“Then when unemployment is up and people are desperate”

Well, there’s your problem. An ideal solution will happen before widespread suffering is the motivator.

100% absolutely needed for a UBI. This is a critical step.

This sub seems to attract a hugely disproportionate number of people with mental health disorders.

[deleted]

Never

Who knows... we could have been using gas turbines or sterling engines or electric motors more widely.

I can see for calculations and things with specific "correct" answers. But how will this handle the more "grey" area question where the answers are pretty subjective and as we've already seen dependant on the LLM data at the time?

You are incredibly cringe.

I disagree. Even if there was a change or slowdown it would not be predictable now we are at such an early stage in the adoption of the technology and what it will be used for.

I do agree that if they had focused on the copyrighted training data it would be more understandable. Even tho I personally think you should still get copyright, I do see how it's a tricky issue and why there's different opinions about it.

Yes

What about a post of telling ChatGPT your dream? I just did that yesterday lol

People are deriding ChatGPT now saying, "it answers Physics questions like a C- student." Which actually means it answers Physics questions in a way that might earn a human a degree. Something completely unthinkable just a few years ago. And this is February 2023. This is the first of many iterations that will improve and inevitably surpass human abilities in a general way. Remember search in the 90s? It wasn't anywhere near where it is today, and AI is ramping up a lot faster than search did.

Photographs record reality we can perceive. AI art machines generate images that are derived based on their similarity to other image elements which match the prompts it is given.

I agree with you that it is unfortunate the patent office based its decision on creative intention instead of on derivation from other copyrighted images. For me, that's the crux of the issue. These machines are just taking your prompt tokens, and manipulating pixels until the generated image is as close as it can get based on what it has been trained on. Which are copyrighted images. So it is literally deriving a new image based on similarity to copyrighted images. Which is derivation, and derivative works are only allowed by copyright holders. (Under US copyright law)

Well... now things are happening fast enough that if I predict something that happened two weeks ago, I'm still counting it as a prediction. :-)

[deleted]

about as long as it will take us to blindly trust any human being.

The article talks about how neural nets don’t play nice with loops, and connects that to the concept of computational irreducibility.

You say it’s not hard to imagine the net looping itself into some sort of awareness and agency. I agree, in fact that’s exactly my point. When humans see a machine talk in a very human way, it’s an incredibly reasonable mental step to think it will ultimately become more or less human. That sort of linear progression narrative is incredibly human. We look at life in exactly that way, it dominates our subjective experience.

I don’t think that’s what the machine thinks pr cares about though. Why would its supposed self-progress subscribe to human narratives? Maybe it has the temperament of a rock, and just stays put until picked up and thrown by one force another? I find that equally likely but doesn’t make for exciting human conversation.

>So putting a barrier to entry will cause more pressure on an already difficult industry to be in?

Barrier to entry through profit? Even the extremely unqualified article you sent doesn't claim this is a barrier to entry. And what specific industry are you talking about?

>https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/

>That money is being spent elsewhere. The money you are receiving benefits from is from property taxes, gas tax, sin taxes, or other specific taxes like telephone tax. Sooo I backed up my claim and yet you have not.

Not only does this assume I'm American, this also seems to imply the ludicrous logic of the money going elsewhere meaning it does not contribute. If that money disappears, "elsewhere" as you put it will be where the money from other sources will be spent. Conversely, an increment will lead to an increase in benefits.

Not to mention that in a world where jobs start rapidly disappearing I'd be interested in how much income tax the government gets and how much consumer spending based taxation occurs. You only backed up a claim reliant on this bizzare idea that any government spends money like a ten year old.

>Back it up. Where and why do you think this?

I know this can be quite hard for you, but this is based on the simple logic of "high taxes decrease profit->need more profit->workers require money, increasing cost-> Invest in cheap ways to increase efficiency". Similar systems have been extremely effective in raising productivity and automation in Scandinavia, leading to a very high degree of economic and social mobility.

[removed]

I agree but someone has to pay Caesar. The Chinese government or whatever government cannot function without public cash flow. This cash flow comes from taxes duties on produced and purchase products. We will literally be going back to the caves we don't figure out some way to fund or infrastructure or military and our government.

I already do that

Is this retroactive?

>But it having wants and needs and desires and goals

I don't think it is too hard to imagine something like a 'continually looping' LLM producing it's own needs and desires. Its thoughts and desires would just gradually evolve from the starting prompt where the 'temperature' setting would effectively control how much 'free will' the machine has. I think the hardest part would be keeping the machine sane and preventing it from deviating too much into madness. May be we ourselves are just LLMs in a loop.

Nah it's pretty dumb. A human made the image, the AI was the tool. The idea, the concept and the intention come from the human, the AI doesn't do anything if it's not prompted, it has no will.

It's the same as a camara. The camera generates 100% of the image yet we recognize that it's the human intention that counts, so photos are granted copyright. Even if you take an accidental photo you will still get copyright for it, even tho you did literally nothing more than pressing a button by mistake. Not treating generative AI in the same way is a stupid double standard.