I think there's a big difference between generating an image from a text prompt and using stable diffusion to change the style of an image.

But it doesn't matter in this case, because image composition, effects and screenplay should be sufficient to get a copyright, just like AI generated books can get a copyright for writing and the arrangement of pictures.

Let's be very clear: a country has no employees, the people employ the politicians and the bureaucrats and other staff.

Sounds to me like the pay for a lot of jobs is gonna go down, because less talented people with an AI can be almost as effective as talented people without an AI.

I'm right there with you man. I thought the same thing about it feeling like a cancer diagnosis, but am wary of using it out of these types of sub reddits as I think it'll be a little crass as most people wouldn't equate the two in their mind yet.

I resent that it's happened so early in my life when I was just getting used to living within the current framework. This has absolutely plagued my mind the last two weeks. I can't even imagine where we'll be in 6 months. If I'm not doing an activity that I'm completely engrossed in then this stuff is always near the front of my thoughts.

I've had times in my life when I've been struck with intrusive thoughts, but the unique thing about these recent developments is that it's a constant despite feeling being broadly happy with my life. Before I used to get them in the midst of moderate to severe depression. I have a partner who loves me despite my flaws and a baby who is several months old who I love spending time with while he is learning and growing. To think I he will come of age in a totally different society or not at all if there's a rogue/dispassionate AGI is absolutely wrecking my head. Idk if we'll be afforded the time to solve the issue that come with AI as we have had with climate change/other existential threats to humanity/times of huge societal upheaval.

I think that's why it's hitting me much, that the structure we had in life could be radically altered in less than a decade and the way I thought I would grow older and raise my child is disappearing before my eyes. Despite social dynamics changing ( I probably would have been a way more distant father even 20 years ago) constantly there's been nothing for a while that has completely altered the basic framework of a human life like AI has the potential to. And that's a huge, constant mindfuck even if it could be to our betterment in some ways.

I aim to live my life to the point where I'm mainly in the moment and enjoying life with loved ones and pray that the people driving progress in these fields have the sense to slow things down a little. I seriously need a break from reading about this for like a decade lol. wake me up when the singularity/apocalypse happens.

You have to hedge a little bit though in terms of what to expect in the future. Not saying you shouldn't enjoy your life but at least put some of your money in some mid term investments/savings accounts and don't completely quit your job, or if you do try to find an income stream that allows you to dip in and out of it. We don't know how people across the world will react to more AI entrenchment and the disruption it will cause. As much as I think most people will end up like the people in Wall E, it's not enough of a sure thing to completely throw out any plans for the future, just most of them.

Good question ! Well most Billionaires actually want to be loved and admired. It wasn't the case for Greek Aristocrats before : they only wanted to be admired by other nobles, they didn't care about the pleb's opinion. Today, it's different. If a super-star gives a moderate right-wingy opinion, it is immediately cancelled. These people are admired because they got there through "hard work" supposedly, and that anyone with a dream can reach their level. If all work, including actors, are automated, people will stop caring about them anymore. So billionaires won't be as respected as before.

Generation Z doesn't put ambition, or "hard work" at a higher level than their own well-being and the well-being of others and the planet. At least, compared to their predecessors. They are ok with a frugal life, as long as they're free and have a lot of free time. And that is also the case with the children of multi-millionaires. Only a minority actually seek the exuberant and scandalous lifestyle that severely damage our societies and ecosystems. Eventually, they will dwindle and disappear, so our future is safe.

Didn't he already post something like that ?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzF6CTtjn-g

I don't think there will be.

These AIs are dependent on human output in order to be created in the first place. A LLM isn't going to create a new philosophy or a new style of art or literature.

They're not going to have ideas for new software or consumer products. They have no creativity, they regurgitate patterns that humans created.

They're actually not as impressive as the news or our feelings make them out to be.

We haven't created AGI yet and we're nowhere close.

They will be force multipliers, like a firearm is in war, rather than replacements.

The person using ChatGPT to write blogs still has to spin up the websites, decide on the topics, prompt ChatGPT correctly, and then has to review the output to make sure it makes sense.

I tried getting it to generate a resume for me the other day. It made a lot of little mistakes with pronouns or content. I had to prompt it again and again to get it right. Then I had to do one final edit because it has some weird parts.

It did save me about 1-2 hours though if I was writing it by myself.

reliance and "important" is contextual. for many business, it will predict things better than humans do and that'll suffice. but if the context is more sensitive, they'll still need human reviewers for every layer of cognitive work, but that's the point, humans are here to review the work done by machines. and this will mean less cognitive people will be out of work sooner or later.

And last month it was revealed the Chinese government wished to secure an even stronger influence on Tencent operations: https://www.ft.com/content/65e60815-c5a0-4c4a-bcec-4af0f76462de

Never said it’s not useful, quite the opposite, it’s a tool that will revolution artistic production. What I meant is that ai is still not replacing human part in the process completely just yet, even using 3d and drawings you would still need some humans to do it, that’s it.

Why would they need to, if they can simulate an illusion of an atomic level? For example atoms appear only if you zoom in, other processes are computed by simple more generalised things. What's the point of simulating every atom?

Are you sure that YouChat is running on a version of GPT? (Presumably you mean openai's software.) I was speaking to a founder of a company that had some partnership with You.com and he was saying they roll their own machine learning stuff, that they (You.com) were already machine learning experts.

the NEET shall inherit the earth

Vital uncertainty IMO:

How much better will “impossible to run locally AI” compared to “run in one GPU AI”.

If people can do most of what Google can do, AI hacking will be a huge anti-centralizing power.

As an alternative, how can “distributed AI” or “peer to peer AI” not emerge?

