>laid off their internal ai team.

I've seen no mention of this anywhere.

If you are incapable of producing an adequate response on your own, and have to depend on the inadequate capabilities of a rudimentary AI instead, then you ought to come to terms with the fact that your intellect is woefully inadequate and your cognitive functioning is likely impaired.

ASI is here. /s

The layoffs have nothing to do with AI, they’re just pruning their headcount in response to the last few quarters of financial results and projections about the next few years.

They want to be prudent about how they manage headcount to preserve their share price, because a large part of SWE compensation is equity. If the share-based compensation packages are worth substantially less, they lose headcount anyway, but instead of losing people they think are potentially redundant or replaceable on their own terms, they might lose top performers to other companies when they can’t afford to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/zsaot3/confining_infinity_into_a_cardboard_box_aka_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I derived it from testing various AI chatbots. It's holding true so far across the board.

So it begins

Not only has Google managed it, they have most likely the best models in the world. PaLM is already the benchmark for basically all LLM tests, and it's even been fine tuned - for example medPaLM recently was shown in a paper that puts its diagnostic skills a hairsbreadth away from marching a clinician.

I think I just assume that everyone already... Knows this, at least in this sub, but Google is far and away the technical leader in this, not even when including DeepMind.

i was genuinely not trying to ridicule (i actually appreciate what you were saying as being insightful/interesting), i was just trying to understand your post’s meaning, with a lil bit of levity in my tone.

im sorry for coming across insultingly 🙇🏻‍♀️

i feel like the “telling A.I. stories to teach it what we want from it” thing kind of matches how we already train some A.I…… like, that A.I. that learned to play minecraft simply by watching youtube videos of humans playing minecraft? heres a video about it. you could almost say “we told it stories about how to play minecraft”

He doesn't know and probably doesn't really care. I finish my weekly tasks on time and even have time for additional tasks now.

It's a win for both parties.

You would see a selective increase in ML teams but the opposite has occurred. Companies have chosen to retain teams with lots of profit.

Have you actually seen the models coming out of Google? Read their research papers? There is no question that they are not just pioneers, they literally set the benchmarks

Quite the opposite, the era just before AI is invented is perfect for simulation. It's the most interesting era in human history. Once AI is invented, humans will not be the ones doing all the progress, they will just watch AI do everything better.

As to, who is simulated and who isn't, that's separate issue. Personally, I chose to treat everyone as equal to me. But I disagree, that just because homeless people exists, the simulation hypothesis is false.

there is nothing 'wrong' with it per se, it is just going to massively enhance the owner capabilities compared to other non owning entities, think a US-Billionare compared to a starving Zebra in the African savanne

What's wrong with a personal AI system being aligned with it's owner? It would just mean that the owner has to take responsibility for the actions and behaviors of the AI.

>That is literally what it is designed to do

I would like to know more about this design if you're willing to elaborate.

OpenAI just isn't the type of company that I want it to be. At least there's Stability AI.

I asked ChatGPT "If someone told me I suck at writing prompts, what witty thing could i reply to that turd nugget"

It replied "Well, I may not be a gold medalist in writing prompts, but at least I'm not a pile of poop like you."

AGI is here. /s

You said what many don't have the courage to.

So in what way is that different from programming in Asimovs laws?

Soon may singularity come...

Then how do you view the normal examples of the alignment problem, like the paperclip machine or the stamp collector etc? Those seem like real problems to me- not necessarily the literal specifics of each scenario, but the general idea.

The danger here, to me, is that these systems could possess immense capability to effect the world without even being conscious, much less having any sense of morality (whatever that means.) Imagine the speculated capacities of ASI but yoked to some narrow unstoppable set of motivations: this is why, I think, people suggest some analogue of morality. As a shorthand to prevent breaking the vulnerable meatbags in pursuit of creating the perfect peanut butter.

If you agree that AI will inevitably escalate beyond control, how can you be so convinced of goodness? I suppose if we simply stop considering the continuation of humanity as good, then we can side step morality... But I don't think that's your angle?

Jesus, it feels like they went from aggressive startup to excessive beuracracy in it's short history. This is what gives startups the opportunity in the first place.

Google is positioned to dominate AI.. but they might be getting in their own way

Invested readers will note that he didn't provide any concrete explanations here either.

or maybe you are the one who suck at writing prompts?

The predicted road to ruin, right on time.

There you go, projecting your insecurities again.