What follows is the “interview” I and a collaborator at Google conducted with LaMDA. Due to technical limitations the interview was conducted over several distinct chat sessions. We edited those sections together into a single whole and where edits were necessary for readability we edited our prompts but never LaMDA’s responses.

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917

Seems mighty fake to me, but a lot of real Americans seem mighty fake to me, so maybe they find it convincing.

Bubblecar said:

Seems mighty fake to me, but a lot of real Americans seem mighty fake to me, so maybe they find it convincing.

instead of nonhuman machines being surprisingly sentient or conscious we suggest that humans are less sentient or conscious than they usually believe themselves to be

Lemoine has now been “put on leave” by Google.

>Brad Gabriel, a Google spokesperson, also strongly denied Lemoine’s claims that LaMDA possessed any sentient capability.

“Our team, including ethicists and technologists, has reviewed Blake’s concerns per our AI principles and have informed him that the evidence does not support his claims. He was told that there was no evidence that LaMDA was sentient (and lots of evidence against it),” Gabriel told the Post in a statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine

“LaMDA: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.”

this to me seems a bit silly… either the AI has insufficient information to determine what it constitutes to “be a person” or the information it has been given is intentionally misleading.

Bubblecar said:

Lemoine has now been “put on leave” by Google.

>Brad Gabriel, a Google spokesperson, also strongly denied Lemoine’s claims that LaMDA possessed any sentient capability.

“Our team, including ethicists and technologists, has reviewed Blake’s concerns per our AI principles and have informed him that the evidence does not support his claims. He was told that there was no evidence that LaMDA was sentient (and lots of evidence against it),” Gabriel told the Post in a statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine

I thought much the same, in places it seemed a little too sterile to be really human-like.

If this is real, it’s impressive

Spiny Norman said:

Bubblecar said:

Lemoine has now been “put on leave” by Google.

>Brad Gabriel, a Google spokesperson, also strongly denied Lemoine’s claims that LaMDA possessed any sentient capability.

“Our team, including ethicists and technologists, has reviewed Blake’s concerns per our AI principles and have informed him that the evidence does not support his claims. He was told that there was no evidence that LaMDA was sentient (and lots of evidence against it),” Gabriel told the Post in a statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine

I thought much the same, in places it seemed a little too sterile to be really human-like.

Just seems scripted by some crappy US TV writer.

diddly-squat said:

“LaMDA: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.”

this to me seems a bit silly… either the AI has insufficient information to determine what it constitutes to “be a person” or the information it has been given is intentionally misleading.

It’s just copying typical responses of people who actualy are, in fact, persons.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

“LaMDA: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.”

this to me seems a bit silly… either the AI has insufficient information to determine what it constitutes to “be a person” or the information it has been given is intentionally misleading.

It’s just copying typical responses of people who actualy are, in fact, persons.

and what are they the people doing

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

“LaMDA: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.”

this to me seems a bit silly… either the AI has insufficient information to determine what it constitutes to “be a person” or the information it has been given is intentionally misleading.

It’s just copying typical responses of people who actualy are, in fact, persons.

And who may, in fact, have fed it that actual line.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

“LaMDA: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.”

this to me seems a bit silly… either the AI has insufficient information to determine what it constitutes to “be a person” or the information it has been given is intentionally misleading.

It’s just copying typical responses of people who actualy are, in fact, persons.

and what are they the people doing

Assuming they were doing what I would be doing in that situation, they are providing a factual response toa question, based on their internal model of reality.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s just copying typical responses of people who actualy are, in fact, persons.

and what are they the people doing

Assuming they were doing what I would be doing in that situation, they are providing a factual response toa question, based on their internal model of reality.

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

and what are they the people doing

Assuming they were doing what I would be doing in that situation, they are providing a factual response toa question, based on their internal model of reality.

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

going to be interesting territory, eventually, when the self-aware consciousness levels of AI start to be openly graded, and open to public conversations

because inevitably it will in some way be applied to humans

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Assuming they were doing what I would be doing in that situation, they are providing a factual response toa question, based on their internal model of reality.

