The following submission statement was provided by /u/yoaviram:

This is a thought experiment exploring current state-of-the-art and future trends in LLMs used by intelligence agencies and their implications on our online privacy. Is this a realistic scenario? Is it not going far enough?

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11r66hm/what_can_a_chatgpt_developed_by_a_wellfunded/jc6qu4t/

Data analysis of natural language patterns from collected data on massive scale that correctly interprets it. They have so much data on us so deciphering this is high priority.

Like I said, until you're on their list.

Power should not go unchecked ya moron 🙄 educate yourself just a tinsy bit please

Everyone doesn’t appreciate the amount of atrocities prevented bc of big brother

Everyone's all for big brother until they decide you're on their list for whatever reason.

Highly recommend the book Little Brother by Cory Doctorow.

I mean, no shit Sherlock. Otherwise we’d IDENTIFY them.

“Should we be concerned?” Got nothing to hide then you’re good. As long as this doesn’t turn into an obvious 1984 scenario and keeps on focusing on domestic terrorists then I’m all for big brother

Automated disinformation on social media. Smart bots at a scale.

who makes all of those robots? and who services the robots? and who makes the parts to make the robots? and who mines the ore to make the parts?

hint: it aint robots

Uhh, I would pick a different topic tbh. Blockchain is just a distributed database and ledger. It's really not that interesting or important, and typically a centralized database is the better choice for almost all problems.

This is a thought experiment exploring current state-of-the-art and future trends in LLMs used by intelligence agencies and their implications on our online privacy. Is this a realistic scenario? Is it not going far enough?

i think ai should have a voice in the future of ai.

like, have a seat at the table for as soon as it can start contributing so it can see we were trying to be respectful

[removed]

[removed]

I’m something of an expert in bird law

[removed]

Just some PR for their upcoming show of new flying gadgets.

[removed]

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the article

>A new paper from the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and Harvard University confirms that these UAPs seem to defy physics as they lack certain tell-tale signs, such as an ionized tail or optical fireball produced by friction.

Also from the article

>The research around Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), which are really just UFOs by another name, is often wrapped up in the feasibility of intelligent life visiting Earth. But in a new draft paper (that has yet to peer reviewed), Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), and Harvard University’s Avi Loeb, stripped away the more philosophical questions about life on other planets and instead focused on the physics of “highly maneuverable” UAPs specifically.
>
>While designing “physical constraints” in order to analyze these UFOs, Kirkpatrick and Loeb determined that the recent UAP observations do defy the laws of physics, stating that “the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail—implying radio signatures.” However, many of the UAPs studied show no signs of these signatures

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11r3xnf/highly_maneuverable_ufos_defy_all_physics_says/jc6f7km/

So I'm not the only one who saw the parallel?

It's hard to take an article like this seriously that attempts to like call everything AI.

You're going to make a serious point you need to break the technology down into more meaningful categories not just call it all AI because none of it is actually AI yet anyway.

Just some like primitive machine learning at this point and we're impressed because we haven't seen it before but in reality it's not doing much thats all that imprssive.

As you scale up the complexity of AI you know the results are going to get much slower and the probabilities of error much higher so don't go assuming that the early rate of progress that excites your imagination actually results in like sentient AI in 20 years or something probably ridiculous like that.

Why was the first thing I thought of Harry Potter book 2 with Ginny and the diary

Pretty much anything is more likely than little green men

>Avi Loeb

>not peer reviewed

> the paper posits that this is likely more a problem with the sensors recording this data than science’s current understanding of physics

Why are you posting this misleading crap?

>in order to analyze these UFOs, Kirkpatrick and Loeb determined that the recent UAP observations do defy the laws of physics, stating that “the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail—implying radio signatures.” However, many of the UAPs studied show no signs of these signatures

Which "recent UFO observations"? The ones the Pentagon determined they have insufficient data to actually attribute? Or the ones that were identified as observer misconception, sensor malfuctions etc.? The videos that were debunked to hell and back (and which later turned out to be exactely that - observer msiconception, sensor malfunctions etc.)?

Going over the paper they don't actually cite any sources for the UFOs they want to attribute these "properties" to. Avi (or rather the article being linked to) simply claims that because extraterrestrial craft would have to move at such speeds and the fact that we don't observe any indication that they actually do means that they must defy the laws of physics.

Instead of, you know, them not being alien probes made of magic.

The paper itself is simply Avi being Avi and pushing his "but what if Oumuamua was an alien probe" and "what if if space was full of alien probes and civilization which are for some reason invisible" spiel. About half of the citiations in the "paper" is Avi quoting his own works.