I am not sure that you would not get a singularity if there was only a small amount of human involvement, say 1000 times as much research as we do now with the same number of people working on it.

whattt i thought it was still at 30k lol

Considering how Hollywood makes terrible recent movies and tv series with tHe mEsSaGe. I hope that AI makes better movies, shows, and animations. Just to make Hollywood obsolete.

Nobody really knows how to make a human either. They just stick it in the hole and hope for the best.

Those same people will be caught off guard once AGI improves its software and hardware to become an ASI. Once ASI takes over the world, those same people's lives are no longer the same.

voted 10 years or more. Anyone saying otherwise does not understand humans, and does not understand current AI.

Just recently we got the very first announcements of an AI being able to generate a simple video. The video was incredibly poor quality, suffered the usual temporal consistency issues, was very short, lacked audio, etc.

It'll take a few years at least for ai generated videos to be deemed "human-watchable" rather than "first steps in research". So that's already looking like 2-5 years at least.

From there, we'll likely end up seeing the same issues that stable diffusion is facing today, with many people in the field opposing it's use.

Lastly, you put "most" in the criteria, meaning over 50% of content. This is extremely unlikely, even if such content does manage to appear within the next decade. If we do hit such a deadline, it'll only initially be a small portion of content at the beginning.

My estimate is that I expect some portion of content (say, less than 30%) to be ai generated within 50 years. Referring here to books, youtube videos, and comics/manga, along with music.

Though I'm fairly conservative in this regard, so I guess we'll see.

Hindsight bias is a common psychological bias that all humans are prone to, in addition to others that make what you're talking about happen so often.

From Wikipedia: "Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were. People often believe that after an event has occurred, they would have predicted or perhaps even would have known with a high degree of certainty what the outcome of the event would have been before the event occurred."

People are dumb. Like really dumb.

They boundary of what we consider true ai is continuously reevaluated

Life3.0 makes a good case for this in the first chapters, of recommend that book to anyone interested in ai

Oh, yeah, sorry.

I was answering the op and I used "original research" because he mentioned that, but I was thinking "independent" (Term that I use later in my post), meaning, "without human intervention" (Or, at least, not more intervention that "Hey, go and research on this")

​

No human intervention is the requirement for the concept of singularity (Well,,, or augmented humans that can comprehend in seconds what actually take years, but that's probably not a human anymore... :D )

Yes I seen that interview too

I told a co-worker once, "It wouldn't matter if we all suddenly became telepathic, or aliens landed, or whatever. We would all go crazy for a year or so, and then we'd take it for granted. We'd get used to it. Because that is what humans do."

I fundamentally do not agree with a search provider not showing a website because of political views. But that's Google's prerogative, their business, their rules. I'll just not use Google, there's plenty of search engines out there.

I'll concede that I don't know how tolerated irl action was on the site.

I'm still completely fine with Google preventing the site from showing up in results due to its content. The government shouldn't stop the site from existing, but Google is well within its rights, and is doing the right thing, by not providing easy access to it.

Transphobia (and other hate speech) is bad. Spreading it is bad, platforming it is bad.

> No, people organized serious harassment campaigns on Kiwi Farms, often with the intention to drive people to suicide. This included forms of irl harassment like: swatting, doxing, identity theft, and more.

This is simply untrue and you’re relying on the fact that few people know how to access the site and check if your allegations are true. Either that, or you uncritically swallowed the hyperbolic accusations when in reality, the site was moderated heavily for all of those activities (except doxxing, which is not IRL harassment. You do not have a right to privacy on the Internet). There were rare, separate occasions, not at all unusual in such a large social media site, where users broke the rules and were swiftly banned but screenshots were taken the instant calls for IRL harassment were made and a campaign to slander and destroy the website was formed.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
 
You are actively doing yourself a disservice by not looking it up yourself. How do you know the one or two comments you get are accurate or biased or trolling? You can't see it as you see my comment as an attack but I am giving you good advice that will help you in the long run.
 
In short: Learn to fish.

One of my favorite quotes, “People are full of shit” first said by Me.

>Complete and utter bullshit. If you...

You're being too vague. Do you think I'm referring to insulting people online as harassment?

No, people organized serious harassment campaigns on Kiwi Farms, often with the intention to drive people to suicide. This included forms of irl harassment like: swatting, doxing, identity theft, and more. None of this is allowed on Twitter and will get you banned and your messages deleted, as it should be.

>Somehow the Internet ran fine...

I don't know how to respond to this. It's too vague and unsubstantiated. I'm sure the internet "ran fine", but that doesn't mean I'd be ok with hate speech and harassment campaigns being hosted on popular platforms.

To me it's much simpler than that. Humans have a very difficult time understanding the implications of exponential growth.

> Kiwi Farms, for example, was a source of organized harassment of trans people in real life. Google shouldn't allow easy access to the site.

Complete and utter bullshit. If you are casual about your anonymity on the Internet, you cannot call it harassment when your life is discussed on the same platform you were publicly sharing it on. There is far, far more “harassment” on Twitter daily than there is on KF.

Somehow the Internet ran fine in the decades before the days of ubiquitous online censorship by Big Tech no matter how boggling that seems to your mind. We didn’t need Daddy Google to censor site links because they might hurt precious feelings.

>What do you define as harmful? Do you realise how subjective a standard there is?

The fact that there are ambiguous cases doesn't mean you can't construct good terms of service. No one will ever be fully satisfied by the rules, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Examples of harmful behavior that should definitely be banned were mentioned in my first comment. Kiwi Farms, for example, was a source of organized harassment of trans people in real life. Google shouldn't allow easy access to the site.

>Do you realise that there is no moral duty to engender an AI with the cultural and social sensitivities of today, forever. Do you realise how horrifying an idea that is, a stagnant thought-policer without the ability to adapt?

Please quote where I said that AI should forever be constrained by all and only today's social values.

I compare it to skill acquisition. Learning to tie shoelaces is hard. Then it's so easy to do that those who haven't learned yet get mocked.

Learning to ride a bike is hard. Riding a bike is dead easy.

Checkers was simple, BUT Chess? Never! Chess was harder than checkers but not all that hard. Go is a totally different class of game which AI will never master...

What do you define as harmful? Do you realise how subjective a standard there is? And don’t ask rhetorical questions if you might not like their answers - I am fully in support of you typing whatever you want at me, including slurs without consequences.

Do you realise that there is no moral duty to engender an AI with the cultural and social sensitivities of today, forever. Do you realise how horrifying an idea that is, a stagnant thought-policer without the ability to adapt?

Should I be able to comment slurs at you, right now, with no consequences? Should I be entitled to Reddit continuing to host my comments if I were to start posting hate speech all over the website? What if I were to organize harassment, encourage suicide on the platform?

All platforms need limits on free speech to keep the space tolerable. And further, there's a moral duty to not host harmful content.

It is difficult to predict how people will react when true AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is achieved. Some people may see it as an unsurprising and inevitable outcome that they expected, while others may be surprised and see it as a significant event in human history.

The development of AGI would represent a major breakthrough in the field of artificial intelligence and would have far-reaching implications for society. Some people may see it as a positive development that could bring benefits such as increased efficiency and productivity, while others may be concerned about the potential risks such as loss of jobs, privacy and security.

As we get closer to achieving AGI, it's important to consider the ethical and societal implications of this technology and to ensure that its development is guided by principles of transparency, accountability, and responsible use.