> Our experience of what red actually looks like is entirely our own and in no way can be compared.

I'm very well aware of qualia and a lot of the literature on it. Heh.

> Many people entertain the idea that quantum mechanics hints at a link between the subjective experience and the physical universe through various interpretations. I don't think lay-people (me included) should be adopting any of these interpretations as philosophical evidence.

Roger Penrose and the Wigner-von Neumann interpretation lol.

> do you consider panpsychism to be a valid idea?

It's not my favorite idea, hence why I mentioned a sort of inverse of panpsychism. Rather than consciousness "being everywhere," it is totally philosophically reasonable that consciousness exists nowhere at all, (even Descartes mentioned this, though that seems to be sorely neglected in the discussion of consciousness) since existence in space is not a requirement for consciousness. I.e. take the substance out of dualism in that case.

That said, an idea I dislike even more is emergentism - unless that emergentism references panpsychism. Why? Because emergentism ascribes more to emergence than emergence is capable of, a sort of logical jump to think that emergence means "fundamentally new phenomenon," which is just not the case. It ascribes magical qualities to emergence and is a way of completely avoiding the problem, and adds nothing to it.

> Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of subjective experiences of other humans as much as your own?

Yes. I am actually a former vegan, starting to maybe be winding back to vegetarianism, and this topic is fundamental to those choices.

Overall, I like the fact that you seem to have a solid grasp on this topic. :)

There are two types of AI experts. Those who focus their efforts on a very narrow subdomain and then there are those who study the problem from a broader lens. The latter group who are AGI experts and who have actually studied the problem tend to be very optimistic on timelines. I'd trust the opinion of those who have actually studied the problem vs those who haven't. There are numerous examples of experts in narrow subdomains being wrong or just completely overshadowed by changes they could not see.

I have big suspicions too, we truly can't be that far from an AI that can learn from your behaviors in a professional setting on the fly, everything is there and just needs put together responsibly

[deleted]

New from the makers of Second Life, introducing Final Life. VR finally brings you every experience possibly in reality, all from the comfort of your living pod. If you die in game you die in real life! ^(Requires neurotoxin content pack for full experience; sold separately.)

I’ve been using it to brainstorm ideas to solve any conflicts in my life.

Genuinely think chatGTP has higher social intelligence than me

The word itself best colors what it is. The singularity is a point past which we know nothing about. A point where such immense potential for rapid change is possible, that what exactly happens will depend on a butterfly's wings.

The ramp up to the point though, where we commodify near-agi agents, will likely create many infantilized doofuses as you put it.

How can you use it? It is Always busy anymore.

Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of subjective experiences of other humans as much as your own? Do you acknowledge the same for other species of intelligent animals? Of a plant? What of the individual cells within your body? Do they have subjective experiences? I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that and then consider themselves an atomic consciousness. If you do, where reasonably do you draw the line? I believe you are raising human subjective experience above all others by claiming any human experience is essential. An objective reality can co-exist with a subjective experience of it.

We both agree the red light is red, and that it exists. We can agree because the relation its properties have with our entire experience of the physical world is consistent. I can find some light and measure the wavelength using a photosensor, without ever laying eyes on it, and tell you it will be red. You will observe it with your own eyes and agree it is red. Our experience of what red actually looks like is entirely our own and in no way can be compared. It cannot even be considered that they might be different because the operation of comparison is simply undefined for subjective experience. If you claim objective reality doesn't exist, you are entertaining solipsism. I will maintain that all of our subjective experience is rooted in an objective reality. If you claim you've seen a new color, we can recreate this and explain what causes this. If it's not something simple like a wavelength of light only you can see, it might be something more nuanced, like an internal experience unique to the micro-structure of your physical brain.

Many people entertain the idea that quantum mechanics hints at a link between the subjective experience and the physical universe through various interpretations. I don't think lay-people (me included) should be adopting any of these interpretations as philosophical evidence. We simply don't know enough yet. There are many experiments that have been and will continue to be done that further clarify the root of them that is the measurement problem. Decoherence theories for example are helping to explain what appears to be "wavefunction collapse" as the absorption of the quantum properties by a larger quantum system.

A question to end this long reply, since you mentioned it in your original post: do you consider panpsychism to be a valid idea?

