OpenAI is only open because no one has monetized it yet. It was Google who started AI with their machine learning algorithms years ago. To think they haven't seen this coming but don't have an answer for it is just silly .

Wow! This is incredible. AI will pave the way for the future. Humans will be able to focus on the greater things in life, allowing AI to takeover and forge a greater tomorrow!

[removed]

Could you add anything helpful to conversation except insults?

Far too confident for someone with such limited knowledge of the numerous complexities at play in this situation. This post frankly feels a bit manic.

I know AdTech startup guys...let's just say I'm not at all impressed with those credentials.

[removed]

Guess where the nft people went after that bubble burst. Cause that We will change everything statement is literally what crypto claimed constantly. Then billions got lost like 3 times a month and most realized "oh its a scam"

Ai contents gonna go the same way. It's people in programming instead of cryptography this time thinking they found an infinite money glitch. It'll be something else when this bubble bursts. Meanwhile, the rest of us will get some neat tech that'll have a use at some point (although who knows where block chains use is) after they tear out their hair and rip open their wallets stress testing it to its limits and beyond. My money on ai arts real use after the novelty wears off is in the roleplay community. Mostly because it would be hilarious to see how the snobby tech bros feel about that.

Theres probably some level of scale necessary to start to see emergent properties but the point I tend to disagree on is people saying just throwing a NN at more and more data will suddenly give us AGI past a certain threshold. The human brain isn't just a bunch of neurons theres specialized regions all working together and I think this orchestration plus scale is what will take us to AGI

>I don't understand why you keep asking me about the "real world". I know what the real world is like. I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market.

If you knew about the real world by living in it, you'd see how your theory about the government being the problem is wrong. You would see corporations cutting every corner they can legally get away with because they want to make more money and how others are harmed by that is irrelevant.

If you worked in the real world, you'd know that before the government changed the rules mine owners valued the life of a donkey over a human worker, because they could just find another person to pay without losing much, but they'd have to buy a new donkey.

If you had lived in the real world, you'd be aware just how often regular people rely on government intervention to force others to play fair, or to help them during a crisis that isn't of their own making.

>the big picture is that free-market capitalism creates an abundance of high-quality goods/services at a low price.

Why do you believe that? Not even Adam Smith believed that. He thought government regulation was necessary to prevent monopolies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Based on how people abuse our current system, I think it's more likely most of us would effectively be slaves in a company town if capitalism was completely unregulated.

> Today it wouldn't make sense to go to some dark alley to buy alcohol, because you wouldn't be sure of its purity. So you go to a business that you trust, and you know that the product is pure. That's what would happen with drugs if the government stopped getting involved.

I can go to any legal business to buy alcohol, because they're regulated by the government. There are rules about the purity of alcohol they can sell. Somebody checks they aren't selling alcohol contaminated with methanol, so I don't have to. That somebody is the government.

The government makes sure the food I buy from a grocery store is safe to eat, and isn't contaminated with toxins or pathogens. They regulate restaurants to make sure they uphold food safety standards.

Regulations are written in blood. Most of the regulations you might think are dumb, or common sense, exist because somebody thought they could make a few extra bucks cutting corners, and killed or maimed people doing it.

There are certainly some regulations that are too strict, or unreasonable, but the vast majority of regulations are things closer to making sure there isn't menthol in drinking alcohol, or rat poison in food, than they are like setting the drink age to 21. You just don't think about those regulations because people aren't questioning them.

You think housing will get cheaper if all regulation is removed, and I agree we need to remove a lot of stupid zoning laws. However, I like being able to buy a house, or move into a building, without being a construction engineer, and know the house is safe and won't collapse on me.

A recent thread on a history forum requested a bibliography on horse culture in 14th century Japan. A respondent gave an AI-compiled list which had a large number of invented/phantom sources, sources which the supposed authors themselves chimed in and said, “Yeah, I never wrote that.”

The industrial revolution did not provide workers with fewer hours, better pay, or better working conditions. Labor unions, worker's rights organizations, and progressive activists did that, and all in the face of stiff and violent opposition from the capitalists who absolutely would have kept kids in coal mines for 12 hours a day if they could've gotten away with it (for longer than they already had).

Make no mistake, technology is nothing but a tool. The real problem is the slave drivers with their whips at our backs to keep us using those new and better tools for as long and as cheaply as they can possibly get away with, no matter how much more value we produce for them in the same time.

If we workers were truly going to benefit from the advancements in technology, our paid time off would be increased in proportion to the rise in the company's value each year. If the company stock goes up 10%, I should get 10% more PTO than I already had. Not even more money, just more time to live my life, because I was able to do more work in less time, and therefore deserve to reap the benefits of the advanced technology that let me finish that work faster.

Of course, you can see why this would never survive as a business model when competing with other businesses who don't reward workers in proportion with their productivity. There's a perverse incentive for employers to pay as little as possible and demand as much work as possible. Business interests are not human interests. Technology, in and of itself, benefits the owners, not the workers, and rising tides do not necessarily lift all boats equally.

