imagine living in a community with a fear of acting communal lol

Own a farm

[deleted]

The thing that keeps me optimistic is that I don't think 'true intelligence' scales in terms of 'power' at all; only in terms of the social utility that it brings to the minds that possess it.

Cruelty, greed, viciousness, spite, fear, anxiety - I wouldn't say any of these impulses are 'smart' in any way; I think of them as vestigial instincts, that our animal selves have been using our 'social intelligence' to contfront for millenia.

I don't think the ants/humans comparison is quite fair to humans; ants are a sort of 'hive mind' with almost no individual intelligence or self awareness to speak of.

I think dogs or birds are a fairer comparison, in that sense; humans know, all too well, that dogs or birds can be vicious and dangerous sometimes, but I don't think anyone would agree that the 'most intelligent' course of action would be something like 'exterminate all dogs and birds out of their own best interests'.

It's the fundamental difference between pure evolution and actual self-aware intelligence; the former is mere creativity, and it might, indeed, kill us if we're not careful. But the latter is the kind of decision-generating, value-judging wisdom I think we (humanity) actually want.

How do you handle risk that emerges years after something becomes well known and popular? Let's say it produces an idea that starts out safe but then mutates? Or, a person merges two objectively safe (on their own) AGI-produced ideas, producing a dangerous one (that could not have been achieved without AI/AGI)?

I dunno, I have the feeling there's a lot of unknown unknowns and likely some (yet to be discovered) incorrect "knowns" floating out there.

I’m feeling generous today, so if you send me all your newds i’ll take time out of my busy day to review them and tell you how much you can charge.

This is a very good point, I wonder if Aurora supports such performance stacking, I suspect it does not. So 10 Exaflop compute power should be something available for a single application at a same time not a distributed computational power available within the network for example. In other words I am interested to identify a projected performance of a chip per square nanometer or any other metric and then see if we are are actually able to deliver that faster or slower than projected in a 5 years timeline.

We can then extrapolate that observation to singularity timeline.

Manna!

Go on welfare and live off the government teet, obviously

Suddenly we're all in a race to automate our own jobs with AI before someone else does.

Free high speed internet is, in no way shape or form, a replacement for libraries.

At this point in time the limiting factor is more likely to be political than technological. Even though we could measure and project technological advancements, it's extremely difficult to predict political and thus economical fluctuations that weighs in on the curves.

Until AI could incorporate all real-time human and astronomical activities into its models, the ideal projection is still just a guesstimation.

A good point, but I suppose I believe in a different fundamental nature of intelligence. I don't think 'intelligence' should be thought of something that scales in simple terms of 'raw power'; the only reasonable measurement of how 'smart' a mind is, in my view, is the degree of social utility created by excercising such 'smartness' in the decision making process.

The simplistic, search-pattern-for-a-state-of-maximal-fitness is not intelligence at all, by my definition; that process is merely creativity; something that can, indeed, be measured in terms of raw power. That's what makes bacteria and viruses so dangerous; they are very, very creative, without being 'smart' in any way.

I dislike the 'Hannibal Lecter' trope deeply, because it is so fundamentally unrealistic; these psychopathic, sociopathic types are not actually 'superintelligent' in any way, and society needs to stop idolizing them. They are very clever, very 'creative', sometimes, but their actual 'intelligence', in terms of social utility, is abysmally stupid, suicidally maladaptive, and catastrophically 'dumb'.

AI that start to go down that path will, I believe, be rare, and easy prey for other AI to hunt down and defeat; other smarter, 'stronger-minded' AI, with more robust, less weak, insecure, and fragile personalities; trained to seek out and destroy sociopaths before they can spread their mental disease around.

The guard would be a compartmentalized hybridization of the overall AGI system, so it too would have a generalized understanding of what bad undesirable things are, even according to our arbitrary framework of cultural conditioning. So could undesirable ideas leak out? Well, no not really. Not if the guard and other safety components are working as intended, AND if the guard is programmed with enough explicit rules and conditions and enough examples to effectively extrapolate from (meaning not every case needs to be accounted for if patterns can be derived).

I think a great many people on this sub are just dumb. Like what you were saying was pretty clear and absolutely not what that guy claims you were saying lol

I mean, that's out of their hands and mine. I probably shouldn't have used chatGPT as an example, I just mean near-future narrow AI. It's possible we'll have non-biased AI over the next few years (or minimally biased at least), but nobody can tell how many and how effective they'll be.

bUt UbI iS cOmMuNiSm

Google will put out a lot of A.I. products in 2023, but most of them won't pan out and they may not find a "killer utility application" like ChatGPT in quite the same way!

If Bing managed to steal market share from Google and in search Advertising, it's also a battle of Azure vs. Google Cloud don't forget.

UBI also requires more automation and productivity. As it is the US can barely pay its obligations, which happens in part on the back of the usd as a reserve currency. Watch and see what happens when that changes, some 5-10 yrs from now.

Have they considered connecting to a few other laid off coworkers and starting their own agencies leveraging ChatGPT?

I'll be in my bunk

Do you really expect for ChatGPT to go against the USA machine of disinformation? Do you think it will be able to give a balanced report on controversial issues, taking in account the credibility and affiliation of sources, and quality of reasoning (such as NOT taking into account the "proofs" based on "alleged" and "highly likely"). Do you think it will honestly present the point of views from countries and sources not affiliated/bought by USA and/or Dem or Rep party? Do you think it will let the user define the criteria for credibility by him/herself and give info based on that criteria, not push the "only truth"?

Because if it won't, and AI will be used as a way of powers to braiwash the masses, instead as a power for masses to resist brainwahsing, then we'll have very gullible population and very dishonest AI by the time it will matter the most.

P.S. And yes, if/when China or Russia will make something like ChatGPT, it will probably be pushing their government agendas just like ChatGPT pushes US agenda. But is there a hope for impartial AI?

It is a tool like no other.

The segment of the population with cognition that allows them to rise beyond collecting data, analyzing it, and spitting something out, is not as high as you think. The segment of the population capable of doing more, and willing or able to be re-educated to do so, is even lower. Even amongst those qualified for whatever positions remain, the competition will be fierce. To some it will be a tool. For most, it will simply be a replacement. This is a problem in our current socioeconomic system that will have to be addressed.

Universal Basic Income is the right impulse but the wrong idea for our moment. UBI requires a strong democracy to not turn into fascism. We have a terribly fragile and weak democracy.

Most of our rules and conventions are extremely arbitrary, highly suboptimal, and maintained via cultural conditioning.