it's umm.. AI, LLM, neural networks... you know...

I don't understand why we need to up skill. It seems to me like the most difficult jobs ai and robotics in particular have problems solving involve dexterity like small parts repair or confined spaces and non standard circumstances.

Instead of needing to upskill why not think about jobs that robots will have a hard time with for the time being. All jobs will likely be aided in ai assistants any way. So white collar jobs will have to get hands dirty until no one does. And yes I'm thinking of building trades, mechanical, construction and other type jobs.

I’m pretty sure we’re already there.

We’re talking about two different things. AGI is not machine learning.

Alignment isn't just the two poles of unfettered destructive ASI and totally boxed beneficial ASI. I think you're creating a fallacy by not thinking more in terms of a spectrum.

So I buy or build an AI... Then I have to give the government more money? yeah fuck that.

So it can fix a ruptured aorta... or print a blockage and end it all lol

Yea the title alone says a whole bunch of nothing. “Everyone is wrong except me”

This is not radically optimistic for the near term - not appropriate for this sub.

Humans don't have anywhere close to a 32,000 token context window, at least in terms of performing useful output from learned context. You don't need that big of a context window, you break the problem down into manageable steps to solve a problem.

This is very cool, maybe instead of needing to print whole new organs we can excise diseased sections and replace with healthy cells in non-drastic cases.

>we can only hope it alligns with our values...

Why would a god-like being care about the needs and wishes of a bunch of violent meat bags whose sole existence introduces lots of uncontrolled variables in its grand scheme long term planning?

We already know having a LLM break down a task into steps dramatically improves accuracy, so that would be the obvious choice for a large software project - break down into steps and iterate down the project tree.

I will be messaging you in 10 years on 2033-02-28 16:34:57 UTC to remind you of this link

18 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)

The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is not increased by technology - at least not the way we use it.

Cool, hopefully it leads to great things.

!RemindMe 10 years

> for example if someone asked you a trick question, and the predictable false answer pops into your head immediately - that's what a single call to an LLM is

Yep. This is the biggest issue with current consumer LLM implementations. We basically force the AI to word-vomit the first thing it thinks of. It's very good at getting things right in spite of that, but if it gets it wrong the system has no recourse. Coming to a correct conclusion, well-reasoned response, or even just coming to the conclusion that we don't know something requires multiple passes.

I think it's much less.

Give me a piece of graph paper, laid out like the game Battleship.

Now, you want me to draw all the roads around your house. You could tell me to draw a road that goes through A1, A2, A3, A4, A5. But what if your road goes all the way to 100, you'd quickly switch to "Draw a road from A1 to A100"

I think this is where you can cut corners with the code generation as well.

"Make me a person object with a name and age. They can have friends who are also people" "Store this in a database that has scaling and load balancing based on X parameters"

I think the number of tokens required to generate software are much lower than you'd expect - but having the LLM understand the previous context and tailor it's response to what was previously generated would need to change from what we see today.

Businesses already put some of their projected "labour cost reductions" into their annual investor calls.

I'm sorry but this is the worst hot take I've ever seen.
I understand the desire to be contrarian but the statistical probability of an AI freeze over the next decade is close to zero.

Fair enough. I agree

This.
I don't understand how so many people are failing to see this point.
The efficiency increase is how AI will initially take real jobs.
Less and less humans will be needed over time.
It will happen this year; it's happening right now.

> Once people figure out how to recursively call the LLM inside of a larger system that's keeping track of longterm memory/goals/tools/modalities/etc it will suddenly be a lot smarter

something along these lines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MBQm7GFIM&t=260s @ 4.20

> and the union leader answers "no, i'm woundering with what money are they going to buy your cars."

Totally agree with this point. Everyone keeps screaming "Dey tooker jerbs!" but the market simply won't allow it in the big bang everyone's expecting.

Do I believe many jobs today won't exist in a few decades? Absolutely.

But Rome wasn't built in a day. Nor was it destroyed in a day...

Get a masters in computer science, with a focus on AI.

Modern problems require modern solutions.