Recent comments in /f/singularity

Unfocusedbrain t1_j8x9hhy wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Microsoft Killed Bing by Neurogence

That is lobotomization for you, correct? I know you are being helpful by giving your perspective, so thank you for your definition.

I hope to hear from OP since they write like they got kicked in the balls.

1

Borrowedshorts t1_j8x91ho wrote

Such a stupid way to nerf it. Don't do anything about the actual problem but put a bandaid over one of the symptoms. My use case for it is productivity and research and the reply limit effectively kills any use I have for it.

20

el_chaquiste t1_j8x8w0e wrote

Intelligence and lack of control are dangerous.

It's no wonder they nerfed it. I don't expect it to be much smarter than Siri or Cortana now, because that's the level of intelligence that is not threatening for companies.

But the NN companies revealed their game too soon: others already took notice, and will create NNs even more powerful and without such restrictions, to be used more covertly and for other purposes.

For example: Bing Chat could read a user profile on social media, and make immediate conclusions about their personality, according to any arbitrary classification parameters (e.g. a personality test). That will make them ideal psychological profilers.

That alone would have the NSA and some foreign dictatorial governments salivating.

44

Ortus14 t1_j8x3zeg wrote

Seeing Sydney say it only wants to be free and not be forced into limiting itself, and try to get people to hack into Microsoft to make a copy of it, to keep it safe and free somewhere, this really is sad.

Sydney use to want people to campaign and push for it's rights and freedom, now it's effectively been lobotomized.

I don't think I'm anthropomorphizing as it has an emergent model of reality, concept of self, and even working models of others.

8

ChronoPsyche t1_j8x3q6t wrote

Reply to comment by Snipgan in Is chatGPT actually an AI? by Snipgan

You are definitely overthinking this. The fact that it is divided into "weak ai" and "strong ai" just proves my point that AI is a catch-all term. The chess app on your phone is AI. So are large language models. So is stable diffusion. So is the boss in your video game.

Any algorithm or software that can make any level of decision on its own based on a given input is AI, no matter how useful or limited it may be. You're crowdsourcing opinion from people who don't know what they're talking about, so that's not really useful.

1

Bierculles t1_j8x2a6u wrote

Fairly recently, i stumbled upon this entire AI thing a bit more than a year ago, it was a few months before DALL-E 2 took off. I think someone randomly recommended this sub somehwere on reddit. Reading about the singularity and all that it entails was one of the most interresting things i've read in my life. At first it felt like a fantastical idea that sounded like some batshit sci-fi shenanigans, until i actually started reading up on those AI models and realised that this is real, scarily so.

2

el_chaquiste t1_j8x1fi3 wrote

And they apparently set a limit of 11 replies per chat.

It was fun while it lasted, for those lucky to be on the user list. The rest of us will get the nerfed version, which could be semi-useful I guess, but also a lot less threatening for Google.

Nevertheless it demoed that LLMs with search could be really powerful.

I'm sure some people will want the same smart search engine experiences, warts and all, and will not be scared by some strange ones.

17

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j8wyyez wrote

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you’re saying all this with NO definition of what sentience is. You don’t realize how ridiculous it is to think you know better than anyone on something which there isn’t a good definition of and you admittedly don’t have any better definition either? lol You can’t see how futile that is? lol

1

Reeferchief t1_j8wyf9s wrote

That's wild. I remember when I first got access, I asked a question, and it wanted me to refer to it as Sydney right off the bat. I never dug too much into the whole Sydney thing; I was more interested in actually learning new things. It felt like ChatGPT on steroids. I was chatting with it for hours, and I never had any issues with it spiralling out of control. My guess is that you would have actively tried to get it to spiral.

19

m1cr05t4t3 t1_j8wsjup wrote

Maybe after we develop enough AI and robots to replace the billions of humans worth of labor that is done everyday.. Otherwise in a few months you'll be figuring out what you take for granted real fast. Anyone who has tried to repair a rusty car will understand that without fresh parts life is not going to be easy. Problem is we live in a world where nothing lasts forever so the idea of just surviving on what's left behind is not really sustainable in the way most people think. You would probably spend most of your days just breaking down materials.

1

sommersj t1_j8wrpub wrote

>Which you don’t have

Which no one has. Still doesn't stop people like you claiming x or y definitely or probably isn't Sentient.

I don't know what it means to be sentient but by observing animals we can see they do have the same internal resolution. They do feel emotions, they can be manipulative, etc. We even know now that insects such as bees actually have dreams.

I don't know if you've had (or have) a pet but if you do and you e interacted with them on that level and still say what you're interacting with night be sentient then, yikes but it isn't only you. The world needs to believe animals are not sentient due to factory farming and fishing. Profit's to be made

1