Personally, the concern about being ethical would not be my first concern (we're already past that point with the mere usage of "AI" for what will inevitably be a ton of non ethical tasks in the future, irrespective of pointless "regulations" to contain it), but rather the one about being possible in the first place.
I didn't vote "No" yet as I don't want to mess your poll, but besides what Ricardo mentioned about being able to know if the "training" goes well or not, this isn't really about Rainmeter or skins or Lua, but about true intelligence, which the current "AI" just doesn't have, the "I" in its name is just a marketing ploy as far as I'm concerned. Besides very simple tasks, the work of a programmer is about true intelligence and the ability of coming up with "ideas" of what to do and how to do it, something a machine is not yet able to do. The "creativity" part is key to this (just like when writing novels or inventing something), and that cannot be replicated by "AI".
In other words, any "training" assumes someone - a human - already thought about it and knows what and how to do. Then, an Artificial Intelligence (which should be actually named Artificial Assistance at this point) can mimick that and achieve more or less the same result. Without the first part about creativity, the latter will only be about somewhat logical "choices" from what has already been done by humans.
In a way, this is true for humans too: teaching is never enough, folks must always come up with new and own ways of dealing with stuff, something "original", if you like.
If you progress with this, you will be limited to stuff of a complexity somewhat limited. For more, you'd have to put your own mind at work, there isn't any substitute for the latter yet.
I didn't vote "No" yet as I don't want to mess your poll, but besides what Ricardo mentioned about being able to know if the "training" goes well or not, this isn't really about Rainmeter or skins or Lua, but about true intelligence, which the current "AI" just doesn't have, the "I" in its name is just a marketing ploy as far as I'm concerned. Besides very simple tasks, the work of a programmer is about true intelligence and the ability of coming up with "ideas" of what to do and how to do it, something a machine is not yet able to do. The "creativity" part is key to this (just like when writing novels or inventing something), and that cannot be replicated by "AI".
In other words, any "training" assumes someone - a human - already thought about it and knows what and how to do. Then, an Artificial Intelligence (which should be actually named Artificial Assistance at this point) can mimick that and achieve more or less the same result. Without the first part about creativity, the latter will only be about somewhat logical "choices" from what has already been done by humans.
In a way, this is true for humans too: teaching is never enough, folks must always come up with new and own ways of dealing with stuff, something "original", if you like.
If you progress with this, you will be limited to stuff of a complexity somewhat limited. For more, you'd have to put your own mind at work, there isn't any substitute for the latter yet.
Statistics: Posted by Yincognito — Today, 12:02 pm
