Also, chatGPT doesn't generate the full code because memory limits. people that made things using chatgpt had to go function by function to get the full program. you can't just go "generate flappy bird". it's more like "generate a bird pmg" then "generate a flapping animation" "generate the obstacles" etc

Throughout history, mankind always seeks for means to enhance itself, overcome it's limits. By cybernetic implants, biotech, nanotech and everything in between are paths towards those goals.

I am not sure if you are exaggerating or don't understand IQ. But anyway to answer your question, there are ultimate questions everyone has struggled with and the answers are not satisfactory for many people. Personally, I would be happy if the Internet was just a tad better, decentralised, free, and safe. This could act as a hive mind. High IQ might be fun, but will it answer the tough questions?

You can argue that society has developed from hunter gatherers to agricultural to high technology with the goal of answering these questions. And maybe that means building a Deep Thought computer. Maybe it means that our hive mind of biological beings will have to find the answers. Maybe both.

its memory isn't long enough to write a full program, let along a full model, without at least some help. And its not able to create new concepts and make discoveries, it can only build what has its been trained on.

We still have some breakthroughs needed before AGI.

Because as of now I can only view reality from one perspective, one mind and one personality, I have the same looks and so forth... that's incredibly limiting no matter who you are.

Probably the void of not having the perfect body.. not as beautiful as could be, not as strong or as smart or could be.. and don't forget health. People don't like knowing their body is getting older and deteriorating. the medical visits remind them.

Ouch that's nihilistic 😂

So I think this is a very deep philosophical question but I'll try my best to understand it, tho I might not answer the question.

When we look back through history, we see a lot of wasted potential in terms of people being stuck in a life of servitude, not able to explore beyond their own town, having no knowledge of what may be in store for humanity. That's not to say they were unable to appreciate the world around them but that appreciation was limited by their circumstances.

The singularity, and by extension seeks to attempt to remove those limitations, one step at a time, so for example, our biggest concern at the moment is scarcity of energy and natural resources, this is very much a problem that can be solved in the near future, which would allow people to spend more time appreciating life, enjoying the love of their family and friends, spend more time exploring the planet and the beauty it offers. The next stage to this would be mind uploading, gradual replacement of biological neurons with artificial nano bot neurons. This will allow countless possibilities, apart from being able to go anywhere traveling at the speed of light, we can upload our consciousness into robots that are accurate replicas of our human bodies, these robots could be placed on any planet in the solar system and potentially beyond. And then obviously you alluded to this, but experiencing artificial worlds.

Now let's extrapolate a trillion trillion years into the future. We have managed to break the speed of light speed limit by warping space time, and have explored the entire universe, we have become a collective hive mind and collectively know everything about everything and have experienced every possible reality we can simulate, the last black whole is about to evaporate due to hawking radiation and the end of the universe as well as all life is imminent. Does this mean it's all been pointless? Should we not be interested in the expansion of abilities and the transcendence of our current situation because we know eventually it will end?

I don't think so, in fact I'd argue that our life is more meaningful than those in the past who were destined to live their life forever in their own little village, and never experienced anything new. So too I think the lives of transhumanity will be more meaningful than our own. Another analogy is our own life, ultimately we will die, this doesn't make our life now meaningless or we should just kill ourselves. Instead we recognise how beautiful our life is and embrace it because ultimately everything is temporary.

I hope that answers the question atleast from my perspective.

A satanic 1

You'll soon hear how people making their own content is literally white supremacy, so just be ready for that.

I mean take a look at the recent Velma, She-Hulk, Santa Inc, and other terrible woke shows or movies. There writing is completely awful compared to ChatGPT. Once we got AI that can make animations, shows, and movies at some point in the future.

Watch Hollywood throw a tantrum on AI, and crumble once people stop watching their movies and shows.

The bigger the subreddit the worse it gets

Same I thought this was still a small sub!?

Mediocre first year IT students can do that. But no way it's writing an efficient flash attention kernel without having seen one before.

I agree with the bandaid metaphor wholeheartedly. Of course I also still prefer having a bandaid protect my wound against infection.

The problem with the void inside our hearts is not that it cannot be filled in my opinion (as it can, every kind of wireheading temporarily fills it) but that our heart gets depleted again and again. It’s the way our brains and hearts function, and the reason for them to function like this is their connection to our bodies.

We evolved to feel pain and to suffer because we needed pain and suffering as indicators of danger/harm and unfulfilled need to survive.

Now we could see this as the meaning of life.

Or we could try and change this meaning, transcend it.

The latter is what transhumanism as philosophy attempts - at least how I understand it.

Okay.

