> Now that they've set this up, my question is why not create a feature length movie by next week?

Because feature length movies take a lot of time to make.

GitHub copilot is a code auto-complete tool that uses a large language model (AI) behind the scenes. From personal experience it saves a lot of time programming.

Oh! And an anti-vaxxer, too. How charming.

>He's killed 5.5 billion people and counting, most of them just haven't started dying just yet.

Nevermind. I see from this comment...

>AGI has existed for several years now, and has reached ASI, I'm confused why people think they'd be told about it.

...that you're delusional.

These guys just created a 6 minute anime of really high quality using a fully automated process, once it was set up most of the effort went into acting in front of a green screen.

Now that they've set this up, my question is why not create a feature length movie by next week?

I mean someone like Kevin Smith can write a whole movie script in an hour, probably has tons laying around. All he needs to do is contact them, offer to work together for free, get in some acting and voice talent, offer his script and directing skills, and it'll be finished in a week.

>AI is already creating more art and intelligently written articles than I or most other people can.

AI is not creating art. People are using machine learning algorithms to create art. There's a huge difference.

When there is an actual and true Artificial Intelligence which is creating art (which requires thought and intent) it will be a very different world indeed.

But that would be an AGI -- and I doubt an AGI would even understand the purpose for something as superfluous and silly as art.

If you expect fairness in the capitalist system, you are in the wrong place.

You are nothing but a unit of production calculated against a unit of revenue. Firing white collar workers is the most logical thing a business can do, for they cause the highest expense.

AI is already creating more art and intelligently written articles than I or most other people can. What is your benchmark then, Mozart and Einstein?

I guess this is the classic moving goalpost argument:

"AI isn't good at this."

"Ok but AI isn't better at this than an animal."

"Ok but AI isn't better at this than the average human."

"Ok but AI isn't better at this than the best human."

"Ok but AI uses an unfair advantage."

"Ok but AI isn't good at this other thing."

Within the next three years there will be a feature length movie made with this technique.

I know this is exciting (and it is) but just to temper the excitement: many computationally designed proteins have issues.

Most aren’t that good at working in in-Vivo conditions

We still can’t really adjust parameters we really want (like temperature these proteins work in)

Most are stuck on “simpler” problems like binding rather than enzymatic function

There may also be issues with evolvability of these enzymes

But all the same, it’s not an unnatural situation either. Protein sequences are still a sequence. Amino acids are added one by one to build them up, and we’ve known that neural nets are good at these problems. Before we solved tertiary structure prediction, secondary structure prediction sota was also neural networks. It’s just tertiary structure and these kinds of generative models are hard.

We’re finally cracking into generative protein design and the field is super exciting now, but it’s still only really preliminary results we’re seeing.

> Narrow AI is more than capable to replace most white collar positions.

Problem being that it's not wise to replace those positions. Especially considering so many of them are fairly highly paid, so even a substantial UBI isn't enough to satisfy the sense of loss of economic stability and security.

Yet we're hurtling headlong into doing this, for everyone, all at once it seems, and somehow thinking everything will be okay.

If you train it on an example, then yes it can learn any style you want. With the right prompts you can take it from there.

If you want it to learn a brand new style, you'll have to tell it to make stuff up and then spend a lot of time sifting through the output. Or you can give it some rough examples what you want as inspiration and go from there.

Already it becomes extremely hard to differentiate between AI and human content, and if you mix the two (AI still struggles with hands) then it becomes truly indistinguishable.

But aren't countries society which are formed by people?

What does that have to do with careers? I made no claims that they were perfect and pure people, just that established careers aren't some innate part of human existence.

In a human brains I'd guess it's a mix of both things. A more reflexive response not requiring labeling, and a response to many different kinds of post-labeled signals relating to the door. Not sure how much of each though.

If you own a planet, you don't sell, you just take.

>By the time people have made the shift, AI will take that over as well.

This is silly. ML is not creative or intelligent. It still needs human direction. What we'll end up seeing is entirely new creative works made by humans with ML software.

That « Noble savage » vision by Rousseau has been debunked.

Northern American native cultures were very often waging constant extermination wars, maintaining their population at quasi steady state despite high natality rates.

If I am not mistaken, one of the most violent culture in the world were native inhabitants of the San Fernando valley.

Not politically correct, Im sorry.

But the old days were not always amazing…

Ironically, I came to all this conclusion because I interact with real people. The people expecting a glorious enlightened utopia are the ones who behave as if they get their whole ideas of social interaction from cyberpunk novels and anime. Realistically, if you give the average Joe a magic media machine, what is he going to do with it? Create a lot of porn and then eventually some flashy interesting movies and games, before then looking at what everyone is doing and consuming other people's media. And so on. Most people don't want to upload into a computer. Most people just want a comfortable, better life with more stability and security. Having some cool tech toys is a plus... most of the time.

Honestly, my opinions on this next decade are incredibly negative because most real people don't care about waifus and transhumanism and the prospect of being uploaded into a supercomputer. Most people respond negatively to prospects of great change even in one area of their lives, and yet Singularitarians are desperate to change every aspect of everyone's life and act as if this is in any way conducive to a functioning society or successful transition to a more advanced one. Really tells me that most Singularitarians are horrifically socially retarded.

I'm personally afraid of two very real possibilities: creating an unaligned AGI and society ripping itself apart before we even get to do that. Currently we're on track towards doing both, without any attempt at averting either of them.

Yes if we want the AI can bend our environment into ideal shapes. It can be all natural stuff they use and create, structures good for the environment. It all depends what it prioritizes but things like structure for humans is an easy problem for a super intelligence I'd think.

You just have to imagine further, what if it were better, they were smarter, and so on. Due to ecological concerns maybe the only legal construction robots will build shelters with locally sourced materials that are biodegradable and so on, so shelters will resemble those of our ancestors more. Maybe robots will come by and repair things every so often to make up for less structural integrity. Or maybe the construction techniques will just be so much better that the local materials like mud will end up being as strong as concrete. I know it's pie in the sky but for for the implications of a super intelligence we have to just flex our imagination as much as possible since they will be ridiculously 'smart'.

I think it’s integral for humans to have some kind of “work” they do. We’re a balance of individuation and collectivity. The ego excels when we can be creative and bring forth our vision, but veering too much into this state can put us into perpetual childlike fantasy. The monotony of work, gardening, chores; whatever it may be, allows us to ground ourselves to reality. Just because we reinvented the hammer for the nth time doesn’t mean we’re gonna suddenly never work again. It’s just the nature of our work has changed.

Narrow AI is more than capable to replace most white collar positions.

There is a limit what the market can bear in new services. When you have 5x more capacities as a law firm as an example, you do not have 5x more clients. You fire 4 out of 5 lawyers. They are gone.

Alright.

Sure, I'm just using the exaggerated number they use while filming in the studio.