Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(150,484 posts)
48. OK. Definitions can be difficult when the subject is abstract.
Sun May 11, 2025, 11:10 AM
May 2025

Let me give you an example from my own life:

In my late 20s, I decided I'd become a freelance magazine writer. Why? Because I wasn't a bad writer and success in that job was widely considered to border on the impossible. That's how I am.

What will I write about? First question. So, I thought about my interests and publications that were familiar to me. I queried and wrote some articles for various magazines, on a range of subjects, from articles on how to choose your first car for Seventeen Magazine to cooking articles for a couple of other magazines. But, while I was able to place such articles and get paid for them, it wasn't going to be enough to make a career.

So, what else. One of my favorite magazines as I was growing up was Popular Mechanics. Maybe I could write for that publication. Maybe I could create projects people could make and then design, construct them, and provide instructions people could follow to duplicate what I came up with. I did a couple of those for that magazine and some others in the same subject line.

Once I had broken into Popular Mechanics, I decided to see if I could place an article that was like some of the ones I particularly enjoyed reading. Something off the wall and very different from their usual material. But what? I decided that I wanted to create a small pipe organ, suitable for children to play. It had to be made with materials that were easily obtained, and use only techniques familiar to the typical reader of the magazine. It had to be of good quality, look good, and sound good when played. I thought about the idea for about a week, and decided that, yes, I could make that and meet the requirements.

So, I queried the idea to the magazine's DIY project editor. He wrote back, "Well, that sound about as unlikely as any idea I've seen lately. But, go ahead. If you can pull it off, we'll publish it.

So, I got to work. I had never designed or built anything like that. So, I started planning. A couple of weeks later, the project was finished and worked just as I had imagined it. As I built it, I photographed the hands-on steps and explanatory images of various parts of the design. Very simple to build, although pretty intricate. I did the necessary design drawings, after the fact, as usual, created the materials list, all things obtainable at any hardware store. Lots of drawings, since each working part of the little organ had to have it's own working drawings. Then, I wrote the step-by-step instructions in the style of Popular Mechanics. I photographed the finished project, using the daughter of a friend of my as the model in the main photo. (She got the little pipe organ to play with afterwards.)

Two weeks from query acceptance to mailing the completed assignment to the magazine. I had to play the thing for the editor over the phone, since we didn't have video cameras in the early 80s. They liked it. They ran the article. People built the thing from the plans. I can't tell you all of the things I had to learn to pull that project off, but it was the start of my work on that type of article for a number of magazines.

Why am I writing this? Because that is an example of genuine human intelligence. Starting with nothing and doing what ever was necessary to successfully create a thing that had not existed before. As an intelligent organism, I could do that. And I'm not the brightest star on the planet, either. That project started with not even an idea to make something. It took a couple of weeks to do, maybe a month if you count waiting for decisions from an editor.

No computer intelligence will have the creative ability that went into that. Not even the idea to do something like that existed until I thought of it. And that's not even all that complicated a task. Can't be done by a non-sentient machine.

Evidence? https://books.google.com/books?id=-9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=calliope+%22popular+mechanics%22
More evidence? Here's one a reader made.

