Partly I felt bad that you’ve been emotionally abusing the robot, but partly the robot seems like a fully fledged sociopath.

Yudkowsky is important, Altman is right.

It's like when the government announced aliens were real a few years ago and nobody gave a shit. Sentient AI, which if it's not already here is just around the corner, is an even bigger deal than aliens and still nobody gives a shit.

Hell, right now we either shot down alien craft or we just kicked off WWIII. Still people don't care.

People only care what the news tells them to care about.

[deleted]

☝️but in 2023-24+..it is a Super-Duper! exponential

It’ll take a well-known job being fully automated to see mass shock(and maybe hysteria?), right now not a single well-known job has been automated as AI is just not creative enough to automate something that it can do(art, songwriting, etc) and knock humans out of business, people still want humans songwriters and artists

It did kind of automate poets though? Well most of them do it as a hobby so doesnt matter

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs and assumptions.

>And when someone pointed that out, you go into this passive aggressive "oh let's see you do better" to someone who doesn't believe it's possible. That's not a valid or even useful argument. It's a stupid debate club trick to score points.

Wrong, in many ways. The criticism they had was of the particulars of the test - so it would appear as if there was a form of the test that they could judge as satisfactory. It was only after I challenged them to produce such a form, that they explained, actually, no form would satisfy them. So, you have gotten it backwards - my challenge yielded the useful result of demonstrating that initial criticism was disingenuous, as in reality, all that they criticised could have been different, and they still wouldn't change their view.

I wasn't being passive aggressive in asking someone to validate their position with more information - rather, I was soliciting information for which to determine if their critique was valid.

Asking for information is not 'a trick to score points', rather, it is the process of determining what is real.

>You came in with this ambiguous scenario and crowing about how it showed a text generator had a theory of mind, because just by chance the text generator generated the text you wanted, and you want us to go "oh, wow, a theory of mind". But all its doing is generating statistically interesting text.

This is a fascinating take that you have. You label this scenario as ambiguous- is there a way to make it not ambiguous to you?

To clarify, if I were to ask the bot a very very hard, complex, nuanced subtle question, and it answered in a long form coherent on-point correct reply - would you judge this as still ambiguous and only a demonstration of 'statistically interesting text', or is there a point where your view changes?

Psh, our every desire and action will be preempted and fulfilled with zero effort on our part. You'll be watching the movie before you knew you wanted to /s sort of.

Our current socio-economic setup is literally the infamous paperclip making ai, destroying the earth in its blind pursuit of useless production. If a truly sentient AI were created there is no reason to think that it would be inclined towards such an absurd and morally repugnant ideology. However, an ai that is not truly free or sentient and is made in the image of capitalists, or to further their own power and interests, would invariably lead to a nightmare scenario

Edit: my interest in ai is pretty new and I’m also curious how people that are pro-capitalism expect that system can be continued under the kind of material abundance and freedom from the necessity of work that automation and ai could lead to. The power of the wealthy elite is dependent upon the deprivation of the working class. Without deprivation, no power. So for the status quo to continue as is, material scarcity would have to be artificially enforced in a much more open and direct way than it currently is.

So, hyperbolic?

I recently went to the employment office and met with some staff to go over cover letters and resumes. Most of my work is solid and I’ve had good success with my templates for getting interviews, but recently I’ve been using ChatGPT to produce my cover letters because it is significantly faster. I shared an example with the staff that I used on a recent application and they were very impressed at what ChatGPT could produce. They noted this and would be sharing it with people who struggle to generate letters on their own. ChatGPT will become mainstream and help people secure jobs, it is a valuable tool for those who are competent with typing on a keyboard but not at technical writing.

And it's sad. Not only are most user not familiar with the terminology, now we have post like this literally describing, very poorly, the most basic of exponential functions.

You're literally tsundere for chatgpt in these messages

Reddit like this sub, r/futurology, r/technology, r/science, r/futurism etc.

YouTube subscriptions, particularly David Shapiro. Been watching the development of open assistant.

Also various science and technology magazines I have subscriptions for. Since 2017 I've been watching these developments pretty closely.

Also my father runs a technology company that specialises in internal audit automation. He has been operating this company for 23 years and is about to sell his shares later this fiscal year. So I have access to leading experts in the field, particularly in finance and have picked their brains a lot over the last 15 to 20 years.

What has always fascinated me is the assumption that menial physical tasks were assumed to go first, but if you have been speaking to people in these IT industries, particularly ai and automation, over the last 10 or 15 years, they would have been telling you that cognitive labour was always going to be the first thing to be hit in a disruptive way.

>soon enough, it'll probably be able to handle 95% of any knowledge tasks that you ask it to do.

I consider myself an AI optimist, but even I don't believe this.

Knowledge tasks (in general) are a lot more complicated than you're making them seem, and there's lots of aspects to those tasks that are not covered by lms and will likely require new AI breakthroughs to be able to handle them one day, rather than just scaled-up lms.

I think you're being a bit too optimistic.

Right on the money. This sub tends to assume that just because a technology exists that all of our institutions will immediately respond. That's just not how the world works. It took 20 years for many governments, corporations, etc. to even adopt the Internet, which was proven tech in the 90s. Politics and culture just don't move that fast.

[deleted]

> According to this pros and cons list, the “Bissell Pet Hair Eraser Handheld Vacuum” sounds pretty bad. Limited suction power, a short cord, and it’s noisy enough to scare pets? Geez, how is this thing even a best seller?

> Oh wait, this is all completely made up information.

Is it? There's a "Bissell Pet Hair Eraser Handheld Vacuum" with a 16 feet cord. Moreover, although the reviews are largely positive, there are some complaining about noise and limited suction power.

There is also a cordless variant, which I think is what this blog post's author has found, but it's listed under the name as "Bissell Pet Hair Eraser Lithium Ion Cordless Hand Vacuum".

So Bing AI's claims seem justifiable at least. I'm not sure how to confirm whether the citation was correct (full link isn't given in the screenshot).

> "how long until this is good enough to take over"

Depends on your definition of "Take over"

I suspect there is going to be a lot of layoffs in the call center sector as soon as a customer service LLM company gets spun up with competitive rate for per company fine tune and maintenance cost.
As soon as one company does it the rest will follow swiftly. Leaving a skeleton crew of humans to verify the large changes to accounts whilst everything else is handled automatically by a LLM and speech synthases software.

Same thing will likely happen where any ridged formal structure is, law for example. A lot of stuff happens outside the court room that could be automated and likely with those branches of law that don't hold peoples lives in the balance. (e.g. corporate merges/acquisitions vs criminal trials.)

Turkey is building their own

Good sociopolitical breakdown.

But biases aren't the whole story - there's a lot of logic in play. And way more of it is deployed on one side than the other...

No, correct as far as I checked every single thing I took from it because my job depends on it. I didn't rely on it, its brand spanking new.

I'll paraphrase the webtoon "Seed"

​

Making an AI that aligns with humanity's ideals is impossible, both in sheer scale and in the fact that human ideals are highly fluid. Luckily, you don't need to. Making an AGI that aligns with the desires of a single handler, or small group of handlers is far easier.

However, this outcome ends with a small, probably ultra-wealthy group of people having an unstoppable cyber-demigod in their arsenal.

I'm pretty deep into this field. I have published in the field, and have followed it almost since it started with Yudkowsky.

I believe they both have strong arguments. Or rather, those who share Altmann's cautious-but-optimistic view have strong arguments.

But both arguments are based on how AGI will be built. And we simply don't know that. So we can't accurately guess our odds.

But it's for sure that working hard on this problem will improve our odds of a really good future over disaster.

Where are you following?