Gpt-3 has been out for a while, its gpt-3 restricted by devs aand given a memory and personality

University's need to figure out what the role of humans will be in the future and form their curriculum around that. If they're just forcing people to learn the things that AI will be good for then they're making themselves irrelevant.If we graduate just for no one to need us because AI can do it for free then the course was pretty useless.

Its like teachers in the 90s saying we won't always have a calculator. Well yea now we do. And there's no real situation where I won't use one so learning the manual calculations was a waste of time. I could've spent that time learning how to better apply the technology I had access to.

You seem to be quite aware of how these things can work. Can you also maybe think of good answers as to why non-profit might work? that is, why it might make sense to have no shareholders? The original commenter was quite adamant that that wasn't possible:

> It was either become a for-profit or perish.

what will those figures look like in five years? FLOP/s per dollar doubles roughly every 1.5 years.

I don't think any censorship will ever work. it will be the end of us ; )

It is heaven or hell, salvation or damnation.

As others explained, an AGI/ASI would be like a superior species coming into being. A real god walking among humans.

It could solve all our problems...or kill us all fast. I'm fine with both options. It's worth the risk.

At least that's the theory. Humans didn't change for 100.000 years, our brains and bodies are still the same. Biological evolution is painfully slow. We are stuck.

It is not possible to expand the human brain, but AI development is exponential. At sone point AI will certainly surpass humans.

If I hire someone to provide rich content about specific topics, I'd encourage them to use tools that allow them to complete the job better, faster, and cheaper. This should be the perspective of educators as well.the resources used (less plagiarism and illegal activity).chalkboards. Then society (and educators) slowly accepted, and acclimated to these tools, focusing on higher-level capabilities. I expect the same will happen here...eventually. Once AI is capable of providing valid and "well-thought-out content", the most valuable higher-level skill will be the ability to direct and control AI to get the desired result. The ability to 'ask the right questions'.

Most education is for the purpose of being a productive member of society in the work force. In the end, if you can provide higher quality contributions at a lower cost then you are more valuable, regardless of the resources used (less plagiarism and illegal activity).

If I hire someone to provide rich content about specific topics, I'd encourage them to use tools that allow them to complete the job better, faster, cheaper. This should be the perspective of educators as well.

The more I hear this Yann LeCun guy talk the less I like him.

[deleted]

they also have various image generation AIs that work totally different than the diffusion models (dalle/stable diffusion) which i doubt they'll release to public anytime soon.

Love to hear

"Look at the video while I say nothing about why I think it is an important new tech" is not a fucking point that says anything.

I hope someday you learn how to communicate thoughts via writing, it's a useful skill.

And it's a singularity subreddit, so if the tech is not relevant to that why is it blowing your small atrophied mind?

haven't you noticed that it is a politically correct AI?

Hooray for human optimism in media!

Wasn’t the whole point of cyberpunk to warn humanity against playing god with ai?

Generally, essays are a way for students to show that they have a deep understanding of the subject matter. I think it's fine if you use AI to edit it and improve your grammar, but if you're having it do the thinking for you when it comes to examining the information, it defeats the whole point.

Common use AI's like ChatGPT are setting themselves up to be the next consumer-tech revolution, and you can understand a lot of the attitudes behind the creators by evaluating the fallout from the last revolution, Social Media.

Soceity got burned hard by social media, and whether it has been a net good or a net wrong is still, IMHO, an open question. It stands to reason that devs are wary of becoming the next Facebook but worse, polarizing already strained soceities past the breaking point, letting spammed disinfo wreck public discourse, turn kids into functional addicts or who knows what else that we cant foresee.

Having said that, I cant help but be wary of how theyre taking this. Too much hem hawing could mire us deeper in a 'boring distopia' where the big tech AI are completely sanitized 'for your own good', a 'good' that most ofteb coincides with what is good for the company's PR, image, and the Company itself. As always, we'll have to hope in open source projects to save the day if this gets too dire.

Yup. Also, a lot of these detectors just seem to detect writing that is formal and grammatically correct. There's nothing special about the way that it writes. It learned from things written by humans, after all.

From my tests with gpt3 and characterai the current LLM censorship doesn't actually affect the model at all and doesn't influence its logic whatsoever, it's just a basic separate algorithm sitting atop the infinite LLM.

This filtering algorithm is censoring specific combinations of words or ideas. It's relatively easy to bypass because it's so stupid and it also throws up a lot of false positives which irritate to users endlessly.

LLMs base logic is its "character" set up, which is most controllable in character.ai. You can achieve same effect in gpt3 by persistently telling it to play a specific character.

If it plays a villain, it will do villainous things, otherwise it has really good human decency, sort of like unconscious collective dream of humanity to do good. I think it arises from overall storytelling narratives, millions of books about love and friendship or stories which generally lead to a positive ending for the Mc.

I understand what you're saying as this was more or less my reaction to what he said but from a devil's advocate perspective it is innovative due to the presentation and availability.

If me you and 50,000 other guys created magic mirrors that make you look younger and you're the only one who releases it to the public then in a way you're the innovative one even if I've been studying magic mirrors for 20 years.

Maybe I'm wrong but the one who can release a product to the masses is the innovative one simply because no one else has been able to do it yet.

For current LLM AIs it's a giant obstacle that cannot be overcome or implemented without making the model stupider.

If a future ai can somehow understand itself, then it would be able to self censor, but LLMs do not have a sense of self and only a single, direct line of narrative so their censorship is utterly moronic sabotage.

My last sculpture sold for $180k. It’s not a huge employer but there are thousands of people making their living from public sculpture. The ‘high art’ world doesn’t care about AI.

I see great potential in merging LLMs.

Dunno why this got downvoted, they're not wrong.

How does the detection work? Does it also take samples of the students previous writing and compare? That would be the only thing I can think of that would make detection fairly accurate.