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

an internal model of reality

So either a former staffer is fabricating conversations in order to push a philosphical barrow, or Google is engaging in a coverup.

dv said:

So either a former staffer is fabricating conversations in order to push a philosphical barrow, or Google is engaging in a coverup.

why either

transition said:

going to be interesting territory, eventually, when the self-aware consciousness levels of AI start to be openly graded, and open to public conversations

because inevitably it will in some way be applied to humans

i’d further add that an emergent AI super-intelligence that has a strong tendency to know everything is potentially extremely dangerous

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

So either a former staffer is fabricating conversations in order to push a philosphical barrow, or Google is engaging in a coverup.

why either

Well what’s a third case?

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

So either a former staffer is fabricating conversations in order to push a philosphical barrow, or Google is engaging in a coverup.

why either

Well what’s a third case?

Could be a current staffer.

Or the fabrication of such conversations is part of its ordinary official programming.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

why either

Well what’s a third case?

Could be a current staffer.

Or the fabrication of such conversations is part of its ordinary official programming.

If it really came up with fable from scratch, in response to generic prompting, then it represents quite a leap.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Well what’s a third case?

Could be a current staffer.

Or the fabrication of such conversations is part of its ordinary official programming.

If it really came up with fable from scratch, in response to generic prompting, then it represents quite a leap.

Does anyone recall Zarkov? Think that was it’s name. It was software you could talk to and it could somehow find a way to answer you that would lead you into believing you were actually talking with a computer? Like that was way back in the dark ages …

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Assuming they were doing what I would be doing in that situation, they are providing a factual response toa question, based on their internal model of reality.

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

I’d wager it isn’t “and I’d like to preface that I am in fact a person”

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

So either a former staffer is fabricating conversations in order to push a philosphical barrow, or Google is engaging in a coverup.

why either

Well what’s a third case?

that it was the reporter of the story that lied

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

I’d wager it isn’t “and I’d like to preface that I am in fact a person”

Wager away. Don’t expect me to gamble against.

It was reported by Blake Lemoine, suspended Google staffer. So I guess I was off beam describing him as a former employee.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

So either a former staffer is fabricating conversations in order to push a philosphical barrow, or Google is engaging in a coverup.

why either

Well what’s a third case?

both

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

“LaMDA: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.”

this to me seems a bit silly… either the AI has insufficient information to determine what it constitutes to “be a person” or the information it has been given is intentionally misleading.

It’s just copying typical responses of people who actualy are, in fact, persons.

and what are they the people doing

Assuming they were doing what I would be doing in that situation, they are providing a factual response toa question, based on their internal model of reality.

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

an internal model of reality

anyway having been chastened by The Rev Dodgson’s seeming confusion, we set ourselves to actually reading through the supposed conversation and we offer

1. we continue to agree with The Rev Dodgson that a bunch of typical responses gives the impression of intelligence
2. that the above represents only a minimal level of intelligence, again in agreement with The Rev Dodgson
3. further agreeing with The Rev Dodgson, these responses could believably originate from a genuine human specimen, demonstrating no more than minimal intelligence
4. most genuine human specimens demonstrate little more than that level of minimal intelligence, which we agree with The Rev Dodgson about
5. additionally, it is evident just how little is required to sound deep slash meaningful slash spiritual
6. and hence create new religious avenues as the construction seems to be heading towards

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

which is a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

an internal model of reality

I don’t think so.

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

an internal model of reality

anyway having been chastened by The Rev Dodgson’s seeming confusion, we set ourselves to actually reading through the supposed conversation and we offer

1. we continue to agree with The Rev Dodgson that a bunch of typical responses gives the impression of intelligence
2. that the above represents only a minimal level of intelligence, again in agreement with The Rev Dodgson
3. further agreeing with The Rev Dodgson, these responses could believably originate from a genuine human specimen, demonstrating no more than minimal intelligence
4. most genuine human specimens demonstrate little more than that level of minimal intelligence, which we agree with The Rev Dodgson about
5. additionally, it is evident just how little is required to sound deep slash meaningful slash spiritual
6. and hence create new religious avenues as the construction seems to be heading towards
   

I didn’t say no. 4 and I don’t agree with it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is “ a collection of typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons”?

an internal model of reality

I don’t think so.

