[Tubby Isaacs]

And I can't reconcile a burning planet with sacking people to save money and replacing them with something that is utterly shit.

Patients in Rotherham are struggling with a new artificial intelligence GP receptionist because it cannot understand the Yorkshire accent, according to a health watchdog.

Some surgeries are triaging patients using a nationwide AI system called EMMA to avoid long wait times on the phone...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c141dn3d26do

I didn't mention the public sector but it's another big potential user (I know GPs are technically private, but in effect they're part of the public sector). You'd ban them too?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

As an accumulator of information it has a rôle. Not as a creator.

[Tubby Isaacs]

How do you stop it having that role?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Self restraint, social pressure.

An example today - I asked Google AI which Vallejo and Army Painter acrylics I should use to accurately portray a 54mm scale helmet on a WW2 US soldier. It gave me a very helpful answer, presumably it trawled assorted articles on the subject, saving me the effort of so doing. I may be wrong, but I am OK with that.

'Writing' an essay, however, seems to me to be unacceptable and we should combine to say so.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Why is it unacceptable to use AI to write eg an internal work report? Or indeed something the firm is happy to put out externally?

Anyway, here's the Government ignoring the climate crisis. This is a big solar farm- 1600 square acres.

[Yug]

I didn't mention the public sector but it's another big potential user (I know GPs are technically private, but in effect they're part of the public sector). You'd ban them too?

Ban the use of AI which isn't up to the job, yes.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? That linked article was just a recent example. Lots of companies are getting rid of human staff, mostly in customer services, and replacing them with AI which isn't up to the job. Another good example is the world's worst delivery company - Evri. The utility companies are doing it, too. As are lots of other companies, and organisations across the public sector.

Now, you might be happy to deal with a bot which just takes you round in circles without the option of speaking to a human who will understand your request and deal with it, but most people aren't.

[Tubby Isaacs]

A legal ban on something that doesn't work well enough at some companies? You don't think that's heavy handed and is going to reduce productivity improvements over time?

[Boiler]

Self restraint, social pressure.

An example today - I asked Google AI which Vallejo and Army Painter acrylics I should use to accurately portray a 54mm scale helmet on a WW2 US soldier. It gave me a very helpful answer, presumably it trawled assorted articles on the subject, saving me the effort of so doing. I may be wrong, but I am OK with that.

'Writing' an essay, however, seems to me to be unacceptable and we should combine to say so.

There's my problem with it: Google has provided you with a summarised answer it created by trawling various websites. Great, it has saved you some time but it means you've only visited one website: Google. It has rendered the others unnecessary - they've served Google's purpose.

But what about the people who took the time to create that original content from their own efforts and pay for the domain and hosting, only to have it "stolen"? It's a bit like buying a "greatest hits" LP: yes, you've got a summary of an artist's work but what else might you be missing out on if you'd bought the LPs that provided the "greatest hits"? There might be a little gem you'd have missed.

It's probably a weak argument, but as someone who has created a website (hand-coded, no less) and indeed pays for the hosting and domain, it saddens me that folk may never visit it because a search engine has provided a light, easily digestible summary of it. To a creator who supports those running costs with adverts on their site, it could mean the lack of ad revenue will lead to the site closing.