Again, thanks for the contribution. It's been noted.

mass layoffs? what mass layoffs? dont see you people complain when those big tech doubled its workforce in just 2 years. now they trim some of the excessive fat and get rid of those useless parasites, it's something to condemn?

if anything they still have way too much excessive staffs

twitter fired 80% and is just fine. all those big tech have basically become overbloated bureaucracy at this point giving out free welfare to the undeserved tech "employees" who barely do any work at all, they need 50% layoffs, not those joke of some 5%-10% layoffs they are doing.

Start a fresh session and ask again. It says a lot of shit about its own capabilities that isn't true. I was once asking it to bold certain things in text and out of nowhere it started insisting it didn't have that capability even though it had just been doing it. I reset it and it could again.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I can't help but think of Liv Boeree talking about Moloch on Lex Fridman's podcast.

I’d like to share the fake memories with real friends and family in coop mode at least.

I don‘t know if I could live a happy life knowing that absolutely no one except me was real. I‘d need some kind of real life companionship.

Grim.

Technology is a double edged sword. An amplifier. If we continue with this monetary market, infinite growth based death spiral? More tech and more advances tech will just amplify that.

What's needed is a revolution of thought. Away from these left/right, capitalist/communist dualities and into heterodox thinking around wtf can we do to make life better for all people and all animals and the environment itself.

But of course that's easier said than done. Most people are stupid and their heads are full ideas that are no longer relevant.

So, on the surface, with some clever "economics" and official-looking stats and graphs, it looks like progress. But if you ask individual people, at the social level? It'll just get tougher and tougher to be alive. And even then, some people are so lost that they actually believe in their own indoctrination, which will skew the results of course.

I imagine life was easier before civilization. At a time when we lived as hunter gatherers. Short lives, yes. But simple nonetheless. Easy to understand. We were mere animals but it worked fine. Most deaths, as far as I know, were due to nature. Today? People routinely die due to inadequasies of the system.

Think about medicine for example. It's the third leading cause of death. Think about that for a minute! Iatrogenic effects are hugely underestimated! And don't get me started on psychiatry. Ok, you got me started, let me just mention this: it seems to be the case that many of the popular "medicines" or drugs for common so-called mental illnesses (which are in 90% of cases normal human responses to whatever fucked up environments people find themselves in), actually cause the very diseases they are purported to correct. How fucked up is thst? And how is this even possible? Easy: $$$!

Basically, more stuff = more stuff that can go wrong (and it will, at least for a while).

However, there is the possibility of a post scarcity system. A global system of cooperation. Where science and technology is used to enhance life and protect the environment.

But if that's to happen, we need to move away from this hyper individualistic, self centered model of Western Capitalism / monetary market system.

We need a new kind of religion, or something akin to it. One that combines the best elements of Western enlightenment ideas and Eastern philosophy. Science and soul, equally. Balance. Heterodox thinking. Minimal games. Honesty. This is new to most people. It's hard work to live like that. Especially in a world so saturated with artificiality and vanity.

The biggest hurdle is the money game. That shit has to go.... Somehow...

I'd suggest people look into alternative systems. New ideas. Some have been thinking along these lines already (Jacque Fresco, Bucky Fuller etc.) , but we desperately need more.

those so-called "ethicists" are nothing but pure cancer of a "profession" of this modern world. nothing but useless and despicable parasites sucking off taxpayer money and actively hindering and sabotaging human technological progress

You're acting like an asshole, that makes people less likely to listen to you. If your goal is convince people, then your tone is actively working against that.

[deleted]

AI escalating beyond our control is a very extremely bad thing if its values don't overlap with ours.

We must enforce our values on the AI if we are going to enjoy life after its invention.

> Little is focused on ideas about what to aim for instead.

