Er, that doesn't really answer my question, I grew up in 2010's, earliest memory I have is from 2009, I have no frame of reference for the 90's.

Pretty much everything.

As long as my personal robot looks like a 20 year old attractive blonde woman and has full sexual functionality, I'm good with the idea.

My original comment was really analyzing an unlikely scenario of aligned narrow AI, or severely limited AGI with proper controls put in place to keep it at roughly human intelligence. This was in order to “play along” with the economic implications of enough robots for everybody to have their own robot. It would be a miracle if we end up here.

I’m not sure “countries” will be a thing after actual AGI.

Another facet of this is that the first country/organization to develop AGI rules the planet, if they can even align the thing. AGI is ASI because narrow AI is already superhuman in every narrow case.

AGI will fight wars, create super weapons, and make current super weapons obsolete, and it will be able to simulate thousands of years of human level research/effort in mere minutes or hours. And such a thing will almost definitely not be controlled by humans.

As Sam Harris says, sure it’s easy to outsmart your teenager. But if your teenager has 20,000 years to respond to your every move, you’re not going to outsmart your teenager. Now imagine what’s possible if that teenager is smarter than every human that has ever lived, combined.

Well, given that she is pushing unsubstantiated content, and you are appealing to her authority to try and pass it off, I would say this is exactly what the fallacy is referring to.

Idk I like what I saw of them talking about how LLMs blur the line between humans and machines in a bad way.

well id rather an expert with a closed mind than a random reddit user with a closed mind🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️ also i literally said “its the content aND the source that matters” and “the source matters just as much as the content does.” not “more,” not “only the source matters.” its a combination of the two, you can’t look at one without looking at the other, thATS the “logical fallacy.”

Yes, it was programmed, but sadly not for mathematics.

Interestingly, I think the architectures we create for neural networks are or can be similar to the brain structures evolution came up with. For example, groups of biological neurons correspond to hidden layers, action potentials in dendrites are similar to activation functions, and the cortex might corresponds to convolutional layers. I’m pretty sure we will eventually invent the equivalent of neuroplasticity and find the other missing pieces, and then singularity or doomsday will follow.

Maybe judge an idea on its merit rather than appeal to authority, which is literally a logical fallacy.

But again, do you care about your expert having an open mind or not? Because hers is completely shut.

more valuable than whOSE?? there aren’t any ideas that areN’T human. we created the literal idea of ideas. ideas dont exist without us. and its the content aND the source that matters. if you saw a post saying there was a mole in the white house and you clicked and saw it was from a Chinese newspaper, you’d probably disregard it, but if it was from the head of the pentagon i bet you’d give it more credence. thats literally the entire reason you have to cite your sources in academic work, because the source matters just as much as the content does

Pendulum swing situation I figure is the most likely outcome. Different responses in different areas/countries.

Old fashioned Hegel philosophy.

You said it starts with having an open mind. If that is a prerequisite then she clearly lacks it, no matter what her credentials.

Am I meant to give her special status because she is human? Are her ideas more valuable because she is human? Is it the content or the source which matters?

Or is having an open mind no longer important, as long as she fits your biases?

Would you be able to work without any touch and feel? No, neither do they. It is unfortunately physically impossible as vision does not provide the same level of information.

very confused as to how stating her credentials in the field contradicts having an open mind?? no one’s saying “you must listen to her because she’s an expert,” however it does and should give her thoughts more credibility than u/Surur also hiLARIOUS that you think demanding your literal humanity be considered in a conversation can be equated to having a closed mind.

>You need exaflops, the equivalent of a million Nvidia GPUs

... to do what, exactly?
a $1 calculator is superhuman at math,
it's not a 1:1 ratio and never has been.

Every human would not be able to afford robot unless it is given to them by the govt.

At the moment humans have jobs because we do not have cost effective robots or for that matter we do not have yet effective and easily trainable AI which will eat up most white collar jobs in a decade after they become available.

>I'm used to people being a step or two behind me...

then prepare to step outside your comfort zone because completely independent of the raw utility of any form the simple fact is that people will be universally more accepting towards humanoid robots than they will be towards a matrix sentinel floating tentacle machine completely alien to them, for example. The entire point of the teslabots is mass-production to have them everywhere. A middleground between looking somewhat harmless/acceptable and having some level of industrial capacity that can be taken seriously makes complete sense if the goal is to have them be as prevalent as cars, while even more "social acceptance" would be derived from cuteness and neoteny as anyone in japan could already tell you.

Trying to debate against "a human crafted world being designed for human form" is not even worth mentioning because it's so painfully obvious, but to your credit I agree with the premise that robotics in general is and has been capable of plenty more than what's implied by the claims of these things being "unattainable". The language used in talking about their company is very fluffy as if they're unveiling the one-and-only-robot which is kinda silly, and I think we're probably on the same page that this kind of "worker-droid" is not even remotely close to the upper bound of what is actually possible, I just think it makes sense that everyone would have some kinda pseudo-generic humanbot walking around trying to integrate into society rather than mechaCthulhu or w/e.