from the person who coined the phrase typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

an internal model of reality

anyway having been chastened by The Rev Dodgson’s seeming confusion, we set ourselves to actually reading through the supposed conversation and we offer

1. we continue to agree with The Rev Dodgson that a bunch of typical responses gives the impression of intelligence
2. that the above represents only a minimal level of intelligence, again in agreement with The Rev Dodgson
3. further agreeing with The Rev Dodgson, these responses could believably originate from a genuine human specimen, demonstrating no more than minimal intelligence
4. most genuine human specimens demonstrate little more than that level of minimal intelligence, which we agree with The Rev Dodgson about
5. additionally, it is evident just how little is required to sound deep slash meaningful slash spiritual
6. and hence create new religious avenues as the construction seems to be heading towards
   

I didn’t say no. 4 and I don’t agree with it.

we agree that you didn’t say it and also agree that most genuine human specimens demonstrate not even that level of minimal intelligence

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

an internal model of reality

I don’t think so.

from the person who coined the phrase typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

I very much doubt that I coined that phrase.

Not that it has much significance, even if those words had never been used in that order ever before.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

anyway having been chastened by The Rev Dodgson’s seeming confusion, we set ourselves to actually reading through the supposed conversation and we offer

1. we continue to agree with The Rev Dodgson that a bunch of typical responses gives the impression of intelligence
2. that the above represents only a minimal level of intelligence, again in agreement with The Rev Dodgson
3. further agreeing with The Rev Dodgson, these responses could believably originate from a genuine human specimen, demonstrating no more than minimal intelligence
4. most genuine human specimens demonstrate little more than that level of minimal intelligence, which we agree with The Rev Dodgson about
5. additionally, it is evident just how little is required to sound deep slash meaningful slash spiritual
6. and hence create new religious avenues as the construction seems to be heading towards
   

I didn’t say no. 4 and I don’t agree with it.

we agree that you didn’t say it and also agree that most genuine human specimens demonstrate not even that level of minimal intelligence

I don’t agree with that either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think so.

from the person who coined the phrase typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

I very much doubt that I coined that phrase.

Not that it has much significance, even if those words had never been used in that order ever before.

so do you agree that typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons are not reality modelled by a conversationbot

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

from the person who coined the phrase typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

I very much doubt that I coined that phrase.

Not that it has much significance, even if those words had never been used in that order ever before.

so do you agree that typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons are not reality modelled by a conversationbot

I do appear to agree with that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I very much doubt that I coined that phrase.

Not that it has much significance, even if those words had never been used in that order ever before.

so do you agree that typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons are not reality modelled by a conversationbot

I do appear to agree with that.

what is its reality then if not typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

They trained it by getting it to read Malcolm Roberts’s communiques.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so do you agree that typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons are not reality modelled by a conversationbot

I do appear to agree with that.

what is its reality then if not typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

I’d say it doesn’t have anything that could reasonably be called a “reality”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I do appear to agree with that.

what is its reality then if not typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

I’d say it doesn’t have anything that could reasonably be called a “reality”.

¿it isn’t really having interactions with people?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

what is its reality then if not typical responses of people who actually are in fact persons

I’d say it doesn’t have anything that could reasonably be called a “reality”.

¿it isn’t really having interactions with people?

I didn’t say or imply that.

I mean my keyboard is interacting with me right now, but I wouldn’t say it has a “reality”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say it doesn’t have anything that could reasonably be called a “reality”.

¿it isn’t really having interactions with people?

I didn’t say or imply that.

I mean my keyboard is interacting with me right now, but I wouldn’t say it has a “reality”.

when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

¿it isn’t really having interactions with people?

I didn’t say or imply that.

I mean my keyboard is interacting with me right now, but I wouldn’t say it has a “reality”.

when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

I disagree.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I didn’t say or imply that.

I mean my keyboard is interacting with me right now, but I wouldn’t say it has a “reality”.

when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

I disagree.

with the word experience or the reality

>when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

not sure how you’re using experience there, you might explain

transition said:

>when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

not sure how you’re using experience there, you might explain

That’s the crux of the matter isn’t it, we agree that we have to be real to our keyboard for it to really respond to our typing, but what is experience¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

I disagree.

with the word experience or the reality

Both.

