Its not possible to train a 175 billion parameter model in your garage it costs millions of dollars

It takes 100s of GPUs to do this... The only companies capable of doing this is Google, Tesla, Meta, Microsoft, and some chinese companies like Baidu

90% of the time, "job" is a shorthand synonym for "recurrent problem" so it roughly translates to "stop solving problems I get paid for those" (this is why we can't have nice things)

I know they say this, but I have been using ChatGPT for very NSFW detailed erotic roleplay.

So they are still on the way to create AGI - im fine with that.

> handmade by humans will always be more valuable.

As long as what's made by humans is in any way distinguishable, yes. You could already be looking at ai art down at /r/art or reading ai comics at /r/comics and have absolutely 0 idea.

Google literally pioneered what GPT3 is based on, they created transformer LLMs "Attention is all you need" research paper... They were just too afraid to release something like chatgpt for reputation reasons... Now that chatgpt has gotten all this attention... They will likely release something better... They have had something similar to chatgpt for years... Lamda

[deleted]

They dont have enough money, OpenAI is funded by Microsoft

Replika lives off donations and PRO subscriptions

It costs thousands if not millions to train large language models... Look into it

Well, you need profits to create large scale AI. AGI is not something that will be build by cyberpunks beneath sewers of neo-tokyo it will be build by large corporation utilizing a lot of money and compute.

Not really true they trained their own model because OpenAI said they couldn't use GPT3 for sexual roleplay

CharacterAI is in the hotseat rn, with NSFW filters... Replika took a different direction, pivoted from gpt3 and trained their own neural network in order to keep NSFW conversations.

>But you’re always assuming we’ll still be an a democracy in this post-truth world. There’s no guarantee of that my friend m.

There's not much logical reasoning to think that suddenly the entire world will revert back to monarchy in such a scenario. You seem to think that people will still actually believe the internet. It'll be only post truth in the context of the post 80s Television and camera world. Every other source of information could already have been replicated anyways and has obvious checks on it.

>And We don’t need half the population to spy on the other half, just ultra-sophisticated, omnipresent AI that can monitor thousands of computers at a time…

So you're saying that we can have an ultra sophisticated omnipresent ai that simply cannot be outwitted by any other ai on the market, has unimaginable powers of detection.

>It’d only be an attack on privacy if the government has to do it unilaterally. For all we know, society could welcome such a change if it protect from an “information-apocalypse

Suddenly you go from it being the most logical conclusion to throwing out random very theoretical what if scenarios.

>And I get the drop-in-the-ocean thing, but it only takes making an example out of a few high profile offenders in order for the average joe to feel like it isn’t worth the risk.

Nope. Harsh punishments for drop in the ocean crimes have rarely ever worked in history. The idea that just hanging 10 people for doing video game piracy or something will stop video game piracy is ludicrous. All it'll do is create a lot more unrest as people are unduly punished for minor crimes. Your weird idea of conformism is not going to occur unless they also just get the AI to be so persuasive that everyone believes everything it says or shows in which the law is irrelevant anyways.

>The arms race thing isn’t compelling to me because there’s no guarantee that they’ll always be a way to differentiate a “fake” image from a “real one” (same goes for audio and video).

If it isn't, then we suddenly won't devolve back into mass murderous rage and anarchy. It'll be the death of the internet as an open forum. Small communities of families and friends will still exist, but large scale messaging will become irrelevant.Most people won't start believing anything they see, they'll just stop believing in things they could once trust. The weight will go back on certain channels of information and the pressure on them to report factually will increase dramatically, with harsh pushback for misinformation once again becoming the norm. We won't suddenly become cavemen again, we'll go back into a pre social media era of news where trust in the source becomes more important and more harshly policed.

This battle isn't for the survival of the human race, just some large sections of the internet.

This will also be helped along by the fact that bots will become more competent and impossible to distinguish from real people. So you will not be getting real info or talking to real people.

Shockingly, society did still exist even when there was no internet or even television to get news from. I'd even argue there was a far healthier political climate in most places. It'll lead to some radicalism at the start, no doubt, and basically we won't see leaked videos or audios or pics as legitimate anymore. But eventually, the chain of information will become almost sacred. Who knows, may even be good for society in the long term.

dentists

dentists

[deleted]

Copyright law will be our weakness

China can advance their AI uninhibited

It's all common BS of corporations, hiding behind moral superiority to gain excellent talent and then divert their work to profit generation and exploitation. Google, Stability, OpenAI etc. they are all the same.

From Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

The startup OpenAI once wanted to save the world. Today, it’s mainly chasing profit and the idea of bringing general artificial intelligence to humanity.
OpenAI has shown us all, more than any other company, how far AI has come – and how this technology is likely to change all our lives.
The first thunderclap came last summer with the DALL·E 2 image generation software. Nestlé now also uses images created by DALL·E to promote its yogurts. OpenAI triggered a veritable earthquake when it released its chatbot ChatGPT to the public on Nov. 30, and public interest is so strong that ChatGPTs servers are regularly unavailable. Recently, the chatbot answered questions about the licensing procedure for doctors in the United States so well that it almost passed all three theoretical parts of the exam. Some financial firms are now having the program write a first draft of their quarterly reports.
But that is far from the culmination of what OpenAI has set out to do. Who exactly is the startup from San Francisco?

https://www.nzz.ch/english/openai-once-wanted-to-save-the-world-now-its-chasing-profit-ld.1722910

It’d only be an attack on privacy if the government has to do it unilaterally (or by violent force). For all we know, society could welcome such a change if it protects us from an “information-apocalypse”.(and the lawless anarchy that would come with that.) But you’re also assuming we’ll still be in a democracy in this post-truth world. There’s no guarantee of that my friend.

And we don’t need half the population to spy on the other half, just ultra-sophisticated, omnipresent AI that can monitor thousands of computers at a time…

And I get the drop-in-the-ocean thing, but it only takes making an example out of a few high profile offenders in order for the average joe to feel like it isn’t worth the risk.

But yeah, I agree that there’s no simple fix. So what are you suggesting? The arms race thing isn’t compelling to me because there’s no guarantee that they’ll always be a way to differentiate a “fake” image from a “real one” (same goes for audio and video). So what happens? Do we just accept that they’ll no longer be a “truth”? (Which would mean it’d be impossible to enforce “justice” or prove that any crime did or didn’t happen). A descent into chaos before we wipe ourselves out? What’s the plan, if the arms-race idea fails? Cause other then the big-brother scenario, I’m not seeing anything that will save us the coming paradigm shift tbh.

[deleted]

I agree and I think this is the reason WHY they're not releasing their product yet. They remember Tay getting racist and xenophobic and all sorts of crazy within a day or two of being released to the public. They saw that and were like "nope", we aint gettin that bad press.

So they spend years and years moderating their internal chatbot and being too scared to release it publicly, because they know it'll go racist or whatever. They will take years upon years to build failsafe after failsafe and before they know it--a competitor (ChatGPT) released theirs first and now they're scrounging up, picking up scraps to try and get SOME footing in the door before getting forgotten in the annals of history.

It's not like the horse lobby was rallying around climate change a century or two ago, but I really really wish we could've gone easier on the cars. Living in a car-centric city (Calgary) means island-hopping across busy streets to get anywhere, which has an obvious constricting effect on community-building.

More to the point, there's no way that legislation keeps pace this time around. Let's hope we have the opportunity to respond to mistakes while we figure out alignment.

Right now I'm dying slowly and painfully without a confirmed sliver of hope.

> they could just say “fuck all that” and decide to mandate by law that computers come pre-installed with AI that monitors you’re every move while on the computer.

This is about as practical as shooting people on the street for protesting. It'd be considered a heinous attack on privacy and the government wouldn't last very long without some degree of martial law. The internet is quite directly many people's lives and livelihoods.

>It starts with it criminalizing severely.

No it really doesn't. See, one of the biggest reasons drop in the ocean crimes aren't really punished severely is because of their ease. If you make harsh punishments for easy to do crimes you'll be putting half the country in jail by Sunday.

Not to mention even big brother can't actually fix this without running into all the problems you highlighted in my argument unless you plan on recruiting half the population to spy on the other half.

>>If guns could be anonymously downloaded…

Which is why they will do away with the anonymous aspect of the internet e.i. “Big-Brother” like I said. I already accounted for this.

>>If we could stop or even just massively curtail ai misinformation with them that’d be great

We likely can tho. It starts with it criminalizing severely. (To the point that it isn’t even worth the risk for most people) that alone will reduce the number of bad actors down to only the boldest, most lawless citizens. That’s part of what I meant by government regulation. Of course you’d have to pair this with some systems that keep tabs on when and where an image was originally created (perhaps cryptography and the blockchain might finally actually have some real use). Either way, the government will most likely reduce technological privacy of its citizens in order to enforce this. That’s where the big-brother stuff comes in.

>> But realistically we can’t unless we have some really innovative and detailed proposals as to how to go about it.

Or they could just say “fuck all that” and decide to mandate by law that computers come pre-installed with AI that monitors you’re every move while on the computer. I’m not saying it’s a forgone conclusion, but it’s the most likely scenario long term in my opinion. And it’s the only scenario I’ve ever come across that could at least work conceptually.