91–100 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People might not want to hear this but AI is already smarter and more useful than most people ever will be. We are not even talking about by the end of the year or decade anymore.
Read and think about what you wrote. How can an ai, completing specific scoped tasks, be in any way comparable to the scale of a human life? Maybe the same thing these execs forgot.
For those people, an AI better (much better?) than a coin toss is the goal, if it means not relying on people.
Personally, I already deal weekly with people that veemently antagonizes every line of thinking if it isn't what ChatGPT told them before a meeting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The context is "Anthropic treating models like people" which is 100% about consciousness, suffering, subjective awareness etc.. edit: in case you hadn't seen it, this kind of stuff https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
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 trickle-down economy dictates that data centers get first access to electricity and fresh water (and any other resource it needs). People get whatever is leftover and like it. This is america.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when some estimates put the number of users in the free tier at 96%. It's certainly almost everyone today, but that's because enshitificarion has yet to start properly. The risk to OpenAI is that their free tier are captured by the tack on markets (i.e. Gemini with 2TB of cloud storage). But otherwise they will make free more annoying until people just buy the cheap tier and then move up from there. Like chatgpt Go…
They will open up to be undercut by players like Gemini that can provide a less-shitty free tier, and capture their market share. I seriously doubt, at this moment, that OpenAI can come up with a offering good enough to entice people to pay for them when there will be other free to use services around. Google seems to be well positioned to eat their lunch.
For example in the UK's NHS, the worlds sixth largest employer is now fully committed to Microsoft 365. That's a lot of Copilot money if Microsoft sees it that way.
And OpenAI is funded via Microsoft, I also have a Microsoft 2TB subscription. And so do many people have both work based and personal home subscriptions.
It's a complete mess of a situation. If Microsoft moves away from GPT (it can since it's advertised under the copilot brand) OpenAI is dead in the water of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context is "Anthropic treating models like people" which is 100% about consciousness, suffering, subjective awareness etc.. edit: in case you hadn't seen it, this kind of stuff https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
But are they really "treating the AI models like people" or just properly acknowledging the true reflection of humanity within them, the way we might acknowledge the 'humanity' in a statue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never denied that. I only said "It's really idiotic to posit that only things that eat and drink can suffer.". Don't just pattern-match everything to some vaguely related black/white issues.
In the entire span of human history, the concept of suffering required sentience and the only things with sentience eat and drink.