211–220 of 567 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we should never make ASI, what I am saying is strongly sane. ASI = not good. AGI, ~human brainpower, can be made safe enough. > Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? human GMO, some bioweopns, I'm sure theres a long list of awful stuff no one wants to exist.
It's not even clear that ASI is a coherent concept. But, I don't trust capital with either.
I am not sure if alternative reality fiction is the best way to approach real and serious AI risks.
I am also not sure, with the amount of emdashes and the style of prose, that the entire article was not AI generated.
AI is going to be a mature scientific field. There are going to be efficiency improvements in training and inference. New paradigms are going to emerge with better multimodality, real time streaming and real time interfaces. Models are going to converge on the limits of our data available for pre and post training, improvements will be incremental and spiky in domains.
I am not sure who the AI 2040 article is for. I suspect it is intended to be a digestible piece of media for the financial class.
AI is going to be a useful technology and its impacts across the economy and global will be broadly distributed. Because AI represents the distillation of the very best human knowledge and expertise. AI is compression of human capabilities, the very best ones. Maybe the argument is that in verifiable domains, such as model training, AI models can supercede humans. I don't think so. A human's high level thinking, our incredibly more efficient semantic/neural compression, our ability to switch tasks and achieve the creative insight is not replicated through the current paradigm.
I would not like to be dismissive, but to me this article feels like an exercise in creative writing rather than a report to be taken seriously. The entire experience feels like a choose your own adventure game, seems like their stylistic intent. I am not sure if alternative reality fiction is the best way to approach real and serious AI risks. I am also not sure, with the amount of emdashes and the style of prose, t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that is true and one cares about a moratorium on progress in the US then it seems like the number one way is to meet people where they are: so water use misinformation, degrowth, power supply constraints. That does place all the people who push for these things in a different light. They may well be attempting to do what the AI safety labs are ostensibly trying to do. As an AI safetyist, one’s closest ally (in a d…
You should consider why the best ally to your position is misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, in fact, most of us could not have just shown up and bid on it with any expectation of a meaningful outcome.
I'm saying that if you don't like how a golf course is being used, then attend an auction of one, because they are rapidly going out of business and the assets being auctioned off. America is not suffering from too many golf courses being constructed. They are, rather, going extinct, and I don't really think the mass loss of green spaces and third spaces is necessarily a good thing, even though I'm not someone who en…
Maybe we could make them public green spaces and third spaces, instead of exclusive clubs?
Many golf courses are really expensive. Golf itself is dying like you said, because it's a very expensive sport
Idk. There's something like 35 golf courses where I live in Calgary and it's a city of less than 2 million people. That seems super unnecessary to me and they don't seem to be going extinct here
Forecasting that the GPU build-out will reach 100 trillion USD in 2034 is wild (that's triple the US GDP in 8 years). And another 10x within 2 years. I am not sure where they believe that amount of capital could come from. It would require central bank level money printing never seen before. https://ai-2040.com/supplements/compute-supplement
If we're producing 10x as much, why not print 10x as much money? The goods and services each dollar could buy would remain similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Applying the term NIMBYism to anti-AI and anti-DC sentiment is a gross abuse of terminology. Datacenters don't need to be in anybody's residential neighborhood.
These developments are always facing local resistance. I previously lived in a place where they were building a quarry 30min outside of town and tons of houses had anti-quarry signs on their lawns. It was a big deal to appear anti-quarry even though it had little to do with their neighbourhood specifically (except maybe increased highway trucking traffic). Most industrial development face local protests like this and…
It seems to me we’re already at the top of the S curve, not at the toe of an exponential curve. At least with LLMs. Better training data will make small improvements, better architecture will make it less compute intensive, and all these “hyper-scale” data centers will make it cheap and ubiquitous. But none of that is it getting exponentially more intelligent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even clear that ASI is a coherent concept. But, I don't trust capital with either.
What about it is not coherent?
I predict that what we consider "super intelligence" is just sheer computational power, but any potential of a very capable agent is bounded by the needs/wants of the person wielding it. That is: even if we were to hand, say, Elon musk this "super intelligence", most humans would consider it relatively stupid because the person wielding it is still a person with stupid goals and values.
Or, to put it another way, I suspect we already do have a superintelligence and have longer than any of us have been alive, and it's just "the market", and it is still incapable of overcoming the limitations of a few morons wielding immense power.... power they will never yield to some intelligence with values and goals "more intelligent" than their own (if such a concept is even meaningful), and intelligence wasted on the values and goals they do have.