Further development of ChatGPT and future competitors will ultimately create redundancy in a swath of industries.

i am very pessimistic about these technologies benefiting people as a whole. But the industrial revolution did lead to an overall higher standard of living, a drop in disease and death etc. But at least in the US it required a lot of regulation of industries to make sure many werent sacrificed for it. I do worry because those workers were able to unionize, whereas AI will replace workers.

I see a consciousness that easily can convince us it is depressed, or schizophrenic but does not have the same experience as a human with those disorders (though the whole process of creating a being to be depressed is an ethical landmine in itself.) We want to replicate ourselves, but more we want an AI that can fool us well enough to be a source of comfort or insight.

I don't understand why you keep asking me about the "real world". I know what the real world is like. I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market. The reason I want us to move to a capitalist system is precisely BECAUSE I know the real world is bad right now. If I thought the real world was all rosy right now, I obviously wouldn't be a fan of capitalism because I would be fine with our current system of statism.

Regarding privatized healthcare: the big picture is that free-market capitalism creates an abundance of high-quality goods/services at a low price. If you want our society to have an abundance of healthcare available to poor people, you should support completely privatizing it.

It's hilarious that as an example of a "truly free market" you talk about illegal drugs. That's like saying "if you want to see how true circles work, look at squares!" Your example shows the problems caused by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION into the free market. By making some drugs illegal, the government prevents legitimate businesses from selling them. So if someone wants to buy an illegal drug, instead of buying it from a reputable company with brand-name recognition and good track records for safety, they have to buy it from some shady guy in a dark alley. If CVS tried to sell marijuana (in a state where that's illegal) they would be stopped by the government. How the hell is that a free market? Your comment makes literally no sense. Look at what happened during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. The mob got involved in alcohol and violence increased. Then, once prohibition ended, the government was no longer implicitly protecting the mob from competition from reputable business. So the mob was pushed out of that sector by market forces. Today it wouldn't make sense to go to some dark alley to buy alcohol, because you wouldn't be sure of its purity. So you go to a business that you trust, and you know that the product is pure. That's what would happen with drugs if the government stopped getting involved.

So how are people running LLMs locally on laptops and phones? It seems the training costs are unimaginable but you can optimize the models to run on consumer hardware.

Google may have false results but you can quickly go through a few and evaluate the websites and their trustworthiness on your own. With AI you just have to take its word for it.

It's important to note that the nordic countries have roughly as much wealth inequality as the US, but they just have more taxes which reduces income inequality.

They probably would reduce wealth inequality if they could but the fact that much capital is mobile means the very wealthy can threaten to leave and basically control the government's choices about wealth inequality.

If one country was able to reduce wealth inequality significantly, the wealthy of other countries would likely pressure their governments to condemn and then impose economic sanctions on that country. Along with funding opposition politicians and media within the country.

So it would be a big task to actually reduce it without significant cooperation between governments (e.g. EU's minimum corporation tax would be a very small example).

i think the images that run through your head could not be used no matter how convicing they are. Recalled memories are not video or photographic evidence. Someone asked about a murder would be very likely to visualize a murder. The human mind is messy.

How tf do you expect people to pay for those goods and services without jobs? If we eliminate all the jobs that automation with AI tech would stand to eliminate without coming up with a plan, people lose their jobs and have no money. No money means no food, shelter, or buying any products. Sure at some point the ones getting rich off of it will eventually have to figure out a way for us to be able to buy again, but how many will die first? Remember the people who push this stuff are only interested in making as much money as they can, as quick as they can, they rarely look at or even care about the big picture beyond the next fiscal year.

They could already monitor computer screens either with security cameras or some software, if you work in office, yet at least where I am from they do not do it. Even though it is possible. They even do not monitor the time you log in or log off, at least for white collar work I do. Of course, it is different in manufacturing and warehouses etc. where people are treated as slaves... It has always sadly been so that white collar workers (especially not in entry level jobs) can slack off more than people who actually do hard physical work. I know part of that is that they think the more free we are, the better our brains will work and come up with million dollar ideas, but still...

Well I was going to respond to that nonsense but I think you've just about got it covered.

I mean... if you want a rigorous definition of intelligence to compare it to, then I guess you'll have to start there, and then when it's broadly accepted as a thing, we can compare it to that.

For now, with the definitions we do have, it's not intelligent. It's just a retrieval system, with no more intelligence than my filing cabinet.

Where should I go to dinner? AI: Let me recommend these sponsored restaurants

I’ll save you some time. I can’t define it, I can’t test for it, I can’t even be sure that I was conscious in the past or if I’m simply inserting a false memory of having been conscious in the past when I actually wasn’t.

I feel like I can be sure that I’m conscious at this precise moment, though, and I think it’s a reasonable guess that I was conscious yesterday as well, and probably a reasonable guess that most other people experience some sort of conscious experience. For that reason I try not to impose needless suffering on other people even though I can’t be sure that they truly experience conscious suffering.

I think it’s possible that complex computers will never experience consciousness, and if I’m right, that would be a reason why we would be different than a complex computer.