True. I'm actually surprised he said never. The field still feels like it's in its infancy.

sure, that is good

but if you are already a religious person, why not pray that they not only release the papers but the codebase?

also, I was wondering about the praying, does it ever work for you?

The reality will be that, when we're in control of arranging atoms, all illnesses will be cureable.

Touche.

Why pray that they keep publishing papers? Because they are very useful for other groups.

I reckon a more modern idea should be designer cells and ‘viruses’ which work in our favour.

Don't get so salty about this. If it's a Google product they would have killed it just as you were starting to really get into it.

No one will need AI data scientists after AGI arrival. But concerning taxes, jobs would not disappear, they would be replaced by AGI. Goods and services would be produced even at higher scale and taxes would come to the governments in greater amount than before. The problem is that "no taxation without representation" one can read also backwards.

fuck them, eventually someone else will do it

they are on a high horse acting as if they care about humanity...

why?

They will still be very useful to detect cancer and diseases.

Also never say never, people who use the word never nearly always get proven wrong.

Let me show how you can sidestep copyright.

> In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable.

Since AI generated content is public domain, then AI trained on AI generated content is free from any liabilities. This second generation AI cannot replicate any human original work because it never saw them in its training set.

By training on variations we can cleanly separate expression from idea. Copyright only covers expression, not the ideas themselves. But a variation in the same style will capture just the style and not the contents of the original.

So, second generation AI can learn from what is allowed to be learned (ideas) and avoid learning what is protected (expression).

The competition will be using AI as well..

Naonobot in real life are called microbes or cells.

there will also be genetically modified organisms that we use as tools but that’s when things are gonna get weird. like growing chairs and other furniture from seed

The onset time period can be really hard.

> If people can just use AI to design their own art. There’s no need to ever hire “artists” as we know them.

So naive. The competition will not fire their artists and use AI as well. Guess who will win? They might have so much volume they need to hire more.

We have the technology now to provide for all, we simply choose not to. Free health care in the United States, functioning in a manner similar to that common in the European Union, is possible, but the majority choose not to allow its introduction.

The singularity will hopefully be the catalyst for the social change, and social expectation, that will be the foundation for the development of a post scarcity civilization.

You are one of the most closed brain people I have talked to on here. You can program an AI to have a goal of kill all humans, preserve its own life at all costs, etc. Hell a person could probably put that in the prompt now for ChatGPT and it would chat with you in the style of being a robot programmed to kill all humans if it didn’t have blockers explicitly programmed stopping it from talking about killing humans (which it does).

You are so obsessed with this calculator analogy that you aren’t realizing this isn’t a damn calculator. You can tell current AI systems they are Donald Trump and to write a recipe in the style the real Donald Trump would write it. Later when it’s more powerful I see no reason why someone couldn’t tell it that it’s a serial killer named Jeffrey Dahmer whose life mission is to kill all humans.

I’m saying it doesn’t need to HAVE wants to achieve the end result OP says. It will simulate them based on a simple prompt or some back end programming, and the end result is the SAME.

I’m fully expecting a response of “but a calculator!” here.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Styles, by definition, are broad categories. If they were copyrightable, then the same rule would need to apply to both humans and AI. We can never know when a human has used AI or just looked at AI for inspiration. So we have to assume any human work might have AI in it.

If human works would be exempt from the strict rules AI has to follow what's to stop the big companies to hire people to white wash the style copyrights? What companies need is to license some images in that style. The images can be produced for hire at the lowest price.

I work on NLP, simpler tasks like information extraction from forms. My model was based on years of painstaking labelling and architecture tweaking. But last year I put an invoice into GPT-3 and it just spit out the fields in JSON, nicely formatted. No training, just works.

At first I panicked - here we have our own replacement! What do I do now? But now I realise it was not so simple. In order to make it work, you need to massage the input to fit into 2000 tokens, and reserve the rest of 2000 for the response.

I need to check that the extracted fields really do match to the document and are not hallucinated. I have to run it again to extract a few fields that came out empty for some reason. And I have to work on evaluation of prompts, it's not just writing, it has to be tested as well. Now I have so much work ahead of me I don't know what to do first.

I believe most AI adoptions will be similar. They will solve some task but need help, or create new capability and need new development. There is almost no AI that works without human in the loop today, not even chatGPT can be useful until someone vets its output, an certainly not Tesla or Waymo SDCs.

AI will make some things easier and create more expectations and work around it.

Excerpt from article:

"A common trope of science fiction is the depiction of nanobots, small robots moving in the body fixing wounds or healing diseases. Unfortunately, we will never be able to create these types of machines. The mechanisms inside a robot a few nanometers large will instantly melt together, while the small metallic arms and claws seen in science fiction would bend and stick to the surface of the particle."

^ can anyone with an interest in nanorobotics qualify this statement?

I kinda want little microbots fixing my wounds and keeping me young. Lol.