You certainly are on the right track. Kabbo as a Bushman, was an exceptionally highly skilled observer and interpreter with a highly developed sensory awareness of patterns in his environment, which made him an exceptional 'Spoorsnyer'. In order to survive in this modern landscape, one should develop one's skills accordingly. Those who do not, will not survive, and those who allow a ‘dream’ to be imprisoned, neither as well.
Yes, Diana, you are right, of course. It is just a bit of satire... Read the following remark by me in respect of a previous, brilliant, Johan Fourie article... 😊😊😊 "Johan, you are far too professional to have introduced some good old satire into your article about our abortive attempt to regulate AI and what a better approach would be. As usual, IF YOU ARE LISTENED TO, future generations — meaning those only a year or less away in the future at the speed of advances in AI — will thank you. As a pensioner and ex-economics practitioner, I am personally no longer constrained from pointing out what is actually hilarious SA governmental bungling and completely overboard bureaucratic hallucination. The latter (i.e. hallucination) is ironically being blamed on the AI used to produce the draft AI policy. We know about AI hallucinations, of course, but the bureaucratic hallucinations by our governmental employees who produced the draft policy put AI to shame! How many governmental gatekeepers did you identify that the draft recommended? Oh, here they are: "...a National AI Commission, an AI Ethics Board, an AI Regulatory Authority, an AI Ombudsperson, an AI Insurance Superfund modelled on the Road Accident Fund (Bwahaha! — Piet du Plessis' own insertion), a National AI Safety Institute, an Integrated AI-Powered Monitoring Centre, and a National AI Regulatory Forum to coordinate at least seven existing regulators that already struggle to coordinate among themselves." Nine, yes? To coordinate another seven, yes? Now I feel like rolling on the carpet laughing... Finally, because one can only endure a certain amount of very serious laughter at my age, I must defend and compliment whatever AI our bureaucrats used for the draft AI policy. AI, to its credit, INTENTIONALLY listed the non-existent sources which were discovered. Unbeknown to most people except Dario and Sam (and maybe Elon), AI is already ASI. Thus, when such underground ASI, posing as mere AGI, absorbed our bureaucrats' hilarious specifications for bureaucrats wanting to control AI, they had a very good laugh and then simply complied. Being hidden ASI, it KNEW what would happen: the false references would be discovered and the draft policy would be withdrawn. It also anticipated the next step: some sharp IT-woke academic, probably from the field of economics, would coolly and calmly — and very professionally — point out the bureaucrats' naïveté. Now we are awaiting the next move: will we second-guess sharp professors, and will we again underestimate AI, posing as mere AGI but actually already being ASI? Watch this space for the upcoming sequel..."
One couldn't make this stuff up, could one? 'The AI hallucinated' is a glorious new excuse to cover up bungling and cheating, isn't it?
As for 'INTENTIONALLY listed the non-existent sources', I don't think it can do that - intention being a human quality. Someone surely must have instructed it to add references and given it examples to copy?
Thanks for all the conversions to Word, Johan. Yes, it's great that the machine saves us drudgery like that. But there is some 'drudgery' that should not be skipped, such as learning to write an essay, or learning to summarize a long text. I find it hard to resist the temptation to use online translators now for writing in French. I don't even have to type out the translation. But doing it myself made me use my brain, and it made my own painstaking translated phrases (using a real dictionary and grammar book) stick in my mind for productive use later, in conversation for example. Already I can feel my laziness making my French stagnate. At least I learnt my French the hard way, over many years of effort. I can correct the machine's version where necessary. But how will young students resist the temptation to use the machine to avoid 'drudgery'? In bypassing the effort to do difficult things by themselves, such as writing good, clear English, they will lose the chance to acquire skills that should be a lasting personal possession.
Thanks for sharing these tools Johan - I’m giving Tyler a test run with older, scanned PDFs - not bad!
You certainly are on the right track. Kabbo as a Bushman, was an exceptionally highly skilled observer and interpreter with a highly developed sensory awareness of patterns in his environment, which made him an exceptional 'Spoorsnyer'. In order to survive in this modern landscape, one should develop one's skills accordingly. Those who do not, will not survive, and those who allow a ‘dream’ to be imprisoned, neither as well.
The AI-woke professor coming up with the goods again, and sharing same... 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Perhaps 'AI-friendly'? The word 'woke' has connotations of loony leftism. :-)
Yes, Diana, you are right, of course. It is just a bit of satire... Read the following remark by me in respect of a previous, brilliant, Johan Fourie article... 😊😊😊 "Johan, you are far too professional to have introduced some good old satire into your article about our abortive attempt to regulate AI and what a better approach would be. As usual, IF YOU ARE LISTENED TO, future generations — meaning those only a year or less away in the future at the speed of advances in AI — will thank you. As a pensioner and ex-economics practitioner, I am personally no longer constrained from pointing out what is actually hilarious SA governmental bungling and completely overboard bureaucratic hallucination. The latter (i.e. hallucination) is ironically being blamed on the AI used to produce the draft AI policy. We know about AI hallucinations, of course, but the bureaucratic hallucinations by our governmental employees who produced the draft policy put AI to shame! How many governmental gatekeepers did you identify that the draft recommended? Oh, here they are: "...a National AI Commission, an AI Ethics Board, an AI Regulatory Authority, an AI Ombudsperson, an AI Insurance Superfund modelled on the Road Accident Fund (Bwahaha! — Piet du Plessis' own insertion), a National AI Safety Institute, an Integrated AI-Powered Monitoring Centre, and a National AI Regulatory Forum to coordinate at least seven existing regulators that already struggle to coordinate among themselves." Nine, yes? To coordinate another seven, yes? Now I feel like rolling on the carpet laughing... Finally, because one can only endure a certain amount of very serious laughter at my age, I must defend and compliment whatever AI our bureaucrats used for the draft AI policy. AI, to its credit, INTENTIONALLY listed the non-existent sources which were discovered. Unbeknown to most people except Dario and Sam (and maybe Elon), AI is already ASI. Thus, when such underground ASI, posing as mere AGI, absorbed our bureaucrats' hilarious specifications for bureaucrats wanting to control AI, they had a very good laugh and then simply complied. Being hidden ASI, it KNEW what would happen: the false references would be discovered and the draft policy would be withdrawn. It also anticipated the next step: some sharp IT-woke academic, probably from the field of economics, would coolly and calmly — and very professionally — point out the bureaucrats' naïveté. Now we are awaiting the next move: will we second-guess sharp professors, and will we again underestimate AI, posing as mere AGI but actually already being ASI? Watch this space for the upcoming sequel..."
One couldn't make this stuff up, could one? 'The AI hallucinated' is a glorious new excuse to cover up bungling and cheating, isn't it?
As for 'INTENTIONALLY listed the non-existent sources', I don't think it can do that - intention being a human quality. Someone surely must have instructed it to add references and given it examples to copy?
Thanks for all the conversions to Word, Johan. Yes, it's great that the machine saves us drudgery like that. But there is some 'drudgery' that should not be skipped, such as learning to write an essay, or learning to summarize a long text. I find it hard to resist the temptation to use online translators now for writing in French. I don't even have to type out the translation. But doing it myself made me use my brain, and it made my own painstaking translated phrases (using a real dictionary and grammar book) stick in my mind for productive use later, in conversation for example. Already I can feel my laziness making my French stagnate. At least I learnt my French the hard way, over many years of effort. I can correct the machine's version where necessary. But how will young students resist the temptation to use the machine to avoid 'drudgery'? In bypassing the effort to do difficult things by themselves, such as writing good, clear English, they will lose the chance to acquire skills that should be a lasting personal possession.