And quantum mechanics are what other than random probabilities?

So your argument is that scale is also necessary? I can see that, we don’t expect that a single neuron is human intelligence.

>isn't sufficiently well understood to tell us how close the software neural network is to being practically equivalent. The odds of consciousness emerging from the same neural network that gave us LLMs without some sort of theoretical breakthrough seems very small.

First, if we are looking at risk we need to assign some probabilities to this. If it’s not well understood, how can we say it is very small?

Secondly, do we need consciousness to have AGI? Do we even need AGI to pose a risk to humanity? We already accept that unconscious things have a capability of wiping out humanity, whether that be a famine, pandemic, solar superflare, meteor, or volcanic eruption.

Unfortunately that was one of his few wrong predictions, that is would he so far in the future we’d need cryostasis to see it.

Right, AI had to get it from somewhere.

One difference is that the premium copilot has access to company files and those on your onedrive, whereas the non premium version requires you to upload files.

At a trade show, I met a company that was advertising a feature as powered by Claude. I asked an employee what that meant, as it seemed unlikely, and he then didn’t know how answer so he introduced me to the CEO. The CEO said that the ad meant that Claude now writes all of their code including that new feature. They are now working on having Claude handle their QA process. I wondered if any of the devs were at the booth or if the employee I spoke to first was a dev who knew it was bs.

They have shown that your mind is doing exactly that due to the delays in consciousness. There are very simple examples that you can try to see it. It’s especially clear in perception.

https://discoverwildscience.com/neuroscience-says-the-brain-...

It’s interesting that our conscious interpreter doesn’t let us know that this is going on like you are experiencing, it must be that it’s advantageous for us to not think about the prediction part of our mind.

There actions are fundamentally inconsistent with a group who believes AI is fundamentally dangerous - they are developing it and releasing it out into the world with the knowledge that it cannot be controlled by their current alignment techniques.

Maybe a group concerned about getting sued if their software products "in the wild" do some damage? IOW lawsuit protection?

A little late for that, unfortunately for them.

According to Buckmaster, the prompt used on the AIs was based on his approach and solution that was unpublished. So they were starting from 90% of the way there.