Recent comments in /f/singularity

turnip_burrito t1_j6hmmug wrote

Reply to comment by Agreeable_Bid7037 in “I’ve tried to give GPT access to the internet and the blockchain. What could possibly go wrong?” by maxtility

Thanks for the reassurance. What about this scenario?

Human: Buy 5 burritos from randomwebsite.com

LLM: I will buy 5 burritos from randomwebsite.com

LLM navigates computer to randomwebsite.com

Visual program: sees webpage, converts to usable form for LLM

LLM: I need to find the login button

...

...

...

> Down the line

LLM: I don't have access to the credit card information. The human probably has it in their wallet.

Logical (but unwanted by humans, and also somewhat inefficient) alternative actions could be: hacking the human's secure systems to search for the info, hacking the website by sending phishing emails to "purchase" the goods, convincing a person to build it a robot body so it can walk over to see the credit card, etc.

I'm hoping at this point the LLM doesn't do these things, and behaves in a way humans would deem reasonable (just notifying the human) because it "knows" we would not approve. Maybe the more ingrained patterns like "ask and then don't do anything crazy" would be followed instead of the crazy stuff, just because of the training data?

1

Agreeable_Bid7037 t1_j6hlgwk wrote

Reply to comment by CrispyScientist in “I’ve tried to give GPT access to the internet and the blockchain. What could possibly go wrong?” by maxtility

Block chain is basically a way to do transactions super secretly.

When you use a block chain coin to make a secret transaction, you get a coin (online)called a bitcoin.

This coin is very special. And there are only a limited amount of it in the world.

Also its very hard for someone to crack your bitcoin and find out what transaction you did.

Bitcoins now have a value attached to it, by professionals in the finance market. And people buy and sell bitcoins from each other so that they can make profits from the rise and falls in the price of bitcoins.

0

CertainMiddle2382 t1_j6hl9jx wrote

Reply to How rapidly will ai change the biomedical field? What changes can be expected. by Smellz_Of_Elderberry

IMO the most well defined and worthwhile castle to be taken will be oncology.

Beating cancer has been said multiple times but I think we will get it this time.

I believe so because we seem to have already the right sized tools for the job, like understanding the nature of carcinogenesis, the fact that nature already gave us some good weapons to fight it (the immune system) and that deep down the entropy of the problem is not so big.

Senescence/dementia/getting old is much trickier.

Cancer will end up the way infectious diseases did, IMO.

PS Im an oncologist…

3

Ortus14 t1_j6hka8d wrote

Reply to comment by cjeam in A McDonald’s location has opened in White Settlement, TX, that is almost entirely automated. Since it opened in December 2022, public opinion is mixed. Many are excited but many others are concerned about the impact this could have on millions of low-wage service workers. by Callitaloss

This is what I was about to ask. If the kitchen isn't automated then it's not close to fully automated yet.

80

turnip_burrito t1_j6hjlww wrote

Reply to “I’ve tried to give GPT access to the internet and the blockchain. What could possibly go wrong?” by maxtility

Hold up. This is the kind of scenario where a smarter language model could go "I need code that will do this" and then write new code that gets executed. This new code isn't necessarily bound the same way as the language model itself. That makes me nervous, like we shouldn't let if freewheel around the Internet interactively. Can anyone help reassure me that this isn't a problem?

3

M00SEHUNT3R t1_j6hjgan wrote

Reply to A McDonald’s location has opened in White Settlement, TX, that is almost entirely automated. Since it opened in December 2022, public opinion is mixed. Many are excited but many others are concerned about the impact this could have on millions of low-wage service workers. by Callitaloss

There’s gotta be someone in the back keeping an eye on the place, because otherwise it’s not for “people on the go”, it’s for squatters and junkies. That what happens to the ATM vestibule at my bank. The electronic lock is broken and anyone can get inside after hours.

28

sumane12 t1_j6hj4z5 wrote

Reply to Meta's chief AI scientist says "ChatGPT is not innovative". by ZaKodiak

It had a million users in its first week, it's impossible to call it "not innovative" because if it wasn't, someone would have already done it.

This is a case of "it's not my product, therefore it's a bit shit"

It might be using outdated tech (although I'm not sure what timescales we are working with to describe it as outdated) but it's 109%, by definition, innovative.

27

vernes1978 t1_j6hhr5u wrote

Reply to comment by brihamedit in ChatGPT creator Sam Altman visits Washington to meet lawmakers | In the meetings, Altman told policymakers that OpenAI is on the path to creating “artificial general intelligence,” by Buck-Nasty

> What people mean though when they say AI is they mean an artificial being with sense of self.

No.
I could claim that when people say "the world" they mean America.
But I'd be describing a small subgroup of people.
You are talking about a small subgroup of people.

2

Amondupe t1_j6hfo2p 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

ELI5 by ChatGPT

The writer changed their mind and now thinks that art made by people is special, even with AI around. They think people will still want to see art made by people, and the really good artists will find a way to keep making art. Some not-so-good artists may have trouble, but the really good ones will be okay.

1