Alright then, here’s what I think about your sources. A lot of these seem like technologies that won’t really help the plain folk. I’m sorry if this is a bit long, but I made sure to put time into this because I find it very important.
Source 1: I’m not sure if this type of tech, that being neural networks “trained” on previous data, is actually going to help scientists find out what supernovae explosions are like. This is simply a composition of all the explosions the data is trained on. A better process is this designing of an airplane wing. This uses algorithms with vars that actually represent physical variables, like lift and friction, to find the best airplane wing design, instead of feeding a neural network airplane wing designs that work. It ended up performing a bit better than expected because of real-world variables.
Source 2: The problem this AI is trying to solve is brought on by hospitals purposefully laying off staff. However, I really like this quote.
The AI, dubbed MyEleanor, isn’t designed to replace human navigators, Moadel-Robblee explained. “She” calls patients who didn’t show up or canceled their colonoscopy appointments. If they pick up, she has two primary directives: transfer them over to a human navigator and, if the patient consents, guide them through a brief survey on why they missed their appointment. “Our virtual navigator, she doesn’t sleep. So she can call earlier, later, or on different days. The navigators that are human are invaluable. They have the human touch. We can’t replace them, but we can supplement,” Moadel-Robblee said.
I think that this is technically a good thing, but it’s very small compared to the jobs lost from AI.
Source 3: First off, three people already beat this robot to the punch.
The first dishwasher to be granted a patent was invented in 1850 by Joel Houghton. It was a wooden box that used a hand-turned wheel to splash water on dirty dishes, and it had scrubbers. Ten years later, inventor L.A. Alexander improved on Houghton’s machine by adding a “geared mechanism that allowed the user to spin racked dishes through a tub of water,” according to an entry on reference website ThoughtCo. But the person we have to thank for the modern-day dishwasher is Josephine Cochran (sometimes spelled Cochrane). Her machine was the first to use water pressure instead of scrubbers to clean dishes—which made it more efficient than Houghton’s or Alexander’s versions.
After that, the article is almost nothing like you described. The reporter is going off from a promotional video by people clearly trying to bedazzle investors. Then, the article itself states that “[i]t’s unlikely that Figure 01 is using ChatGPT itself”, and ruminates on advancements that would only happen “[s]hould everything in the video work as claimed”. It’s just AI hype.
Overall, this technology is not “benefiting humanity”. I like how open you are about things, tho.
Edit: I made sure that my statements were not in accidentally in a quote.
Alright then, here’s what I think about your sources. A lot of these seem like technologies that won’t really help the plain folk. I’m sorry if this is a bit long, but I made sure to put time into this because I find it very important.
Source 1: I’m not sure if this type of tech, that being neural networks “trained” on previous data, is actually going to help scientists find out what supernovae explosions are like. This is simply a composition of all the explosions the data is trained on. A better process is this designing of an airplane wing. This uses algorithms with vars that actually represent physical variables, like lift and friction, to find the best airplane wing design, instead of feeding a neural network airplane wing designs that work. It ended up performing a bit better than expected because of real-world variables.
Source 2: The problem this AI is trying to solve is brought on by hospitals purposefully laying off staff. However, I really like this quote.
I think that this is technically a good thing, but it’s very small compared to the jobs lost from AI.
Source 3: First off, three people already beat this robot to the punch.
After that, the article is almost nothing like you described. The reporter is going off from a promotional video by people clearly trying to bedazzle investors. Then, the article itself states that “[i]t’s unlikely that Figure 01 is using ChatGPT itself”, and ruminates on advancements that would only happen “[s]hould everything in the video work as claimed”. It’s just AI hype.
Overall, this technology is not “benefiting humanity”. I like how open you are about things, tho.
Edit: I made sure that my statements were not in accidentally in a quote.