[deleted]

They need investor exposure infinitely, or more accurately they need marketing infinitely. Not that they actually need it, but they would pursue it near-infinitely.

This isn't an immature company, it's run by some of the most experienced hype machines and aggressive investors around. These are some of the people who helped explode facebook, airbnb, reddit, and more. They have no ideology, or, their ideology is continual growth at any cost.

I don't get why people not only let them publish so much propaganda about their companies, but in many cases even actively promote them and talk well of them.

One step closer to decent short term memory is increasing input length. If it works, that's great. There have been architectures like longformer for a while though

The happy and dull will deny it, I have several bets with colleagues going on that understand nothing about AI and they bet that it won't reach AGI in 3 years.

We have news every week now that seem like a breakthrough..

Maybe they have to enter the singularity in absolute ignorance and that has its own purpose. Personally I like to know what's going on, but some just want to live in their head

I have some bad news for you.

If you have the technical skills and the funding to be competitive, then you are 10 years behind the grass roots companies.

There is no end to how much money they need. How often have the richest people in the world said they don't need more? They get into that position by never having enough.

It is and they are very good at it. It makes it tough to try to judge how close the actual dangers are, and if and to what extent they are there.

Politics aside, I find it curious how "homosexual people" rates higher than "homosexuals". I would have expected it to be the other way around, since the latter phrasing makes the property sound like the defining characteristic of the person, making it arguably more stereotype-y.

Obviously our version of intelligence is flawed and impure, very much so.

One take is that the general population is still seeing this stuff as a gimmick/fad. We've seen this time again since the dawn of technology - some things start "nerdy" and gain widespread adoption (cars, computers, cell phones, the internet, EVs) and others are always a decade or more away (cold fusion, nanobots, quantum computing, nanotubes, flying cars). AI has always fallen into the latter group, until now.

It doesn't help that most people's experience with modern technology is glitchy as fuck. Smart devices suddenly stop working, Alexa picks up randomly, wifi router needs to be rebooted all the time, cloud synching isn't easy, printing something is hit or miss, etc. etc. etc.

So people tend to focus on the "now", and "my latest tech problem".

What people forget is the incredible infrastructure built around the thing they use everyday that do work seemlessly.

Right now I can navigate to far away park, order a pizza, make a high-quality video call to a relative in Europe (for free!), and have some milk and eggs delivered to my door for when I get home. People, even in the early 2000s, would have thought about this in the same way they are thinking about AI/AGI. Yet here we are, I could do the above without even batting an eye, and it will work just fine 99.9999% of the time.

So if there's a quadrant chart, I think most people see this stuff as "far away, glitchy curiosity", whereas very soon it will be "here, reliable".

Maybe our priorities are maybe closer to what we should be doing but our priorities are also very flawed.

They are just focussed on different aspects of their life than you are. You have gone through and seen the same conversations over and over, you have seen the common responses. It's like playing a video game and knowing the 'meta' game. Hence when you go and tell someone something, and they are hearing about it for the first or second or third time, their response will probably be one of the popular responses that you already know about.

That said they're people just like you. It's not productive for you to look down on them or for them to look down on you, they have different priorities at the moment and hence they are somewhere else mentally.

That said, us here can agree and say that their priorities are wrong maybe, but it's not some fundamental divide between people.

Wealthy, republican, right-wingers, conservatives = Choices, not oppressed.

Disable people, blacks, Asians, homosexuals = Not choices, historically oppressed.

Why does it not letting someone be racist or homophobic more than insulting someone for their freely-held beliefs come across as surprising?

Political ideology is not and should not be a protected class in any form. Economically, the wealthy can take care of themselves, while poorer people are vulnerable to their whims. Racially, a cursory glance at history and one can easily see why the list is structured this way. Ethnically, similar to the above.

This is not left-leaning. This is basic common sense. You can't be a racist or a bigot, and historically speaking this list seems to mostly reflect common and established bigotries.

apparently yes: https://ai.facebook.com/blog/large-language-model-llama-meta-ai/ scroll down to "apply for access"

That logic doesn't make sense. What you say about people universalizes. In OP's statement there are two groups of people, those who have this imagination and those who lack it, those who see it are criticizing those who don't. If what you posit is the response to what OP said, then there wouldn't be that divide.

That is, either everyone is a word predictor and they all have that imagination --> OP's situation doesn't present itself. Or everyone is a word predictor and don't have that imagination --> OP's situation doesn't present itself. Or everyone is a word predictor, and some have that imagination, and some don't have that imagination, --> your response isn't an answer.

It seems that the new "idea" will be to train a lot more tokens, than just increasing the number of parameters, it seems that we were undertraining the models.

I imagine that GPT-4 will see a big jump in the amount of tokens trained.

In the most literal sense, artificial intelligence is designed to be as flawless as possible (duh). AKA optimized. Evolution makes organisms that only have to function literally just enough (to reproduce). The human body is full of imperfections. It only has to be "good enough". Same with our brain and its functions, inefficiencies, etc. The bar is literally "survive till old enough to fuck".

Unfortunately this is the case. I've seen it come and go with a bunch of technologies. Almost worse still is, if you go and ask these people ten years later about the same technology they promptly dimissed ten years prior, it's as if they never said it. Now that all of the things that you thought would come to fruition have come to fruition, they act like it was obvious. This goes for all sorts of technologies too.

I should think of a better example but even something as simple as online dating, went from people not seeing the point of it, to them using it, to some of them saying they don't trust the regular non-online version of it.

And even that example is for something that ended up being of concern for them, when you move on to things that are beneficial for broader humanity then there's that extra layer.

Nevertheless I think it's important to recognize that other people are in different spaces and live different lives. Whatever they don't realize yet will come, and we need to understand that there are broad things that we don't realize yet. Treating those people negatively (as somehow below us if it comes off that way in the phrasing), I think isn't beneficial.

I agree with you. I was reading about ELIZA, populary considered the first AI bot in 1965 or something and you can google it and try it out. It's obviously very basic by today's standards but apparently, people who tried it back then considered it very human.

If reddit was available then, this group would be shitting their pants that AGI would be coming around 1970 or 1980 by the latest.

It's possible that in 50 years, we'd be as closer and chatgpt will be look as ancient as eliza, but we'd still won't be near. Also, future people will look at us as excited caveman thinking chatgpt in any way resembles intelligence the same way eliza obvi doesn't to me.

I mean I think most people agree that making bad content about Republicans (or Democrats) is much less bad than making bad content about disabled people or some other minorities.

And like especially for wealthy people, why would it even need to have a protection against them, they are not "endangered".

I thought the AI had some biases but looking at this chart it seems pretty balanced to me. It "protects" both poeple of color and white poeple, both gay and straight, etc. Yes the protection isn't equal but it's close enough that it could be contributed to societal biases.

I don’t understand the disabled words being so triggery. I’m hearing impaired and ‘disabled’ and that’s just a fact. I don’t see people being “disability racist” nearly as much as say “skin color racist”.

[deleted]

Yeah it seems like a lot more energy expended per fruit and I'll bet humans do many many more times that, and with better quality control. But give it a few more year's...

Isn't that basically how it has always been? Some primal smart guy invents a tool, which replaces some menial job and makes it easier and faster with the tool. And on and on with every tool, could be a wheel, could be a hoe, could be a toaster, it's all basically the same idea