The government is run largely by donors and lobbyists..

Also genocide isn't relegated to cartoon villains.. history is rife with examples. And again, psychopaths exist, ceos have a high likelihood of having such characteristics.

What I'm talking about is very much a possibility. You seem to only counter the argument with " that's just not believable." which isn't a compelling counter..

People find it unsettling to believe that some people REALLY do just want to watch the world burn. Generally these are highly empathetic individuals. They can't conceive how such a non empathetic person feels..

Read some of the famous books on overpopulation, and really try to understand the beliefs of some of these individuals. Thomas Robert Malthus

Nonsense.

Most people are extremely passionate about learning and doing and are burdened with lack of quality education and lack of resources, time and correct information.

We will enter into an age of absolute enlightenment as ais will teach us to do anything we wish to learn by living in our phones.

Want to learn how to ____? An AI will tech you!

It’s literally just Dall-e 2 with a new stock model, kicks out really mediocre generations and they still come out 1024x1024. Also every generation you make goes into the public market for purchase by someone else which defeats the purpose. Hope they upgrade it quickly before Adobe eats their lunch.

I’m not from US

Especially when every car on the road is Ai driven. The coordination made possible by that could be orders of magnitude safer than human driving.

>Shutterstock claims it will pay artists whose work is included in its Al generation. Shutterstock will do this through a "Contributor Fund. The fund will "directly compensate Shutterstock contributors" if their IP is used to develop Al-generative models, such as the OpenAl model, through licensing data from Shutterstock's database.

This is good in concept, but did they ask all contributors for permission? I could see this being a disaster financially for independent photographers/artists. Imagine going from selling several hundred images a day to you "contributing to an AI" several hundred times a day and making pennies. I predict this will end poorly.

2029 just seems like its too early (early 2000s people thought we wouldn't be using desktop pcs and that computers would spawn sentient ai)

"If you can't beat them, join them"

A full self driving car is far likelier to see a human and drive at speeds where it can stop prior in time to avoid a collusion at all times. An autonomous car doesn't get emotional, it doesn't get sleepy, it doesn't get distracted, and it has constant 360 degree range of view and is generating rather accurate behavioral predictive models now, and can always know its stopping distance and more.

I 100% would trust a PROVEN self-driving system over any human any day.

Please yes. Sooner if we can manage it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The United States and UBI are incompatible on a very basic level.

The U.S. government would rather tactically nuke protestors than consider UBI. They will just get away with it by calling the protestors "communists". I've said this before and I'll keep saying it.

As many people have said...

Humans do this every accident... just less accurately.. People weigh things like there's a semi, and there's a car a family...

If the AI had no other options besides this trolley example, then it's logical deduction is the single person. We would consider this legally logical for anyone... but with human drivers, there's a chance they're not even going to see the large group by looking at their phone, or dash, or you name it..

These decisions already happen regularly, as long as the AI is choosing logically, and statistically accurate on those decisions... The number of lives saved will be astronomical compared to humans driving.

Yes. People are working on it right now.

Car's AI: "WHY IS THERE PEOPLE on the ROAD?!, that's it, i'm removing them."

We are not the singularity. You are trying to add some kind of spiritual nonsense. The singularity is a technical achievement.

I highly doubt there is going to that type of calculation in the algorithm. It's too simplified.

It will react in that way perhaps, but based on a much more nuanced and complex calculation.

Humans also have to make these same judgement calls. Driving is already scary with humans at the wheel. The self driving car might at least make a least harm determination in time.

disclaimer: idk much about gary marcus, i only follow a few people closely in the field like joscha bach, and i'm sure he wouldn't say or worry about such things.

if you give 3 hands to a generally intelligent neural network, it will figure out how to make use of 3 hands, or no hands. it doesn't matter. so those trivial things are not to be worried about, the problem at hand is different.

The headline though, if you only read that, it seems they built the current system with billions.

Reminds me of this project https://www.mlcathome.org/mlcathome/

You're missing pretty EVERYTHING.

Also this has nothing to do with singularity you fricking moron

Fuuck pedestrians. Op is coming from stone age. This scenario was discussed zillion times. Search the fucking internet

The death of the observer.

You don’t understand what your replying too. You use the tools to make games…the tool doesn’t make the game all by itself.

If a human isn’t involved in the creative process it isn’t using a tool.

This is the way I think AI will go. We are still a ways off but I think people underestimate just how competent supercompetent AI could potentially be.