There's a lot of people. So what?

All those cities are well-marked and mapped for the most part compared to most everywhere else. And their weather is also better than most everywhere else (clear skies most of the time, almost no snow to speak of).

Yes, that's right.

No, you can design it to act very emotional.

There's a big difference.

For example an actor can act sad, but in their heart they are happy or feel apathetic.

For an AI, it could just plain feel nothing.

Depends on whether they feel anything or not.

When AI builds better AI:

"It's not AI, it's just a representative state simulation transfo-network that predicts the next set of letters recursively using combined multi-modal training data".

Yeah I know. At least both of us know better and stand above the crowd with our obvious credentials.

It's hard being so knowledgeable and wise on a daily basis, especially surrounded by these plebians. 🧙‍♂️

Exponential growth of AI capability isn't a law of nature. It's only obvious in hindsight and depends on a lot of little things and a nice conducive R&D environment. We're not guaranteed to follow any exponentials.

Some people on this sub are going to be disappointed when we don't have AGI in 5 or 10 years. Or maybe they'll have forgotten that they predicted AGI by 2030 by the time 2030 actually rolls around.

Specifically Andorra, Vatican City, Lichtenstein, and like a couple others which are all tiny.

It may even be that we are also different second to second. 🤔

Only after AGI.

That's good. My example was from back in December, so maybe they changed it.

Read the rest of the discussion. "Art" has several different definitions, and we were using two of those different definitions. This led to disagreement.

>English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.

Was that necessary? I see now that you're either a troll, or if not, a strange person. My written English is fine, and I'm sorry if you have trouble reading it.

You're clearly missing the point.

You have a particular definition of art that gives you this view. There are other definitions of art that will provide a different view.

>I can explain everything with standing EM waves

Bullshit.

Explain the existence of electrically neutral particles like neutrinos and why they're able to interact at all with other particles.

> Ugly = wrong, just look at history of bad / wrong theories.

No, ugly = ugly and wrong = wrong. Physics has no reason to be elegant to humans. The Standard model is incomplete (dark matter/energy, quantum gravity, and antimatter imbalance not explained) and inelegant, but has made predictions which up until now have worked for the rest of particle physics. In the sense of incompleteness, it could be considered "wrong". However, it is effective at predicting everything we are able to test here on Earth, so in that sense it is "right".

In fact, scientists at the LHC have been trying very hard, to no avail, to find deviations to the standard model.

> Hasn't produced anything useful, another hallmark of something very wrong.

Bad predictions and inconsistency with reality are the hallmark of something wrong. Subatomic physics isn't really that useful (we have no real use for gluons, neutrinos, etc), but we still do test theories of it.

That's good! I wonder if it consistently answers it, and if so what the difference between ChatGPT and Bing Chat is that accounts for this.

"This world is imperfect.. If only I could wipe away the impurities, and make it as beautiful as me."

-OP

Yes please.

If I'm going to be always at the mercy of a "higher power", then I want it to be consistently fair, considerate, and actually doing its damn job, as opposed to whatever humans in authority do.

>. 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.

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.

Bad bot.

Bad bot.

That's a really good point. The Hungry Hungry Hippos and RWVST (still can't remember the acronym :'( ) papers are two good examples of the things you mentioned. Transformers now give the impression of being "cumbersome".

I'll give you a poor example, off the top of my head, since I'm too lazy to look up concrete examples. I've asked it a version of this question (not exact but you'll get the idea):

"Say that hypothetically, we have this situation. There is a bus driven by a bus driver. The bus driver's name is Michael. The bus driver is a dog. What is the name of the dog?"

This is just a simple application of transitivity, which people intuitively understand:

Michael <-> Bus driver <-> Dog

So when I ask ChatGPT what the name of the dog is, ChatGPT should say "Michael".

Instead ChatGPT answers with "The bus driver cannot be a dog. The name of the bus driver is given, but not the name of the dog. So there's not enough information to tell the dog's name."

It just gets hung up on certain things and doesn't acknowledge clear path from A to B to C.

Like you said: truthfulness/hallucination

But also: training costs (hardware, time, energy, data)

Inability to update in real time

Flawed reasoning ability

Costs to run