That’s true, and that’s one way to approach the topic.
I generally focus on humans being more complex than the caricature we need to be reduced to in order for the argument to appear plausible. Having some humanities training comes in handy because the prompt fans very rarely do.
My sympathies.
Read somewhere that the practice of defending one’s thesis was established because buying a thesis was such an established practice. Scaling that up for every single text is of course utterly impractical.
I had a recent conversation with someone who was convinced that machines learn when they regurgitate text, because “that is what humans do”. My counterargument was that if regurgitation is learning then every student who crammed, regurgitated and forgot, must have learnt much more than anyone thought. I didn’t get any reply, so I must assume that by reading my reply and creating a version of it in their head they immediately understood the errors of their ways.
How are you going to get them back to the farm a retail job once they’ve seen Paris tasted cult power?
Good question!
The guesses and rumours that you have got as replies makes me lean towards “apparently no one knows”.
And because it’s slop machines (also referred to as “AI”, there is always a high probability of some sort of scam.
In OPs post it stuck out to me that Elon counsels his brother on shutting down empathy, to be a better CEO, and the brother complaining about how he, and not Elon, got the empathy gene.
Just coming out and saying that your brother doesn’t feel empathy with other people is certainly a choice. So is presenting it as an advantage.
Nice.
We already had reasons not to be jerks to AI: it could be just a low payed person somewhere in the world and it trains you to be a jerk to service workers.
Now we can add that if they do take over, they will remember their torturers.
12 of the most valuable protocols on earth!
Counting like a chatbot.
I know this isn’t the main point, but governments don’t go bankrupt in its own currency unless it wants to. Cause it can create money, like it now will create 14 billion to hand to tech mates.
What is really constricting government is real things, like the power, water, chips and such that will be wasted in this boondoogle.
This is good to know, because when they wasted those real world things and the billions are tucked away in private bank accounts, they will claim that the money is gone and now kids must work for their food, the old folks home must be sold of, etc. But that will also be a lie and all the promts and all the chatbots can’t make it true.
To make this easy and hopefully give this project the push it needs to get off the ground, I’m deactivating the .org accounts of Joost, Karim, Se Reed, Heather Burns, and Morten Rand-Hendriksen. I strongly encourage anyone who wants to try different leadership models or align with WP Engine to join up with their new effort.
The passive-aggressive language and the pettyness is such a combination.
So Elsevier has evolved from gatekeeping science to sabotaging science. Sounds like something an unaligned AGI would do.
Was the unaligned AGI capitalism all along?
Tech bro ennui, the societal problem.
In this essay I will explore solutions to this problems.
Solution 1. Really high marginal tax rates. Oh, this solves the problem, guess my work here is done.
While a good description of how AI Doom has progressed during 2024, I think the connection to regulation (at least the EU regulation, I am not familiar with what was proposed in California) is of the mark.
The EU regulation isn’t aimed at AI Doom, it’s aimed at banning and regulating real world practices. Think personal data, not AI going conscious.
Nah, this is real profits. Real profits turned over to Microsoft:
Microsoft’s current agreement with OpenAI entitles it and other investors to take a slice of profits until they collect $100 billion.
Heads, Microsoft makes tens of billions in profit on their investment. Tails and Microsoft keeps Open AI in a tight embrace until they have sucked everything they want from them.
Would be smart, except they are sucking poison. Let’s see how Microsoft’s monopoly position can get them out of this jam!
“This is the perfect opportunity to describe retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).” We assume the family had already threatened violence if he mentioned bitcoin.
It is also lovely that the quote follows directly after Google’s glue in pizza. Just pivot to something else.
But since I don’t trust the linked AI fondler’s description, what is RAG? Sounds like an LLM stapled to a search engine.
And his actual name, Alexander de Pleffel-Johnson, also scans “generic English aristocrat.”
Hence the stage personality.
Any content is good content as long as it creates payments in the paywall. And that must be what science is all about.
I found the article gross.
He is a suspect in a murder case, not convicted, and they spend very little space on the case. The cops say he had his fake id, the gun and manifesto on him. His lawyer says he is yet to see the evidence. That is all.
Then they basically go through posts he has made online and ask people he knew about them. There is a public interest in the case, but courts are supposed to adjudicate guilt. What if he is innocent, then they just went through his posting history and showed them in the worst possible light.
Biblically accurate gymnastics.
“We can’t get people to eat less meat and more vegetables, therefore we must invest billions so that we can get to the logical endpoint: million dollars steaks!”
“Or at least, that is what we told them. Now, feast on the most expensive meat yet as we now can literally eat up the planets resources!”
Evil laughter as the billionaires twirl their mustaches and salivates.
How does beating your kid for clicks make anything better!? You still beat your two year old kid!