Recent comments in /f/singularity

turnip_burrito t1_j6cype6 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in What would quantum computing mean for AGI? by multiverseportalgun

You kind of had me until this:

>You may even have an ai that could calculate everything within the observable universe down to the nanosecond that could potentially predict the future.

What? How do you get measurements to set initial conditions for the simulation? What about chaos arising from measurement error? Size of the quantum computer (seriously how large would this have to be?)? This is impossible, implausible.

4

Nanaki_TV t1_j6cyhvw wrote

Reply to comment by phoenixmusicman in I’m ready by CassidyHouse

You’re not being killed. If you have your arm cut off and reattached it’s still “your” arm right? Those teleportation devices and taking you apart by every molecule and then putting you back together. Theseus Ship comes into mind too. It’s why Riker had a clone of himself too. The device made a copy of them. I don’t remember which one was considered the copy anymore.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j6cy5lk wrote

Reply to My human irrationality is already taking over: as generative AI progresses, I've been growing ever more appreciative of human-made media by Yuli-Ban

There will always be some sort of market for human art based solely on the subjective value of human vs AI made art, as you expressed.

My take:

For commercial art, the amount of fine-tuned customization of the final piece is something that machines can't match (for now), so artists will still be hired if that is a must for the company. Otherwise, the scattershot "close enough" approach of AI will replace much of the rest of commercial art in the short (pre ASI) term.

1

malcolmrey t1_j6cwr5w wrote

Reply to comment by phoenixmusicman in I’m ready by CassidyHouse

i also believe they are being killed and an exact copy is made

it is overall interesting concept

I wonder if people who died for a short time and then they came back - could they be treated similarly? :)

I know they have the same body, but they were technically rebooted. They went off for a moment.

1

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_j6cw969 wrote

Reply to New York Times [July, 1997] 'Computer needs another century or two to defeat Go champion' LMAOOO this is so hilarious to read looking back by Phoenix5869

There were so many AI experts trying to beat Go that they saw many, many problems. So the lesson is that computers can get really good at one thing, providing that there are clear rules.

I think that Generative AI will crash and burn soon. I mean, look at ChatGPT. You need top GPUs to work a long time using a huge network that is not even trained on all the text on the Web. You could maybe increase the size of the network a thousand times, but you will need more than a thousand times more GPUs. Much more. And at inference time you still need the parameters. I am afraid it will not be enough to accommodate multimodal abilities and larger context windows.

−2

bemmu t1_j6cw333 wrote

Reply to Why did 2003 to 2013 feel like more progress than 2013 to 2023? by questionasker577

Agreed there were more consumer-facing things affecting our lives in your earlier timespan.

I'd include these at least in your timespan:

  • 2016 SpaceX succeeds landing a rocket booster back, making access to space more affordable.
  • 2017 Transformer-based deep learning models, making possible GPT-3, ChatGPT, also used in Stable Diffusion.
  • 2019 Oculus Quest makes VR a lot more mainstream.
  • ~2020 AlphaFold, can now predict how proteins fold. A problem which seemed intractable before and will likely lead to many medical breakthroughs.

Also during the last few years electric cars have become much more popular.

1

QuarterFar7877 t1_j6cw11s wrote

Reply to comment by Kolinnor in My human irrationality is already taking over: as generative AI progresses, I've been growing ever more appreciative of human-made media by Yuli-Ban

ChatGPT summary of ChatGPT summary:

The writer believes that human-created media has value and that AI will not fully replace human creativity. They expect lower-level artists to be affected but higher-level artists to adapt and resist the shift towards automation.

26