It's because the word "art" has several definitions used by different groups of people. It's not a word with one definition in reality.

I see now that you aren't addressing my point on scarcity and are just repeating that "all expression is art". Are you going to add anything new?

Your point is ridiculous. Okay, fine. Whatever. Art as a concept (*waves arms*) was never scarce. We'll go with your broad definition.

However, certain forms of art are absolutely scarce, have always been scarce, and now we're seeing the transition of the type of superficially impressive digital artwork from high scarcity to low scarcity.

Other kinds of art are still scarce: Handmade pots have a certain scarcity, performances, etc.

>The medium is what made it scarce in the past.
>
>Art was never scarce.

Which is it?

And if I want to see someone perform in person, the access to see this is limited. The person only performs one time, and there are only so many seats. So this is an example of scarcity in art.

When I say art was or is scarce, I mean that there are forms of art that show scarcity. If you want to define all expression as art, then yeah there's no scarcity. But that's obviously not what most people mean by art.

Of course art was scarce. Now certain kinds of art are not, and some still are. All art requires time, energy, or mediums to produce and access. And new art of higher quality requires more time, energy, or materials. For some forms of art, these resources are plentiful, and for others these resources are still lacking.

Now the cost of all these things has fallen for various kinds of art. More paints, more paper, more instruments, more photographs, more people hours, more computing power, more broadcasting, more storage, etc. But if you want to see somebody perform (dance/sing for example) or paint in person, that is an example of art that scarce. Original physical art works are also scarce. As well as digital art made more to spec.

There's a graph in there that observes basically only electronics are heading to zero.

All the other stuff is basically break even or going up in cost.

AKA the stuff we need in order to live as basic necessities outside of electronics is getting more expensive.

Art once was scarce in the past, but the problem is that we now have to adapt to a new reality where art is not scarce.

They're saying physical labor via robotics might be the last part of human capability to be replaced, which to be fair could be considered a form of intelligence.

Maybe, who can tell?

It's a meme by the poster

Yes, without AI managing our affairs, we're playing a game of chicken with our existence. Every year maybe the % chance of annihilation is low, but a low chance will happen eventually given enough time.

You're just a bundle of joy aren't you lol

Genetic engineering for anything but avoiding horrible diseases is forbidden as far as I know. I don't know of any trials to engineer smarter children, and don't believe the trials will be publicly permissible.

BCIs are pretty much garbage for making superintelligence and will remain that way for decades at least. The only way they become useful is if we understand the brain very well.

We can make an educated guess though. What do you think of each of the points I made?

What about a society or corporation of AGI working in concert?

AGI on a faster GPU, with more storage and memory = ASI?

At least you had the strength to admit it lol

When your fridge and toaster are world class geniuses at everything and better than you at thinking.

We already knew parameters aren't everything, or else we'd just be using really large feedforward networks for everything. Architecture, data, and other tricks matter too.

I think the intended meaning is quite clear by context, but your point is taken.

What problems are the computational neuroscientists trying to solve? Modeling parts of brains using artificial neural networks (the ML kind)?

One critique I saw in another thread is that this was "fine-tuned to hell and back" compared to GPT-3, which could explain some of the increased performance, so take that as you will.

Yes, I said "when the order of magnitude jumps by 10x or more".

Hence a jump by one order of magnitude, (10x), or two orders of magnitude (100x), or three orders of magnitude (1000x).

You can jump by more than one order of magnitude. Diabeetus' comment is wrong, because the order of magnitude can grow more than one order.

One author on this paper posted on Reddit here, if you're interested in their comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10svwch/comment/j79i4jj/

Yeah it's fucking nuts.