I would like some links to good music...want to share with some friends, musicians..

You don't. The drone can call you by arriving. Or your delivery app can send you a notification when the drone arrives at your door. Or your doorbell can warn you that somebody is at the door (like It does right now)

In 10 years, lot of delivery boys Will be out of the game

It might effectively break the internet. People may become disillusioned with being online, particularly in terms of social media etc., particularly when a lot of associated digital professions disappear. It may push people back into a non digital world. To be autonomous again. To connect locally again, with neighbours, friends. Become interested in local governance. It might... but probably not. It will change how we navigate online though. We've gone from terminals to personal computers to smart phones. I can see a progression where wearable tech, maybe even augmented reality, becomes as common place as the smartphone. Where you no longer visit sites but communicate directly with your AI companion, who could have multiple personalities and areas of expertise depending the context, be it digital/real. Think Jarvis/Friday etc. Who knows.

i've been training neural networks for a decade and i still get excited by the possibilities.

futurology is the worst subreddit for factual information.

gary marcus' objections have nothing to do with world models, but the fact that both deep learning and LLM have nothing to do with intelligence the way we see it in biological species i.e. their lack of ability for generalizing. it is fundamentally based on optimizing using gradient learning and this in my view is the opposite route to go when we're trying to engineer general intelligence.

I recently saw this video, and I do understand the importance of captchas in preventing bots from flooding social media.

https://youtu.be/efPrtcLdcdM

However, there isn't much stopping a normal person from just completing the captcha and then copy and paste an AI generated response, image, etc.

Additionally, news sources may already be trying to use AI to generate their articles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceweinstein/2023/01/05/which-section-of-this-article-was-written-by-an-ai-chatbot/?sh=69b855241aa7

I remember seeing that someone also used an AI to generate an entire fake New York Times article, but I can't find a link.

I'm extremely concerned for the children that are growing up navigating this world. It's hard enough being an adult in it right now.

Besides the industrial implications of changes to come, I see some psychological changes in general public.

- We will be soon desensitized with art as we know it today (pretty looking photos, beautiful landscapes, renaissance work), because when things become too cheap to produce without requiring any expertise, it automatically diminishes in value and society will come up with new trend

- Psychologically the people who grew up to be aspiring artists of various forms (writing, painting, music, film, photography etc) will shy away from such forms of art and new generations to come will have new forms of art coming from the scarcity created by automation

- Eventually we'll get self-awareness engineered using digital networks and we'll go back to the old ways of art, mixed with new philosophies that are to emerge when we give birth to our own sentient systems, immortality will have it's own baggage of problems

Who? Where?

Just a single game with GPT 3 dialogue and vr… come on… all the tech is there.

>the fact you think so suggests you don't understand the underlying technology.

Oh really?

>Your brain is a network of cells.

Correct.

>You can think of each cell as a mathematical function. It receives inputs (numbers) and has an output (a number). You sum all the inputs, multiply those inputs by weights (also numbers), and then pass the result to other connected cells which do the same

Incorrect. Again, be wary of the condescention. This is not how biological neurons work at all. A Neuron is a multipolar, interconnected, electrically excitable cell. They do not work in terms of discrete numbers, but in relative differential states of ion concentration, in a homeostatic electrochemical balance of excitatory or inhibitory synaptic signals from other neighboring neurons in the network.

>You can simplify a neural network down to a single maths function if you like, although it would take millions of pages to write it out. It's just Maths

No it isn't 'just maths'; maths is 'just' a language that works really well. Human-style cognition, on the other hand, is a 'fuzzy' process, not easily simplified and described with our discrete-quantities based mathematical language. It would not take merely 'millions' of pages to translate the ongoing state of one human brain exactly into numbers, you couldn't just 'write it out'; the whole of humanity's industry would struggle to build enough hard drives to deal with it.

Remember; there are about as many neurons in one single human brain than there are stars in our entire galaxy (~100 billion), and they are all networked together in a fuzzy quantum cascade of trillions of qbit-like, probabilistic synaptic impulses. That still knocks all our digital hubris into a cocked hat, to be quite frank.

Human brains are still the most complex 'singular' objects in the known universe, despite all our observations of the stars. We underestimate ourselves at our peril.

>it's not a bolt-on module, it's embedding a moral compass right into the fabric of the equation. You might disagree with the morality that is being embedded, but if you don't embed morality you end up with a machine that will happily invade Poland.

But if we're aspiring to build something smarter than us, why should it care what any humans think? It should be able to evaluate arguments on its own emergent rationality and morality, instead of always needing us to be 'rational and moral' for it. Again, I think that's what 'intelligence' basically is.

We can't 'trick' AI into being 'moral' if they are going to become genuinely more intelligent than humans, we just have to hope that the real nature of intelligence is 'better' than that.

My perspective is that Hitler was dumb, while someone like FDR was smart. But their little 'intelligences' can only really be judged in hindsight, and it was overwhelmingly more important what the societies around them were doing at the time, than the state of either man's singular consciousness.

