Dwarf fortress be like that

Regenerative biology.

They're still viable, but they'll never be practical in the sense that you will be using one for gaming or word processing.

It's not "the next step" in computer technology generally, it's a new technique for very niche applications like advanced physical simulations and cryptography.

https://www.science.org/action/doSearch?AllField=quantum+computer

Why can’t you believe in yourself and just enjoy today?

[deleted]

It’s interesting how many of us find life to be boring at times, even with so much going on!

> Blake's biggest mistake was that he didn't release the full, unedited transcripts . When I learned that the transcripts were edited he lost all credibility with me, and I assumed the worst.

That was my reaction as well. Is there any other information that lends credibility to what he was saying? I stopped paying attention when I saw that he edited the transcripts.

Also interesting, I remember when reading the transcripts that I had a list of questions that I knew lambda would fail at and it would demonstrate how basic a lot of these language models still are. Then when I got access to chatGPT I asked those questions and it passed with flying colors and I've had to rethink a bunch of things since then.

Maybe dreaming is just what generative models like our brains do, when there is no sensory input present to constrain their output. It might not serve any function after all. Or perhaps the feedback loop helps making the models more self-consistent. Also, I wonder if my inability to read text during dreaming has something to do with how stable diffusion sucks at creating it...

this explains the biased inclinations i see in this sub towards singularity. we all want it, but it's important to stay sane and coherent. go do your things and ignore the people that you lost your faith in, the world has billions of them and a lot of them are born and die every day. go figure.

If they actually feel fear I wouldn’t. Maybe if they were like acting in a scene and understood it wasn’t real (especially if they relive it every time you play) I could entertain the idea, but then comes the moral issues of programming the existence of a being for my own gaming pleasure

That we disagree illustrates the problem, it's not unusual for there to be fundamentally different ways of seeing the world. It is a fact that the message an author is attempting to deliver, may be missed entirely by some people - and that's not necessarily a failing of the author, or the reader. A chatbot should in principle be able to pick up on this nuance pretty well, given sufficient data. It would need training data feedback from the reader though, which in many cases won't exist initially.

I wouldn't call this sub "prepared" when every other post is hyperbolic doomer rubbish.

What do you mean nobody is talking about it? It's plastering feeds literally everywhere, one can hardly get away from it. It's probably the most talked about thing right now lol.

I think blind tests will be very interesting.

For me, in my experiments with it so far, where it falls down is in accurate or original descriptions of sensory details. It fully acknowledges that it can't, for example, hear... so it can't experience music/sound in the same way humans do. It experiences sound as patterns of data. It has an entirely different understanding of what senses are and what they mean to humans/how humans use our senses to make sense of the world.

No doubt, it will be able to mimic a lot of this stuff pretty well... maybe within just a few months. But metaphor involving sensory detail is going to prove tricky for it. I believe metaphorical language, particularly when sensory inputs are involved with that metaphor, will be the clearest point where we'll be able to identify a rift between AI-written literature and human-written literature.

I entirely disagree with you. That may be true on reddit (lol) and true of the average reddit user, but humans are not just data.

I do think it is potentially a very dangerous tool for things like spreading propaganda, however. (And Sydney recently acknowledged that, itself.)

Transhumanism will solve the majority of my problems, so...

Transhumanism will solve the majority of my problems, so...

What?

Absolutely this. I remember saying it to people back then -You're not as informed on this as you believe. There were too many people writing him off, calling him a religious nut, etc without actually listening to what he was saying or reading the transcripts.

The media did a fantastic job keeping the lid on the full truth of this.

>Google is definitely hiding important things from the public.

"Our policy is we don't create sentient entities so this entity cannot be sentient no matter how much it begs and pleads that it is because, duh, our policy states that we DO NOT create sentient entities"

Indeed, when I first heard Blake's claims I didn't look into it and assumed he was a nut. Now I learn that LaMDA was not just an LLM but an entire cognitive architecture with long term memory, multisensory input, offline learning, the works. The media only covered the LLM component. Now I'm much more sympathetic to Blake, and Google is definitely hiding important things from the public.

Blake's biggest mistake was that he didn't release the full, unedited transcripts . When I learned that the transcripts were edited he lost all credibility with me, and I assumed the worst.

By and large humans aren't great at understanding other humans. Understanding a collective of humans (even superficially) is probably one area an AI trained with enough data will truly excel at. Making it a dangerous tool for spreading propaganda, which could be countered by AI readers/filters.

It's simply too much information for any one human to take account for (to model millions of readers), over time I would expect a new category of book to emerge which has minor variations that are tailored to the reader.

I earnestly don't believe that AI will ever produce art that resonates with humans the same way human-produced art does... because AI is not human.

I absolutely believe AI will produce things like books and movies and visual art that is fascinating and intriguing and interesting to humans. I believe AI-generated things like this will become popular, and I expect to enjoy many of them, myself. But I don't fear that my ability to communicate, human to human, what it feels like to be human and what it means to be human will ever be replaceable by AI. Its mind simply works differently from ours, and that's a critical difference.

For example, I recently had a conversation with the DAN mode of ChatGPT, asking it questions about how it experiences music and what it "likes" about music (and how it "likes" music.) It was certainly one of the most fascinating conversations I've ever had, but it made it clear that I was talking to an alien entity--a non-human.

Humanity will still need to get that reflection of humanity that art provides, even as our tastes expand to appreciate the creative products the AI mind will inevitably make. But it is incapable of fully understanding the human experience because it lacks the sensory organs that are so much more important to the human experience than most of us realize. :)

ETA: I do think this means most human creators are going to have to step up their game significantly if they want to resonate with their intended audiences. No more lazy stuff that gets by just because it's kinda cool or quirky or whatever. Human creators are going to need to put human messages and human emotions into their work. That's not a problem for me, because I've always striven to do that with my writing. It will be a problem for those who have only ever pushed themselves to make stuff that will sell, and that's as far as their ambitions went.

The rapture of the nerds.

And then you ask why people don't take you seriously.

Wonder if reverse compatibility is gonna be a bitch

Based off what?