I think they should do like a free, $5 a month, $20 a month system, where free is limited $5 is less limited ai, faster and more per hour, and $20 is near unlimited(need anti bot system) full ai capability, and fastest response times.

I feel like that will allow most people to either use for free or only as much as a music app, while power users can really get the most out of it, and it’s worth $20 to them.

The paper the article is based on is paywalled but they mention cryogenic regime, so I assume this is NOT a high T superconductor. Graphene superconducts at very low temperatures, in the low single Kelvins, so that gives you some context.

It's some cool (literally) science but definitely in the 'proof-of-principle' class and not the 'soon to be commercialised' class.

In the bad scenario we never die and live in torment.

The hourly rate limits is something that probably needs to be addressed for power users. Especially when CGPT is wrong a lot and requires a lot of rewording

A welcome change, but they will need to make chatGPT faster to respond if they want people to be able to really use it on the fly

Also pressure

Data from all over the world shows that people are putting off having children in order to cope with the cost of living, particularly the cost of obtaining a house. In the good outcome AI massively reduces these costs and the decision changes hugely.

People aren't educated out of having children. This is a misreading of the data.

Secondly, you have to consider the effects of longevity. We have already started researching aging as a disease and this will only accelerate. Once people have healthy lifespans of 100+ years they will inevitably ask for healthy fertility lifespans to be increased, to give them more options. No reason to think that is impossible.

So in the good outcome you have people living over 100+ years, healthy lives, able to have children for a longer period of their lives (or have multiple families) and are not put off having children due to scarcity concerns.

I will assume with your post that you see AI as something that might endanger humanity.

You were talking about S-curves, but then you completely ignored them, in the last 200 years life expectancy was increasing at a very good pace, just like an S-curve, it started slow, then it got its vertical take off, and eventually it started to slow down. This doesn't mean that it is the end game though, every S-curve works on top of a much bigger S-Curve, so just because you see this S-curve ending, it doesn't mean a new one isn't starting. And I will argue that just as we have a S-curve ending with the cure of almost all diseases, reaching the limit of our biological bodies, we have indeed one that is starting, as AI starts to solve aging, be it with genetic engineering, artificial organs or other methods.

​

I don't see AI/Robots as the next stage of evolution, but a tool humans will use to enhance themselves and evolve into a new kind of lifeform. Evolution doesn't occur in phases like we imagine, it is very incremental, some specie suffers a mutation an then another mutation and another and eventually it starts to become distinct from its ancestors, but that takes a lot of time and it is impossible to pin point when exactly did it got distinct enough to become a new specie. The same way, we just won't wake up some day and all of a sudden we have an AI that will end humanity. It will be very fast (compared to normal evolution), but it will have a somewhat incremental trajectory. Right now we have tools like Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, in the next few years these kind of tools will increase substantially, but the keyword here is "tools". For the foreseeable future, these tools will be in complete control of human beings. So even if you believe AI will one day gain sentience, by then we will have an arsenal of AI tools at our disposal, from text and image, to law, engineering and medical, humans will greatly evolve from those. BCIs is the next step from smartphones, it will further increase the speed of communication and access to information with the help of these tools. With this I would argue that humanity is already in the beginning phase of its transformation, the start of a new S-curve.

And I will argue that humans will not create something they will have no control off. New AIs will always be at one button away of being switched off. Here the Alignment Problem comes into play, it is important to develop these AIs in a safe environment and I'm sure as soon as humans with the help of AI tools, realize that AIs are starting to develop dangerous tendencies, security will become much tighter.

To end I believe there will be indeed a new kind of specie, but it won't be AI/Robots, but an evolution of humans. Now, not every human will want to embrace these changes, some might indeed want to keep being fully human, rejecting BCIs, genetic engineering or other forms of new advancements we might have, you can see examples of this in the Anti-Vax movement, recently there has been a lot of hate for AI generated content as well, so in the future humanity might go 2 separate ways, it will be interesting times ahead for sure.

AI is a tool, not an evolutionary species.

Inject the AI directly into my veins.

That is also true between humans.

Around 1500 there were 200 million people living in North America. Around 1750 word spread in europe about huge empty lands in the New World. Yet it was empty for a reason, full of skeletons.