> I wouldn't.

You wouldn't believe if a person who constantly accrues wealth says they aren't satisfied, isn't satisfied? Odd.

> So, since drugs are a form of technology, would you then say that spending weeks on end strung out on heroin is living?

A very narrow form of living which also has extremely adverse, painful effects on the individual and others.

But I am sure you understand heroin is not the only form of technology, and not the way most people use it, and not what my focus is on. Are you here to have an honest discussion, or to be a bad faith contrarian?

As soon as you can produce compelling movies through these methods, studios will pop up that do nothing but. They’ll produce tons of them because it’s so cheap and that will get us over 50% in no time.

Yup. That's my view as well. I'm guessing we'll get watchable vidoes maybe within 5 years. And from there it'll be a small niche where people make their own indie movies, but that's not up to hollywood quality just yet. A few years after that I imagine it might be used in hollywood for a movie or two. It'll take a long while before they switch over entirely.

Hard to say, but I'm not expecting it soon.

My point is life was worse in the past. Things, in general, are better now than 100 years ago. There will always be risks when it comes to advancements but making things stay the same forever is not the solution.

I believe consciousness & personality is derived from the brain/body. Someone gets brain damage, their personality changes. Destroy their brain, they have no consciousness at all. The only workaround is if you believe in something like a soul, which I haven't seen any evidence of.

There isnt 200k... Where are you seeing that?

I agree with this only because OP specifically limited their criteria to most big movies, excluding indie.

What’s really going to happen is that everyone will generate their own independent films and eventually no one will pay much attention to big movies anymore. When does that happen? I’d say around 10-15 years before the AI-generated films can truly hang with the big films. But hey I’d rather watch something like Clerks than the latest capeshit anyways… so if AI can generate really good characters, plots, and dialogue in 5 years but is still 5-10 years away from AAA visuals, it won’t matter at all to me.

In theory the growth of the ivory tower that the elites are on should rapidly outpace that of the peasants because they hold the ever-expanding means of power. But the one asset the elites have that is truly ever accelerating passed the peasants is their wealth, not technology. In fact, technology is the great equalizer.

For example, your average middle-class person in the developed world today has a higher QoL than a king in the Middle Ages, and that’s entirely thanks to technology. Likewise, the QoL gap between a modern middle-class person and an oligarch is smaller than that of a medieval peasant and medieval king, despite the lifestyle of a modern oligarch being so much more lavish than that of a medieval king.

This also applies to offensive technology. For example, Europe was able to take over all of Africa despite the invaders being a small army compared to the imperialists tribes of Africa. That’s because they had guns. And when Africans got guns; they were able to push the Europeans out. The only African country that avoided colonization was Ethiopia, and it’s because they convinced the UK and Italy to give them guns. This is because guns rapidly closed the technology gap, even if the guns of the invaders were still very superior.

The same logic applies to ASIs. Sure there may be an ASI that is so great that no ASI could surpass it, but it doesn’t mean lesser ASIs can’t be created that could potentially kill it.

On that note, I am a lot more concerned about civilizational destablemeant than than I am of super-authoritarianism. With increasingly better tools, people could easily create dangerous ASIs and super viruses that huge governmental institutions might not be able to contend with.

What's your theory on consciousness? The mind-body problem - it is not a solved problem, not even within the realm of materialism.

Maybe you'd like to live in 1982 if we had gone to nuclear war?

Not sure what your point is? People who are cautious about AI are Luddites, is that your point? So, Stephen Hawking was a Luddite?

> -Game Theory: Many countries like the US, China, UK, India, Israel, Japan, etc., are all working on researching Machine Learning. And an AGI is absolutely crucial to national security. Therefore a ban on ML research is entirely unrealistic. And since every country understands that such a ban won’t work, they would all continue to research ML even if there was an international ban on it.

Glad you bring game theory into this, because this is why I do not view transhumanism as a solution. Heh. My opinion on this topic is a little bit esoteric even around these parts.

Basically... Pareto principle is why we have wealth distributions that are hugely unequal, but even more unequal at the top. It's why we have kings. It's why India and China are way more populous than the rest of the world.

This is also what will happen with AI agents. Certain AI or human agents will have significantly more control, and that control will snowball. We already see this with giant tech companies now dominating the landscape.

If an AI is not a world dominating AI, then it by nature cannot suppress other AI from being created to surpass it, and another will surpass it. If it is ASI, it has the power to dominate the world, whether or not it wields that power to do so.

It'll be significantly more stratified, not less. Basically, transhumanism is like putting your mind at the whim of whatever AI is at the top of this hierarchy, whether orn ot that AI does something.