My theory is that somebody in Marketing decided it would be a good idea to give it a persona-attribute of "seeking to please the user" and it has backfired spectacularly. Pure speculation... but having spent some time in the marketing tribe... I smell marketing gone wrong.

"Get the user to love Bing" --> idiocy.

The human mind is likely not the universal pinnacle of intelligence and awareness.

> However, without more information or context, it's difficult to determine Arnold's exact feelings towards the dog with certainty. It's possible that he might be surprised or even overwhelmed by the news, but his brief response of "Great" suggests that he is, at the very least, accepting of the new addition to his life.

That was my interpretation and I got response spammed that I don't understand humans.

It is not just a "weighted probability map" like a Markov chain. A probability map is the output of each turn, not the entirety of the model. Every token is determined by a gigantic deep neural net passing information through billions of nodes of varying depth, and it is mathematically proven that the types of problem it can solve are theoretically unlimited.

A model operating purely by simple word association isn't remotely smart enough to write full blown fake news articles or go into that hilarious yet profound malfunction shown in the original post. In fact it would fail at some pretty simple tasks like understanding what "not" means.

GPT outperforms other AI's for logical reasoning, common sense and IQ tests. It passes the trophy and suitcase test which was claimed in the 2010's to be a good litmus test for true intelligence in AI. Whether it's "close to AGI" is up for debate but it is objectively the closest thing we have to AGI today.

I have the total opposite take away from this.

No, most of society are not early adopters and aren't particularly interested until they can tangibly see how they will be affected. I don't think people will start connecting the dots until they personally get laid off along with 80% of their team so the top 20% can manage ai driven tasks. I highly doubt governments will be able to implement social programs to help transition the change before it becomes crucial. For anyone on the forefront managing a self owned business this is a great opportunity to get ahead of the game. But don't expect the majority of wage workere to be on the same page.

I fear intelligence without awareness much more than awareness. It is action without awareness that causes cruelty and harm.

This is fine.

I'm 38, but I don't work for him, I'm a PLC electrician (Porgrammable Logic Control or automation industrial electrician), so I program robots in factories like you described, amongst other automated processes. I mean its interesting tech, but they're pretty dumb machines, mostly relying on timing and positioning parameters, I don't write the code or anything, but I do input it and install the necessary equipment. Mostly for smaller factories, but its often the same principles.

His field is in finance specifically, so not really my industry. The decision to sell was based on licensing agreements with the major accounting firms in our home country. My understanding is that they're committed to 5 years using his product, this allows him to consider that revenue in the negotiations. He is already retired, but he is still chairman currently.

And the movie will be tweaked and tuned in realtime based on your brain's chemical and hormonal responses... to deliver best value to sponsors and advertisers.

I've seen a poker player who become the CTO of a biotech company recently. The Silicon Valley is a wild, wild place.

I agree with everything you’ve written. LLMs are simultaneously overestimated and underestimated because it’s a completely foreign type of intelligence to humans. We have a long way to go before we start to understand their capabilities- that is, if we don’t stuck in a similar manner to understanding our own cognition.

> If delaying AGI by a year reduces the chance of humanity in it’s entirety dying out by even 0.01%, it’d be worth that time and more

my take: delaying agi by a year increases the chance humanity will wipe itself out preventing AGI from happening, whose potential value greatly exceeds that of humanity

When people say progress , I expect new physical products being invented by ai that makes our life easier not another update on a language model in order to write your homework

Character AI flashbacks

MSFT stock won't be impacted because consumers have low expectations for MSFT

you'll have to convince tsmc, intel, all the other fabs and the govts of usa, china, europe, india, russia, and, if talking about 30 yrs, maybe nigeria, indonesia, malaysia, and a few others before you can convince me is all I'm saying

risk of nuclear war or other existential catastrophe is also non zero.

To be fair, Yudhowsky's argument on Pascal's mugging was actually interesting (particularly vis a vis his own writings funnily enough), but yes I very much consider him someone you have to sort through the writings of due to his focus on foom and... well, pessimism is an understatement, but I hesitate to call him a doomer since most of them don't even have coherent arguments.

​

Altman is still something of a hypeman though, and it is worth noting that both of them have argued in favor of very agressive AI timelines, which has been generally more towards where things have actually occurred as compared to the preponderance of people expecting ridiculously slow progress.

We simply don't know.

AlphaZero became incomparably better than the sum total of all of humans over all of history at GO within 8 hours of self play.

AlphaFold took several months, and help, but was able to solve an issue thought to be impossible by humans.

The risk of assuming that a sufficiently advanced agent won't be able to self-scale, at least into something beyond our ability to intervene in, is incalculable.

If we have a 50% chance of succeeding in alignment if we wait 30 years, but a 5% chance if we continue at the current pace, isn't the correct choice obvious? Even if it's a 90% chance of success at current rates (the opposite is far more likely) why risk EVERYTHING when waiting could even marginally increase chances?

The payout is arbitrarily large as is the cost of failure. Every iota of extra chance is incomprehensibly valuable.

Unless you're making the argument from a personal perspective (I want to see AGI before I die) or you value the progress of intelligence at the cost of all other life, you should be in favor of slowing things down.

They don't need to be reliable to be useful.

>>Delaying things until the bad outcome risk is 0 is also a bad outcome.

Lmao what?.. That isn’t remotely true actually. That’s basically like saying “double-checking to make sure things don’t go wrong will make things go wrong”. Uh, I’m not sure I see the logic there. But it’s clear that you aren’t gonna change your mind on this so, whatever. Agree to disagree.

No I just think that the potential for human abuse is high, pre singularity.

An internal source of input essentially. The source of a person seems to be an adaptive, predictive model of the world. It takes processed input from the senses, meshes them with predictions, and uses them as triggers for memory and behaviors. It takes urges/desired states and predicts what behaviors would achieve that goal.

You can zap part of the brain to take away a person's personal memories, you can take away their senses or ability to speak or move, but you can't take away someone's model of how the world works without destroying their ability to function.

That seems to be the engine that makes a chunk of meat host a mind, the kennel of sentience that links all we are and turns it into action.

ChatGPT is like a deepfake bot, except instead of taking a source video and reference material of the target, it's taking a prompt and a ton of reference material. And instead of painting pixels in the color space, it's spitting out words in a high dimensional representation of language

What? Every country and corporation is building their own. They will likely a succeed somewhat.

The comment you are replying to is the common belief on this sub that one will be able to edit its own code and enhance itself into something with unpredictable godlike powers. Once that happens, a super Ai may not allow rivals Ai to surpass or catch up.

Maybe one caused the earthquake?

the loop for ai to do recursive self improvement is a very very long supply chain unless it can get very far with just algorithmic improvements.

so i dont see why we shouldnt just assume the less hardware overhang the better,

which would pretty much mean we should go as fast as possible