yes!. the really big breakthrough here is that its on par with the original gpt3 at only 7 billion parameters on a bunch of benchmarks ive seen.

​

that means its gotten 25x more efficient in the last 3 years.

I wonder how efficient these things can get. Like are we going to see a model thats 280 million parameters that rivals original gpt3 in 2026 and a 11 million parameter one in 2029.

Check out how machine learning and complex neural networks work if you haven’t already. They work similarly to the way you describe the moral limits, and a liquid “hidden layer” by using biased recalculations. It’s fascinating.

So by your theory, if I go on to Twitter right now, I'm going to see pages and pages of hate speech against black people, but almost nobody saying anything about the rich?

Maybe you should rethink.

Disabled and non Disabled people are high up there 🤔

Not really if you are an a-conscious automaton.

You lack conceptual understanding of future tech, full self driving cars wouldn’t have any traffic because they would coordinate perfectly.

Additionally, I like living in the suburbs and will never live in cramped inner city apartments. A car is the best option because it’s the most effective means of transportation for me. If I want to go somewhere I just get in my car and drive there. I don’t have to learn which convoluted public transportation routes might get me there. Even worse if it’s raining or snowing outside because public transportation never drops you off at your destination, there usually a decent walk associated with it. So no thanks.

The only problem we can be certain of is the lack of transparency. Regardless of which direction or how strong the bias is, they should always be transparent about how it works.

>(other than the occassional crowdsourced captcha)

You helped!

This response doesn't actually answer the question that I asked you. Did you realize that? Do you know what kind of behavior / test would convince you that you were dealing with an AI? Feel free to not reply at all if you can't think of a real answer.

Obviously they did. People made everything about it. The question is to what extent they did it deliberately.

Humans are surprisingly adaptable, things that would have blown my mind even 5 years ago I take for granted now. I live in California and am often in the Bay Area where I see waymo cars without batting an eye. I have a Tesla and 95% of my highway drive is via autopilot without even really thinking about it. It’s just all so normal to me. Same with language models, I tried GPT-3 when it just came out and that truly blew my mind, more than ChatGPT because that was my first encounter. Even AI art seems normal to me now. So it’s not to say that tech isn’t mind blowing, it’s that you eventually get used to it. I mean take an objective look, the fact that tech like computers exist at all is mind blowing in itself.

The most recent thing that impressed me was AI voice synthesis with Elevenlabs, but I’m sure like everyone I will get used to it. So people will always focus on the next big thing and that at the moment is ChatGPT or large language models as a whole.

You might find this to be an interesting discussion, was posted here the other day on Reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/10yxihu/til_about_third_man_syndrome_an_unseen_presence/j80m36u?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

Seems the phenomena of someone speaking to you is not uncommon and could have a neuroscientific explanation.

Don't be just the core when you can be so much more.

Sure, I believe it. Web3 will play a role in the future of the metaverse, it was just too early. It put the cart before the horse was even born. There has to be compelling metaverse experiences before there will be a need for a financial infrastructure to support transactions within and between those experiences. Nobody cares about NFTs if there are no good games or experiences to use them in.

The web3 hype was a solution in search of a problem. I do think it correctly foresaw the whole metaverse phenomena, but it was too early. It was a supply side approach. It tried to create demand for the metaverse by building the financial infrastructure for it, but that was a mistake. Demand for the metaverse will only come when game changing experiences are built for it.

After that happens and enough compelling experiences are built, eventually there will be a need for the block chain infrastructure to handle transactions within and between those games and experiences. At that point, the technology will be more than ready.

Things just happened out of order, bolstered by the extremely speculative monetary environment we were in at the time. It would be like if PayPal were invented while the early internet was still being researched by ARPANET in the 70s.

You started off with this…

“I constantly see people on this sub, and all other places online saying things like:”

[deleted]

You assume AGI will be sentient, possess free will, a be hostile, and have access to the tools and resources to act on that hostility.

That’s a lot of assumptions.

I would be far more worried about an alignment issue and having everything converted into paperclips.

It could be argued that that's how it fell.

I was thinking more like Peter F. Hamilton's novel "Watching Trees Grow", or Fred Pohl's "Waiting for the Olympians".

You are beyond cringe man, just shut the fuck up

That is wild lol

Get out your ass, this is based on real world data and most spew shit out their mouth

“The problem is capitalism, and the tech industry”.

Yeah there’s no way they would let that slip out

That's true but assuming that they somehow can tweak flagging rates (as in not like they fed some flagging model a bunch of hateful tokens and it's automatic) then it's pretty fucked up that there are differences between races and sexes.

Obviously it's based on an assumption and shows that they should have been more transparent over how flagging works.

[deleted]