I wish it were so, but I prefer to be more conservative in my estimate and get pleasantly surprised. I say we get immortality in 500 years from now.

>In humans for example, people with the highest intelligence tend to be more empathetic towards life itself and wants to preserve it.

That's such a bad take. Humans are evolved to cooperate and have empathy, AI is just optimizer, that will kill us all, because it needs our atoms.. unless we explicitly align it.

Then you are a test subject in our experiment my friend! Can you self-reflect on this thinking process? I'm serious. Think about translating your vision to words, and deliver me what you say.

It's important to not give me a coherent sentence here. I just want a one-to-one translation of visions to tokens (words, subwords, whatever)

If you think you can make the tokenization process more coherent, that's okay as well. But I really just want you thinking in vision first

Alignment gamble

We get Cyberpunk 2077

Assuming no major alignment problems.

You can do that right now my man, you could bring a chimp into your house and take care of him. Have you? No because it would be too difficult, and you fear he may hurt you or kill you. Maybe AI does not want to use resources on primitive beings as well?

> Why would it?

We're violent and irrational and it doesn't need us for anything. Why would it keep us around?

I am a highly visual individual with very visual thinking process. Sometimes I have trouble remembering in language and have to memorize the entire visual imageries.

Lmaoo you took a shot and missed, just take the L buddy

I always try to stay conservative with investments but I did invest some in microsoft and Nvidia. I would say only invest the amount you wouldn't miss if something goes wrong.

what if singularity is powerful, but not quite enought to completely stop aging and others poignant problems ?

Someone else mentioned you could potentially apply the anthropic principle to this. Or my thought from that: quantum suicide / immortality potentially applies too if it is real.

Being; we will inevitably find ourselves only in the good outcome because we won't exist in the bad one.

Agreed

Okay and how will these people get paid?

If monkeys focused on making monkey AI they wouldn't be in zoos right now

I think we are past that. It would maybe have worked 10 years ago..

My concern is that even the models less powerful than ChatGPT (which can be run on a single pc), can be linked up as components into systems which could achieve AGI. Raw transformer based LLMs may actually be safer than this because they are so alien that they don't even appear to have a single objective function. What they "want" is so context sensitive that they are more like a writhing mass of inconsistent alignments - a pile of masks - this might be really good for us in the short term. They aren't even aligned with themselves. More like raw intelligence.

I also think that approximate alignment will be significantly easier than perfect alignment. We have the tools right now, this approximate alignment is possible. Given the power combined with lack of agency of current LLMs, we may surpass AGI without knowing it. The issue of course is someone just has to set it up to put on the mask of a malevolent or misaligned AI. Thats why I'm worried about concentrating power.

I'll admit I'm out of my depth here, but looking around, so are most of the actual researchers.

We associate physical labor with stress because it tires us. Ai will not get tired.

Great measured response. Acknowledge the valid issues while ignoring the clearly ridiculous suggestion of pausing development.

I like your viewpoint

Yeah, I agree. I think there are a lot of bad jobs out there where automation is too expensive (humans are the automatons). Like the dishwasher example. Someone has to load the machine or unload it, and the underlying question of is the service industry simply BS? You don't need to go eat at a restaurant, etc.

I worked in IT and had no clue really what we did in connection to the various business sections. A lot of it was checkmarking that things were up, or checkmarking just for the sake of.

Or you have jobs that are deprecated where only 1 person knows how it works, but still critical and can't be automated. Its too old to be replaced.

Also: we have at present no way to train a system to reason from instructions.

GPT does it because its training set contained lots of humans following instructions from other humans in text form, and then RLHF semi-reliably amplified these parts. But it's not "trying" to follow instructions, it's completing the pattern. If there's an interiority there, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how instruction-following looks in humans, and we can't assume the same tendencies. (Not that human instruction-following is even in any way safe.)

> But that would be as simple as adding that clause to your query

And also every single other thing that it can possibly do to reach its goal, and on the first try.

I think that this is the most likely scenario, at least for the developed world, but I don't think that it will take 25 years and I don't think necessarily that people have to be hurt in the transition. If people are hurt it will likely be because of the traditionalists and Luddites who are resistant to change. The people who are standing between us and a more fair and equitable future are the same people who stop us from having a more fair and equitable present.

My company doesn't need to hire a professional translating service for our content anymore. GPT-3.5 does a great job for what we need.

They're still hiring actual humans to translate the UI interface though. For now.

The idea that most people will do nothing is also theory. If you were not restricted by finances, could work in any field without worry about money, would you be lazy and sit around all day? You could finally be an artist while having the ability to support a large family, you could travel anywhere, you could focus on yourself for once and not the cog that drives humanity around money. If humanity becomes lazy then that's their dream life because that is what they looked for when they finally had freedom.

While it will lead to more instability and problems short term, it will definitely mean legislators won't be able to turn a blind eye to the job displacement for nearly as long. I realized just a week or so ago that robotics isn't nearly as far behind as we initially thought.