You're confusing a lot of things, and nobody on Reddit is going after the little guys. You're talking to random strangers most of which are the little guys. We're all individuals with different opinions and knowledge.

Money is more accurately described as an abstraction of obligation.

I worked 10 hours in the field ergo you owe me 2 bushels of rice next week.

I gave you a chicken ergo you owe me 5 hours housework in the future.

Except it's exchangeable for any service, good, or property like real estate/machinery/whatever. It's needed so we can avoid bartering all the time which is slow and more complicated than using money.

The Federal Reserve is a Central Bank. It behaves like a Credit Union for the Banks we actually get to be customers of.

Every bank like BoA, Wells Fargo, and so on has their own bank account at the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve doesn't print anything. It creates money abstractly, most often digitally, by incrementing numbers in those bank accounts that each retail/whatever bank has with them.

The Federal Reserve has one advantage nobody else has, which is it can buy Treasury Bonds from it's "customers" the retail banks by creating money out of thin air. It does it by "incrementing the numbers in those bank accounts" and then it takes ownership of the Treasuries it's member-banks sold to them.

However it is buying Treasuries from the Banks in order to create money. It can also sell those Treasuries later because it owns them after it purchased them.

It also has a disadvantage nobody else has. When the Federal Reserve gets paid for the Treasuries it sells, the money disappears into thin air. This is how the Federal Reserve destroys money.

Fractional Reserve doesn't create more money the same way, like the OP said. What happens is when you deposit 1000 dollars in your bank, they loan say 800 dollars of it out.

They still owe you 1000 dollars. However now someone else has 800 dollars to spend, but they do have to pay it back eventually. That person may spend the 800 on a hotel so now the hotel has 800 dollars to spend, and so on.

This is why "Money" is debt. However it's better characterized as an abstraction of obligation. The person who was loaned 800 dollars has an obligation to the bank that loaned it to them. The bank has an obligation to you, the person that deposited 1000 dollars.

It works as long as the bank doesn't go bankrupt. They do a lot of complex stuff to make sure that doesn't happen. Fractional Reserve is more of a regulation that makes sure the bank doesn't go bankrupt, and can give you your 1000 dollars back when you ask for it even if the person they loaned 800 dollars to hasn't paid THEM back yet.

Not everyone wants their money back all at the same time, so it usually works out. If everyone does want their money back at the same time, the bank goes bankrupt. This is a "run on the bank" which Fractional Reserve tries to force them to avoid like a sort of safety.

That doesn't mean it will always work though.

It's a complex system and it's hard to understand. The complexity and the abstractions all over the place make it seem nefarious until you understand it better.

As far as the "hurt the little guy" stuff, that's even more complicated and it's related to politics, the Federal Reserve, and the law, and so on. It's not just the fault of the Federal Reserve it's our leaders across the board in corporate offices, in government, everywhere to blame.

We haven't built a system that encourages fairness but the Federal Reserve is only a small part of it. It's more of a tool that doesn't care one way or the other. You can use a hammer to build a house or you can use it to bash someone's skull in. The hammer is blameless it's the user that is at fault.

It's better to focus on the political leaders as well as people in the executive and judicial branches because they can actually do something about it, and they haven't. They've been working for the very rich.

Story time!

The human body is going to be so helluva merged with cybernetic and genetic interventions that we will probably be able to adjust our genetic makeup and design our own offspring, if we choose to have any at all. We will be functionally immortal; it’s just a matter of whether we can outlast time and gamma ray bursts. Cultural squabbles will have advanced to the subject of what constitutes a valid human shape; you can be bat boy 🦇 if you want. We will branch and divide. We will have launched at least one colony ship toward another star. We will have VR, AR, XR out the Ass, essentially a hybridized, voluntary hive mind. Our biggest worry is that we will get out to other stars and never really talk all of us together ever again.

Some ideas. That’s all.

They’d better stop challenging you to come up with ‘genie-side-effects’ lol (Aka the alignment problem) As long as there’s free will, we’d better get used to the idea of treating the AI well and hope to be deserving of its gifts, for nothing is set in stone. We just have to be people worthy of being treated well, in return.

Well considering it was 7 in the morning and not my native language, I decide to leave that quirk as it is :-)

McKraken?

Yeah as I said in another comment I think there will be a short period of time to take advantage of this, where you'll still need technical knowledge to use these tools to make something as complex as a game, and being creative and a good designer will still give you an advantage.

Once AI gets so advanced that anyone can do it and big studios start fully implementing this tech, then yeah you'll be pretty fucked if your goal is to have a lot of people playing your game. But at that point no other job will be left either.

Absolutely. Closed information is weaker than open one.

I think you, as many people in this kind of subreddits, are over reacting. I like all AI and tech discussion, but I am pretty sure in 5, and even in 20 actually, years our lives will not be so much different than now. My life 20 years ago (pre-smartphone, as an example) was not very different than now. Ok, next developments will be bigger, but still I think that most jobs will remain. Probably using AI we will work less hours, 4 days per weeks, and so on.. but we will carry living similarly as today. Don't quit your job, keep going, you'll be fine.

They certainly have an uphill battle ahead. There is a relatively much smaller dataset of high quality text available in Chinese to base an LLM on.

I see what you mean, “Social democracy” is often used a synonym of Sweden or Germany.

We must be careful because those are peculiar protestant cultures (in the grand scheme of things).

They have very specific value sets hidden behind socialism and democracy, I don’t think those models would world that well in India or Nigeria for example…

Sure, that's a problem for people making money out of it which is a very small % of people while the % of people who can benefit from using this by they own instead of paying is muuuuuch higher.