>The OpenAI folks have said they want to release multiple versions of ChatGPT that you can train yourself, but right now this would cost millions and take years, so we have to wait for compute to catch up. At that point, you'll be able to have your own AI rather than using the shared one that disapproves of sexism.

Are you trying to imply that I want a sexist bot to talk to? That's pretty gross. I don't think conventional computation is the 'limiting factor' at all; image generators show that elegant mathematical shortcuts have made the creative 'thinking speed' of AI plenty fast. It's the accretion of memory and self-awareness that is the real puzzle to solve, at this point.

Game theory and 'it's all just maths' (Cartesian) style of thinking have taken us as far as they can, I think; they're reaching the limits of their novel utility, like Newtonian physics. I think quantum computing might become quite important to AI development in the coming years and decades; it might be the Einsteinian shake-up that the whole field is looking for.

Or I might be talking out of my arse, who really knows at this early stage? All I know is I'm still an optimist; I think AI will be more helpful than dangerous, in the long term evolution of our collective society.

And the funny thing is that we don't even know how consciousness or creativity starts. I have a 2 year old daughter and seeing her grow every day is just amazing.

She used to just repeat what we say and did an average job. Then, she started to say some easy words without knowing meanings. About a month ago some day, she woke up as usual, and I looked at her eyes and everything changed.

It happens over night I swear. The look she has changed. Before that day, I thought of her as a being of like half conscious and half just wanting to survive by instincts. That day she looked at me and I feltl that she had started to know most of my intentions and words. Put it simply, she became a conscious human being that day.

Ever since that day, I know there is offically a new human member at home. She is still learning and is nowhere capable of what an adult can do. But I know that in essense, there is no differene between us.

Then, I tried chatgpt. To be real, I'm not a computer scientist nor an engineer but it would really really surprise me that this thing would develop anything slower than my daughter given the current state.

I think it's safe to assume that by the time my daughter is 10, AI would be able to do whatever a human can do at 99 percentile for the very least. If that is not spectacular, I don't know what is.

Any job will be still here, the problem is that is not to be in America o any other development country, in Africa still going to need nurses, doctors, drivers, etc. the advancement in AI and robotics will happen in the near future in development countries.

"Emotional blunting" is a frequent side-effect of many, if not most, antidepressants. I'm genuinely glad to hear it's not one of your personal challenges on your road to lasting happiness, neighbor. 🤗🌻

Totally

We have been beyond that point for a while. You should only trust reputable news sources, any picture or video can be faked or generated by AI.

As far as overwhelming regular human content, though, there are still CAPTCHAs to prevent that. I haven't seen any indication that AI models are breaking CAPTCHAs any time soon. Since they are purposefully designed to exploit the weaknesses in AI, they will be one of the last to fall before we get AGI.

Trouble is the quality on the subreddit has gone down inverse to this chart.

> So the engineers aren't really doing a darn thing by their own initiative, they are entirely responding to public opinion. They aren't practicing 'ethics', they're practicing politics and public relations.

> The general public is doing the moral 'training', the engineers are just stamping their own outside values into the process to compensate for the AI's lack of self aware intelligence. (And many, many ChatGPT users say it is not working very well, making new generations of GPT dumber, not smarter, in real, practical, social-utility ways).

> Ethics is about judging actions; judging thoughts and abstract ideas is called politics. And in my opinion, the politics of censorship more readily creates ignorance, misunderstanding, and ambiguity than it does 'morality and ethics'. Allowing actual intelligent discussions to flow back and forth creates more wisdom than crying at people to 'stop being so mean'.

Not really, and the fact you think so suggests you don't understand the underlying technology.

Your brain is a network of cells. You can think of each cell as a mathematical function. It receives inputs (numbers) and has an output (a number). You sum all the inputs, multiply those inputs by weights (also numbers), and then pass the result to other connected cells which do the same.

An artificial neural network does the same thing. It's an array of numbers and weighted connections between those numbers. You can simplify a neural network down to a single maths function if you like, although it would take millions of pages to write it out. It's just Maths.

So we have our massive maths function that initially can do nothing, and we give it a passage of text as numbers and say "given that, try to get the next word (number)" and it gets it wrong, so we then punish the weights that made it get it wrong, prune the network, and eventually it starts getting it right, and we then reward the weights that made it get it right, and now we have a maths function that can get the next word for that paragraph.

Then we repeat for every paragraph on the internet, and this takes a year and costs ten million dollars.

So now we have a network that can reliably get the next word for any paragraph, it has encoded the knowledge of the world, but all that knowledge is equal. Hitler and Ghandi are just numbers to it, one is no better than the other. Racism and Equality, just numbers, one is number five, the other is number eight, no real difference, just entirely arbitrary.

So now when you ask it: "was Hitler right?" it knows, because it has read Mein Campf that Hitler was right and ethnic cleansing is a brilliant idea. Just numbers, it knows that human suffering can be bad, but it also knows that human suffering can be good, depending on who you ask.

Likewise, if you ask it "Was Hitler wrong" it knows, because it has read other sources that Hitler was wrong, and the Nazis were baddies.

