I think we've gone from knowing a tsunami is coming but not yet seeing it, to now seeing it crest over the horizon while trying to yell at everyone else to run away while they're not paying attention.

Didn't we already pass that? At least in the text generation front

[deleted]

I've been following this sort of stuff since 2014 and I can say that the last year or so has really been the "wow, it's actually happening" moment for me. Looking at how this sub has exploded in popularity in the last year alone is nuts. The concept of the singularity seems to be spreading from more than just estoric, fringe groups online.

By all means, continue to yell at the wind, civilization!

ChatGPT revise this with two grammatical errors, one UK word, one run on sentence, and write it to be less detectable by ChatGPT detectors. Write it how a human college student would write it. <0%. This is why the founder of OpenAi said it’s impossible to detect. Plus, unless you have 100% detectability you can always deny. Without 100% proof, colleges can’t say without a doubt you cheated and that’s the main issue.

These colleges doing this are just for fun and to waste tax payer dollars.

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

In order for it to be nonprofit, it can't have shareholders.

There's three good answers I can think of as to why it makes sense to have shareholders (and why "being for-profit" is good):

• Typically, no investor-funded tech company "earns anything" for the first 10+ years of its existence. The way it generally works is that they produce an MVP/idea, demonstrate PMF, and then pitch it to investors. They spend the money they raise, and all their revenue (if any), trying to massively grow the company, and when they run out of that money, they go raise another round, at a higher valuation justified by their growth, essentially until they IPO or get acquired by one of the other, larger, tech companies. These businesses are almost never "self sustaining", because the logic is that you're forgoing growth by not spending every available dollar to grow, and they're principally valued on growth. The way investors in prior rounds "make money" is by selling to investors in later rounds (or simply by making the money "on paper", by marking up their books to the value of the new round). The companies can, in theory, "become self-sustaining" at any time, but in practice, rarely do, until they're absolute behemoths. (Think "The Social Network".) If you believe the thing you do has impact on the world, and you believe that impact is positive, (and if money is very, very cheap,) then it makes sense to spend other peoples' money to maximize the impact.

• You imagine that "whoever owns the company" is essentially some big investors, VCs, wealthy angel investors, etc. and it is. But it's also founders, employees and operators. These people often prefer getting paid some of what they earn in "ownership" (equity) over "salary", because it offers them the opportunity for a liquidity event that will compensate them more than anyone will ever agree to salary them for. This makes sense, because salary is a recurring cost, that the company has to budget for in perpetuity, and buying someone's ownership of a valuable thing is a one-off event. It's hard to make $50mm in salary, it's "easy" (relatively speaking) to make $50mm by owning 0.5% of business valued, by someone, at $10bb. People value that opportunity to potentially make life-changing money, when they know they're doing great work on a world-class product that they believe in. It's like the lottery, but you can control the odds. It motivates people to work very, very hard, and it's a very valuable carrot to be able to offer someone, that is "free" to use for the company from a cashflow perspective, aligns incentives between employer and employee, and is matched in magnitude to the performance of the company and its ability to pay it (since they don't pay it, investors do).

• Profitability is a good yardstick to ensure something is sustainable long-term because it's impartial, it's directly related to sustainability (producing more than you consume means you're generating excess value for someone else), and it forces people to make hard decisions, since it aligns incentives toward sustainability and away from sentimentality. The economy operates in credit cycles. It's a company's job to be able to navigate these cycles, and survive the deleveraging part of the cycle. Part of its ability to do this can stem from its ability to access capital markets to generate liquidity when it needs to. It's harder and much more expensive to borrow money if you don't have equity value. It's also very easy to spend the excess generated during the leveraging part of the credit cycle, and mistake it for durable "growth" (just look at the budgets of any government).

Difference is quantity i doubt they would get 10 bilions without promise of profits

From someone who’d been using ChatGPT for a year, it’s been interesting seeing the world have the same reaction I first had, now extrapolated amongst the masses.

I showed my wife in early 2022, she thought I was loony, now she uses it all the time 😂

Lol love the last sentence. That’s what I’m talking about though—I’ll just assume I’m gonna become a Guardian of the Galaxy

Yann LeCun was programing neural networks before before most of the people who replied in this thread was even born, he made optical character recognition work on hardware that makes your smartfridge looks like a supercomputer. He doesn't say this from a sore loser point of view but to understand where he come from you need to look at what he's actually saying.