Problem with this reality is that even if you achieve everything you wanted and more, you are still subject to the "Fours Fs of Humanity":

• Foolish
• Flawed
• Fragile
• Finite

Most of us live in a form for (un)blissful existence. Once you realize those four, you come to understand Christianity's emphasis on salvation - and I finally came to agree myself, this place is something you need to be rescued from, and our best bet is technology.

>How do we feed our people currently?

Currently? Farmer farms for money, it does the thing where it goes to the store where money exchanges hands a dozen times, and then people buy the food.

>When robots come and take our jobs how does it change the fact that we can now feed people?

You're forgetting a transition between then and now specifically between now and when the unemployment so bad that it has to be recognized and the current numbers are not used with the unemployment benefit system.

It's extremely easy to hear and see stories of homeless and others going through trashcan to find food to stay alive. For homeless to die for being sick and having no money to get treatment. And so on.

Like you can pretend that things are Utopia right now and everybody is going to bed with a full belly. But in reality many aren't. To the point that some people are eating crackers just to have enough money to feed their kids something proper. And this is the USA.

So the between your Utopia where money is not really a thing and now. How do people survive and how does ubi get paid for? Robots taking over will not happen overnight. There is likely going to be many problems on the way. It could be so bad that it takes several generations before what you're talking about is realistic.

tru and real :)

You might find this section of an interview with Ajeya Cotra (of biological anchors for forecasting AI timelines fame)

Starts at 29.14 https://youtu.be/pJSFuFRc4eU?t=1754

Where she talks about how several benchmarks were past early last year that surveys of ML workers had a median of 2026.
Also she casts doubt on people that are working in the field but are not working on specifically forecasting AGI/TAI directly as a source for useful information.

I'm a content manager for a small E-commerce business and I cut my working time by about 70%.

ChatGPT is writing nearly everything for me now and I just have to review it and put it online.

Really great

one example is when i asked it to produce javascript that creates an html table, but uses the keys of a json object as table headers, it wrote some code that did all of that then stuck all the value in the first two columns. (still saved me some time anyway or, interestingly from having to use a library)

one funny thing is, with more well known languages like javascript, it seems like it never writes code that doesn't execute, it just doesn't seem to make syntax errors at all, if you asked me to write equivalent amounts i would write tons of syntax errors.

with less well known languages it makes up api calls.

it recognizes when you can use recursion to simplify things pretty well (e.g. in the json -> html table example it wrote a recursive solution), but i find goading it into doing like sub sub queries to be very difficult (for things like an sql query that joins a table to itself, select some columns, then accesses some json property, it would have difficulty doing all of that from my bad descriptions anyway)

Yeah, the amount of ai experts predicting pre 2030 or 2035 is probably only like 10%.

Whisper too!! Being able to efficiently train on audio gives us so much more data to work with and we're going to need it. GPT models are already running out of training data.

The simplest answer in one sentence: there are many things humans would like where it requires an imbalance of fairness.

For example, this is why MMOs feel so lame to play. Your character cannot be a superhero because everyone else who plays the game doesn't want to feel week

A single player RPG is often balanced where you can be a superhero, or find exploits to get power armor in the first 20 minutes or kill a dragon, etc. Exploits that won't be patched because the game developers know you will find this fun.

Some humans are going to want to live in a palace with a thousand servants and a large harem. It's not possible in the real world without some extreme wealth inequality, and even then, by definition just 1 person gets to be the king and 10k humans have to be servants or harem members.

In VR everyone can be the king.

Or take the world of John Wick. It's fun to be john wick, it is not fun for everyone else in the films.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yeah of course; but that's 2050, not 2027 as metaculus predicts.

sound like a good life

I don't know that I want mob rule. As Trump has demonstrated a large portion of the mob is incredibly stupid.

A lot of the pre-2050 crowd does include people building AI.

The oligarchs are in a bit of a bind. They depend on the masses for labor. However, they also depend on the masses to consume what they make. So, impoverish the masses = no more profits for their companies.

Even companies that don't sell directly to the general public are still feeding their products to manufacturers and service provider that do.

I imagine that they will be short sighted and automate assuming the business down the street will provide the jobs, while the business down the street is believing the same thing about them. Circular firing squad.

Consumption by ordinary people is 70% of American GDP. Other that UBI or some new job category that I can't imagine what it would be capitalism will be in real trouble.