The funny part is that even when these AI get as good at writing as humans, most people won’t be able to monetize their “stories”. Anyone who actually understands economics understands that higher supply equals lower demand for each individual story. So flooding the market with stories just creates saturation and lowers the amount of money each story could fetch. Eventually when the supply is high enough, most people’s work will be worth little to nothing.

Once again not true.

From my perspective it has a cost, because I value other things than my own survival. As do most humans who are not complete sociopaths.

From you and every mortal perspective that has no cost.

You're not counting the full cost of humanity dying. Humanity dying also means that all the future humans will never have a chance to exist. We're potentially talking about the loss of trillions+ of lives.

Yeah, I was trying AI Dungeon out and it can not for the life of it make a sane story.

Yeah, I was trying AI Dungeon out and it can not for the life of it make a sane story.

the cure for heart disease is not eating seed oils and the cure for aging is hyperbaric oxygen therapy

Well that just means they are YET to make that money

That's why we need pure open source AI to at least semi- keep up with the latest commercial thing.

Good point.

Lol.

I'm a professional writer. I actually find ChatGPT to be a really useful tool in my writing... but if you couldn't string together an interesting enough story to get published without AI, you aren't going to do it with AI.

Certainly, we have additional input media, notably visual. We also appear to run a network training process every night based on whatever is in our short-term memory which gives us a "personal life story".

Beyond this though, what is there?

My internal dialogue appears to bubble up out of nowhere. It's presented to my consciousness in response to what I see and hear, i.e whatever is in my immediate input buffer, processed by my nightly trained neural network.

I struggle with the same classes of problems an LLM does. Teach me a new game, and I'll probably suck at it until I've practiced and slept on it a couple of times. This is pretty similar to loading it into a buffer and running a training step on the buffer data. Give me a tricky puzzle and the answer will float into my mind apparently from nowhere, just as it does for an LLM.

> Without knowing what it means

That's an assumption. We don't actually know how the black box gets the right words. We don't actually know how your neural network gets the right words.

This is required to understand that quote:

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."

• Frank Herbert

The above quote is the status quo.

Sorry, I meant to point to #11 on that sheet "ChatGPT scores IQ=147, 99.9th %ile." But the others are also interesting.

Is there a source for these?

Also wondering if ChatGPT or others have been subjected to a standard IQ test. Given that it was able to pass the Wharton and Medical exams.

I found this https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O5KVQW1Hx5ZAkcg8AIRjbQLQzx2wVaLl0SqUu-ir9Fs/edit#gid=1264523637 but not the details source/owner of the sheet.

I’m not sure why OP has been hearing “basically nothing” - I’m not anywhere near that field, but I’ve been seeing updates on new breakthroughs cross my newsfeed at least 1-2 times per month.

You can buy time on quantum computers https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-buyers-guide-to-quantum-as-a-service-qubits-for-hire/

Also how useful is quantum chemistry.

You can probably just "memorize the rules" with a neural network, the way protein folding was solved, and not actually simulate the quantum chemistry. This is drastically faster and almost as accurate.

This means you just do a bunch of chemistry experiments, or load in the data from already performed experiments, and figure out the rules so you can predict the experiments you didn't perform. Neural networks can already learn most possible functions so they can approximate what a quantum chemistry sim would theoretically be exact for.

And the approximations can be potentially just as accurate : remember your input data has finite resolution. (significant figures)

Yeah, Skynet wasn't so superior that it owned the human race. Its machines were not particular clever, and it made the mistake of leaving its central core vulnerable. Those do not sound like the traits of a super intelligence. More like general intelligence geared heavily toward strategic military power. I think of a super intelligence as having limitless power, and having fusion and quantum computing from the start gives a potential AI a huge leg up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/115jht7/prompt_engineer_jobs_paying_300k_w_no_degree/

who will we make fun of then?

I kind of disagreed. If it were AI was used to make some stock pick predictions, I would then agree.

This is just that BuzzFeed announced there were going to use AI and humans decided to jump in to invest. Nothing more.

Thanks! But I don't think it's a boring use case.

We're waiting basically. At this point there are multiple competitive approaches, and we're attempting to see which one is most easily scalable and fault tolerant. Once an approach is found that's both, it'll likely explode into more prominence. For now however, expect the continued rollout of normal roadmaps such as IBMs while waiting for a breakthrough.

As far as I'm aware, there is no known quantum algorithm that could break AES-256.

Your quantum chemistry simulation qubit estimate seems about right. But that's also a boring use case. You'll only make money off of chemistry researchers.