?si=-pwWhF0mXgM8aGxc

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What happens when AI starts using itself as its source material? Ocelot II May 2025 #1
Yes, indeed. MineralMan May 2025 #5
What could happen is what's called "model collapse" - which there have been warnings about for years: highplainsdem May 2025 #17
Over multiple iterations the errors get larger and the facts become overwhelmed. erronis May 2025 #24
Wikipedia still is suspect. Nothing has really changed over the years. n/t valleyrogue May 2025 #2
It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #10
Wikipedia BeerBarrelPolka May 2025 #13
Point something out. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #14
How about this? TheRickles May 2025 #22
Okay you may have something there, but it also points out the revision process restores a lot of it Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #27
I still occasionally find circular Wikipedia source citations muriel_volestrangler May 2025 #37
Can happen. Complex subject matter is difficult to master and difficult to untangle. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #42
The professional organization of practitioners of this therapy gave up trying to influence Wikipedia. TheRickles May 2025 #39
Such as? BeerBarrelPolka May 2025 #63
Every spoken or written word is suspect. That's human nature. hunter May 2025 #19
That's my position also. The "Talk" and revision pages are valuable in their own right. erronis May 2025 #25
It is still "suspect." It's just that, like you say, you can generally check their sources...nt Wounded Bear May 2025 #3
I do occasionally. It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #11
Ai reformats work done by others samsingh May 2025 #4
One day per week Turbineguy May 2025 #6
IMO, AI is an amazing innovation anciano May 2025 #7
Current AI is Generative AI, not true AI. It doesn't reason, it makes stuff that looks reasonable. Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #8
I call it fAI for fakeAI. Calling it AI is such a joke. CrispyQ May 2025 #9
You are correct, of course. MineralMan May 2025 #12
Define sentience Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #16
This is similar to what has been done to bridge the "Uncanny Valley" in visuals. erronis May 2025 #28
Well, I consider artificial intelligence to be equivalent to MineralMan May 2025 #31
Okay, a bit of a start to definition Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #36
OK. Definitions can be difficult when the subject is abstract. MineralMan May 2025 #48
Good story and kudos to you. But you draw the wrong lesson and there are counters Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #51
Oh, I'm not saying that what they're calling AI will not be a useful tool. MineralMan May 2025 #52
I think you may have deep seated mystical beliefs preventing you from recognizing all its forms Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #56
Not mystical at all. MineralMan May 2025 #61
I'm open to the possibility that we've created an environment where AI could come about, CrispyQ May 2025 #21
I agree. What's this? Highlight Look Up Wikipedia underpants May 2025 #15
"starting point to other references" is exactly how it should be used RandomNumbers May 2025 #30
Steve Pruitt has a lot of time on his hands. underpants May 2025 #18
"AI" is not just another Silicon Valley gold rush Ponzi-oid investment bubble... paulkienitz May 2025 #20
If they have so much confidence in it, the first task we should assign AI is climate change. CrispyQ May 2025 #23
The #1 fix to climate change* is population reduction RandomNumbers May 2025 #34
That's the #1 overly simplistic fix, not the #1 realistic fix Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #38
"WEF and "globohomo" ??? RandomNumbers May 2025 #45
WEF is World Economic Foundation. "Globohomo" is the nutty concept that globalists and homosexuals are aligned Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #53
Ah, thank you. As usual, a "right wing talking point" is idiotic RandomNumbers May 2025 #58
Post removed Post removed May 2025 #55
Your exact words: RandomNumbers May 2025 #60
Contraceptive and abortion rights were never "active reduction". Exercising them is active prevention, not reduction Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #64
Oh yes, the 8 billion pound elephant in the room. CrispyQ May 2025 #44
Thank you. I blame lack of science education RandomNumbers May 2025 #49
"The thing is, we might still be able to turn things around relatively humanely..." CrispyQ May 2025 #65
Totally agree. RandomNumbers May 2025 #66
The potential is enormous, so is the danger. Joinfortmill May 2025 #26
I was recently going through the history of the moniss May 2025 #29
First off, AI is a tool... Much like a calculator JCMach1 May 2025 #32
Then, it is misnamed. MineralMan May 2025 #33
thanks for that explanation of your use of these tools. Real life applications are helpful. erronis May 2025 #35
The free to use baked in stuff is largely trash JCMach1 May 2025 #40
Ed Zitron and Cory Doctorow will agree. erronis May 2025 #46
In both your examples you are manipulating language... hunter May 2025 #50
It's problematic when legit news media cites AI written content as a source IronLionZion May 2025 #41
Wikipedia can be a useful starting point, but only that. And yes, generative AI slop is a growing problem there. Eugene May 2025 #43
AI (GPT) IS A TOOL. Layzeebeaver May 2025 #47
I agree The Bot's make up word salads. Historic NY May 2025 #54
Yes, sometimes they do. MineralMan May 2025 #57
I perfer Language Tool Historic NY May 2025 #59
Yes, AI is a tool, and probably a useful one. MineralMan May 2025 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Remember When Wikipedia W...»Reply #48