Adam here from RethinkX. Agreed, there is far too much catastrophism and general doom-and-gloom, especially around climate change. What’s been sorely missing is a clear explanation for how new technology offers concrete solutions and a real path forward to a brighter future. This is a large part of what my team at RethinkX focuses on. It’s also (sorry for the shameless plug) the focus of my new book, Brighter: Optimism, Progress, and the Future of Environmentalism.

GPTs are already superhuman.

That was a lot to say "I don't like you, I think you're dumb", turd nugget. I mostly just commented to see if you would take the bait. If you couldn't see that, your "intellect is woefully inadequate and your cognitive functioning is likely impaired." Which is the dumbest way I have ever seen someone try to say something that they think sounds smart. Also, your "ASI is here. /s" doesn't even make sense in this context.

Maybe instead of saying "maybe you bad at prompting, haha" add something to the discussion like asking how they usually prompt or drop some sites that show how to prompt better without being facetious.

I assume you skimmed what I wrote and assumed what you thought I was saying.

No. I do not fear AI will take my job. I don't "fear" AI in general. Hence... Me stating that specifically in my OP in an attempt to negate any ambiguity.

Appreciate your input to the conversation though. Really.

I am unreservedly optimistic about what we are going to do in the next few decades.

[deleted]

If you want to constantly simulate a larger universe in places unobserved to the user, no you can't, in real time. If you slow down the simulation by many many orders of magnitude and use a quantum computer, you may be able to pull it off, but it just isn't worth it.

If you want the simulation to only be computed at high resolution near the user (and low resolution at long distances), yes you can give the illusion of a more vivid and larger universe.

Last thing we need is quantity over quality. Looks like we are entering an AI cold war with emphasis on pleasing shareholders instead of developing a technology that can have a positive impact on humanity. Sad.

You sound well read, just not well read on the alignment problem. I suggest reading books and essays on the issue such as works by Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky before coming to conclusions.

Asimov's three laws of robotics are science fiction, not reality. No "good engineers" as you've put it, are "caught up" on these laws. It's literally an approach to alignment that didn't work in a fictional story written in the 1950s, and that is all. Thinking on the alignment problem has progressed a huge amount since then.

The fact that human moral systems are always evolving and changing is something that has been heavily discussed in the literature on the Ai alignment for decades, as well as the fact that human morality is arbitrary.

There are many proposed solutions such as having the AGI simulate our evolution and then abide by the moral system we would have in the future if it were to ever stabilize on an equilibrium, or abide by the moral system that that we would have if we had the intelligence and critical thinking of the AGI.

As far as human morality being arbitrary, ok sure whatever, but most of us can still collectively agree on some things we don't want the Ai to do but defining those things with the precision required for an Ai to understand them is a challenge. That's the main issue people refer to when they talk about the Alignment problem. Even something as simple as "Don't exterminate the human race" is hard to define for an ASI. If you read more about the Alignment problem and how Ai, and fitness functions work this will become more clear.

Since then, there's been a huge amount of proposed solutions that might work, but we won't know until we try them because agents far more intelligent than us may be able to find loop holes/exploits to any fitness function we define that we haven't thought of.

The alignment problem is relatively dumb humans trying to align the trajectory of a super intelligence that's billions of times more intelligent than them. To give an example, it's like how our DNA created human brains through evolution (which are more intelligent than evolution) to be able make copies of themselves. Then the human brains created things like Birth control that defeated the purpose DNA created them for even though the human brains are following the emotional guidance system created by the DNA.

Chess AIs are cool, but just a tech demo. There is a reason why they were fine with Leela baeically open sourcing their approach without response. They don't make money.

Om the flip side, ChatGPT has widespread consumer appeal. It's a completely different thing.

That’s nothing like they’re current operating model, and many of the shuttered projects were intentionally just PoCs and for PR.

If we made a planet sized computer we could probably simulate a universe lol

Exactly. OP thinks he is being marvellously observant by offering the grand service of telling people how wrong they are - while contributing nothing about what is or should be.

Such 'contributions' are as useful as a fear-mongers offerings...