991–1000 of 1001 posts
Google is so f'ed right now. Can you imagine Google just released a davinci-003 like model in public beta? That only supports English and can't code reliably. OpenAI is clearly betting on unleashing this avalanche before Google has time to catch up and rebuild reputation. They're still lying in the boxing ring and the referee is counting to ten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with being wrong? In this case, I'm delighted to be wrong (though I believe I had evaluated OpenAI mostly right given my knowledge at the time).
Owning up to the "wrong" is good in my book
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By not being a stagnant conglomerate, for one.
Google is so toast. Who needs search after GPT-4 + plugins? The position of search moved down from "the entry point of internet" to "a plugin for GPT". We don't even know how powerful the GPT-4 image model is. This one might solve RPA leading to massive desktop automation takeup, maybe also have huge impact in robotics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are creating life. It's like giving birth to a new form of life. You should be proud to be alive when this happens. Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the same to you.
> Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the same to you. Why? Humans aren't even like that, and AI almost surely isn't like humans. If AI exhibits even a fraction of the chauvinism snd tendency to stereotype that humans do, we're in for a very rough ride.
If, on the other hand, you act towards it with charity, it will see you as a long-term asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are creating life. It's like giving birth to a new form of life. You should be proud to be alive when this happens. Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the same to you.
Oh my god, can we please nip this cult shit in the bud? It’s not alive, don’t worship it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia is already blocked from ChatGPT and Bing; I don't know about China. But it's all security theater. Plenty of people use it with VPNs, and I know several who found it useful / interesting enough to bother paying for it (which involves foreign credit cards etc so it's kind of a hassle). I'm sure so does the Russian govt. In any case, I don't see how you could realistically block any of that without effectively w…
Working at a chinese university. Everyone (students and teachers) using chatgpt, officially openai don't let you access from china. but everyone has vpns, even the university internet is all behind a hong kong vpn (as google etc is useful). It does all feel like weird theatre that just makes anything american slightly annoying to use. So theres local startups and researchers working on replicating these things and ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said this about Alexa/Siri et al and it didn’t happen. ChatGPT is way better at understanding you, so that’s a big boost. It could be a great tool/assistant but it probably won’t replace apps. The problem with those other platforms that this doesn’t address include: - discoverability. How do you learn what features a service supports. On a GUI you can just see the buttons, but on a chat interface you have to a…
Good points - but I fundamentally disagree here. The whole ecosystem, culture and metaphor of having a 'device' with 'apps' is to enable access to a range of solutions to your various problems. This is all going to go away. Yes, there will always be exceptions and sometimes you need the physical features of the device - like for taking photos. Instead, you'll have one channel which can solve 95% of your issues - basi…
Phones with apps have been around for 29 years. I'm calling BS on your prediction now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I want to know is, what gives OpenAI and other relatively small technological elites permission to gamble with the future of humanity? Shouldn't we all have a say in this?
I have seen this argument a bunch of times and I am confused by what exactly you mean. Everyone is influencing the future of humanity (and in that sense gambling with it?) What gives company X the right to build feature Y? What gives person A the right to post B (for all you know it can be the starting point of a chain of actions that bring down humanity) Are you suggesting that beyond a threshold all actions someone…
At one end of the spectrum is a thought experiment: one person has box with a button. Press the button and with probability 3/4 everyone dies, but with probability 1/4 everyone is granted huge benefits --- immortality etc. I say it's immoral for one person to make that decision on their own, without consulting anyone else. People deserve a say over their future; that's one reason we don't like dictatorships.
At the other end are people's normal actions that could have far-reaching consequences but almost certainly won't. At this end of the spectrum you're not restricting people's agency to a significant degree.
Arguing that because the spectrum exists and it's hard to formalize a cutoff point, we shouldn't try, is a form of the continuum fallacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen this argument a bunch of times and I am confused by what exactly you mean. Everyone is influencing the future of humanity (and in that sense gambling with it?) What gives company X the right to build feature Y? What gives person A the right to post B (for all you know it can be the starting point of a chain of actions that bring down humanity) Are you suggesting that beyond a threshold all actions someone…
There's a spectrum here. At one end of the spectrum is a thought experiment: one person has box with a button. Press the button and with probability 3/4 everyone dies, but with probability 1/4 everyone is granted huge benefits --- immortality etc. I say it's immoral for one person to make that decision on their own, without consulting anyone else. People deserve a say over their future; that's one reason we don't lik…
Such an argument wasn't made.
It is a legitimate question. Where and when do you draw the line? And who does it? How are we formalising this?
You said
>Shouldn't we all have a say in this?
I am of the opinion that if this instance of this company doing this is being subjected to this level of scrutiny then there are many more which should be too.
What gave Elon the right to buy twitter? And I would imagine most actions that a relatively big corp takes fall under the same criteria. And most actions other governments takes also fall under this criteria?
These companies have a board and the governments (most?) have some form of voting. And in a free market you can also vote with your actions.
You are suggesting you want to have a direct line of voting for this specific instance of the problem?
Again, my question is. What exactly are you asking for? Do you want to vote on these? Do you want your government to do something about this?