A short sketch of the further development/unveiling of generative artificial intelligence

I'd rather write about another topic, but neither does it help to be distracted, nor to close one's eyes.

Generative artificial intelligence determines the most likely action taken by an intelligence in a given situation based on statistical data.

The situations are/were written words and the actions writing words. Hence the following scheme to generalise the approach:

1. Introduction of other actions, which must be reported by the intelligence that takes them as a function applied to uniquely identifiable objects. The situations remain defined by the actions already taken.
2. Introduction of different uniquely identifiable actors, who become part of the information on an action taken.
   
3. A cascade of normalisation schemes for actions.
4. The objectivation of the generating process as a function and the use of this function as a subjective classifier of all the objects that in any given situation are treated by the generated action for classifying actors or objects, e.g. the generated action being calling the object my friend or a success, and the generalisation of unique identification to subjective classification.
   

It's of course revolting. We are creating/have created a supermonkey, adhering to the old stereotype that monkeys imitate people, in the course of which we are forced to understand our actions better and better, thirsting for power, and only do we finally understand our humanity, when the monkey replaces us. What a pathetic breed!

Of course, there's more data on writing texts out there than on other actions, so generative artificial intelligence may want to stay close to it. Still, Open AI's Q* could be implemented by using the additional action, triggered by certain questions, of using a pocket calculator on objects found in a text and writing the result. As a test, whether it is a quick hack like that or something deeper, I'd ask it the following question: How many vertebrates are in this list: Spiders, sharks, apes, jellyfish, kangaroos, platypuses, mites, snails, seals?

Failure to answer that correctly shouldn't deceive anyone though about the trivial fact that with enough funding the scheme above could be applied to any decision making process within a year at the utmost, and that does of course suggest that it has already been applied to several important processes.

Ah, well. The hour is very late. Who'd want to see the unveiling of the great prize for the best innovator? We are, what we could do, and although we can do only feeble or foolish things, one of the feeble things is to preserve what we are.