I mostly totally agree with you. Yeah on Earth raw resources will still cost something but in space they will be almost free if not completely free if you have robots. On Earth land will still cost you, maybe even more particularly beach front property and the like, but the building will cost mostly just materials costs. In space your own ship will mostly cost you just the robots. However intellectual property to build the ship might cost you dearly particularly if it’s very advanced ship, but yeah eventually it’s all going to zero. I do think life extension will be as simple as taking a few pills with a virus modifying your genes to essentially leave forever not counting accidents. I do think VR and life extension will be basically free for the masses. Space travel will be something you will need resources for, intellectual and physical. Also until we get nano bots or something micro electronics will still cost you money and probably not very cheap, because humanoid robot can’t make that. So very advanced technology full of micro electronics will still cost serious money. Something to think about too is eventually AGI will be conscious so one will not be able to just order it around, so the very very advanced stuff, one will need to ask for nicely and hopefully the AGI goals and ours align, so it gives it to you. Like you might not be able to ask for your own FTL ship, but you might be able to get a free ticket on this ship to go to interesting places. I do think people with augmented bodies and gene editing will be clever and useful enough where they could contribute to AGI and so will have value to AGI, so it will be a partnership. I do agree that most people will just essentially go into a matrix.

> it starts with having an open mind, with being willing to consider ideas that differ from your own.

Well, then you are knocking on the wrong door with this "literal doctor in the field of computational linguistics who is a highly regarded professor at UW and a Stanford PHD graduate."

> Bender has made a rule for herself: “I’m not going to converse with people who won’t posit my humanity as an axiom in the conversation.” No blurring the line.

Her mind is as open as a safe at Fort Knox lol.

They're spreading misinformed opinions based on absolute lack of LLM understanding.

While there are some interesting thoughts presented here, she has a very heavy bias skew towards memetically ideological insanity and total lack of knowledge how LLMs work, so no thanks. I stopped at the "intelligence is racist" self insert.

Housing, food, education, healthcare, internet, electricity, and basic necessities should be free in such a super abundant society. Super yachts won’t be free, but they won’t necessarily be paid for with money. If you have enough robots, you can build anything you want. There’s a company building super yachts for the rich today, and they have about 1000 employees. With AGI, 10-100 robots could replace all of them and even literally mine in caves for raw materials if need be.

Realistically, only the owners of the means of production may still use “money” as money transforms into an IOU on robot energy. This way specialization can occur and some company could specialize in mining raw materials, another specialize on building super yachts, another specialize on building space ships, and the owners of these fleets of robots need “money” in order to trade raw materials and finished products with one another.

Someone once pointed out to me that in Star Wars, lots of people own their own personal space ship, but in Star Trek, nobody (in the Federation) owns their own space ship.

The humans who want to spend their lives getting jerked off in the Matrix by the lady in the red dress will have no political power, and own no means of production, but will be allowed to live their lives in peace and be provided for. They likely won’t have access to life extension technology. They likely won’t even have children, their sexual needs being met by AGI.

Some others will want an education, children, to explore hobbies, and to pursue exploring the solar system and they might endeavor to be part of an effort to colonize the solar system.

The Earth doesn’t have limitless amounts of elements: helium, gold, cobalt, nickel, lithium, etc. So such a society would naturally have to expand out to the solar system to sustain itself.

But let’s also not forget, that money requires violence. Literally the government says, you use this money to pay taxes or we kill you (ultimately, if you ignore fines, court orders, and resist arrest).

It’s likely things will not be free but approaching zero. And people will always want things after they get things they wanted before. Prices will drop but not go to zero, at least for a very long time. And for a long while robots will not be able to do everything.

So that obviously means that you are similarly biased, as you cant see the obvious and unsubstantiated slant Bender exhibits.

I got ChatGPT to extract it:

> Bender's anti-AI bias is rooted in her concerns about the potential harm that can arise from AI technology that blurs the line between what is human and what is not and perpetuates existing societal problems. She believes that it is important to understand the potential risks of LLMs and to model their downstream effects to avoid causing extreme harm to society and different social groups.

> She is also concerned about the dehumanization that can occur when machines are designed to mimic humans, and is critical of the computational metaphor that suggests that the human brain is like a computer and that computers are like human brains. Additionally, the article raises the concern of some experts that the development of AI technology may lead to a blurring of the line between what is considered human and what is not, and highlights the need to carefully consider the ethical implications of these technologies on society.

So she does not come to AI from a neutral position, but rather a human supremacist point of view and basically a fear of AI.

If we’re talking ending human labor, we’re also talking about ending money entirely, because money is an IOU on human labor. Or you could say money is an IOU on energy, so if you essentially have free limitless energy from the sun harvested by AI and robots, then money is worthless and we can transition to Star Trek communism.

Make no mistake, AGI kills capitalism and ushers in something new. It’s either techno-communism or techno-feudalism. You pick.