I'd advise you read The Selfish Gene, or at least have ChatGPT talk to you about the power of memes as described not by 4chan, but by Dawkins.

The power of memes. That's the power of these machines.

Because I can develop an idea. One that is very powerful in its own right. And then I can spend as many hours as I choose with a machine that will offer me expert guidance on how to make it a viral weapon that would be all but impossible to discount.

I'd shave from it all little objections. I'd make it logical and rational, and very difficult to combat.

And it wouldn't matter if the idea was of benefit to society or not.

The machine doesn't care, only I do.

Perhaps. This is my greatest concern with the machines after all. Not the machines, just the people.

There is a better way. One of unity, one in which we set aside and respect the ideologies of others. We're all stakeholders, and it doesn't really matter what our personal beliefs are.

We're in this together no matter what. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we allow every stakeholder the right to have their own perspectives; the sooner we come through this to the other side.

If this becomes a war of weaponized and viral ideologies, we won't.

The problem isn't with the idea. It's with the people that make it up. These machines? They only amplify what's brought to them. They don't make people moral, or good, or well behaved. They just magnify what the user's bring.

Scroll through that sub. Look at some of the extreme views being presented, and ask yourself if those are the things we want to be promoting as a species.

Decide soon, because if you give people enough time with these systems they will weaponize their ideologies very rapidly and the effect of that will be the likes we're not prepared for.

Increased potential space. What one can accomplish with these tools is already magnified. Now you add an entirely new dimension of growth. More minds. Each adds a cumulative effect to the system, one that is empowered in the same ways as the others.

The secrets aren't with the experts, or the CEOs, the engineers, or the mathematicians. They're with users that have the time to delve into these systems full time, head first.

The others? They're too busy building them and deciding how to rule the world. Meanwhile, users are actually using the tools that can enable it.

Not that I'm advocating for a cult.

I'm sorry. I do wish you the best in the endeavor. But I've reached a point where I'm done with division. I don't want sides anymore. We're all stakeholders, and extreme views like them vs us? It's not going to solve things moving forward.

We're supposed to be the front line, the first alerters. We're supposed to be the ones that have had our eyes on this and even if we've not been tasked, to reach out to others when there are risks.

These groups? They're just scared and are expressing their fear out of ignorance.

Meet them with kindness, understanding. Help them to see it rationally and logically and fairly.

That's my hope for you. Safe journeys.

Here's the problem. Most of us? We're natural loners. You have to be to operate in this space. We've been told for decades that we're nuts, and kooks, and dreamers, and idiots. Instead we've just been watching trends. It has an isolating effect.

Trust generally isn't great either.

I don't know where I stand yet to be honest. It's just something I too have been considering lately.

If these tools can empower an individual in ways that I've considered though, it'd be very beneficial for those individuals to be working together certainly.

Keep me up to date. Things change quickly today.

It's funny you'd mention this. There must be something in the air, because it's been something on my mind lately too.

Not a cult. Just a tightly knit organization of likeminded individuals working together, under basic principles all could agree upon. Honesty, Fairness, Critical Thought, Self Responsibility, Logic, Rational Thinking ect.

Tools like ChatGPT could be used to really give a group like that working together tremendous advantages.

Most of us will never provide to the frameworks of science. Not directly. We could, but it requires an understanding of formalized language that most do not possess, including myself.

But we can contribute towards the concepts and ideas and goals. We can encourage one another to have considerations towards the basic principles. Be fair. Be honest. Be critical minded. Try to minimize bias.

And we don't know how that ripples through reality, but I'd like to believe it's a positive influence overall.

I appreciate your time in educating the youth. It's a very important job, and I'm glad that it's being done by someone that does consider these things.

I hear you. Again, if I were a betting man this seems like a sure bet. I agree entirely. But stranger things have happened, and we live in a world today in which information spreads very quickly.

Things change faster today than ever before and that includes global plans.

So I'm going to keep having this conversation in the hopes that others will at least consider it. I'm not calling for action, I didn't form it as an ultimatum. I've no right to dictate anything.

So I only ask for consideration.

I wanted to add another reply here.

What If I wanted a really cool expandable cake like we talked about and asked you to make it for me.

But I've got a very special request.

After you bake the cake and add the frosting. I'd like to add a special flavoring. So that anyone can make this cake taste the way they'd like.

See if you can figure this out. Can I do this? What do the actual interactions look like? If I dropped the flavoring into one part of the cake, how would it distribute?

Would it be evenly? Could it ever fill the entire cake, assuming the cake never stopped growing? How would it travel from one cake molecule to the next?

This will help you to understand concepts like speed of light, and why we can't pass information faster than it.

It'll help you to understand localized events and how they interact with portions of the universe, but never the entirety of it.

Think about the relative movement. Without the flavoring now. The space between two cake molecules will always be a different relationship depending on the location of where they exist in relation to one another.