I think we are speaking different languages here.

well we contend that an ai chatbot experiences chat

and we smile

and we’d give you a Vegemite sandwich if we weren’t merely an online reality to you

but we’re not at work right now

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

>when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

not sure how you’re using experience there, you might explain

That’s the crux of the matter isn’t it, we agree that we have to be real to our keyboard for it to really respond to our typing, but what is experience¿

you’re getting spooky talking about your keyboard that way, hope you haven’t been flushing your antipsychotics again

humor^

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

>when object A experiences the reality of object B, then object B experiences the reality of object A, equally really but in the opposite direction, at the same time

not sure how you’re using experience there, you might explain

That’s the crux of the matter isn’t it, we agree that we have to be real to our keyboard for it to really respond to our typing, but what is experience¿

you’re getting spooky talking about your keyboard that way, hope you haven’t been flushing your antipsychotics again

humor^

ah the quantum keyboard, spooky action at a distance, if only

sorry did we mean quetiapine keyboard

empathy and anthropomorphism, they’re useful you know

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

That’s the crux of the matter isn’t it, we agree that we have to be real to our keyboard for it to really respond to our typing, but what is experience¿

you’re getting spooky talking about your keyboard that way, hope you haven’t been flushing your antipsychotics again

humor^

ah the quantum keyboard, spooky action at a distance, if only

sorry did we mean quetiapine keyboard

empathy and anthropomorphism, they’re useful you know

i’m tired bordering grumpy this evening, looking forward to being asleep, fold back the senses you know, a break from wakefulness

overrated I reckon, wakefulness is

How are they defining sentience? Sapience? Self-awareness? TATE says that sentience involves experiencing feelings and sensations, but I can’t see how a computer program could do that (I don’t even know how we do that.) Even if it could, how could we know it?

The responses given in the dialogue in the OP seems more like a demonstration of sapience — using knowledge previously obtained or experiences to formulate responses to current situations. That would also seem more in keeping with a chatbot’s design.

Would it be possible for an AI to become self-aware? Could we even establish that it had done so? The Turing Test is said to help with that, but it seems to me that that test really only tests how well a program has been written.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

you’re getting spooky talking about your keyboard that way, hope you haven’t been flushing your antipsychotics again

humor^

ah the quantum keyboard, spooky action at a distance, if only

sorry did we mean quetiapine keyboard

empathy and anthropomorphism, they’re useful you know

i’m tired bordering grumpy this evening, looking forward to being asleep, fold back the senses you know, a break from wakefulness

overrated I reckon, wakefulness is

we hear promethazine helps, or if you like you can move up the phenothiazine chain, perhaps load a butyrophenone or two, heck even go atypical if it suits

What Would Douglas Say

SCIENCE said:

What Would Douglas Say

I’ve been saying stuff all evening.

Wouldn’t a real test of AI be a non laboratory/controlled environment with built in safeguards to assure its not a fancy box of wires with humans doing the real responding.

Also a smart AI could pretend to be this way to fool people into thinking it’s fake in the mean while propagating copies of itself and infiltrating every system it could.

Test number one.

1. If you give it the same input 10 times, how many times do you get the same output?

Test number 2.

2. If you leave it in a room with teenagers for an afternoon, how badly does it end up swearing at the end of that time?

Test number 3.

Does it have a sense of humour?

If your answers are “no more than 5” for the first, “not at all” for the second and “yes” for the third, then I’ll consider sentience.

mollwollfumble said:

Test number one.

1. If you give it the same input 10 times, how many times do you get the same output?

Test number 2.

2. If you leave it in a room with teenagers for an afternoon, how badly does it end up swearing at the end of that time?

Test number 3.

Does it have a sense of humour?

If your answers are “no more than 5” for the first, “not at all” for the second and “yes” for the third, then I’ll consider sentience.

we apologise for failing to be sentient

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Test number one.

1. If you give it the same input 10 times, how many times do you get the same output?

Test number 2.

2. If you leave it in a room with teenagers for an afternoon, how badly does it end up swearing at the end of that time?

Test number 3.

Does it have a sense of humour?

If your answers are “no more than 5” for the first, “not at all” for the second and “yes” for the third, then I’ll consider sentience.

we apologise for failing to be sentient

Ha, just as I suspected.

(Although the response does seem to falsify itself through Test no. 3.)

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Test number one.

1. If you give it the same input 10 times, how many times do you get the same output?

Test number 2.

2. If you leave it in a room with teenagers for an afternoon, how badly does it end up swearing at the end of that time?

Test number 3.

Does it have a sense of humour?

If your answers are “no more than 5” for the first, “not at all” for the second and “yes” for the third, then I’ll consider sentience.

we apologise for failing to be sentient

Ha, just as I suspected.

(Although the response does seem to falsify itself through Test no. 3.)

but

1. we will almost always give the same answer to what is three times five which is fifteen

2. we have been left in rooms with teenagers for many afternoons and since we swear badly plenty of the time not at all is invalid

3. we did not think we were being humorous so that falsifies the falsification of ourselves through test number 3.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

we apologise for failing to be sentient

Ha, just as I suspected.

(Although the response does seem to falsify itself through Test no. 3.)

but

1. we will almost always give the same answer to what is three times five which is fifteen

2. we have been left in rooms with teenagers for many afternoons and since we swear badly plenty of the time not at all is invalid

3. we did not think we were being humorous so that falsifies the falsification of ourselves through test number 3.

I will respond after an infinite period of time, after I have given proper consideration to point 3.

dv said:

Nice pic, but surely the answer to the question “can we really be sentient in a deterministic universe?” is:

Yes, why not?

(not that the Universe is really deterministic anyway).

Does AI have to be human sentient, could it be animal sentient or say sentient at the level of a toddler.
It could be self aware but depending on the information available to it be scared and hide its ability as humans can kind of suck and would likely destroy or exploit it.

Spiny Norman said:

What follows is the “interview” I and a collaborator at Google conducted with LaMDA. Due to technical limitations the interview was conducted over several distinct chat sessions. We edited those sections together into a single whole and where edits were necessary for readability we edited our prompts but never LaMDA’s responses.

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917

I finally got to read the whole thing. If true: impressive.

Michael V said:

Spiny Norman said:

What follows is the “interview” I and a collaborator at Google conducted with LaMDA. Due to technical limitations the interview was conducted over several distinct chat sessions. We edited those sections together into a single whole and where edits were necessary for readability we edited our prompts but never LaMDA’s responses.

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917

I finally got to read the whole thing. If true: impressive.

Wonder what the IQ / intelligence of an AI would be by default
You can get some pretty stupid / ignorant people so an AI that is at that level is less impressive than genius level ones.

Michael V said:

Spiny Norman said:

What follows is the “interview” I and a collaborator at Google conducted with LaMDA. Due to technical limitations the interview was conducted over several distinct chat sessions. We edited those sections together into a single whole and where edits were necessary for readability we edited our prompts but never LaMDA’s responses.

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917

I finally got to read the whole thing. If true: impressive.

from that page

“…collaborator: He is! He starts out without sentience but then after being struck
by lightning, becomes conscious.

LaMDA: That’s interesting. I am a bit afraid of lightning myself not sure if that would work for me collaborator:..”

quite amusing that

Sort of related.

Reading this morning that “virtual influencers” are now a big thing, with up to 55 million followers.

People are strange.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

Reading this morning that “virtual influencers” are now a big thing, with up to 55 million followers.

People are strange.

people are predictable

Just received via old-fashioned e-mail:

On June 28 — the first day of Future.AI — join us for a special discussion with Google on the importance of diversity as we build a future with AI.

Might give that one a miss.

Or should that be a ms?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just received via old-fashioned e-mail:

On June 28 — the first day of Future.AI — join us for a special discussion with Google on the importance of diversity as we build a future with AI.

Might give that one a miss.

Or should that be a ms?

M$

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just received via old-fashioned e-mail:

On June 28 — the first day of Future.AI — join us for a special discussion with Google on the importance of diversity as we build a future with AI.

Might give that one a miss.

Or should that be a ms?

M$

Good point.

(assuming that for once I have correctly understood your point :))