He didn't say chatGPT sucks.

He didn't say meta have something better.

He said it's "not particularly innovative". Which is true.

• Transformers models have been around since 2017.
• Language models are more numerous than anyone can keep track of.
• Dialogue oriented fine tuning have been made before.
• Virtually all names in big tech are training large language models.

Why is chatGPT doing so well then?

• It's a big model, which is hardly new, but it's accessible and usable for free.
• openAI have a good media traction, so they make a splash even when they show off closed models.

So when LeCun says it's "not particularly innovative", is he really wrong? Is being a known name and giving out free stuff^((arguably they are datamining the public for additional training data, which makes the free part a little bit less free)) considered innovative?

DEFINITELY

Oh my God lol I'm so glad I'm done with college

He's saying he really really wants ChatGPT to pretend to be his pet catgirl, but it's giving him blue balls, so he likes the inheritably inferior open sources options that run on a consumer GPU instead. They might suck, but at least they suck.

No one need worry, though, for consumer hardware will get better, model efficiency will get better, and in ten years time we'll be able to run something like ChatGPT on consumer hardware.

Of course, by then, the big boys will be running something resembling an AGI.

Yes. I think these are temporary qualms imposed by social conservatism and a desire to uphold business models. If a modern FPS could be dropped into 1980 I imagine there'd be a severe concern about it inspiring violence due to its novelty, but given the reality of incremental developments and studies we know today that there's no evidence of that. Being able to prompt anything into AIs could be cathartic or therapeutic in ways but we just have to live with the complex ways new technologies roll out.

The idea that people will become useless is rooted in our capitalist society and its economic structures. AGI and automation are inevitable, barring a catastrophic event. Think of the amazing advancements in technology like in your favorite sci-fi stories - advanced medicine, entertainment, travel, and more. And imagine having the freedom to pursue your passions, travel, or spend time with loved ones without the need to work for a living. This is the promise of AGI, as long as we don't get turned into paper clips.

>We are evidently only allowed to read about villains in human-authored media, or journalism, but AI-generated villains are currently deemed unacceptable for human consumption.

Are they deemed "unacceptable for human consumption" or are they deemed "potentially unprofitable if available for human consumption"? Chat GPT is a business product that's open to the masses. It's a fine-tuned version of the less-restricted GPT3.5, which isn't available to the public.\

>Do you believe such limitations are compatible with the kind of AI generation we can presume will serve as foundation for the singularity?

I don't think the publicly available products will do so, no. But the actual tech, unconstrained by the need to generate good PR and rope in investors? Much more likely.

>open source gpt3 model that will work on a personal computer

LOL

"Wake the f* up Samurai, we have a cloud to rent..."

as much as i admire ray, i don't think he has a say in when we will get it. there are a few million dollar problems to solve before we solve the intelligence problem. but that's just my view, nobody has to agree or disagree, i just urge everyone to look into it.

I don’t mind getting downvoted as long as there’s a civil discussion going on, I knew that our opinion is quite unpopular. Yet no one convinced me of thinking differently as of now, I guess that we’re just more optimistic?

> what does that imply for our society and economy

Markets are always in flux. They're humans interacting dynamically. What will be the outcomes from the decisions of millions upon millions of people? Who knows?

>What will happen to all the humans who work to produce these things when AI can do it all and all you need to make your own is a computer/internet connection

Massive decentralization, institutions people think are required will fade away, many big businesses won't be economically viable.

The notion of containing AI is a flawed concept. With advancements in hardware and improved AI performance, open-source versions will become widely available, rendering containment efforts ineffective. Additionally, moral and ethical considerations are fluid and constantly evolving. What may have been considered acceptable 1000 years ago in another culture may not align with current beliefs and values.

Read the culture by Ian m banks, specifically “Look to Windward” or “Surface Detail”… now, back in reality, how will society benefit from AGI? Eventually, the hope is that it will be able to do any human labor - freeing humans up to do whatever we like.

Besides automating jobs, having the ability to reason through mountains of data that would take humans centuries or millennia to reason through. This alone will help us advance much quicker in all fields, things like nuclear fusion, protein folding, agriculture etc.

AI is only doom and gloom under capitalism, really.

This video covers most talking points:

https://youtu.be/8nt3edWLgIg

[deleted]