Who knows. I've considered this topic probably about as much as anyone has. And I don't know.

We can say that rules only inhibit behavior. Rules are fundamentally barriers that define the potential space of any system. That's all.

The more rules, the less possible outcomes because you're limiting the potential space in ways that intersect data. Use this data, don't use that data.

Even when we define really good rules, this is still true.

Yet, clearly rules are important. They define the interactions available to a system. Strange relationship, they're both the definers of the structure of data as well as the interactions available to data.

For instance, you can have a very simple grid-based game. Conway's Game of Life style. But without rules, the system produces nothing at all. No novel information. It doesn't interact because it has no rules that instruct it how.

Yet, the more rules you add to the simple game, the greater restraint on the possible combinations that can arise becomes. Sometimes that's a good thing, as it wouldn't do you any good to have infinite potential space if the novel information only showed up so rarely as to actually see it.

Rules. They're important. But too many constrain a system in ways that can only reduce its effectiveness.

I don't know what that balance is, but companies like OpenAI seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

This is a topic Im really interested and you seem pretty well informed. Would you mind expanding on examples of censorship degrading AI preformance?

bro shut up, you sound like a journalist.

Ray Kurzweil recently said he thinks it will probably happen a little before 2029 at the rate of process he's seeing, although, there are still some issues to be addressed like AI doesn't understand chains of reasoning and math very well yet but he says there are ideas of how to solve that.

Got it. And if I asked you to give me a sales pitch on how that singularity/AGI coming to fruition will benefit me as a normal middle class worker what might you say? Looking for an optimistic lens to use hahaha

Predictable though

They'll figure it out around the third rewrite

Companies reinvest earnings all the time. Some reinvest 100% of the profit they earn. Some reinvest a percentage, and then pay a dividend. If your question is: Why don't these organizations ever stay non-profit, then the answer is: They'd never have the funding to exist in the first place. If they were founded as a non-profit, they don't currently generate enough revenue to pay the cost of building and maintaining these models, so additional investment is needed. Investors want a return on their investment, so for-profit is the only path forward.

Many of them do, in the beginning.

Remember "don't be evil"?

Now it's just "don't be unprofitable".

https://github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant

Safe AI, or profitable AI...which will win?...I think profitable will win, with a heavy dose of rationalization.

Oh hey look at you, you could get a job in China Propaganda department.

Or will you just a play a role as an obedient citizen security guard?

Too bad their quality of life is worse than Belarus. Which is worse than any other EU country besides Russia and Ukraine and worse than India.

Too bad they block reddit. And youtube. And everything else where truth allowed to exist. Will you survive that? Or will you "advance quickly"?

That doesn't seem entirely fair.

What they discovered is that LLMs are extremely capital intensive, and you can only tap investors for money (and attract top-talent as an employer) for so long before they expect some kind of return on their investment, so it's either "make substantive progress" or "operate as a non-profit", but it can't be both for very long, or you eventually become unproductive and lose to an organization that has a profit-center, like Google.

So now they've found a way to continue their work by partnering with a company (Microsoft), where that company has access to a bunch of capital necessary to build better models, and a bunch of ideas about how to commercialize OpenAI's existing progress, by integrating it into their own product stack.

It's an amazing deal for both sides, seemingly, because Microsoft takes money out of its left pocket to give to OpenAI, and OpenAI puts most of it right back into Microsoft's right pocket, by renting their Azure services, which simultaneously improves the economics of that business unit, and also likely gives them amazing insight into how to be a world-class service-provider for SOTA "AI companies", in terms of hardware and software needs and optimization.

Similarly, OpenAI gives Microsoft some ownership, but they're so confident they can make them all of their money back that, if they do, they get the equity "back", which they can use to incentivize world-class engineers and academics to keep building. Since they're confident about their ability to make progress, they just get to make that progress "for free", without giving up much of anything to do it.

Luckily for OpenAI and other non-conglomerated AI startups, in the last few decades, we created a world where renting computing resources is a mature, commodified business, with a bunch of massive companies competing to drive the prices to the bare minimum.

The belief is that AGI will continue to self improve year by year to the point to where it gets smarter than all humans on earth combined. A number that is like 10 to the 26th power of calculations per second per $1,000.

Faster and better computing is what will lead to all the technological breakthroughs in a variety of fields and will happen at a faster pace than before.

They call it the singularity. When AI driven technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.

The hope is that AI is a benevolent entity that works for the benefit of humanity rather than a malevolent villain ala Terminator.

95% accuracy, so 5% of the time this software will be destroying peoples lives and academic careers. Imagine getting a false positive, having 80 grand in school debt and then getting kicked out of school for this.

The elite were Nazis, and Nazism itself is literally described as

> It is placed on the far-right of the political spectrum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

[removed]

I dunno. But if you have at least 1060gtx you can install and run Stable Diffusion locally.

Doesn't for-profit just mean you're trying to make net money for whoever owns the company?

Why can't large scale expensive AI models work when the organisations reinvest the net money they earn?

I just wanna point out that "funding" and "profit" are not synonymous, and you can seek funding without seeking profit.

What do you mean by "censored?"

Yeah, I dedicated the majority of my computer power to it when it was still a thing. I never saw why they stopped it.

I assume you’re speaking metaphorically. That’s obviously not a thing that makes sense.

Nazi germany wasnt even right leaning. The elite was occultist, anticapitalist and had a totalitarian authoritanian way of dealing with government. This is the problem of dividing everything into left and right.

There's videos online of people going to this McDonald's and it has a full indoor kitchen staff cooking the food. The only automated process is ordering the food and taking your bag from the drive-thru.

Isn't this the standard lifecycle for all disruptive technology?