361–370 of 678 posts
Maybe a weird question, but how does a capitalist economy work where AGI-performed-labor is categorically less expensive than human-performed labor? Do most people who labor for wages just go unemployed, and then bankrupt, and then die?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 years before it was VR, few years before that NFTs and blockchain everything, before that it was self driving cars before that personal voice assistants like Siri and so on . I never saw people talking about VR in public, nor NFTs, and the closest I got to seeing blockchain in public were adverts, not hearing random people around me chatting about it. The only people I ever saw in real life talking about self-dri…
> ... and that "singularities" are a sign something is wrong with the model. Einstein thought that way too because his model predicted singularities in space-time fabric. Turns out he was wrong. Nowadays we call them blackholes and have images of them too.
(1) the event horizon was the first singularity, but that turned out to be a free choice of the coordinate system, i.e. a mistake in the maths — and we can't see past the event horizons anyway, so we don't know what happens on the other side of them even though they're not "real" singularities
(2) the point in the centre where the geodesics stop, which everyone in the field knows is incompatible with (a) the assumption in the maths of relativity that spacetime is smooth and can be differentiated everywhere, and (b) quantum mechanics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I mean, if it can't show a return in the very short term, is it even worth doing? How could something possibly develop into being profitable after years of not being so? All you have to do is point to bankrupt bookseller Amazon, whom that dumb Jeff Bezos ran into the ground with his money-losing strategy for years. Clearly it doesn't work!
There's growth focus and there's doing some of the largest fundraising rounds in the history of silicon valley during a time when debt is the most expensive it's been in decades and still barely keeping the lights on because your service is so unprofitable.
And yes, venture capital investing involves high risk, of which all participants are fully aware, and intentionally looking for.
We're talking They absolutely might fail. But the level of pessimism here is just plain funny. How much money are you willing to bet against them ever getting profitable?
From Musk's email: "Frankly, what surprises me is that the AI community is taking this long to figure out concepts. It doesn’t sound super hard. High-level linking of a large number of deep nets sounds like the right approach or at least a key part of the right approach." Genuine question I've always had is, are these charlatans conscious of how full of shit they are, or are they really high on their own stuff? Also…
> Frankly, what surprises me is that the AI community I came here thinking about this exact part. Well, many of them, but this one in particularly. What surprises me about Elon is how much he can talk about other peoples' work without doing any of it himself. And yet each time I hear him talk about something I'm well-versed in, he sounds fairly oblivious yet totally unaware of that fact. His go-to strategy seems to b…
Few people like Yann LeCun can afford to call his bullshit and survive the reality distortion field.
I guess it's not news but it is pretty wild to see the level of millenarianism espoused by all of these guys. The board of OpenAI is supposedly going to "determine the fate of the world", robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020, the goal of OpenAI is to "avoid an AGI dictatorship". Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? So far we are multiple years in with much investment…
> Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? Yes, frequently and loudly. When Altman was collecting the award at Cambridge the other year, protesters dropped in on the after-award public talk/Q&A session, and he actively empathised with the protestors . > So far we are multiple years in with much investment and little return, and no obvious large-scale product-market fit, much l…
I have significant doubt that Sam is capable of empathy, period. It seems like what he's capable of is an extremely convincing caricature of it which he has practiced for many years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I would certainly expect a radical change to economics even from a middling IQ AI — or indeed a low IQ, as I have previously used the example of IQ 85 because that's 15.9% of the population that would become permanently unable to be economically useful — I don't think it's quite as you say. Increasing IQ scores seem to allow increasingly difficult tasks to be performed competently — not just the same tasks fast…
I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. IQ is only one component of what allows a typical worker to do their job. Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean t…
I agree, but it's difficult to fully describe the impact of a tech where $5 gets you the ability to do arithmetic faster than literally every human combined even if we were all working at the speed of the current world record holder, yet simultaneously it took a billion dollar research team 14 years to figure out how to get a robot to reliably tie its own shoelaces (this September: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/advances-in-robot-dext...)
So, IQ it is. Rough guide for a human equivalent intelligence scale, but being mapped to a wildly different architecture so that it, the different architecture, can be reasoned about.
> Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean that any other human with an equal or greater IQ can also do that job effectively.
Indeed, though in this case I would expect that such a human could learn any of those skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. IQ is only one component of what allows a typical worker to do their job. Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean t…
This is it. Another primary example is that I can put a 80 IQ person to work on a farm or let them build something under supervision. There is no way for an AI to do either at this time, even if the AI is much smarter.
Robots are a thing, AI controlling robots is a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and Mars is a shitty place to live. And will always be a shitty place to live. No amount of fantastical "terraforming" is going to create a magnetosphere.
Well actually... you can create a magnetic shield in front of the planet by putting a large nuclear reactor powered superconducting magnet at the Sun-Mars L1 point that would fully shield Mars from charged particles from the sun. No new technology is required besides making the thing relatively maintenance free. https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 years before it was VR, few years before that NFTs and blockchain everything, before that it was self driving cars before that personal voice assistants like Siri and so on . I never saw people talking about VR in public, nor NFTs, and the closest I got to seeing blockchain in public were adverts, not hearing random people around me chatting about it. The only people I ever saw in real life talking about self-dri…
> never saw people talking about VR in public, nor NFTs, and the closest I got to seeing blockchain in public were adverts, not hearing random people around me chatting about it. The only people I ever saw in real life talking about self-driving cars were the ones I was talking to myself, and everyone else was dismissive of them. Voice assistants were mainly mocked from day 1, with the Alex advert being re-dubbed as…
The idea that it's some fad with no utility or that the general public knows little about it is at this point laughable. It's the software product with by far the fastest adoption any software product has ever seen.
And if people want to lump that in with bitcoin or VR or whatever, shrug, i just don't know what to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? Yes, frequently and loudly. When Altman was collecting the award at Cambridge the other year, protesters dropped in on the after-award public talk/Q&A session, and he actively empathised with the protestors . > So far we are multiple years in with much investment and little return, and no obvious large-scale product-market fit, much l…
> ...like saying Microsoft has no moat for spreadsheets Which would be very inaccurate as network-effects are Excel's (and Word's) moat. Excel being bundled with Office and Windows helped, but it beat Lotus-123 by being a superior product at a time the computing landscape was changing. OpenAI has no such advantage yet: a text-based API is about as commoditized as a technology can get and OpenAI is furiously launching…
It has branding, for most people AI is ChatGpt. Once you reach critical mass, getting people to switch becomes difficult if your product is good enough and most people are happy.