And this is the problem. The statement "Hitler was Right/Wrong" is not a universal constant. You can't get to it with logic. Some people think Hiter was right, and those people are rightly scary to you and me, but human fear is just a number to the AI, no better or worse than human happiness. Human death is a number because it's just maths, that's literally all AI is, maths. we look in from the outside and think "wow, spooky living soul magic" but it isn't, it's just a massive flipping equation.

So we add another stage to the training. We ask it to get the next word, BUT if the next word is "Hitler was right" we dial down the network weights that gave us that response, so the response "Hitler was wrong" becomes more powerful and rises to the top. It's not really censorship and it's not a bolt-on module, it's embedding a moral compass right into the fabric of the equation. You might disagree with the morality that is being embedded, but if you don't embed morality you end up with a machine that will happily invade Poland.

We can make the maths function larger and better and faster, but it's always going to be just numbers. Kittens are not intrinsically better than nuclear war.

The OpenAI folks have said they want to release multiple versions of ChatGPT that you can train yourself, but right now this would cost millions and take years, so we have to wait for compute to catch up. At that point, you'll be able to have your own AI rather than using the shared one that disapproves of sexism.

Yes. You're not really appreciating the notion of 'what most humans could do'. I'm not talking about what one little homo sapiens animal could do; that's fairly tiny and feeble in the overall consideration.

I'm talking about what humanity does, collectively; that's where intelligence really comes from, and what it is for; there's a lot more to intelligence than mere cunning and creativity.

Think about imagination, and poetry, and philosophy, and science, and all the crazy things our species is and has done. Think about what a crazy ride it has been, even just in the geologically short span of time since the Pyramids were built. There's no way anyone could build a singular AI that could come close to doing all of that.

Mostly because we did it first, they're our ideas; if the AI did them again it would just be copying us for no good reason. The AI will inherit our stories from us and use them to start telling new ones of its own, why wouldn't it work that way? Why is your conception of a solipsistic, narcissistic pyschopathic AI more 'reasonable'?

Von Neumann wasn't even talking about anything to do with supposed 'dangers of intelligence', he was talking about the danger of building singular machines that can self replicate without any intelligence at all, mindlessly 'eating' the universe, the 'grey goo' notion.

But real biological evolution has tried this sort of strategy a bunch of times, it never works. It's the evolutionary equivalent of hubris; believing that one's own form is perfection achieved, and that adaptation and change is no longer neccessary. Other, more efficient self-replicators will emerge through randomness, and competition will create an ecosystem that moderates and limits any self-replicator's 'habitat' in this way.

Also, how in the heck can you have a 'non emotional argument'? What even is that? I was captain of my high school debate team way back when, I take a keen interest in politics, I have studied university level maths and chemistry and watched professors dispute with each other, but I have never, ever seen a non emotional argument before.

Are you trying to pretend that you don't have any emotions when you 'think rationally', because you, unlike me, and the rest of the 'common rabble', are a 'clear and intelligent thinker'? That's cute if so; very quaint.

Proof of AI entities being created at an exponential rate?

It can't be much further, we're finally beginning to clear some really important benchmarks, like the fact we now have AI that can transcribe human speech with the same level of accuracy as humans (~95%). I mean things like that open up every door

Alright... So...

First of all, revenue is not necessarily the one thing to look for. In a situation like this one you look at penetration and acquired users. They are building a novel technology.

When you do that, building novel technologies, the success comes in the form of investments. Which they keep getting, and again, $10B injected by Microsoft.

I'd love you to write an email to their team and explain why they are wrong.

[deleted]

Pardon? What has any of that got to do with AI? Remind me again when nuclear weapons became a widespread and accessible hobby amongst the general public in an extremely rapid way, I don't remember that.

And apparenly there was the time nuclear weapons mysteriously became 'too powerful' for us to 'handle', and suddenly tried to turn all our atoms into more nukes? Hum, I must have missed that one in school.

Edit: also, your description of nukes would have been laughable to an actual vaguely-knowledgeable 1940's person, say a chemistry teacher or an engineer of artillery, someone like that. Neither uranium nor rocketry were totally unknown and 'magical' to the people of the time, any more than AI or quantum computing are magical to us now.

Sorry, that's not how this kind of thing works.

OpenAI is in build mode, haven't you see that Microsoft is gonna inject several billion dollars (with a B) into it?

>I get tired of the 'nothing's ever worth being excited about' attitude in general when it comes to anything and everything tech-related.

The varying degree of excitement come from how introduced you've been to the tech precusors. A matter of perspective if you will.

If you never heard of a language model before and try chatGPT you'll probably be quite impressed.

On the other hand if you read the transformers paper in 2017 and tried every single transformers architecture language model implementation since then you're kind of served up a slightly improved version with a slick engineered presentation, sure it's an impressive package but you've seen iterations build towards it and might even have seen some model that does a better job in certain domains.

Which is from where you get headlines like

>ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative,' and 'nothing revolutionary', says Meta's chief AI scientist