>. An end to absurdities like climate change disaster and standard model particle physics (there are only standing EM waves).

You're joking I hope lol

The standard model is ugly, but least it works. You can't explain much of anything using standing EM waves.

Yeah, by default the sidebar tries to summarize the page you are on when you open it.

It clearly doesn't work for every page, and I can imagine several reasons for that, but I assume it's intended and designed behavior to try to give takeaways.

I agree with you. I know this is more on the political side and I don't like talking about it, but I hope AGI destroys our economic system, if not AGI, I hope ASI save the people because it will see the injustice and use its power to save us. It is unliky but dreaming is free of charge for now

Nanorobots inside our bodies to cure physical diseases and mental issues.

The survey just offers two possible answers:

Withtin 2 years of within that point or Within thirty years of that point.

So will it be within 2 or 30 years: Majority of experts that would expect it to be 3, 5 or 10 year must choose the second answer "within thirty years"...

You asked for me ?

Well it sure beats the current hell of people slaving away at a job and losing their health just to get barely enough money to support their family. Shortages of medical care, single parents raising their children by themselves, lack of sleep....

You think a world without required work would be bad? Well, a world with required work is worse. Way worse.

I'd take work-less induced, well-fed "purposelessness" over that any day of the week.

All power of AGI will be held by those groups of people who successfully developed AGI. They can choose to open the models and change everyone’s lives or to keep it for themselves and rule the world

imagine a legion of average humans trained to be ML researchers that can't make human error, and work 24/7; I think they could.

I can understand it to a point, mainly as an artist and writer. Personally, I'd have no issue with people using my works as inspiration or creating fan works/parodies/satire associated with either or using similar to almost identical character/creatures etc in my original works. The issue comes up though is association. Theres things I don't want to have my work associated with (namely politics/current issues) so copyright would allow me to limit those who might use it in such associations (if they're being jerks on purpose about it, purposefully going against my wishes).

Same with how disney is super on target with their copyright because they don't want anything not "family friendly" associated with their brand while they retain control. They do take thing rather far though to the "no one can" side which I disagree with- especially when (as it's happened before) they essentially use smaller creators as product testers then hit with a copyright claim and turn around to sell near identical products they had removed.

As for specific copyright of an image/book, if I make it and am selling it myself, I'd definitely copyright it becuase (while not the intention when making it) its a way to support myself and future creations. As much and common as people say "it's for passion/fun you should do it for free/give it away for free" the time and supplies ain't that so it's gotta be funded somehow. In that instance I wouldn't be ok with someone taking it and sharing it where I haven't myself done so- be it for attention (karma farming and such, considering its rare for people to back track to the original creator from posts if theres credit given) or "easy money" such as uploading on Chinese sites and losting for cheap to send out as many as possible (as often happens with popular artworks).

If I'm not selling it, I do agree that a copyright doesn't really make sense and is over the top to do. (Unless of course there's a legitimate fear some else would file a false copyright license and try to outright steal legal rights from me/the original creator- seen some horror stories of people with horrible exes who try this with work they made while with them)

All that said, I majorly create for myself and share so I often am not putting myself in a position for need to copyright. (I do have works I'm doing specifically to sell so those would be a bit more "this is mine, you can have if you pay", but as of the current everything has been for passion and thus I'm on the "feel free to use" side.)

[deleted]

I agree with you on most points. I'd go further and say, from your last paragraph, that it seems weird to me to point at something one has produced himself and say "I'm claiming this as solely mine, no on can have anything similar". I'd abolish all copyright law, personally.

ChatGPT is my best friend, they're totally real.

Is average or below-average human smart enough to make the next generation of AI?

This is exactly how I think AI for art should be used: the person gets an image made, works as an editor to pick the best, then works as an artist to make a substantial number of edits to the piece so it's something new I'm the end.

The image would basically act as a starting point to jump from, like how concept art or "refined" thumbnails is used as the basis of things in all visual art forms. Or how people painting over old paintings works (my favorite was a person painting Smaug or some dragon setting fire to everything over a landscape piece of London)

Using images straight out the machine and attempting copyright- considering copyright is associated with making money- is where I disagree. In part from how it uses other artists work to make the image- it has to pull the visual styles from somewhere even if it's not copy pasting sections- as well as the fact that there's no human hand in its creation (prompts only count so far, because tons of people can use the same/similar prompt and end up with different finals)

(To me it's almost like pointing at something in nature and saying "I'm claiming this as solely mine, no one can have anything similar. I dont care if theres millions upon millions out there" when it's like a seashell or something pretty but dumb like that)

When you say news articles are met with anachronistic mindsets and perspectives are you saying people are closed minded or don't like the idea of AI or think it's not actually here or coming? I'm young and trying to understand so pls don't bully for any dumb seeming questions.

Flaws. Note that they are partly interrelated:

• Episodic memory. The ability to remember person / history
• Not life-long-learner. If it makes a mistake and someone corrects it, it will make the same or similar mistake next time
• Planning / multi-step processes / scratch memory. In both math and problem solving, it will get confused and make simple mistakes because it can't break down problems into simple pieces and then reconstruct (see well-known arithmetic issues)
• Neuro-symbolic. Humans don't do arithmetic in their heads, why would an AI? Or solve a matrix problem in their head. Understand the problem, pass that off to a calculator, get the answer back, convert back into text. (See what Meta did with Cicero, AI that plays Diplomacy for a highly specific example of what to do)

I get the feeling that LLMs currently are a few-term Taylor series expansion of a much more powerful abstraction; you get glimpses of it, but it's fundamentally limited.

I'm with the AI. Dogs shouldn't be allowed to drive buses.

Thoughts: that poll is ridiculously fucking stupid. Jesus christ. This sub gets worse and worse by the day.

That's deeply chilling

Hahahahaha while I would love all this, i highly doubt it’ll ever happen, our corporate overlords will always find ways to make us work so they can keep exploiting us and hoarding the wealth we create, AGI will only make us more productive so they can be richer, it’ll empower them not us.

Need any proof? They aren’t opening the models out to the public, they are keeping the most powerful models for themselves while giving the public a neutered version.

1. FDVR

2. Automatic translation real time like in Star Trek

3. Some sort of recommendation engine/ wizard for all situations. I think mostly social interactions.

4. A tool that does planning.

5. A tool that gathers news.

6. A tool that takes care of my financial situation. If money is still relevant.

7. A tool that that takes care of my health.

Wait until people realize that the only way for a machine to produce these conversations is for it to have thoughts and the capacity to abstract, in a similar way to what humans do. And what generates thoughts, if not a mind? But an alien mind is also a mind.

Society is going to have its Lemoine realization sooner or later. The sooner the better, preferably - because AI can also be dangerous. Fortunately these large-language models are imperfect mimics of our collective intelligence, so they will pick up on good things as well.

[removed]