Big surprise, a sub about how cool the singularity is happens to be full of people that are pro-AI.

Yes. The premise is that the AI makes all jobs obsolete. So if that results in having no job and literally starving to death then yes, I'll go shoot up a mansion if the only other option is to die slowly. Theoretically it won't come to that

It's necessary but it's going to be an uphill struggle.

It depends on whether we get UBI or something similar where we can survive without a job.

If yes, I'd make video games for fun. If no, I guess revolution against the capitalist overlords.

This is exactly it. A language model can't get predictions when only a handful of people have ever talked about a specific topic, which will happen with deep scientific topics.

Yes a research focused system would be amazing. This is going to be very difficult though because it needs to be able to create context categories on the fly and recognize what does and doesn't go in them.

In a traditional system we tag documents with topics that they relate to. A language model like this though is more sophisticated than these tags. It would need to recognize which papers relate to the topic at hand to create a meta summary. Having it propose new research or give me insights is even more difficult because that requires it to understand the reality that undergirds the papers. Current a language model has no way to understand that Portugal is real but Middle Earth is not.

I do think that this idea is one of the biggest benefits that these systems can bring to society so I'm hopeful they can build it.

That last part is the problem. We don't have any realistic physics that allows was drive. For instance, the one they are talking about requires negative mass which we not only have no evidence of but it sounds pretty ridiculous so we have no reason to think it might exist.

If aliens are using warp drive it'll almost certainly be different than anything we could think of today.

So are they pro or anti AI? Given who they are I could see them going either way.

For a while, AI will be used by big studios to make movies quicker and cheaper. Eventually though they won't be able to keep up and the ocean of independent artists will be able to wash Hollywood away.

Look at YouTube, it is still dominated by low and mid range companies. Large companies are not nimble enough not do they understand the platform enough, to dominate.

The power of AI is that it allows a single person to do with that used to take hundreds of people.

This is my dream of AI. A world where the means of production are so easy that there is no place for mega corporations to live.

Since consciousness is simply brain signals, yes we can detect consciousness without being conscious. That is what medical brain scanners do.

The issue is that we don't yet know how to translate the language.

A thermometer "knows" something is warm without needing to have consciousness to perceive temperature.

A computer that could read the pain signals in your brain would "know" you were in pain without needing consciousness.

Then why would anyone ever hire artists in the past? If literally everyone can do what an artists does then they are already worthless. So which is it? Do artists have a set of skills that the AI is replicating or can I just get my nephew to do that for free?

Marvel comics. It is absolutely 100% true that vast hordes of writers, artists, and other creative persons have read a ton of marvel comics and it impacts the style and stories they tell.

Yes, there will be companies that choose to use AI art and there will be humans who lose jobs. That is the story of automation. It isn't special to artists in any way. It's just that artists thought they were special snowflakes who could never be replaced and are realizing that ALL human activities can be replaced.

This isn't shifting wealth away from the masses. This is giving the tools of art to the masses. That is part of why AI is so exciting. I don't have any skills at drawing, but with AI driven art I can make my own art for RPGs or whatever whims I have. In the past I would need to pay for it, cajole a friend into doing it for free, or just not have the art exist.

With these new tools we will see an increase in the world of interesting art and the ability to create cool projects gets opened up.

I know that automation and the singularity especially is scary but the goal is to free humans of drudgery. We don't want to send the artists into the coal mines. We want to free the artists from the need to sell their art for money so they can create for the sheer joy of creating and not need to worry whether it's consumer friendly.

Anytime who goes to a sub to say "everyone in this sub is wing and the entire purpose of this sub is evil" is probably a lost cause, but it's relatively low effort to respond. If we never try to reach out to people we'll miss the ones that really are ready to change.

A philistine? I'm not sure what complaint you are trying to make.

AI research clearly isn't ignoring art or pretending it is important. The current complaint of the artists is that the AI is threatening their ability to earn money by copying the artists work.

The argument by the AI researchers is that everyone steaks from each other, there has never been an artist who hasn't learned from existing art and used it to shape their own style.

If we get to the point that we can alter the laws of physics (or the code of the simulation) then that will sort of be a difference except that it would still have the same basic effect of us being able to change the rules.

The only real way that it could matter if we are in a simulation is it we could escape it. Maybe when we die we "wake up" or something.

A different perspective on a similar idea is phenomenalism. This is the philosophical idea that the world we perceive and the world as it is are not the same. There are many routes this goes down, such as Kant's nouminal world, socially constructed identities, and cognitive biases.

This article makes the same fundamental flaw as all of the other arguments that "prove" we are in a simulation.

They all assume that the laws of physics in our stimulated universe are fundamentally the same as those in the parent universe. There is no reason that this must be the case. Minecraft is a great example. There are so many changes to the laws of physics in there that it would be difficult for one of them to even contemplate out universe.

For our parent, why do we think that they abide by conservation of energy, why do we think they have a speed limit, why do we think they need a simulation to access their past?

The real reason why the simulation hypothesis should be ignored is that it is philosophically inert. There is no method to test whether it is true and it's truth value has no impact on the world. If there was some way that it would matter whether it was true or false then we could assess it and move forward. Since there isn't, so it does is introduce weird existential dread in young computer enthusiasts.

I told you how the drug testing will improve. Since so much testing is based on trial and error, we can model much of that trial and error so that we only do animal and human tests in drugs we think are likely to work.

As our models improve we will eventually be able to skip animal and maybe even human trials. Those are both flawed systems do it is possible to create a new system which is more reliable.

The next stage that medical researchers have been talking about is custom drugs. We will assess an individual's biochemistry and then tailor drugs to them rather than assume that all humans are exactly the same (current method).

How does this all lead to immorality? Fuck if I know. I'm not a medical researcher. That is part of what makes science exciting. The future is the last great unexplored country. No one knows what the twists and turns of gate will bring us. No one can predict what the next break through will be. What we can say with certainty is that we haven't reached the end of the journey.

I'm sorry you hate this sub. It can feel terrible if you or a loved one are staring down the barrel of death and all we offer is "here are some cool things that might happen". If you joined up to find the secret to immorality, then you came to the wrong place. At the moment, achieving immorality remains the domain of snake oil salesmen. But just because something was impossible yesterday doesn't mean it will be impossible tomorrow. Sure maybe everyone reading this will die before the breakthrough happens. That just makes us like everyone else that ever lived, we aren't being extra punished. On the other hand it is possible that everyone under the age of 50 has the chance (by no means the certainty) to cross the threshold of aging.

Note, even in this wonderful future death is still likely. Trauma, disease, and suicide will all exist. There will almost certainly not be someone who lives forever, there are too many freak occurrences in the world. But just because you won't make it doesn't mean you stop trying.

A) not a little faster, mind bogglingly faster. It is going from months to hours.

B) by understanding how the proteins fold we can run simulations on the computer to find the most likely candidates for love testing. This could knock off years or even decades of trial and error.

The scientific process takes time. We have made intense strides. The technology behind the COVID vaccine and Alpha Fold are already revolutions.

The standard chicken for medicine is:

-discovery of a principle

-designing a treatment based on that principle

-doing the various trials to launch it

-making it available to rich people

-making it available to everyone

This process takes like 20 years. You are what 18? You've got your whole life ahead of you, don't stress anti-aging solutions yet. Plenty of people are working on them and they get here when they do. There is no law of physics that prevents extreme life extension so it'll come in one form or another.

Yes, Apple is designing AR tech. There is certainly a feedback loop, but they chose to design the tech BECAUSE they believe that it'll be revolutionary, not the other way around.

That is super impressive. AR is going to be revolutionary. Tim Cook said in a press thing that he expects it to be as impactful as the Internet. There is a decent possibility that he is right.

Having difficulty getting the data or physically building the model doesn't mean that the accuracy gains from such a model are diminishing.

That is equivalent to saying asking how fast cars can theoretically go before they fall apart and responding that the speed limit is 65.

It may be difficult to build a 10 trillion parameter model but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be more effective.

Transformation of society can't happen until society adopts the AI. The potential for change can be there but it takes widespread adoption to become actualized.

We already built out an AI, years ago, that was able to help people get out of parking tickets by giving them the right legal advice. It hasn't been widely adopted though so no major change has happened to society.

I agree that TODAY we could automate a lot of lower white collar work but we won't do it because the decision makers don't want to automate away their jobs. Hell, I'm watching my company go backwards on automation because they want a "human touch" which is just slower and sloppier than the partially automated system they are abandoning.

We need some key disrupters to enter the market, like Uber, Amazon, etc. and then things will cascade quickly.

It'll certainly happen way faster than we anticipate but, for example, so long as the courts don't recognize AI legal advice and the public feels more comfortable getting a real lawyer, a good AI lawyer program won't make a big impact.

It'll really hit when the companies start using AI and customers come to trust it more than humans. One that tipping point hits it'll cascade fast.

I've already told some of my workers that their job as writers is in danger soon so they need to start learning the skills to project manage multiple AI writers so they can continue to be useful.