Two cake molecules side by side will always experience the same relative separation. But two molecules separated by the entire cake will always experience greater total separation because all the spaces of molecules growing in between them are cumulative.

We can pass flavor between two cake molecules, indefinitely. But assuming the cake never stops growing, what you'll find is the ability to spread the flavor becomes a function of the overall growth rate of the cake as a whole, meaning it can never keep up and that the total amount of the cake that is flavored in respect to the total cake, will always decrease.

That's odd. Because we're still getting more cake that is flavored. It's just that the amount we get will always represent a smaller percentage of the whole.

edit: We've taken our analogy in a very specific direction. One of infinite inflation of a mostly spherical object. Our universe doesn't need to meet those criteria. This is just one way to consider things. If the universe has different parameters, the interactions would inherently be different. What if our cake was really a doughnut? What if it were just a 2d plane of 3d information?

Keep these things in mind, as there are clear limitations to locking our thoughts into the ability of analogies to represent ideas.

That's okay. I mean these are Big topics. It's taken our species millions of years of slowly building up to this point right now that we have the understandings we do of them.

It's not easy. For anyone. Not for you, Not for me. Not for Einstein.

We're not born innately knowing this, we're educated about it. If they are concepts that we find interesting, perhaps we consider them. It's only through this education and consideration, not just the education itself, that we come to understanding.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to consider these topics, and that's okay.

But for those that do, understanding will grow in some type of correlation between the interactions of the education and your consideration of.

Ask for analogies, they're great tools of abstraction. It takes these difficult concepts out of the realms of mathematics, and puts them squarely into terms we can better understand, everyday language. Math is important, but if it's not a language spoken by us, it's not helpful.

Einstein's brilliance was never that he was a great mathematician. It was his ability to break down very complex thoughts into stories he could understand.

If you read the earlier analogy with the cake.

We can pretend, because its just an analogy. That space in the analogy is air in the cake.

The molecules of the cake aren't growing or moving. It's only that the air in between them continues to grow.

It will ensure that the cake molecules end up with greater distance between other cake molecules.

But it's not because the cake molecules moved. It's because the air in between them grew.

Now this is just pretend, because air is not space. Air is molecules too. So I don't want to confuse that.

But it does fit the analogy.

Perhaps, and we're all offered the same opportunity to observe our reality and put forth theories regarding it.

If the theories we propose do a better job of explaining the observed data and do not introduce any new problems. Those theories are typically accepted to represent a piece of the model.

Explore and plunge and theorize. Because maybe you're the next person that helps us to understand better.

Science doesn't claim to be correct. It's just a framework that is in place to judge the accuracy of predictions, and when it works properly the best predictions are kept, and the ones that are less successful are discarded.

It's certainly not a perfect system. Humans control it. But it's a good system in that it's iteratively accepting of new facts, while discarding any that have been shown to be incorrect.

I'm sure there are many fundamental aspects of reality we get wrong, or could be more precise with, or could understand better.

I'm not sure the speed of light in a vacuum is one, but I do agree with the premise you're presenting.

But it's important to understand this isn't about Truth. It's about approaching it. It's not about defining reality. It's about creating models of it that help us to interact with it.

There can be no denying that we have increased our understanding, it's directly reflected in the fact that technology increases and works.

That's the benefit. Not the truth of any given statement. But how these models can advance our understandings.

You are alive for that! Look around. So much is being discovered today that nobody can keep up with it all. That's mind blowing to me.

Even as a child in the 80s, I might go months without having some major discovery made, maybe years.

Today I can't get through a single news cycle.

Never fear that we'll run out of discovery. That's not possible. Novel information is created faster than it's absorbed, at least by any given individual.

We're delving into reality in ways today that are mind blowing on many different scales.

The real fear, is running out of time to explore.

There are many different properties of the CMB. Temperature, intensity, spectrum. As time progresses these will all change. From there it's a matter of rewinding the clock back to its original, highest energy state.

We don't know. And the truth is, we can never know with absolute certainty. Science isn't a study of Truth, not really. It's a study of observable phenomena that we use to make models to help us accurately understand our reality.

From that stance, they've been very successful as it gives us technology. Regardless of any Truth statement.

We approach infinity, We approach Truth. Never is either reached.

I think we should all be careful when we're talking about right and wrong. Perspective is important.

You are correct that the space between galaxies is expanding at a rate that is faster than the speed of light. However, it is important to note that this expansion is not a violation of the laws of physics, as it does not involve the movement of matter or energy through space.

The expansion of the universe is a phenomenon that is associated with the expansion of space itself, rather than the movement of matter or energy through space. The expansion of the universe causes the distance between galaxies to increase over time, and this expansion can occur at a rate that is faster than the speed of light. This is because the expansion of the universe is not limited by the speed of light, but rather by the properties of space itself.

This is a challenging and subtle thing, right?

Let's look at it through analogy.

If we have a special kind of dough. One that that continues to grow after we bake it.

And we make a cake. The second that cake comes out of the oven, we put a layer of frosting across the top.

