That's inside that particular singularity, where nothing means anything, you just "adapt".
But from the outside, it's just a bunch of people turning into a blob we don't care about as a whole. We still care about the individual humans who haven't jumped into that gravity well. Humans care about their ancestors, their neighbours, authors and audiences. The people who don't can't fathom that, it's a sort of blind spot for them, but we are completely untouched and unmoved by that. The ideas in your head about the bonds between other people doesn't affect those bonds.
If all the professionals leave coding to clankers, and discussions about coding to people who code, I see nothing I don't love about that. Just like the web was more interesting before there was money in it, coding is more interesting without people who can't shut up about their work.
That's exactly my point, programming isn't your IT department, "cool things that can be done with computers" isn't even on speaking terms with it, and the web is not a sector of marketing, either. Bores turn everything they touch boring, and now they're telling us we'll be left behind. And I'm like, YES, finally, can't wait, what can I do to accelerate it?
Such a curious effect, although it makes sense given that each particle is probably being positioned in absolute coordinates with respect to the screen boundaries. So each grain gets bigger but stays in place.
I'd go with "Obsessive devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing."
That's how we get these endless superficial questioning of everything except LLM, like asking how you define $commonly_used_word, or this constant "I know you are, but what are LLM?" stuff, such as Is there any evidence that you yourself are more than a 'next action predictor with a multi-modal context window'?. Apparently no self-awareness, no accountability, and there is barely a conversation where people can simply say something trivially true about LLM, that anyone working on them, even an LLM, could explain to you, that doesn't garner such knee-jerk responses.
Those falls under non-great crimes, the implicit counterpart to the explicitly mentioned great crimes. It would follow that rectifying those those merely gets one petty honour, rather than great honour.
Well, I for one think self-awareness is a much higher order of intelligence than clever manipulation of symbols or the external world, so I still find it stupid. Finding a workaround for the inability to have ironic self-distance is kind of the most pointless, dumbest activity I can even think of.
> I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
Even in discussions here I'm constantly put off by comments that are this hand-rubbing talking to oneself about how the "AI haters" are all stupid, or how they can be forced to use or consume things they don't want against their will. It kind of baits all the sociopaths out into the open, because if their deus ex machina is about to show up, why bother with the tedious masking?
> I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.
No, but you can be emotionally stunted to force you to be dumb. Call it narcissism or whatever, but no sense of others or self = constant need to rewrite the world around you, and fearing logic and honesty like a vampire would fear sunlight. A dumb person can learn, people who are forced to act dumb cannot. They are still, effectively, very dumb. They will go to their graves dumber than an illiterate or mentally handicapped person would have. Not knowing a bunch of things that are true is meh... but thinking you know a trillion things that are all just the scab on a wound that happened in childhood, none of them true, and one dumber than the other, now that is astonishingly dumb.
> The numbers clearly show the average user does not care about the AI look because they can't really tell the difference between human-gen and AI-gen.
Do you have a link to the numbers that clearly show this?
So nothing at all. Most people would notice the difference between no ads everywhere, and ads everywhere, would prefer no ads, and still there are ads. That there are ads tells us nothing about people.
Do you need statistical numbers for every information you receive? I don’t have any numbers to show you besides the fact that everyone I have spoken to in the last 6 months knows how to generate an image on ChatGPT. I work in the construction industry, and 100% of the companies I deal with have at some point posted an AI-generated poster on their social media, or created their flyers and business cards. YMMV.
Well, you said "the numbers show". But anyway, not being able to tell the difference and not caring is very different from "having tried it at some point".
> everyone I have spoken to in the last 6 months knows how to generate an image on ChatGPT.
That goes without saying. If you can speak to them, if they have a pulse, they can "generate an image". A cat walking over a keyboard can generate an image. That is the lowest bar ever.
> If it weren’t OAI and Anthropic, it would be others.
Doing what? Rushing to make trillion dollar companies, rather then developing the tech and their companies in a sustainable way? I don't even know what in the original comment this would be a response to.
Rushing towards creating machines that can give you vast amounts of military, political or economic power without regard to it's effects on the old order.
The particular form of the pursuit of power practiced by OAI and Antrophic - the creation of trillion dollar companies, is one of the most benign in recorded history. It's so unnaturally benign, that I doubt it's going to survive for much longer.
Well, are you thinking nation states? Then you kinda also need a population that is cool with a sort of blitzkrieg being waged "on their behalf" against the rest of the world (and they should think twice if that machinery wouldn't also logically end up being turned onto them). Otherwise, what's the race for, unless to use it offensively? So you either subjugate or eradicate the world, and then what? Who wants that?
Political power is when people act in concert, when leaders have people behind them because those people agree with how they're being lead etc., it's not something that happens unilaterally. You can physically force people, but for what when you can have robots that you don't have to force?
So that kind of leaves wiping out nearly all humans, for a few hundred thousand remaining people to get served by robots and play golf. Which I would say is what we're kinda on track for. But that wouldn't be a race between nations, that race would just be pretend to get the tech online; it would rather be a race between all humans and a bunch of sick people.
I'm thinking of nation states, but I fear you have a very limited view of how power is created and yielded.
AI doesn't have to be used offensively to give a nation power. The machines can already design new software at the drop of the hat, it will at some point become capable of designing new consumer and industrial products. Putting a tireless intelligence at the task of looking for new optimizations in your industrial processes and factories will eventually give you economic dominance, one way or another.
Offensive uses don't need to be as extreme as you imagine them. We're already starting to see the effects of having meticulous automated hackers. Instead of a blitzkrieg, imagine your foes suffer from a constant stream of industrial accidents, unfortunate events and information leaks that can never quite be traced to your nation.
Finally, political power itself doesn't need to come from people acting in concert. There's always been wheeling, dealing, intrigue and bureaucracy. Once AI is sufficiently versed in legal matters, it'd allow political interest groups to overwhelm governments and private enterprises with objections and appeals, paralyzing their ability to carry out their agenda until they make concessions.
The possibilities of using intelligence for acquiring more power are literally endless..
But from the outside, it's just a bunch of people turning into a blob we don't care about as a whole. We still care about the individual humans who haven't jumped into that gravity well. Humans care about their ancestors, their neighbours, authors and audiences. The people who don't can't fathom that, it's a sort of blind spot for them, but we are completely untouched and unmoved by that. The ideas in your head about the bonds between other people doesn't affect those bonds.
reply