Those accustomed to \u201cchatting\u201d with AI will know which manuscripts\nare truly the product of human thought, and which are obviously written\nby robots.<\/p>\n
Jakarta (ANTARA) - It feels utterly boring when one stumbles upon an\nintriguing topic on social media, reads it, ponders for a moment, and\nthen realises it is an AI-generated piece, an imitation of\nintelligence.<\/p>\n
Such instances are often found in threads, vertical short videos, or\neven mere captions. It feels empty. Robotic writing is very different\nfrom human writing. Imitation intelligence lacks soul, so their\ncreations have no life in them.<\/p>\n
Even if the message conveyed is indeed true, supported by AI\u2019s\nconstantly updated knowledge, or even layered with Google\u2019s endless data\nlike Gemini. But at that point, the human thinking process stops.<\/p>\n
By nature, AI is a human aid, not a substitute for thinking. Sam\nAltman, one of the founders of OpenAI, did not launch the Generative\nPre-trained Transformer just once and then let the imitation\nintelligence, familiarly known as GPT, develop and evolve on its own.\nAltman and his team continue to think about developing the latest\nversion of ChatGPT.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Elon Musk did not create Grok to advance the SpaceX\nproject or develop the latest series of Tesla vehicles. Instead, Musk\nand his team are the ones who keep thinking about how to develop Grok,\nso that it can be embedded in the head of Optimus, Tesla\u2019s humanoid\nrobot.<\/p>\n
But conversely, AI paired with laziness in thinking will gradually\ndull the reasoning that is the hallmark of human intelligence.<\/p>\n
And that is what is now often seen in the online world.<\/p>\n
AI responses always follow patterns. Those accustomed to \u201cchatting\u201d\nwith AI will know which manuscripts are truly the product of human\nthought, and which are obviously written by robots. Make friends with\nvarious types of AI as much as possible, and eventually you will know\nthe difference yourself.<\/p>\n
Worse still, the pampering facilities from AI do not stop at social\nmedia content, but have extended to the institution called the Fourth\nPillar of Democracy: the mass media.<\/p>\n
Not wrong. Absolutely not wrong. Using AI in any job is akin to a\ncivil engineer using a calculator to compute building precision. Or like\na photographer handing over to the camera\u2019s \u201cauto\u201d mode to align focus,\naperture, ISO, and speed, so they can concentrate on the best angle and\ntiming.<\/p>\n
The New York Times, one of the major media outlets in the United\nStates, has now created an AI Agent. An AI Agent is an advanced level\nfrom ordinary AI, where they can think and act independently without\nneeding initial information or commands from humans.<\/p>\n
For the New York Times, the AI Agent on their portal functions like\nthe Google search engine, but the sources are all verified and credible\nofficial news.<\/p>\n
The Press Council is also not left behind by the times through the\nregulation on Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in\nJournalistic Works. This means that imitation intelligence is truly not\nprohibited from being used. Apni Jaya Putra, the author of the book AI\nDisruption: When Journalism is Hijacked by Algorithms, has even delved\ninto the intricacies between AI and mass media and implemented AI in his\nmedia channels.<\/p>\n
Ethics<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/all-about-ai-1776750692", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }