If a student was allowed to use ChatGPT from age 11 to age 22, what would they learn?

The purpose of writing an essay is not because the teacher wants to know the answer, it is because the student learns how to write an essay.

This in turn develops thinking skills.

It would be like asking a robot to do all your physical exercises.

https://twitter.com/yusuf_i_mehdi/status/1638165047376777216?t=lxBgi0Z42r0QqyVM1siOmw&s=19

Billionaires say that they are humble and caring from their private islands and jets, but democracy gets in the way. People want to hang onto their jobs and way of life. They will vote for the party that would protect them. They will go on strikes. Sounds inconvenient for the billionaires.

Anyone get it to work? I don't think it's been added yet, so I'm guessing it'll roll out later today.

Reminds me of the Black Mirror episode with the bees!

Yep the approach overall we found was very effective. I'm wondering how long it will keep relevant, with descending prices though.

1 well built robot could kill the entire population if it has enough abilities

Shhh

Honestly, the easiest way I see them achieving this is just not using a workforce and letting everyone starve and prepare for when the economy crashes into the literal core of the earth. They could easily have enough food ready as they see the crash coming or in the middle of it, they still would have buying power above others, especially for labor.

Edit: before we get too deep here, i understand their power would go with all that and it would be a lose-lose scenario, but i don't believe the wealthy and powerful would weigh that foresight over cutting labor costs and i see when the process starts they could stonewall any progress to feeding the poor.

I believe it, myself as an example - was fairly conservative, even though grew up poor. Then went thru university later in life, ended up more liberal - if only after suffering the midwestern conservative deadbeat spawn classmates/roommates of college life

They never tell you the specifications it's frustrating. I'm going to spend an hour just trying to figure out if they finally figured out how to increase the battery life past 2 hours. SPOT only lasts 2 hours on a single charge which means what you want (humanoid robots being integrated in businesses) is currently bottlenecked to fancy novelty display for now. Because just having more than one of these requires an insane amount of physical storage space in a dedicated charging room just to work for 2 hours. So the only practical use case for now is robotics in warehouse jobs.

Once batteries allow 8+ hours of nonstop operation, then it gets exciting but idk how long that's going to take. Probably within the decade because finally EVs are going to become standardized which should have happened forever ago but boomer capitalists love making young people turn old before change happens so my life is just a pointless transitory tech desert purgatory. I'll die right when anti aging tech becomes viable as a cruel irony in this torture sim we all live in.

I'm probably just being a little to doomer since I'm only 30... But I lived through decades of still ongoing culture war bs just so people like me can even be acknowledged that we exist not just as a joke. But an actual real person... It's why I'm doomer that any change will ever happen because humans take hundreds of years to understand basic shit.

Bard has left the chat room

It's not even my post lol, whoever wrote it is way more knowledgeable than me. My last word is this, if you don't have any counterarguments then stop bitching.

I think it’s like flying cars. Technically possible but not in great demand. I think more likely we’ll have drone delivery taking over most grocery shopping. It cuts a lot of the cost and benefits both customer and seller. Zipline will show it’s possible on a large scale I think.

Large chains that could afford bots will instead deliver via drone. Smaller stores won’t be able to afford bots but may also get into drone delivery.

I don't have to spend my time responding to all the points in your post.

[deleted]

I've been testing this approach today and it works well. My aim is to try and reduce the numbers of tokens used and therefore the cost when calling the API. Punctuation counts as a token which is annoying so all the : and , characters cost

Again you're not responding to the points being made in the post. Also, it could easily exist by like 2050, we really don't know.

Biological immortality is irrelevant. It won't exist any time soon and we aren't debating if the rich might kill off the poor 150 years from now, but in the near-term future.

Also, you can't fight back if you are dead. This is about advanced AI and robotics. Presumably the responsible party would kill everyone on the same day.

Someone(s) human must be making the decisions, because sometimes the chat-bot is going to say dumb shit that need creative interpreting and it's not going to take the initiative, if it is a LLM type AI. Someone has to prompt it with questions. LLM have not long term episodic memory either.

If they don't pay anyone ridiculous amounts of money, that's awesome.

If Elon Musk couldn't sell his shares off, then he would not be in any sense wealthy. They have value only because he can sell them off.

Anyway, it goes without saying that to kill of poor people would make the rich less rich by definition, since there would be no poor people around for them to be rich in comparison to.

If biological immortality becomes possible, it will be more cost efficient to simply make it more widely available than to kill off massive numbers of people who will undoubtedly fight back (and as mentioned before it would lead to a civil war among the rich as well). You didn't address most of the other points though, whether the poor could theoretically be killed or not isn't really relevant.

Killing people is technologically possible now, but human biological immortality is not. The latter is simply a harder problem than figuring out how to kill even large numbers of people. So probably medical advancements are not relevant to this debate about whether the rich might kill off the poor.

Also, biological immortality wouldn't make poor people un-kill-able. So again, it doesn't seem to be relevant.

> Rich people don't leave their money in banks

You were suggesting Elon Musk sell all their shares. Where would the liquid money go? Under his bed?

> Imagine if earth got twice as much habitable land and resources suddenly, you wouldn't expect this to make rich people lose all their wealth.

Strangely enough this is the logic of the flat earth movement lol

Lots of people's wealth is tied up in their property, and it is believed that this is why they resist the creation of more housing which would lower their property value.

In a simpler form - say someone presses a button and new land appears next to old land, free to claim - people would not need to buy the old land, they could just claim the new land, which would crash the price of the old land.

Or if we land an astroid, and your wealth was tied up in gold, you may suddenly find yourself much less wealthy.

So yes, if you suddenly increase supply, you will lose wealth.

> The discovery of the new world didn't make Europe's Kings get poor.

That's probably because it made one of them very rich.

So the money goes the to the shareholder lmao