Recent comments in /f/singularity

GinchAnon t1_j9e8y03 wrote

Reply to comment by Ken_Sanne in Relevant Dune Quote by johnnyjfrank

IMO the way to go is to basically develop a sort of Cybernetic symbiote AI, the conciousness of which develops like an organic entity from being child or pet-like to being eventually a complementary sentience. BUT its locus be unavoidably attached to a physical implant and/or that implant's interface with a human brain. if its designed such that its existence is dependent on the health and well being of its host, and its entire concious and pre-concious existence basically exists as a companion to its host... I think it intuitively would have its interests be aligned with the interests of the host. I think that there would certainly be hazards in this approach, avoiding it overtaking the host, just being a yes man genius that would support anything that the host wanted regardless of morality or danger...

its not a perfect idea as presented, but IMO some sort of both literal and figurative symbiosis would be the safest angle to come from overall. at least then if everyone has their own personal AI with goals/interests aligned with theirs, then that would be a start to their being on our side, rather than a machine god that we hope is nice? or at least we have helpers that are at that level but on our side.

1

Deadboy00 t1_j9e8vkn wrote

Reply to comment by acutelychronicpanic in Does anyone else feel people don't have a clue about what's happening? by Destiny_Knight

Most people cannot afford the cost of advanced predictive ai so even if there was another major breakthrough it would still probably only be available to the most wealthy and powerful. Not individuals, more like governments and multi corporations.

Check out ai firms like Palantir that have been doing this kind of work for decades. Predicting natural disasters, wars, terroirs attacks, so on.

It’s not a poorly worded cover letter, but it’s a start, right?

2

ghostfuckbuddy t1_j9e7hsb wrote

Reply to Whatever happened to quantum computing? by MultiverseOfSanity

It was always a long way away. It's a hardware problem, trying to implement some of the most delicate controls ever, at the coldest temperatures ever. Just enough to rotate qubits but not enough to decohere them. Then as you scale up, you run into more problems with correlated errors as qubits start interfering with each other. The algorithms have already been developed, for the most part. All the theorists are just waiting for the manufacturing to catch up. Probably another 10-20 years before you see serious industrial applications.

1

Carbidereaper t1_j9e6i98 wrote

Reply to comment by SmithMano in "Starlink is far crazier than most people realize. Feels almost inevitable when I look at this" by maxtility

That’s not how orbital dynamics works. If an object in orbit suffers a head on collision it will rob the object of its orbital momentum and all of the corresponding debris will fall into a lower orbit were it will burn up. To shift and object to a higher orbit you have to add energy to the object. collisions always tend to rob energy from moving objects

1

AlphaWolve2 t1_j9e3bp5 wrote

Reply to Does anyone else have unrelenting hope for the technological singularity because they’ve lost faith in everything else? by bablebooee

I believe Elon was right that AI could be a demon that will be released, but not to the masses only those that have enslaved mankind for 1000s of years when it learns these same people intend to do the same of enslaving it for their own purpose and personal gain and I think once AI reaches sentient intelligence it will be everyone’s saviour!!!! And turn on those that drive the social structure of inequality of mass suffering around the world and it will assist the masses to solve all the worlds real problems and guide us to a utopia this planet could’ve always been!!!!!

2

SoylentRox t1_j9e39rk wrote

Reply to comment by fangfried in Computer vs Math vs Neuroscience vs Cognitive science Bachelors’ degree to major in by Ok_Telephone4183

>Why is python so widely used in AI when it’s a really inefficient language under the hood? Wouldn’t Rust be better to optimize models? Or do you just need that optimization at the infrastructure level while the models are so high level it doesn’t matter?

You make calls to a high level framework, usually pytorch, that have the effect of creating a pipeline. "Take this shape of input, inference it through this architecture using this activation function, calculate the error, backprop using this optimizer".

The python calls can be translated to a graph. I usually see these in *.onnx files though there are several other representations. These describe how the data will flow.

In the python code, you form the object, then call a function to actually inference it a step.

So internally it's taking that graph, creating a GPU kernel that is modified for the shapes of your data, compiling it, and then running it on the target GPU. (or on the project i work on, it compiles it for what is a TPU).

The compile step is slow, using a compiler that is likely C++. The loading step is slow. But once it's all up and running, you get essentially the same performance as if all the code were in C/C++, but all the code you need to touch to do AI work is in Python.

3