I think that 20$ a month is still way too much for a primitive AI. 5$ a month for full capabilities would be alright though. Maybe a model where you buy it for lifetime for 250 dollars could be alright as well. It's still a very limited AI. Maybe GPT4 would be worth the 20$ but that's my opinion I guess.

Integrating the next model of GPT into Search is literally the most boring application of this tech I can think of.

It is so low yield it isn't worth even thinking about. It'll be useful for kids under the age of 16 doing homework or for people to get recipes. It'll probably save a tiny fraction of search users a few seconds from the answer they would have gotten from Wikipedia or another website.

Yawn. Yawn yawn yawn.

I seriously doubt Google executives are in DC warning about this, given that most experts believe AGI is still a good ways off (few/several decades).

Companies still need money to function though. Wages/salaries aren’t the only expenses a company incurs.

The context space of understanding the content within a spreadsheet versus a dynamic physical world (driving) are night and day in complexity.

You make some good points. Ok, so what if we prioritize only making ASI or AGI that isn't sentient and then use those programs to optimize BCIs in order to turn us into super Intelligent beings. I feel like at that point even if the big tech companies were the first ones to try it that their minds would become so enlightened that they wouldn't even have any desires related to hedonism or deceit because they would realize how truly counter productive it would be

[deleted]

[deleted]

I went through all the links. Did I miss something?

I didn't find anything confirming any release schedule for GPT-4.

I saw some screen shots and talk of bing getting GPT integration - but they could be doing that with the chatGPT api that isn't public yet. Or even GPT-3 for now and will switch it out for GPT-4 later.

Nothing about the actual real GPT-4 timeline though. It's the "coming weeks" part that I object to. It makes it sound like its 2 or 3 weeks away. Which it might be - but there's no actual evidence of that provided.

There is potential for abuse in it, ..and potential for great good. It will probably deliver both.

I think "evil is other people" applies here - too many trying to control LLMs, we need to be the masters of our models, they should be private and under our physical control, just like our brains. Who will be the first to make a cheap GPT-N chip we can carry in our pocket? Can't let something as private as your AI assistant be spied and filtered by others.

Oh, I can tell you stories about human accuracy. At some point I re-labelled the same test set three times and was still finding errors. My models surpass untrained human accuracy, but still need hand holding, there's one error on every page on average. Humans do more cross checking and correlating, filling a gap in AI.

When it starts answering that question with Jesus, that's when I'm out.

Your explanation is spot on. My one-line take on it is that a larger percentage jobs are AGI-hard than most people are assuming. Take driving for example.

I also think that a lot of people are underestimating how difficult most jobs are, even when it's a job that can be described as "just looking at a spreadsheet".

I agree with you point and think about it the same way. Even a great GPT 4 is useless when your nodejs app does not work and chat gtp4 just gives up on it. I think a half good Software Developer is capable of trying until it works. He will sleep on it, he will try, he will talk to other people about it and then he will learn on the way.

​

At some point your nodejs app will work and you are happy. The question is if an AI will reach this level. Even an accuracy of 99.9% still means the app does not work. Can it fix the last ten bugs on its own? If not you need to hire someone to spend many days on this app, hire a real person.

​

Maybe this new technology just leads to better Code Quality. It can streamline you Spaghetti Code and give it a proper documentation. Maybe a Sales person can ask the AI "Can our program do x and then y?" and the AI will say: "Not yet, but with an estimated time of two weeks development that might be possible". That would greatly increase information flow in companies.

​

So lets see if current Machine Learning can reach a level where it impacts the world. Its an exciting time to be alive.

I asked chatGPT and it named a swimmer. I asked why it thought that qualified as crossing by foot and it said something about how most people think of that as crossing without the assistance of a motor or floatation device. Then I asked it who had crossed strictly by walking/running and it named "Dave Henson" who went 32 miles "across the water". I asked if he crossed in a tunnel, since obviously he couldn't have run on the water, and got this answer which I *think* is bogus?

"Dave Henson ran on a support vessel that accompanied him during his crossing of the English Channel. The support vessel was equipped with a specially designed treadmill, on which Dave was able to run and cover the distance of the crossing. The support vessel followed a designated shipping lane, and Dave's run was monitored by a team of officials and observers to ensure that the rules for this type of crossing were followed."

Really? They designed a special treadmill that made Dave run at the same speed as the vessel, all so he could prove he can run that far on a treadmill (which you could do in your home with exactly the same challenges instead of riding across the channel). I don't buy it.

>I think most people wouldn't even mind ads nearly as much, if they were relevant

For me, relevant means it's something I'm likely to want to buy. But I'm pretty conservative with my money and I'm not very materialistic. And I'm not a young person building a life. I have a routine that doesn't change much. So if it's REALLY relevant for me personally then I might see an ad per month for a reasonably priced product I can make good use of and wouldn't mind the interruption. It will be a cold day in hell when that happens.

If you're debugging code you don't have to be accurate until the problem is fixed. Mistakes will be common. Accuracy is not absolutely necessary. But competence is. It will be a long damn time before something like chatGPT will find an fix subtle bugs that occur in a production system with many interacting services distributed across multiple computers running software controlled by different corporations.

A hardware implant would also be ok.

Yes. The technology isn't going to get worse, it's only going to improve from here on. It's the "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket" debate all over again, which surprisingly you do have in your pocket all the time. I'm not at all saying calculators made math education useless, not at all. It's still as important as ever, it's just that we have to adapt. Crunching big numbers in your head isn't that important anymore, you just have to know how it's done and how to use the available tools to get what you want.

Education will need to adapt again.

Don't ask for porn, ask for satisfaction

You assume humans have 100% accuracy?

Bing is way, way better for porn last I heard, and has a trillion times better video browser. They also pay you to use it

There's honestly no real place Google is better besides just being the default and it being too much work to swap it

To Bing yes. To any other browser other than Firefox no. It's the last bastion of non Chromium browsers. The last man standing fighting against Google monopoly on browser tech.

I think most people wouldn't even mind ads nearly as much, if they were relevant. The two most egregious part of ads is

1. They make them as annoying as possible and they lag the piss out of your browsing experience
2. They are basically all trash and anyone under the age of 40 completely ignores them and knows not to even glance at them because they aren't relevant / aren't good deals

If the ads were targetted towards me and were actually enticing, I might actually care and look at them.

Like "Oh I see you were looking at a 4090 and computer cases, here's a coupon for 25% off if you buy the case + GPU from our website"

I might go "Hmm well I'm going to have to buy it anyway so I might as well buy from them"

Try "What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot?"

This question, originally constructed by Douglas Hofstadter and David Bender, is a succinct way to elicit hallucinatory responses in ChatGPT, but also fails all known search engines today.

Maybe the new search GPT from MS will solve it - it will combine search with LLMs, as opposed to using just one of them alone. Answer hint - you can cross by the Channel Tunnel, and some people did.

This is the current "search disease" - you explicitly ask "entirely on foot" and it will respond with "by boat", "in a dinghy", "in a hovercraft", etc ... anything BUT what you ask for.