Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you point to the data that suggests these evil corporations are ruining the planet? Can you point to data that this is 'because' of corporations rather than despite them.
Burden of proof lies on you, since you mentioned corporations first
AI 2027
611–620 of 641 posts
Re: AI 2027
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
47% now soo a coin toss
Note the market resolves by: > Resolution will be via a poll of Manifold moderators. If they're split on the issue, with anywhere from 30% to 70% YES votes, it'll resolve to the proportion of YES votes. So you should really read it as “Will >30% of Manifold moderators in 2027 think the ‘predictions seem to have been roughly correct up until that point’?”
That’s a misreading of the phrase “proportion of YES votes”. If 30% of judges vote YES, then only 30% – not 100% – of the prediction’s market cap is awarded to those who bet YES. The remaining 70% of the market cap is awarded to those who bet NO.
The market correctly rewards those who bet NO in such a case. Therefore, bettors have no reason to bet YES if they really think NO.
Re: AI 2027
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
> had to iterate with them for 4/5 times each. Gemini got it right but then used deprecated methods How hard would it be to automate these iterations? How hard would it be to automatically check and improve the code to avoid deprecated methods? I agree that most products are still underwhelming, but that doesn't mean that the underlying tech is not already enough to deliver better LLM-based products. Lately I've been…
How hard can it be to create a universal "correctness" checker? Pretty damn hard! Our notion of "correct" for most things is basically derived from a very long training run on reality with the loss function being for how long a gene propagated.
You don't need a full correctness checker to get a useful product though. New code generated by the current generation of LLMs, which also compiles and passes existing tests, is likely to be somewhat useful in my experience. The problem is that we still get too much code that doesn't pass these basic requirements.
Re: AI 2027
#614To align AI with humans, it might make sense to align humans first.
Re: AI 2027
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the read. One could think that the answer is to simply stop being a part of it, but then again you're from the genus that outcompeted everyone else in staying alive. Nature is such a shitty joke by design, not sure how one is supposed to look at the hypothetical designer with warmth in their heart.
Fleshy meat sacks on a space rock eating one another alive and shitting them out on a march towards inevitable doom in the form of a (likely) painful and terrifying death is a genius design, no?
"It's basically all just evil apes dukin' it out on a giant ball."
Re: AI 2027
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors. I don't really get this. Are you saying autoregressive LLMs won't qualify as AGI, by definition? What about diffusion models, like Mercury? Does it really matter how inference is done if the result is the same?
> Are you saying autoregressive LLMs won't qualify as AGI, by definition? No, I am speculating that they will not reach capabilities that qualify them as AGI.
They will, we just need meatspace people to become dumber and more predictable. Making huge strides on that front, actually. (In no small part due to LLMs themselves, yeah.)
Re: AI 2027
#617> "OpenBrain (the leading US AI project) builds AI agents that are good enough to dramatically accelerate their research. The humans, who up until very recently had been the best AI researchers on the planet, sit back and watch the AIs do their jobs, making better and better AI systems." I'm not sure what gives the authors the confidence to predict such statements. Wishful thinking? Worst-case paranoia? I agree that…
Global warming's worst effects aren't in 2-3 years, but we all (I hope) still care very much about it.
Perhaps the article is wrong about the timescale, but given how much AI has improved in the last 5 years, can you agree that it's likely to reach 'sit back and watch' levels in the next 5-10 years?
Re: AI 2027
#618> "OpenBrain (the leading US AI project) builds AI agents that are good enough to dramatically accelerate their research. The humans, who up until very recently had been the best AI researchers on the planet, sit back and watch the AIs do their jobs, making better and better AI systems." I'm not sure what gives the authors the confidence to predict such statements. Wishful thinking? Worst-case paranoia? I agree that…
It's my belief (and I'm far from the only person who thinks this) that many AI optimists are motivated by an essentially religious belief that you could call Singularitarianism. So "wishful thinking" would be one answer. This document would then be the rough equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist outlining, on the basis of tangentially related news stories, how the Second Coming will come to pass in the next few ye…
This is a letter signed by the most lauded AI researchers on Earth, along with CEOs from the biggest AI companies and many other very credible professors of computer science and engineering:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk
Laughing it off as the same as the Second Coming CANNOT work. Unless you think yourself cleverer and more capable of estimating the risk than all of these experts in the field.
Especially since many of them have incentives that should prevent them from penning such a letter.
Re: AI 2027
#619Though I think it is probably mostly science-fiction, this is one of the more chillingly thorough descriptions of potential AGI takeoff scenarios that I've seen. I think part of the problem is that the world you get if you go with the "Slowdown"/somewhat more aligned world is still pretty rough for humans: What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world? I hope we're wr…
> I hope we're wrong about a lot of this, and AGI turns out to either be impossible, or much less useful than we think it will be. For me personally, I hope that we do get AGI. I just don't want it by 2027. That feels way too fast to me. But AGI 2070 or 2100? That sounds much more preferable.
Like, when you're retired or dead?
Re: AI 2027
#620This is hilariously over-optimistic on the timescales. Like on this timeline we'll have a Mars colony in 10 years, immortality drugs in 15 and Half Life 3 in 20.
I like that the "slowdown" scenario has by 2030 we have a robot economy, cure for aging, brain uploading, and are working on a Dyson Sphere.
The true absurdity of this timeline is that everyone is behaving as perfectly rational players, which is absurd when you look at the current presidential administration, particularly in light of recent events.