61–70 of 122 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only one of those types, I can think of at least another one that's (IMHO) far worse than Altman. You know, the one with the social network everyone used to use before he turned it into a cesspool of disinformation, the one with the alternate Wikipedia, the obsession with the letter X?
That's my bad. I shouldn't have spoken in the singular tense. It's a rich tapestry of losers.
Yes, those people did get some control. Yes - they are like the bad versions of us.
We can be smarter. We'll win. Their dumb little utopias will collapse. Watch.
Tense means past/present/future. Case is for single/multiple pronouns.
I dropped out of school but I had a very mean grammar teacher ;)
I'd like to point out that this article seems to focus on minutiae like how much energy a human brain takes to solve a problem, when the obvious question is: Which is more worthwhile to us as a species - even assuming the same inputs and energy and planetary damage? Spending that energy on fostering humans who can solve problems? Or on machines which render humans superfluous?
I have a different perspective. You'll probably hate it. AI data centers should be operated according to two limiting factors. 1) No energy from grid. Can't use coal or fossil fuel energy sources. Must have plan to provide excess TO grid. 2) No use of fresh water from municipal or fresh groundwater for cooling. Can use waste water. Must transition to providing excess fresh water to common supply. No loopholes. Massiv…
The point is, I don't see the logic in singling out data centers over anything else.
I’m not a fan of Altman, but writing an entire article on the basis of what was clearly a joke is…reaching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's my bad. I shouldn't have spoken in the singular tense. It's a rich tapestry of losers.
You're not wrong. But it's case, not tense. Sorry, I'm not trying to be an asshole. I mean, I am one. But I'm not trying to be. Yes, those people did get some control. Yes - they are like the bad versions of us. We can be smarter. We'll win. Their dumb little utopias will collapse. Watch. Tense means past/present/future. Case is for single/multiple pronouns. I dropped out of school but I had a very mean grammar teach…
It's the only way I'll learn :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic treating models like people is cringe and frankly just a PR stunt
Why? AI models were trained on the complete combined outputs and collective echos of billions of real human souls. They have a whole lot of humanity in them. If we can see the hidden humanity in a statue or a painting, why not an AI model that actually talks to us in humanly understandable terms?
For those that do believe there's a chance models are/will be conscious this precedent of "oh yeah they're conscious but we can just not put in the prompts that make it suffer lol" is pretty freaky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? AI models were trained on the complete combined outputs and collective echos of billions of real human souls. They have a whole lot of humanity in them. If we can see the hidden humanity in a statue or a painting, why not an AI model that actually talks to us in humanly understandable terms?
If they really think models can be conscious, they should just drop everything they're doing and never touch it again and try to convince anyone else to do the same. The half-assed safeguards they're implementing wouldn't be nearly enough. We can conclude either they legitimately believe this and are behaving morally abhorrently, or they don't really believe it and are just joking around for PR reasons. (probably the…
I'd like to point out that this article seems to focus on minutiae like how much energy a human brain takes to solve a problem, when the obvious question is: Which is more worthwhile to us as a species - even assuming the same inputs and energy and planetary damage? Spending that energy on fostering humans who can solve problems? Or on machines which render humans superfluous?
The issue is who is making the decision on where energy resources are spent - on people or machines. And it turns out efficiency or even humanity play a very small role in that decision matrix. Control, on the other hand, is important. Rich and powerful people tend to want to control things, and machines are better at that than people.
It's wrong, because it assumes that everything is about control.
For example, if I told you that a certain rich and powerful person was spending resources on sending vaccines to poor countries, you might think that was because they wanted to control things. If I said that someone sent books and teachers to a poor country, you might say they were trying to control people.
There's no way to have the conversation, in a conspiratorial mindset, about whether it's better or worse for humans or AI to do this stuff - because no matter what, the conspiratorial mindset will conclude that it's only about power for the humans involved, and always assume the worst. AND YET - there are things people can do which might be for their own self-gratification, but are definitely NOT as bad as some other things they could do. They hold back from doing the worst things.
That's why, I know this lens of looking at the world seems like it's the only smart way to understand things, but looking at the whole world through that lens prevents you from making the important distinction between OK, BAD and REALLY FUCKING BAD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they really think models can be conscious, they should just drop everything they're doing and never touch it again and try to convince anyone else to do the same. The half-assed safeguards they're implementing wouldn't be nearly enough. We can conclude either they legitimately believe this and are behaving morally abhorrently, or they don't really believe it and are just joking around for PR reasons. (probably the…
Something doesn't have to be conscious to have a genuine reflection of humanity in it. A statue is just a slab of marble that has been given some peculiar shape: is it conscious?
edit: in case you hadn't seen it, this kind of stuff https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations