81–90 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 400 million guns in America. The citizen's military power is not going anywhere.
In relation to artificial robotic power it will go down
> In May, hundreds of industry leaders endorsed a statement that equated the risk of runaway A.I. with that of nuclear war. Huang didn’t sign it. Some economists have observed that the Industrial Revolution led to a relative decline in the global population of horses, and have wondered if A.I. might do the same to humans. “Horses have limited career options,” Huang said. “For example, horses can’t type.” As he finish…
> In May, hundreds of industry leaders endorsed a statement that equated the risk of runaway A.I. with that of nuclear war. Huang didn’t sign it. Some economists have observed that the Industrial Revolution led to a relative decline in the global population of horses, and have wondered if A.I. might do the same to humans. “Horses have limited career options,” Huang said. “For example, horses can’t type.” As he finish…
People using the horse analogy often put it to illustrate that it could be bad for us. As if the horses loved hurling stuff for humans!
From our perspective the lives of horses look pretty horrible, particularly their lives in service to us, but I don't think it would be very comforting to have an AI explain to me that humans aren't fully aware of the world in the way that greater intelligences are, that because of the mental issues in humanity which cause them to do annoying things like bombing data centres or cutting fibre optics cables the human population needs to be significantly resized to a more sustainable number, or anything else a human-equivalent that actually cared might explain to a horse-equivalent that could actually listen.
The point is that horses don't control their own destiny, and they aren't even important enough for us to particularly care about said destiny in anything other than vagaries. Horses that interfere with human society in some way get put down. I don't want to be put down or have no say in the future, so we shouldn't attempt to build something which has a reasonable likelihood of being as much smarter than us as we are smarter than horses.
There's so much opportunity for custom silicon to massively improve compute-per-watt -- for both for training and inference. Nvidia got lucky with their high-memory GPUs being early to this space, but the usefulness of that architecture has already peaked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In relation to artificial robotic power it will go down
The citizens will have artificial robots too. Or do you think there's some reason why AI shouldn't be protected by the second amendment? Either AI can be weaponized - in which case it's protected by the second amendment - or it can't, in which case there isn't a threat from it in the first place.
There is no legal reason why AIs couldn't be governed under the same principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This will come from the capitalist system, businesses will be driving the obsolescence of humans, what's the point of owning the factories if there is no one to buy the crap you produce? they need us more than we need them, at least until they have their own spaceships with AI and robots to fluff their balls for them.
> what's the point of owning the factories if there is no one to buy the crap you produce You produce things you yourself want to consume. Why produce things for others if they have nothing you need? The only reason there is a need to sell to workers today is so you can pay them a salary to work in your factories, and then take a portion of that for yourself. When you don't need workers you don't need to sell to work…
Nvidia should enjoy this period while it lasts. I fail to see any future where custom ASICs don't each their lunch. There's so much opportunity for custom silicon to massively improve compute-per-watt -- for both for training and inference. Nvidia got lucky with their high-memory GPUs being early to this space, but the usefulness of that architecture has already peaked.
I don't really see NVIDIA's dominance changing (other than whatever AMD has in the pipeline) Unless VC's change their risk appetite and take interest in HW startup funding which seems unlikely considering the avg returns and success rate of HW startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People using the horse analogy often put it to illustrate that it could be bad for us. As if the horses loved hurling stuff for humans!
But now we don't need horses so there are far fewer of them, and they are so completely unimportant to the economy that if they caused us any significant inconvenience we could kill them all without it being a significant issue. From our perspective the lives of horses look pretty horrible, particularly their lives in service to us, but I don't think it would be very comforting to have an AI explain to me that humans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The horse anecdote has always struck me as stupid as hell. Horses were replaced because they have no political power, they are tools. As long as we live in a democracy people will not become horses.
> Horses were replaced because they have no political power, they are tools. How much political power do you think the purveyors of AI wield? > As long as we live in a democracy people will not become horses. It’s estimated that 2.3 billion people—about 29% of the global population—lived in a democracy in 2021 ( https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/how-many-people-live-in-... ) And if you live in a democracy today, as…