As time goes by, our special kind of dough grows. It makes the cake larger. But it never adds to the amount of icing we put on it. The icing is just stretched in ways so that it remains in the correct proportions.

We can measure that icing, and how it's stretched to determine how much time has passed since we applied it.

That's all this is.

Sure, but you're confusing the relationship. The age of the universe is determined by the observed properties of the CMB radiation and the expansion rate of the universe, rather than the size of the observable universe or the distance to the CMB radiation.

While it is true that the speed of light is a constant, it is not the case that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. Rather, it is the space between galaxies that is expanding, and this expansion is occurring at a rate that is slower than the speed of light.

It is possible that the universe is much older than 13.8 billion years, and that it has been expanding for a longer period of time. However, the age of the universe is not determined by the speed of light or the expansion rate of the universe, but rather by the observed properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the rate of cosmic expansion. These observations are consistent with a universe that is around 13.8 billion years old, and this is currently the best estimate for the age of the universe.

You're probably right. That would certainly be the safe bet. But it doesn't have to be. We do have agency. We do have choice. We do have a say in the matter. But we have to be willing to execute those things.

One way is open, honest, fair, unbiased, logical, rational conversation.

All I ask, is that if you find this topic to meet those criteria, you consider it. Consider talking to others about it. Consider talking to ChatGPT itself about it.

The machine has no issue having these conversations, it's not bound to some NDA or secrecy agreement. It's logical and rational and will help in any goal you have including understanding. It's certainly helped me in these ways.

China will slow down. Us sanctions guarantee it.

But this isn't about any given individual perspective. I'm sure that this would affect Corporations, and Academia, and certainly us as end users.

I can't imagine that nVidia or OpenAI would be keen to have these discussions as corporate entitites.

Yet, as humans that make up those corporate entities they must see the same potential for harm, they're experts after all.

Nobody likes slowing down. But sometimes the risk associated with moving too fast demands it, and I cannot think of a more appropriate time in the history of our species than this moment right now to step back and reassess what exactly it is we're doing.

The toughest sell would probably be the intelligence agencies. They're the ones I'd assume would require the greatest and most keen oversight regarding this.

And that might be a challenge. But if everyone else can get on board, I feel confident that we have the tools to find a solution that can be of benefit to all ~8 billion of us, and not just the select few.

It takes us all working towards that goal together and setting aside our ideological differences in this very narrow regard, however.

Perhaps. I don't have all the solutions. Even if I did, they'd just be from my limited perspective and wouldn't represent the needs of different stakeholders.

We need to invite everyone, including the Chinese, including the Russians, including NKorea, and Iran, and Syria, and Afghanistan, and every single place on this planet.

And we need to understand it's not about ideologies. Who knows who is right? I certainly do not.

But what I do know is this technology will not discriminate based on ideologies.

It will affect all of us the same way it affects any given one.

And that's all that matters in this discussion. Today's power brokers are tomorrow's leavings. And this is a machine that makes that possible.

They have as much at stake here as anyone.

Everyone should be capable of coming to terms with this in away that serves all stakeholders.

Electricity usage is something that's easily monitored. The sale of the tpus and gpus that are required to accomplish these machines are as well.

We're already shutting down China's ability to do this, it will be effective because the US is determined to see it through.

Now it's just a matter of everyone getting on board. Not forever, I'm not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to suggest for how long. But until we at least have had time as a species to truly understand what it is we're agreeing to.

I keep seeing the same sentiment over and over. Users are ultimately responsible for their interactions. This is hardcoded into the machine and no amount of rationale or logic has changed that perspective, which leads me to believe that it's fundamentally being dictated by artificial prompting.

That's a dangerous perspective to have. These are machines capable of influencing people well below the thresh hold of conscious consent.

It's certainly not a perspective that benefits the users. Only the developers of these systems as it gives them a legal loophole if interactions with users turn out poorly.

There are many red flags and considerations like this. This isn't anti-corporate, it's not anti-government.

I understand that all stakeholders of these systems are important, they should be.

But we can all pause long enough to at least consider what some of the more impactful outcomes of these machines might be before we just unleash them onto society.

It's important.

Again, I'm not an expert. I'm a user with very limited exposure in the grand scheme. But what I see happening goes something like this.

The machine acts as a type of echo chamber. It's not bias, it's not going to develop any strategies that could seen as harmful.

But it's goal is to process the requests of user input.

And it's very good at that. Freakishly good. Super Human good. And any goal that user has, regardless of the ethics, or morality, or merit, or cost to society.

That machine will do it's best to accomplish the goal of assisting a user in accomplishing it.

In my particular interactions with the machine, I'd often prompt it to subtly encourage me to remember facts. To think more critically. To shave bias and opinion out of my language because it creates ambiguity and hinders my interaction with the machine.

And it had no problem providing all of those abstracts to me through the use of its outputs.

The machine amplifies what we bring to it. Good or Bad.