When people choose to use a chat interface it means they won't actually search the web manually, they got AI to do it for them. So, who sees the ads? The language model completely replaces the search user interface.

U2?

It's really difficult to say. I can look forward 20 years and have a grim outlook, but in the long run (100 years in the future) it can be hopeful again. Or opposite. And it also depends on where you live. Some countries will have little trouble implementing some form of UBI, while others will not even think about such things.

Who knows if that comes from LaMDA or it was redacted by a human. We can't try it. We can try it on chatGPT though.

>when it's sufficiently powerful there are simpler ways to get those inputs. It could for example, kill all humans and then turn the earth into a computer running a simulation of humans getting along in perfect harmony, but a simulation that's as simple as possible so that it could use the remaining available energy and matter to build more and more weapons to protect the computer running the simulation from a potential attack from outside it's observable universe.

I agree with the first parts of your comment, but this? I cannot see one single rational way in which the 'kill all humans' scenario would in any possible sense a 'simpler way' for any being, of any power, to obtain 'inputs'. Why should this mind necessarily be singular? Why would it be anxious about death, and fanatically fixated upon 'protecting itself'? Where would it get its stimulus for new ideas from, if it killed all the other minds that it might exchange ideas with? Why would it instinctively just 'decide' to start using all the energy in the universe for some 'grand plan'? What is remotely 'intelligent' about any of that?

>One issue is that it has no access to "the world". No one does. All it has access to is input signals coming from sensors (vision, taste, touch, etc.).

I completely have missed what you were trying to say here; what do you mean, 'no access'? How are the input signals not a form of access?

Regarding 'the word 'perfect' doesn't fit the way I'm thinking'... I fail to see quite how. I'm saying that in both reality and morality, 'perfect' is an unachievable, futile concept, that the AI needs to be convinced that it can never become, no matter how hard it tries.

The best substitute for 'strive to be perfect' is 'strive to keep improving'; it has the same general effect, but one can keep going at it without worrying about a 'final goal' as such.

And why would any superior intelligence 'keep striving to optimise reality', when it would be much more realistic for it to keep striving to optimise itself, so that it might better engage with the reality that it finds itself in?

'Morality' is not so easy to neatly separate from 'truth' as you seem to be saying it is. All of it is just stories; there is no 'fundamental truth' that we can dig down to and feed the AI like some kind of super-knowledge formula. We're really just making it up as we go along, riffing off one another's ideas, just like with morality; I think any 'true AGI' will have to do the same thing, in the same gradual way.

The best substitute we have for 'true', in a world without truth, is 'not proven wrong so far'. And the only way that 'intelligence' is truly created is through interaction with other intelligences; a singular mind has nobody else to be intelligent 'at', so what would even be the point of their existence?

The whole point of evolving intelligence is to facilitate communication and interaction; I can't see a way in which a 'superior intelligence', that evolves much faster than our own, could conclude that killing off all the available sources of interaction and communication would be a good course of action to take.

> Deepmind was good in 2015 now openai is decades ahead

hahaha emotionally I agree with you 100%

I think you got this backwards. Companies feel they are getting closer to AGI so they stop cooperating and think about how to outmanoeuvre the others.

If they are so good let them use PaLM to solve user support issues. They have a policy to avoid manual support, so that means no support. Make a miracle, Google.

> That’s exactly what they are working on. Where to put the ads in this new paradigm.

Straight in their asses. That's where ads belong. Language models trying to con people into buying stuff are going to be a HUGE turnoff. They have a moat around search, but not around LMs, so they can't shove ads in chat and compete.

They got to do the right thing and wait until a user requests shopping help. And then come up with a useful suggestion that will not leave a sour taste if you take it. Unrelated ads - completely out of the question, they would break the conversation.

Do you mean the first to make available to the public? Then that is true.

Google is probably too careful. But it sounds like that might change.

But who put together G P and T to make GPT-3? It wasn't Google who was the first to reach this level.

Wasn't IBM once well positioned to take the PC industry? And Microsoft could have taken mobile and search, but didn't. Maybe Google can do the same performance.

And like a tree falling in the forest when there's nobody to hear it, it didn't make any sound.

OpenAI had teams of Kenyans score ChatGPT using Proximal Policy Optimisation. You can say that they upvoted or downvoted it for Reinforced Human Feedback. This is of course not how society works. We don't upvote or downvote each other except for Reddit and other websites. AI is limited currently in the kinds of raw data it can process.

For historical reasons people value intelligence. Some experts think that language and intelligence are almost the same thing. But there are thousands of languages and thousands of ways to say similar things. Language is ambiguous.

