Recent comments in /f/singularity

tehrob t1_jeba7qn wrote

Reply to comment by Antique-Bus-7787 in LAION launches a petition to democratize AI research by establishing an international, publicly funded supercomputing facility equipped with 100,000 state-of-the-art AI accelerators to train open source foundation models. by BananaBus43

Just line the building with thermite. All employees do all work inside with 1 foot out the door, and if the a singularity event occurs, you blow the place and see if its smart enough to get out.

1

PurpedSavage t1_jeba5qb wrote

Reply to comment by acutelychronicpanic in LAION launches a petition to democratize AI research by establishing an international, publicly funded supercomputing facility equipped with 100,000 state-of-the-art AI accelerators to train open source foundation models. by BananaBus43

Given ur assumptions are true, ur analysis is completely correct. Correct me if I’m wrong tho, but I think ur assuming that LAION wants to disband all other AI projects an monopolize the AI framework. I think this isn’t a correct assumption. They merely want to add on to the existing decentralized network of AI models, and create a stronger framework of checks and balances all the development of AI. By involving experts from every country, and providing increased transparency. Its a response to the black box OpenAI, Google, and Amazon have put up. They put this black box up so they can keep their research and trade secrets hidden.

1

AsuhoChinami t1_jeb8892 wrote

Reply to comment by TheDividendReport in Ray Kurzweil Predicted Simulated Biology is a Path to Longevity Escape Velocity by Dr_Singularity

My timelines are being adjusted and shortened each month. It's getting really hard to predict even the near future. Should've just released it back in '21 like he'd originally planned, since that was the last basically normal year before the warm-up that was 2022 and the speed-up that 2023 seems to be.

10

TheDividendReport t1_jeb7rpx wrote

Reply to Ray Kurzweil Predicted Simulated Biology is a Path to Longevity Escape Velocity by Dr_Singularity

Speaking of Kurzweil, I'm suddenly chuckling inside realizing how all discussion of when his next book would stop getting delayed was abruptly put on the sidelines as ChatGPT rolled out.

So, here's a renewed and obligatory remark on how that book may never be written because we very well may have found ourselves on the on-ramp of the point of no return and there's no keeping up.

54

ClinchySphincter t1_jeb78tz wrote

Reply to Open letter calling for Pause on Giant AI experiments such as GPT4 included lots of fake signatures by Neurogence

This letter smells like a perfectly executed disinfo op: throw in some big names (with fake signatures), real people who don't recognize the con sign it, let it snowball, make the news cycle, remove fake names...

Ask: who benefits from this? Google & other big corps who are falling behind. Or China

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/alphabets-google-and-deepmind-pause-grudges-join-forces-to-chase-openai

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1068624/chatgpt-race-china-baidu-ai/

2

Cartossin t1_jeb6xm9 wrote

Reply to comment by scooby1st in Where do you place yourself on the curve? by Many_Consequence_337

>how implicitly confident you are about this occurring with ChatGPT

I was not referring to ChatGPT as the thing that will become the digital god. I am mostly saying that it is a reminder that the digital gods are coming even if they don't come out of LLMS.

If I asked you 5 years ago what your estimate for when we'll achieve AGI, what would it have been? Since the release of ChatGPT + GPT4, has this estimate changed?

If you asked me 5 years ago, I'd have said 20-100 years. If you ask me now, I say more like 2-20 years. Why? Because we've gotten much closer than I thought we'd be by now. I have to update the timeline.

3

Chatbotfriends t1_jeb67mm wrote

Reply to LAION launches a petition to democratize AI research by establishing an international, publicly funded supercomputing facility equipped with 100,000 state-of-the-art AI accelerators to train open source foundation models. by BananaBus43

I give up. No one is taking the threat AI poses seriously. Everyone wants to be the first one to create an artificial god who probably won't be very benevolent. Never mind the human cost of losing jobs and the increase in taxes all but 23 countries will have to enforce to pay for the rising unemployment this will create. The tech companies lied about only going after boring and dangerous jobs. All jobs are at risk now.

−5

MassiveWasabi t1_jeb67h2 wrote

Reply to comment by jason_bman in Microsoft research on what the future of language models that can be connected to millions of apis/tools/plugins could look like. by TFenrir

I looked into that just now and my conclusion is that there may be some translation issue between the researchers and the AI. The researchers are all Chinese and I can see some other simple English mistakes, so I'm not sure if they were using something for translation or if they were just typing in English. Maybe they did all of the research in Chinese and then translated for us to read the paper. I don't really know, though.

3

Prestigious-Ad-761 t1_jeb639j wrote

Reply to comment by Andriyo in The argument that a computer can't really "understand" things is stupid and completely irrelevant. by hey__bert

Did I say anywhere a blackbox was magic? I'm referring to the fact that with our current understanding, we can only with great difficulty infer why a neural network works well within a given task with the "shape" that it acquired from its training. And inferring it for each task/subtask/microsubtask it now has the capacity to achieve seems completely impossible, from what I understand.

But truly I'm an amateur, so I may well be talking out of my arse. Let me know if I am.

1

Prestigious-Ad-761 t1_jeb5dzx wrote

Reply to comment by VinoVeritable in The Rise of AI will Crush The Commons of the Internet by nobodyisonething

I imagine the following combination of factors.

  1. Most people were not educated about it, had no clue it existed, let alone how useful it can be. Very few users truly used it (acording to what another search engine told me).

  2. As a corolary of number 1, they felt they could pinch some pennies by removing that function.

  3. When they did, also as a corolary of number 1, they noticed that the outrage was not in sufficient volume to be a threat.

  4. Apple removed the ratings system on the apple store, in order to be able to sell the possibility for rankings to be sold instead of deriving from user satisfaction.

  5. Most people being casuals did not even notice that it was gone. No public outrage.

  6. Corolary of 5 - Google app store followed suit, then Youtube did too, so did Tripadvisor, Imdb (for a while). And little by little, the possibility to filter content according to user preference started to fade. And content started to be prioritised according to commercial guidelines and not number of visitors or external links, perceived respectability, density of content and keyword relevance (which remain a parameter of the algorithm, but at a much lower rung in the ladder than before). Well, on keyword relevance, it's technically gone now that there's no exact search.

  7. Google saw this and applied this commercial outlook to the search engine, not just the app store. They profited immensely.

  8. Nowadays, the shape of the internet changed from a planet to the tip of an iceberg; but many new users weren't born before these changes, many more did not use those functions and even less of them would care.

I imagine.

1