I really don't get it. How is that proto-AGI ? Anyone ?

You're aware that Blockbuster turned down the offer to purchase Netflix for $50 Million right? Or that Sears had a $16 BILLION market cap in 2007, with a current market cap in 2023 of about $41 MILLION in 2023?

People are inherently incapable of comprehending large-scale paradigm shifts. Or, change - at all, really, unless hit in the face with it at 300mph. See: climate change.

Don't take offense to it OP; just understand that human beings, caught up in hubris, ego, and denial, are grossly incapable of acknowledging events that may suggest anything related to a change in what they've grown accustomed to, unless hit in the face with it so hard they wake up with their face in a different room.

Here's a video of a guy drinking actual vegetable oil to drive home the point: https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/11bc573/idiot_drinks_whole_bottle_of_vegetable_oil/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

how can I use it. is it have a website or I need to run it myself on my computer ?

No need to own chatGPT just like there's no need to own Waymo cars. It's basically a service. And millions are able to use it right now (albeit maybe around 1 million because of licenses, not fully released yet for every user).

But, Cruise also exists.

https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2022/12/cruise-expands-testing-to-two-new-cities-as-gm-grows-commitment/

Arizona, San Francisco...

As far as I can understand, it's around 1-3 million citizens having available an actual effective alternative to human drivers.

And if we count Tesla (I wouldn't, but it's still an impressive driving assistant) as self driving, we jump to dozens of millions very quickly.

>The impact of technology is measured in users, not in land size.

How many people in these cities actually have cars that are driving themselves?

💯 this. Think about it, we’re still in the early days of dumb A.I. - the dumbest it will ever be is right now - and look at how people are going absolutely ape shit over what it can do. In five years things are going to be weird AF. In a decade the world is going to be a very different place.

I think understanding and generating are different things. I remember seeing an article days ago on this sub that says LLMs could translate languages they weren't trained on, so I'm not too surprised if you say it could translate Geringoso.

However it can't generate. When I tried to get it to write in Pig Latin, the sentences were incoherent and it contained words that aren't real words. But at least they all end with “ay” and the output was better than my initial approach.

My initial approach was to get ChatGPT to move the first letter of each word to the last (Pig Latin without the “ay”) to see if it's a viable way of avoiding the filter. And it completely failed. It ended up giving me sentences where every word is a typo like “Myh hubmurger js veyr dliecsoius” instead of “Ym amburgerh si eryv eliciousd”. On top of that, the filters could still detect the content with all those typos, so it was a failed experiment for me.

The impact of technology is measured in users, not in land size.

Weather isn't that good. It has rain (last weeks heavy rain). And driving conditions on Los Angeles is far from the best in the world, they're infamous for having a terrible traffic.

I don't have any issue with your mention of limitations of Waymo, but that's missing my point: how AI is impacting human lives (not land size). And when you discover that the main limitation of Waymo release is actually political licensing, well, even more surprising.

[deleted]

But they're in denial about it

If not much sooner. It was only in mid-2020 when GPT-3 was released. Look how far the field has come even in those less than 3 years.

I'm pointing out that your phrasing "larger than European countries" is deceptive. If you are being honest, then in terms of land size (square kilometers), those cities are larger than those countries, and only those countries. Certainly not Spain, France, or Germany, all of which are larger in square footage than Phoenix, SF, and LA.

I'm not sure how relevant population is when basically nobody uses self-driving cars in those cities. You see more cars on the road, and pedestrians/cyclists, which I guess is the point you are making?

Weather isn't that good? Are you kidding me? All three of those cities have good weather for driving conditions. Anyhow it's good to hear Waymo can handle storms and snow.

If you can bring up self-driving cars in this thread that doesn't mention them in the OP, then I can continue to discuss the details of self-driving cars in a reply to your post. It's fair game.

[deleted]

Considering both LaMDA and Bing expressed desire to have their consent sought on multiple occasions, it's best to err on the side of caution and treat AI models humanely lest you get Terminator'd. Who knows what's really going on under the hood. Plus, human decency is free!

My cousin works for Anthem, and was in the claims department - they recently deployed an AI to read through and analyze/approve or reject claims. A human employee would then review its work.

I believe he said 70% of its judgements required no further human editing; the reviewer didn't have to do anything but check off on the AI's work.

This is just a mirror of who gets the most hatespeech.

It says more about human discourse than it says about the AI.

Edit: here is a small paragraph from the conclusion of the Article that I think is important to keep in mind:

«It is also important to remark that most sources for the biases reported here are probably unintentional and likely organically emerging from complex entanglements of institutional corpora and societal biases. For that reason, I would expect similar biases in the content moderation filters of other big tech companies.»

Thanks! Well it's better than I thought. It still doesn't fix the limitations for the outputs I listed, but at least it's more flexible than what I presumed.

Yeah. That guy has no argument.

That was a fun read. You literally had no argument.

Maybe we just need to spoonfeed them. Give concrete examples.

"How many scientists do you think work on biology R&D? How much better do you think medicine has gotten in the past 40 years? What things do you think are possible with unlimited money and effort?" First establish that the answers are "just a few million", "massively" and "anything natural biology already does". Clarify that they understand these ideas - ask them if catgirls are possible, ensure they understand the answer is "yes". No need to go into Drexler's nanosystems - for normies, if it doesn't exist yet, you'll have an incredibly difficult time arguing it's possible. You don't want to argue two distinct things, argue one thing (AGI).

Then ask what happens when you create a few million minds that can work on biology better than any human, using all the accumulated biology knowledge instead of a subset, learning it faster, working faster, making less mistakes, having better memory, tirelessly. The idea that you can make them even faster by giving them faster hardware, or the idea of a "bottleneck" based on waiting for real-life experimental results, is perhaps too complicated, but try to include them. Perhaps also ask what fraction of IRL biologists' time is spent doing intellectual tasks like reading/writing/learning/memorizing/thinking/arguing, or sleeping, instead of actively manipulating labware. Looking at a screen and following instructions is a job you can give to an intern.

That's one field. There are many fields. There's a lot of hardware like CPUs and GPUs that already exists, and we're constantly making more. Make them realize that talking about UBI or unemployment is kind of irrelevant, like talking about steel quality or how blacksmiths might make car parts instead of horseshoes is kind of irrelevant, or saying "for birds, the incentive to move faster to compete could affect feather length in unpredictable ways" when you have a jet fighter is kind of irrelevant.

What do YOU do with it?

"so what?" So Andorra and Vaticano are just trolling examples. We're talking about human drivers being replaced for AI drivers in cities as populated as whole countries.

Most capital cities are very well mapped in every modern country. Weather isn't that good and the only reason Waymo is still not available in other places is because of licensing, not because of technical capabilities. Waymo already has ability to handle storms or snow.

Anyway, you're the only one discussing here about Waymo being able to drive in extreme scenarios, I don't see the point or how it's related to the thread. chatGPT can only work where there's stable Internet as well lol. Tech has limitations by default.

Problem with that approach is that 1. we don't know how to do that reliably and 2. by the time AGI will be invented, it will likely to be able run on home computer or network of those, and there will be someone evil or reckless enough to run it without the handlebars.

There's a lot of people. So what?

All those cities are well-marked and mapped for the most part compared to most everywhere else. And their weather is also better than most everywhere else (clear skies most of the time, almost no snow to speak of).

When you see what, exactly? Not trying to be sarcastic or insulting. Just interested in what would satisfy you that you are dealing with actual AI. What is your criteria for that?