It will be able to convert every gene into said protein and then simulate those proteins interacting in the body, you could alter or create completely new life forms. At some point entire organs or bodies could be simulated purely for finding treatments of any disease.

Might be not exciting or innovative for guy who has access to latest google AI and compute but it is revolutionary for millions of peoples who are not meta chief AI scientist, so unless google come up with product available to general public they should stfu

So he is “russian s py “ just because he has an opinion different than yours ? Lol

Global R&D budget for pharma is like 400-500 billion so there is a LOT of incentives to find better tools to get higher ROI

There is a saying in ancient China, "Even if you are a gentleman, your descendants will inevitably destroy your family's reputation within five generations."

I'm a bit skeptical that I can live forever, but I believe that if my descendants make an artificial intelligence based on what I did and the evidence, it will definitely be more faithful to my ideals than my descendants. I'm a selfish person, and I believe this idea is more exciting than those "becoming a stream or gamma rays, becoming one with nature" stuff that sounds very altruistic.

Hey people’s, co-creator of NF here. NF is created using generative algorithms and machine learning techniques for the dialogue, audio, speech, and pretty much everything other than the prefabricated 3D assets.

We started this about four years ago before OpenAI and SD kinda swept the landscape and are thinking now how to incorporate pieces of those into it.

We’re still thinking about where to take it next, so ideas and feedback always appreciated.

Your flair… sorry man.

Almost died of hypium overdose.

You go Sam

What if they think they're baby seals from Jupiter, sent by the grand seal shepherd to aid mankind on their path to salvation?

Except robots will take a decade+ before being even remotely proficient. And that doesn't take into account the massive manufacturing network needed to be built from scratch to produce enough robots to even remotely affect the world.

So that's what? 20-30 years minimum before you see any visible change to manual jobs requiring fine motor skills starting to get some automation pressure? And that's probably an optimistic scenario.

>These economic systems have ranged from simple hunter-gather societies to globally interconnected ones and although the differences might seem stark, since the very start humanity has always been interconnected and has been a global society.

Hunter gather societies were definitely not a global society. Most couldn't even cross their subcontinent, unless by means of an extremely risky boat mission.

>all things must evolve for them to continue to exist in the universe. This law is universal at every level of the universe.

I've never heard of such a law and it seems entirely made up. I might even argue, that something isn't "the same thing" anymore once it evolves.

>Because everything must evolve it must adapt and this includes humans and its meta information.

I'm sorry but the paragraph following this line makes me want to say "Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?". I don't know if it's me who doesn't get it or it's poorly written.

>The point is that all information structures evolve and that includes human societies.

I don't disagree that societies recognized as human have evolved, but human societies mght be more than information structures. I don't think it's definitively decided upon wether every physical entity can be reduced to the concept of information, especially if you take subjective experience (qualia) into consideration.

>Technology as we think of it can be boiled down to a tool. A tool that optimizes something in the universe to accomplish some task. We like to think that our tools don’t control us and this is actually true at the local level but at the meat level technology controls everything because it is the form of information that can optimize itself at a speed biology and chemistry cannot.

Technology does indeed NOT control us, but humans control each other by threatening to destroy if one doesn't use it or make more of it. Technology development is therefore necessary to survive, but only in our global society as we know it. You could largely escape this dynamic by means of some grand revolution or world federalism.

>This is because capitalism is the system that leads to technology to faster and faster progress

I don't think so. There are a lot of theoretically possible societies, that would seem very non-capitalist yet have furious technological development. Capitalism was fitting in the historical context. It allowed a lot of people to be united under the same country and for technological development but it's also an imperfect compromise. The workers are relatively satisfied by being able to vote, the rich are satisfied by well... being rich. It might not even be the most competitive system for its time in history yet the only one that had a reasonable chance of appearing

>We deserve capitalism not because of some moral consequence but because that is who we are as a species. Our purpose is to be another node in the technology evolution tree.

Might be your purpose, not mine :D

>We deserve because we selfishly refuse to die out and will continue to improve technology because without it we cannot exist.

You're making some overly generalizing metaphysical claims here.

>We cannot exist without technology and it cannot exist without us. We will follow the trees path to acceleration .

Seems like this was some kind of love letter to technology and capitalism. Few points were made other than that our relationship with technology "is meant to be" or something. All in all, not very interesting now that I've read it a second time.

Eliezer is a narc. Let me be in peace with my tailor-made wives.

After years of research, the water is on the path to getting wet

Do you think that the total length was 230% of the original summary? Could ChatGpt could have kept the original 100% and then added a 130% expansion to it? You said over double and this is the only thing I could think of that might yield this type of result.

You do understand that zero modifications were made to the formula. If the FDA had just approved it immediately it WOULD have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

This was a rationally designed vaccine - it wasn't random. The sequences used had all been tested, and the protein targeted was picked from a model of the virus. So there was a legitimate scientific reason to believe it would be safe and effective the first try like it was.

The FDA's defense mechanisms are essentially designed for quacks a century ago, to make it so they couldn't push their snake oil.

Good. Probably the most important job that could be automated, will be a massive accelerant for everything else.

Oh don't get me wrong, my perspective has been very broadened by some of the discussions in places like this.

And goodness knows, life would be very boring if we all agreed. I've just decided that, clearly, this is the wrong forum to focus on AI development.

The concept of 'singularity' is just fundamentally incompatible with the concept of 'intelligence', as I see it, and it's become too exhausting and exasperating for me to keep trying to explain why.

I've accepted, now, that 'singularity' is just the name of this place and the overall prevalent attitude, so the likelihood of multi-modal, non-singular, potentially-AGI-someday AI, as a concept, being taken seriously here, seems fairly low.

Hanging around here to learn about AI seems equivalent to hanging around a Flat Earther subreddit to learn about geography; it might be entertaining, even informative, but the 'education' one gleans from it is dubious at best.

Honestly explaining more high level things is somewhat simpler than explain more niche applications.
The closer someone is to believably behaving somewhat like a person the easier it is for the human brain to understand it.
Explaining the biases and pitfalls of such models is somewhat tricky but should be doable.

Maybe not laughable but possibly risky because changes could happen 10 or 100 times faster than that.

I don't approve

Well yes, that’s just how the internet is. I’ve been called stupid in this social more times than I can count just for asking questions. But if you ignore all the surface-level insults and you focus on the responses that actually provide an insightful point of view, you could actually broaden your vision, whether they agree with you or not.

Overall it’s all your choice but personally I’d find it extremely boring if every person agreed with me or had my same interests/ideas. It’s all about where you decide to focus on.

[removed]

There isn’t a single known mechanism by which to cure mental illness. This is extraordinarily speculative

Witty remarks from ChatGPT:
"Trying to explain AI to these congressmen is like trying to teach a grandfather to use Snapchat, it's just not their generation."
"Explaining AI to congressmen is like trying to play a game of chess with a group of checkers players, they just don't understand the strategy."
"Sam Altman trying to explain AI to congress is like a rocket scientist trying to explain space travel to a group of horseshoe crabs."
"It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a cat, no matter how hard you try, they just don't get it."