People have been afraid of change since we starting carving sticks and painting stick figures on walls. It’s good to be cautious, but history has proven time and time again that the fear of change is unwarranted. Evolution is necessary for our advancement, both as a species physically, and as a consciousness.

I’m excited, personally.

We only have two roads ahead: extinction or immortality. We're about to fall face-first off a cliff and we don't even know it.

Those who see what's coming have an edge an edge. Use that energy to take advantage the what you see.

On this sub it's the opposite. Too much ungrounded, deluded fantasy of super AI coming from people who clearly don't work on AI in the real world, but want to be taken seriously when they make definitive statements about the future

this. IDK the timeframe for completely autonomous self driving as it seems to have been "within a decade" for like a decade now lol w but with Tesla's self driving at least, recent updates have sometimes been one step forward two steps back.

Entirely possible another car maker's version could change that in a flash though.

The operator doesn’t know Chinese. Do I need to spell out the analogy to chatGPT?

ChatGPT is great at word embeddings and completion but is an otherwise dumb algorithm. Comparing that to human’s ability to express themselves with language is useless.

I mean if you don’t get the Chinese room experiment you might think Eliza is a master of psychology.

Well, I feel stupid. And, I could not agree with you more.

Regardless, I think we’re on the precipice of life changing forever. We might see the abolishment of poverty, mortality/death and any other kinds of suffering in the next couple years.

Given how totally shite our IT dept is, not much to be honest. I think this whole sub is over excited but let’s see.

I am a true believer that most humans are AI NPCs themselves who can’t grasp the future models that will eventually replace them. Having a conversation with a human about AI is like trying to talk to DOS about Windows 11.

[deleted]

You've given a lot of example of how people express their lack of enthusiasm, but can you give as many examples of how AI will change things?

I also get frustrated by people who don't realize that we're on the cusp of something utterly transformative. But the truth is, I don't actually understand how our world will change and what that will look like. I know my current job as a content designer will go away. I know that ghost writers, copywriters, and all the other jobs I've had will vanish.

But I don't know what will come in their place.

I feel like I did at the start of the internet. Back then I know something big was happening, but I had no idea that I'd be looking up directions on a phone that i held in my hand. I didn't know I'd be ordering dinner from a laptop and watching movies streamed to my TV. I just knew that big things were coming and nothing would be the same.

"VCs think it's a good idea" is often times a signal to look in a different direction. I think there are uses cases by the way. But there will be limits.

> reality is that they have very few practical use cases at this point

the metric crap tons of vc money pouring into llm based startups would beg to disagree.

it just takes time to build stuff. you'll see what the current api's are capable of within 2 yrs.

Technical progress is a given, but remember that within those N years that saw immense progress, many ideas also seemed imminent and then fizzled out. We don't live in The Jetsons.

Engineering is hard. Many approaches have limits that are undetectable until you hit them.

LLMs are really impressive, but the reality is that they have very few practical use cases at this point. So why expect people to care that much about it? Future progress is not inevitable.

By the way, there are tons of applications of AI/ML that have been immensely more impactful to society than LLMs have been. And yet no one ever seems to talk about those, because they aren't flashy.

I seriously doubt anyone has lost a job due to Waymo. It operates in only some parts of two cities.

Tesla "self driving" definitely hasn't taken even one job.

True...but that's not the central issue.

A copyright requires human authorship. Even if you could copyright a prompt (you can't), the generated output would not be.

Sure, they're the ongoing lawsuits against ai firms that use copyrighted works to generate their own product. Regardless of the side you wish to come out on top, there is a lot of merit to the suit.

>We’ve gone from horse and buggy to space stations in 100 years.

>What do people not understand about exponential growth?

None of that have anything to do with the current batch of AI tools being fit for a particular purpose. Nothing to do with if/when those tools will be made sufficiently reliable for unattended operation in the real world.

Some people fail to understand, just because you can imagine something in your mind, that does not necessarily mean others can definitely engineer a working sample within our personal time horizon, or ever.

I could not have said it better myself. You are absolutely, completely 100% right. It makes you feel like reality is gaslighting you, but you know you’re right. And you ARE right. We have maybe 40 years till the end of our human society as we know it. Whatever comes next will be so radically different it will be unrecognizable. And honestly I expect it to be closer to like 20 years. We fundamentally cannot imagine the scope and scale of what AI is capable of. Thats the whole point of calling it the Singularity.

Rest assured, we’re here with you, and we understand.

"solving math theorems" is probably a very optimistic way of putting it on zucc's part

Going from O(n^2) to O(nlog(n)) for context window size let's you have a context window of 1.3 million tokens using the same space needed for GPT-3's 8000 tokens.

You know that nothing forever show, and how it looks all buggy and bad and really basic? That's because it was made intentionally primitive using primitive tools and a low budget. That isn't the best AI can do, its the WORST AI can do. If that surprisingly watchable thing is possible using effectively the worst and most primitive tools we have available, then a proper attempt by whatever versions of these tools we have in a year or two will be able to make just about anything. Not just TV shows.

I completely agree with you. With the way things are going, the divide between the people with access to this tech, and the people without it is going to be astronomical.

I’m just hoping that regular folks like me can ride the wave

The model isn’t how you get agi, the architecture the model is plugged into is.

Leave them be.

Listen to the experts.

Connor Leahy was the first to re-create the GPT-2 model back in 2019 (by hand, he knows the tech stack, OpenAI lined up a meeting with him and told him to back off), co-founder of EleutherAI (open-source language models), helped with GPT-J and GPT-NeoX-20B models, advised Aleph Alpha (Europe's biggest language model lab), and is now the CEO of Conjecture.

Dude knows what he's talking about, and is also very careful about his wording (see the NeoX-20B paper s6 pp11 treading carefully around the subject of Transformative AI).

And yet, in Nov/2020, he went on record saying:

​

>“I think GPT-3 is artificial general intelligence, AGI. I think GPT-3 is as intelligent as a human. And I think that it is probably more intelligent than a human in a restricted way… in many ways it is more purely intelligent than humans are. I think humans are approximating what GPT-3 is doing, not vice versa.”
— Connor Leahy, co-founder of EleutherAI, creator of GPT-J (November 2020)