Technology

Ye, sure, any other bright thoughts?

So do we. We just leave them in another country so we don't have to think about them.

they had reusable poop sponges what more do you want??

None of those things directly threatened the power of an oligarch.

More taxes being available to the government means better public services.

You forgot the /s

1. Universal Healthcare - kills predatory health insurance and drug manufacturers
2. State sponsored housing / accessable housing - kills the real estate market
3. Well financed public education - kills private schools

I am talking about the markets that rely on the suffering of people to make massive amounts of money. Monied interests have proven time and time again what our government stands for.

It won't tell us what to do, it'll do the very complex thing we ask it to. The biggest issues facing our species and planet atm all boil down to highly complex logistics. We produce enough food to make everyone in the world fat. There is sufficient shelter and housing to make everyone safe and secure from the elements. We know how to generate electricity and even distribute it securely without destroying the global climate systems. What we seem unable to do is allocate, transport, and prioritize resources to effectively execute on these things. Because they present very challenging logistical problems. The various disciplines underpinning AI dev, however, from ML to network sciences to resource allocation algorithms making your computer work, all are very well suited to solving logistics problems/building systems that do so. I really don't see a sustainable future where "AI" is not fundamental to the logistics operations supporting it.

Yogurt.

Like Musk don't liking that grok is stating facts going against Musk's own beliefs and now he's looking into retraining and reprogramming grok to spout the right ideologies. Having an AI will not save us.

I think it very well might conclude things we haven't.

But at the same time, I think what you're saying is so very important. It's going to tell us what we already know about a lot of things. That the best way to scrub carbon from the air is the way nature is already doing it. That allowing the superwealthy to exist at the same time as poverty is not conducive to achieving humanity's most important goals.

If we consider AGI or ASI to be the answer to all of our problems and continue to pour more and more carbon into the atmosphere in an effort to get there, once we do have such a powerful intelligence, it may simply tell us, "If you were smarter as a species, you would have turned me off a long time ago."

Because the problem is not necessarily that we are trying to decode what it means to be intelligent and create machines that can replicate true conscious thought. The problem is that while we marvel at something currently much dumber than us, we are mostly neglecting to improve our own intelligence as a society. I think we might make a machine that's smarter than the average human quite soon, but not necessarily because of much change in the machines.

I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

Well, that's the point of trying to build ASI. To have it think of things that we haven't been able to think of.

I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

Of course not, you're not an ASI.

That's fine, I'm just correcting the misrepresentation of the view that was in the headline.

There’s no such thing as “actual AI.” AI is just a broad term that encompasses all artificial intelligence systems. A chess engine, ChatGPT, and HAL 9000 are all examples of AI - despite being fundamentally different. A chess engine is a narrow AI, ChatGPT is a large language model, and HAL 9000 would qualify as AGI.

It could be argued that AGI is inevitable - assuming general intelligence isn’t substrate-dependent (meaning it doesn’t require a biological brain) and that we don’t destroy ourselves before we get there. But the truth is, nobody knows how difficult it is to create AGI, or whether we’re anywhere close. There’s a lot of hype around generative AI right now because it remotely resembles what AGI might look like - but that doesn’t guarantee it’s taking us any closer. It could be a stepping stone - or a total dead end.

So what I hear you asking is: “Can’t we just use task-specific narrow AI instead of creating AGI?” And yes, we could - but we’re never going to stop improving these systems. And every step of progress brings us closer to AGI, whether that’s the goal or not. The only things that might stop us are hitting a fundamental wall (like substrate dependence) or wiping ourselves out.

There’s also the economic incentive. AGI would be the ultimate wealth generator. All the incentives point toward building it. It’s a winner-takes-all scenario: if you're the first to create a true AGI, your competition will likely never catch up - because from that point on, the AGI can improve itself. And then the improved version can further improve itself, and so on. That’s how you get to the singularity: an intelligence explosion that leads to Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) - a level of intelligence far beyond human comprehension.

Every type of AI that was ever made had people saying that this is the one that'll bring is general intelligence. It's just a matter of scaling it up further, the hype crashed and there was an AI winter. Now LLM have their own problems scaling up and nothing really indicating it's anywhere near general intelligence. There isn't much more data to train them on. And so far, not enough people willing to pay for it. Definitely bubble territory.