I would have to say that this list states the likelihood of a statement on the internet reflecting animosity toward a given group fairly accurately.

> This is exactly the kind of AI that shouldn't even be scary.

Shouldn't be scary. Should be celebrated.

But...capitalism. The people who control such systems will get stupid wealthy, and the people who will be out of a job will go starve under a bridge.

I just realized I get a little worried when I see so much excitement around something. I guess I’m so used to the news hyping stuff and then nothings happens.

Can't tax profit if corporations don't post profits. There's a reason that companies focus on growth and artificially inflate expenses if they can rearrange their accounting to minimize profits.

Now, the growth that happens as result is good because it translates to more production for society, however if the tax system was better then we could already have short work schedules and UBI.

> Then when unemployment is up and people are desperate, the socialists can purpose a UBI.

The UBI has to happen now, not as a response. Otherwise a war could likely break out and it would be done through a revolutionary struggle in which a lot of people would die.

This is actually wrong. As someone who has read it in full, Das Kapital will tell you exactly the conditions that will take place as they are the same conditions happening now.

Again the article is well-researched and links sources and everything, I guess my comment belongs elsewhere in cases where other people keep framing things in terms of companies and corporations.

Why is this framed in the context of corporate worship? If things go as they should them microsoft and google would cease to exist.

It's a well-written article so sorry for the contrarian comment. My comment isn't a response to your article, but of the regular framing people have about "this technology means X company will beat Y company". Who cares about these companies or about the people in them? Again, if things go as they should, the companies would functionally cease to exist.

So I use this service to development outlines on my papers for my MBA. My topic right now is the impact of HMOs and capitation payments in California which has a huge migrant worker population. Last night it took about 6 attempts for me to find a way to phrase it to find any information without the disclaimer essentially calling me a bigot.

I think people have always moved towards richer experiences that more closely emulate face to face contact. Moving from written word, to phone, to video calling.. an immersive experience that allows full natural gesturing is a step up. All the VR side will take a while to develop.

Web3 (as a general theme, allowing decentralised/personal ownership of data/assets) is easier, but the current platforms are not very user friendly. I think only now there's a few good tech demos on an experience for NFT ownership that would be considered user friendly (ie low fees, easy to use, good security - no high fees, random contract messages no one understands etc).

All the current experiences inform the industry how to make it more user friendly and all the scams, exploits, etc, of NFTs/crypto, essentially feed into further development so it is better the next time around.

I think we will have another bubble where stuff is easier for consumers - owning and operating a wallet without easily being scammed would be a nice start :) - but it will still be a way off what the eventual solution will look like.

That's not true at all. You.com's chat is very strong, more than comparable to chatgpt, and it is even more open, as in you don't need to provide a phone number to use it. Plus there are other models like Bloom and so on that are far more open, as in you can download them and run them yourself and integrate them into other software.

Just to throw it out there: If the methodology here is sound this means that the content filter thinks speech is more likely to be hateful when directed at blacks than when it is directed at wealthy people.

It does NOT mean hate speech against wealthy people is considered OK.

[deleted]

[deleted]

No, according to open AI, and only if the methodology behind this is right and only if this was intentional, it is more likely that the content it meant as hateful when it is about blacks than if it about wealthy people.

That is a HUGE difference to how you interpreted it.

Yes there are but I don't know all of them. Note though that Stable Diffusion blew Dall-E2 and Imagen out of the water. Because it was free and open source, it was much more widely used. Now Dall-E is probably still going to be used heavily in industry, but the closed tools and expensive tools tend to lose out to the free and open source ones. That's one thing that has happened so far with generative adversarial networks and that's one thing that would likely happen with large language models and other models as well.

[deleted]

keep it simple stupid I suppose.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the Web3 experience. Web3 is not a very technically challenging problem. I'm talking about the experiences that would require Web3 in the first place, VR and AR experiences. Consumer VR is still in its infancy and has no "killer experience" and AR is even further behind. Until we have mass adoption of those technologies, there will be no place for Web3.

And even then, there is no guarantee there will be a demand for Web3 technology right away when VR and AR explodes. It all depends on what type of experiences are popular. There is theoretically no reason the current financial system can't support transactions in those environments. Where Web3 will be desired is if a metaverse-oriented ecosystem of connected social experiences comes into fruition.

I think that is highly likely, but it's still not a guaranteed outcome. For all we know, the killer experiences of VR and AR could be something we aren't even predicting that doesn't have very much to do with transactions at all. For instance, imagine the most popular experiences end up being single player games with intelligent NPCs. If that were the case, there would be no Web3. If people decide they'd much rather just interact with AI than with other people, the metaverse would be dead.

However, personally, I think a combination of the two paradigms is likely; social experiences + enriched single player with intelligent AI characters.

Great read! Your subscription link isn't working though.

It was too early yes, but then the VCs and retail pile in, speculate on everything Web3 being massive and then the bubble bursts. Some of the money is taken by scammers or failed businesses, but some money is left in the ecosystem to develop it so in a decade it is much closer to a 'consumer friendly' experience with actual use cases built around it. It's generally a good thing for the industry as a bubble attracts investment. A lot of people will get burnt by jumping on the hype train though.

And yes you are right on the technology. I believe the likes of Tim Sweeney at Epic see it as a 10+ year time horizon because the experience needs to be a LOT better than it is currently. I think that's a reasonable timeline really. One or two more bubbles before it gets there, no doubt.

It depends on the field an also what you want from it. There is a big difference between having an ai explain theoretical physics and having ai do theoretical physics.

Oh FFS, the WHO estimates that appropriatly 25k people starve to death every single day in Capitalist countries, despite the fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed in excess of 10 billion people. On average one child dies of starvation approximately every 10 seconds. That works out to around 2 Holodmor per year.

The US incarcerates & executes a greater percentage of its citizens than anywhere else on earth.

GTFO with that "the left has a far higher body count" B.S.

does seem weird but hey, I guess it works

How consistent was it?