As a chat AI I cannot make personal judgements about your character. However, it is important to recognize a variety of experiences and activities is generally considered important for mental health.

Given how stupid and limited chatGPT is, I'm surprised anyone is able to enjoy a conversation with it.

I follow the definition that consciousness is either described by

- AST (attention scheme theory), so a smaller part of a bigger system which receives high level information, but not the details. It's controlling the direction of the system when necessary, but not down to every detail, only on a high level. Many things might run on "auto-pilot" and the details be handled by specialized systems.

- Or from what I gathered so far about the bicameral mind theory, emphasizing the distinction between dreaming and reasoning.

Either way, explicit reasoning and understanding of concepts is crucial. The other problem is the myth of consciousness, like it would mean anything beyond that. That AI would do something then, or that it should get rights. No thanks. Get rid of your obsession with it, it only matters when it matters.

Superintelligence could create groups of super smart assholes. Imagine what those mass shooting sad dudes could make if they were 100x smarter.. lol they would nuke a city with a hydrogen bomb while streaming it on twitch

How do we k ow that consciousness will even be necessary for advanced life forms? Are bees or ants conscious? Does that make them any less alive?

That is incredibly unethical.

Yes, this fiasco reminds me of Steve Jobs' stealing the intellectual property of the GUI from Xerox. They (Xerox) were sitting on perfectly implementable technology, but didn't seem to think there was any need for ordinary consumers to use such an interface. Jobs evidently never signed any kind of confidentiality agreement as Xerox assumed his intentions for touring the facility were for educational proposes. Soon thereafter, Jobs pilfered Xerox's technology -- and the rest is history, as we all are accustomed to using what became the "mouse". I hope there are others who, like Jobs, will do what it takes to get this tech into all of our hands as soon as possible.

Google doesn't want to cannabalize its own bussiness, which is search advertising. They probably realized early on that LLM models will compete with their main profit generator, so they decided to not allocate a significant amount of capital into making it a publically available product.

Gosh you're miserable 🙄

That’s a lot of words to not actually say anything

Well first you said altering the work of someone after his dead is morally corrupt. Then you said it's okay if the one who holds the rights gives you permission. The first point is general enough that it contradicts the second though.

Anyway it's totally fine to reuse someones work. Above all for personal use.

A rational person would drink from a survival standpoint but by itself it was irrational.

The CEO doesn't invent the AGI. They also probably don't have direct access to it at the beginning. There's a possibility that the people that actually build it could stage a coup.

You are approaching consciousness through logic, there is a deeper sense in which it can be understood. But you have to let go of drilled in mental models of sense making. It is something that exists outside yourself and wholly within your self. It's highly paradoxical and impossible to describe objectively. You are scratching the surface of an insanely deep question that is knowable and unknownable. Take your time, live your life, engage with other living beings directly. It's not something that you can describe in language, or with art or action but all at the same time you can. Take a deep breath and sit with it as long as you can, then do it again and again and again. A few years from now you will understand completely and not at all.

Why would it be anybody other than the CEO?

Who will really have control over the AGI?

The CEO? Or somebody working "under" them?

Yup, though I think the key is that it would have to do that consistently and completely. We have AIs now that are definitely not conscious that can superficially mimic that sometimes and I think it's important that we don't consider things like that to be interchangeable with actual consciousness.

Absolutely not, but we likely will have the ability to create an AI that is long before we have the ability to perform your test.

Aha, now I understand. That "making Google dance" statement was about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_dance. Wasn't that a CEO Ballmer thing back then?

Changing something someone created with their permission is morally different than doing it without their permission. Why do you need that explained to you

so that makes it morally different? your point is flawed 😅

I think it is debatable for about a third of humanity.

This subreddit heavily underrates how predictable humans are, and reading minds isn't a hard task for a good AI system as well.

We're walking meat. We'll be heavily manipulated by AI in the next months, AI supervillians are going to exist by 2024-2025.

>It seems unlikely that DeepMind is behind OAI from a science perspective

So it seems unlikely that Alphabet is not just pouring another $10B into DeepMind as Microsoft did with OpenAI?

Hahaha, just kidding. The people at DeepMind are so much more intelligent than the people at OpenAI, they can run all the new models perfectly inside their heads and don't need massive compute to verify and fix their buggy ideas (or hire a load of paid workers for RLHF).

[deleted]