91–100 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I'm very much tech-forward and have spent the past decade in major world cities and I've seen a driverless car once in my life. Sometimes things that seem inevitable really aren't.
I see driverless cars all the time in San Francisco and I'm eagerly awaiting the regulatory decisions that will allow them to be widely available in the bay area at large.
Reminds me of all of those ethics debates back when fully self driving cars were basically already here ca 10 years ago. The ones talking about how hard it would be to chose which person to run over. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that this would be a case of the future just not being distributed evenly. But sure. The AI labs relying on hype stating 15-50% risk of building a magic entity is certainly a relia…
I mean, I'm very much tech-forward and have spent the past decade in major world cities and I've seen a driverless car once in my life. Sometimes things that seem inevitable really aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you rather have the AI companies answer those questions, or your elected government? Fwiw, the AI companies have been saying a lot about these questions should be answered. Whether you want their answers is another story.
They have to act together. Universities should take part too. Let's get these national and international forums started.
For example, https://www.eit.europa.eu/news-events/events/international-a...
What would you have them do that they are not currently doing exactly?
A similar Luddite view formed in the 1990s. It turns out humanity constantly beats the expectations of economists. It makes you wonder if the "science" of economy is almost entirely bankrupt either in morality or imagination or same dangerous combination of both. > Humanity simply does not have a strategy to ensure it remains safe through RSI. Turn off the power. It's pretty simple. Leave it to an economist to forget…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see driverless cars all the time in San Francisco and I'm eagerly awaiting the regulatory decisions that will allow them to be widely available in the bay area at large.
It's not driverless until you can sleep while it drives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see driverless cars all the time in San Francisco and I'm eagerly awaiting the regulatory decisions that will allow them to be widely available in the bay area at large.
It's not driverless until you can sleep while it drives.
Driverless car's only real obstacle is regulatory acceptance, not technical.
Reminds me of all of those ethics debates back when fully self driving cars were basically already here ca 10 years ago. The ones talking about how hard it would be to chose which person to run over. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that this would be a case of the future just not being distributed evenly. But sure. The AI labs relying on hype stating 15-50% risk of building a magic entity is certainly a relia…
For software, however, a rapid turn is often a possibility. See: AI for coding over the last 3-4 years.
AI autocomplete --> AI coding assistants --> vibe coding --> agent orchestration
Coders can now accomplish work that used to take a week or longer in a couple of hours, with the right tools and skills.
---
A key issue the article implies is that the real world increasingly runs on software.
I couldn't read the whole article, but just from the part I could read: > Strikingly, this concern is being openly voiced by the very people who have the strongest incentives to project confidence rather than alarm: the founders of the largest ai laboratories. I don't know, they also have an incentive to make their technology seem transformative and powerful, and saying that your technology has the power to cause a m…
I have no frame of reference to process this.
Humans species perhaps 300,000 years, we are essentially the same. Transistor, 79 years, explosive growth in numbers and power. Integrated circuit, 68 years, explosive growth in numbers and power. "Attention is all you need", 9 years. ChatGPT, 4 years, explosive growth in instances and power. Humans species, not getting smarter. [0,1,2,3]
There is a syndrome where many people seem unable to perceive or reason about rates of change in technology.
We are going to spend the vast majority of our future lives without the intelligence crown.
In terms of verbally expressible knowledge, models are passing many people completely, and passing all of our individually respectively weak reasoning areas.
Other modalities are progressing very quickly.
There will be short periods where progress happens quickly, but the impact feels slow. There will be radical changes that feel slow too, because if something anticipated or important isn't instant, we tend to perceive it as slow.
But it won't be slow. And it won't be long. We are smart in a kind of pick the-best-of-us at the-best-of-times way. We are rarely consistently or broadly smart individually.
We are not in the same galaxy as "ready". What would that look like?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see driverless cars all the time in San Francisco and I'm eagerly awaiting the regulatory decisions that will allow them to be widely available in the bay area at large.
It's not driverless until you can sleep while it drives.