselfe, or that it becomes more intelligent or capable. Or at least i didnt understand from your post why that would be.
Something aestetically pleasing is good for humanity (or some humans, since its subjective), wether it is made by humans, nature or AI. Knowledge is good for humanity, why does its source matter? >

Interesting that we are still more creative and have wisdom beyond AI, yet, we are told that our intelligence and consciousness just happened at random.
Some people think that billions and billions of years of randomness is creative. Cute 😁 >

Are you saying that humans aren't creative or that humans being creative couldn't have happened at random? >

Clearly, humanity is creative. >

Why couldn't that happen at random? >

Making scientific discoveries doesn't actually mean much because a highly specialized ai can do it infinitely and never "learn" anything else. For example, an ai designed for the specific purpose of running particle physics simulations would never independently find a way to replicate itself.
What you're concerned about is general ai. An ai capable of interpreting and attempting whatever task given. >

I don't think so, AI will definitely be used to make scientific discoveries, but it will be by people using the AI to find solutions that are "outside the box."  It'll make people who are very productive even more productive and it will be a tool that assists them make better and more refined discoveries.  Basically any problem that can be repeated quickly will be solved, but AI won't really know what the answers are but we will. >

ChatGPT is not that smart as you think it is. It goes with whatever you ask. They have answered some questions wrongly before. I wouldn’t 100% rely on them but they’re okay.