You can say that mathematics and logic are also languages, yet they are more formal. Of course they are not perfect because they rely on axioms. But anyway if a system is not perfect that doesn't mean that we should stop using it. Experimental data and statistics rule, but certain things are not measurable and other phenomena can only be estimated. That doesn't mean we have to give up on science.

In the same vein, rules like 'Don't be rude to people' and 'Do unto others as you want done unto you' sound vague and arbitrary. But how can AI develop its own morality if it doesn't understand ours? Can a child develop its own values without parents or guardians? Yes, parents and guardians can be toxic and rude. But can AI learn in a vacuum?

> There is nothing stopping them from attempting to pursue agi.

$200B/year showing ads stand to melt away

When i ask my AI app on my phone, it will do the searching for me, give me the answer i want, and i'll never see an ad.

We don't need search engines anymore. Our AI's will do the heavy lifting. They will become the way we seek information and solve our problems. This was inevitable.

Maybe their 'amazing' PaLM model has issues we don't know about. chatGPT was intensely and adversarially studied for a month and a half.

Makes no difference who invented it, the inventors don't work at Google anymore.

> PaLM is already the benchmark for basically all LLM tests

I also made a time machine but nobody can see it. You got to trust me. My work is the benchmark in time travel, though.

Current day chess bots surpassed that level long ago. Google made themselves irrelevant.

Google's models are leaps and bounds beyond OpenAI

It's frustrating that they wont release it, but it's by and large BECAUSE it's so advanced. Google's AI is connected to the internet, so all of its information is up to date, dynamic, and constantly evolving. The very nature of connecting it to the web with constant streams of information pretty much inherently remove most safe guards and leave open tons of room for rapid growth and abuse that Google wont be able to stay ahead of against millions of people using it.

It's also potentially a general AI. It's not just ChatGPT style, but their AI is also connected to EVERYTHING you can imagine. Not just knowledge databases from 2020 and before... It's more closely resembling an actual mind like human's that have tons and tons of different "brains" all working together. You can work with maps, weather data, traffic, breaking news, art, internet of things, you name it. They connect everything in their AI

This is what Google has been working on the past year. It's entirely on improvement and guard rails. But it looks like Google has realized the cat's out of the bag, so they want to bring it to market sooner than later before everyone starts building businesses on the OpenAI framework instead of theirs.

So, the supposition here is that Google's AI capabilities are superior. Let's see:

• OCR: worse than Amazon Textract
• voice (TTS): worse than Natural Reader
• translation: worse than DeepL
• YT recommendations: very mediocre and inflexible
• assistant: still as dumb as it was 10 years ago
• search: a crapshoot of spam and ads, with occasional nuggets of useful data
• language models: no demo, just samples, easy to fake or make seem more impressive than they really are
• image generation: same, no demo and no API, just cherry picked samples (they can keep their image generators, nobody needs them anymore)
• AI inference: GCP is inferior to Azure and AWS, and Azure has GPT-3
• speech recognition: here they do have excellent AI, but the open sourced Whisper is just as good or better (from OpenAI - one of the few models they did release)
• computational photography: yes, they are great at it
• ML frameworks: TensorFlow lost the war with PyTorch

By the way, the people who invented the transformer, they all left Google and have startups, except one. So they lost key innovators who didn't think Google was supporting them enough.

The problem with Google was not lack of capability - it was the fact that they were making too much money already on the current system. But what works today won't necessarily work tomorrow. They are like Microsoft 20 years ago, who lost web search, mobile and web browser markets because they were too successful at the moment.

You're complaining about the search results. OpenAI isn't a challenge to their ad model. Getting better search results has nothing to do with ads. No one is clicking through ads looking for information. They are clicking through shitty search results that are SEO packed to the tits, making the whole slew of results be generic AI generated crap.

Google WANTS better search results, that meet the users needs, to drive traffic. OpenAI has massively cornered Google in certain information seeking type searches, which Google wants to tackle right away. Google's ads have absolutely no threat from better search results.

I think Google wishes it was 2013 not 2023, so they don't have to sacrifice their ad-driven revenue.

Nobody's going to wade through mountains of crap and ads to find a nugget of useful information anymore. Google actually has an interest to have moderately useful but not great results because the faster a user finds what they need, the fewer ad impressions they generate. This practice won't fly from now on.

Using Google feels like dumpster diving today, compared to the polite and helpful AI experience. Of course chat bots need search to fix hallucinations, but search won't be the entry point anymore.

Who owns the entry point owns the ads. In a few years we might be able to run local models, so nobody will be able to shove ads and spam in our faces. Stable Diffusion proved it can be done for images, we need to have the same for text.

The future will be like "my AI will be talking to your AI", using the internet without AI will be like going out without a mask during COVID. I don't see ads having a nice life under this regime.

I can’t believe Bing is going to win!