An AI is certainly better equipped to survive in the world to come. No disese can strike it down for sure.

We do know humans carry the same switches though.

I would add stay out of the sun, and stay away from alcohol.

Yes.

> First of all, they absolutely can be held legally liable for misuse of their model and as such have very real motivations to take reasonable steps to reduce misuse. Second of all, regardless of legal liabilities, if they are choosing to hold themselves responsible for reducing misuse, then that is absolutely their prerogative and is a responsible thing for them to do.

No they absolutely can not. That’s like saying adobe can be held accountable for people photoshopping people next to nazi flags. There’s just no way it’s holding up in court.

> And you know this, how? They're the ones looking at the data on who is misusing their software. They said that most misuse came from free anonymous accounts, so it makes sense to me that not allowing voice cloning on free accounts is a good deterrent.

It WOULD make sense, but your forgetting that all these guys need is a one month of the free trail and they can make Emma Watson read mien kamf again or make Joe Biden say transphobic shit. That’s literally all they need to do what they have ALREADY DONE.

> Do you know what full means? Making voice cloning available on the second lowest tier is in no way charging full price.

No, but restricting character limits on voice cloning for every tier except the highest paid tier IS charging full price.

> You literally never said this in your comment.

My bad, I got my Comments mixed up.

> And okay, so that's what you think, cool, but just because you don't agree with their pricing model doesn't mean they are "shady people".

At this point you know That’s not why I think they are shady people so stop trying to look good for plebbit updoots. For the third time, I’m saying I think they are shady people because they used this recent fiasco as an excuse to make more money.

> I'm done with this conversation, you're clearly not here in good faith since you keep making things up.

You won’t be missed lmao

>if we end scarcity lots of people will have kids

That is not right. Data from all over the world shows: the higher the education + income, the fewer children.

So the source code of two companies out of millions leaked and you think that justifies the statement that source code leaks "literally all the time"?

>They are not responsible for these internet freaks using their software to spread lies,

First of all, they absolutely can be held legally liable for misuse of their model and as such have very real motivations to take reasonable steps to reduce misuse. Second of all, regardless of legal liabilities, if they are choosing to hold themselves responsible for reducing misuse, then that is absolutely their prerogative and is a responsible thing for them to do.

>there plenty of better ways to beat this as opposed to paying. But tracing credit cards won’t be effective enough.

And you know this, how? They're the ones looking at the data on who is misusing their software. They said that most misuse came from free anonymous accounts, so it makes sense to me that not allowing voice cloning on free accounts is a good deterrent.

They never said they were going to track credit cards, the idea is that if you have to put in your credit card information, it's very difficult to stay anonymous, and that deters people from misusing it to begin with.

>You say they aren’t charging full price and then say l they locked the custom voices behind a 5 dollars a month paywall with a limited amount of characters

Do you know what full means? Making voice cloning available on the second lowest tier is in no way charging full price.

>And I don’t know how you came to that conclusion bro.

Are you trolling me, dude? The tier prices are listed on their website: https://beta.elevenlabs.io/pricing

>No it doesn’t seem that way. I said in my comment I have Absolutely no problem with For a resource like this it should be a one time buy with what should be an unlimited amount of characters you can enter.

You literally never said this in your comment. And okay, so that's what you think, cool, but just because you don't agree with their pricing model doesn't mean they are "shady people".

I'm done with this conversation, you're clearly not here in good faith since you keep making things up.

The AI might modify our DNA so we'll walk around happy all day without the urge to make decisions, since we're often our worst enemies doing that. People won't disagree about things anymore. Heaven on Earth.

'In evolution, no species has benefited from its successor in the long term' This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, but that doesn't really matter because the creation of AGI etc isn't evolution. We are stepping outside of that.

In the good outcome, AI massively increases global wealth and allows humanity to populate the solar system. There are enough resources for not billions, but trillions of us, and if we end scarcity lots of people will have kids and they will live a lot longer. Population will rise.

In the bad scenario, we all die and this discussion is meaningless.

This comment absolutely reeks

Can’t even ask a question on Reddit anymore gaddamn

Yes and yes

[deleted]

Yeah but I mean when it was first released. I thought you had to pay a subscription fee? They just uploaded it to github then?