[removed]

You can rest assured that absolutely none of those tangential benefits will translate directly into lessened work load, fewer working hours for the same pay, better working conditions, better benefits, or really anything else that would make working life less miserable for most people.

It might save you a couple of clicks when ordering a pizza, though. So we've got that going for us. Which is nice.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:

Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.

From the article.

>Imagine that as you are boarding an airplane, half the engineers who built it tell you there is a 10 percent chance the plane will crash, killing you and everyone else on it. Would you still board?

>In 2022, over 700 top academics and researchers behind the leading artificial intelligence companies were asked in a survey about future A.I. risk. Half of those surveyed stated that there was a 10 percent or greater chance of human extinction (or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment) from future A.I. systems. Technology companies building today’s large language models are caught in a race to put all of humanity on that plane.

And.

>For thousands of years, we humans have lived inside the dreams of other humans. We have worshiped gods, pursued ideals of beauty and dedicated our lives to causes that originated in the imagination of some prophet, poet or politician. Soon we will also find ourselves living inside the hallucinations of nonhuman intelligence.

This man can write. But I wrote some warnings my ownself starting back in 2017...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7obqv8/truly_creative_ai_is_just_around_the_corner_heres/ds8rzp5/

I like to use the analogy of an approaching tornado or tsunami to describe the impact and effects of exponentially ever more powerful AI on human civilization on Earth. For such a long time 2016 to 2022, it looked so far away but dreamlike and mesmerizing in its affect.

Today it is upon us. Yes, just like that. I just had Chatgpt look at a highly sophisticated abstract concerning the phyics of solar wind impact on geomagnetics, cuz i wanted to see if we were gonna see the Northern Lights here in the Twin Cities (MN) tonight. First I typed can you understand the following abstract. And it said, provide me the abstract. So i copy/pasta the abstract. In a fraction of second, probably less than a quarter of a second, it came back with yes, I understand this. Then it paraphrased it in similar highly technical prose. Then I typed, because I was not going to take a chance that I could not understand a HS grad equivalent explanation, explain this abstract in a manner that would be appropriate to a 6th grader. And then I fully understood what the abstract meant.

"What hath God wrought?" That was the first message sent by telegraph in the USA. What indeed hath God wrought for humanity with our shiny new AIs. I'm thinking we need to slow it down now too. But I think that is now a physical impossibility. It is already too entwined in everything electronic, especially national defense. That of the USA, China and Russia and more than likely, everybody else.

We are now at the point where we can no longer predict with certainty what our civilization will look like one from today. That is the impact of this AI ascendence. I was sounding the warning as far back as 2017, but everybody regarded me as well, "somewhat hyperbolic". The less kind said I was detached from reality. It was "not how AI worked."

At any rate, the time for warning is over. The time for attempting to adapt has begun. I hope it all goes well for us. I hope we have enough "alignment" philosophy inculcated in GPT-4 and whatever on Earth "GPT-5" is gonna be.

I had predicted that the 'technological singularity" would likely occur about the year 2029, but we know today that in probably less than three years now, something very much akin to ASI, that is "artificial super intelligence" is going to exist. And ASI=TS. I don't know how we can control this. All of the AI experts are either stunned or attempting to smooth over what is coming. I posted several of these already. They are not reassuring.

Anyway, about every three months now there will be "significant" improvement in our AI efforts. I guess I'm just along for the ride at this point. I hope we can get something like UBI or post-scarcity for our citizens. Because buckle your seatbelts, it's gonna be a (crazy/insane/unimaginable) bumpy decade from here on out.

I'm Catholic. I pray that our Lord Jesus Christ returns today. The Second Coming. If not and we make it thru these next couple of years. Yes--Next. Couple. Of. Years. That it may have been God's Will that the TS occurred and that we will be on the "next level". And capable of receiving new revelations that would not be possible to comprehend prior to the TS.

Do you think I'm too hyperbolic?

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1224q6y/you_can_have_the_blue_pill_or_the_red_pill_and/jdor14x/

They are running a stripped down version of facebook's LLM. https://github.com/antimatter15/alpaca.cpp is one of the first projects demonstrating it.

[deleted]

I think there would still be tangential benefits but many of these benefits are quickly taken for granted. For example, let's say that the LLM can eventually do all the time-consuming tasks (e.g. ordering food, finding hotels, talking to customer service) that you had to do yourself previously. It is a clear benefit, right? But after a while, we just take this for granted and won't even see it as a clear benefit anymore. Is that us being spoiled or just the psychology of human beings?

It might be the case that US based companies cannot compete with other non-US companies that do not have this restriction. I suspect that labor costs are significantly high enough in the total budget to make a difference. Moreover, I just think US as a whole would decline significantly if you have millions of people who are essentially working as some sort of an unnecessary prop just so that the system remains in tact. It might be better than the alternative of massive unemployment but just doesn't seem like a satisfactory solution.

Electricity: Zap people and animals to death.
Mechanics: Crush people and critters to death.
Chemistry: Poison people and critters to death.
Mind-control: Scare people and animals to death.
Media: Bore people to death. Beware animals.
Politics: Bludgeon people to death. Run faster.

Th whole fucking worlds bullshit, how can any one person, or group of people, control what I can and cannot put it my body. Especially something natural. We all have one life, we should be able to experience it how we wish

Thinking unsanctioned stuff is a severe offense. Think nice, now. Or else. 8-(

[deleted]

no, currently it would be using images in it's own database. that would mean harold smith would simply be drawn as john doe from the image database. john doe is just training data and doesn't exist in real life in this instance. i saw the image results, from looking at a skyscaper, yes it drew a skyscraper but the skyscraper looked like the training image, not the real life image seen by the person.

> Your link is not from the IPCC.

The link I directed you to is indeed from the IPCC. I'll repeat it for you with the link included a second time for your convenience:
>> The scientific consensus is that stopping emissions is enough to stop warming. The scenarios on p.13-14 of the IPCC report show clearly that warming stops shortly after net zero emissions are reached

Note the domain: www.ipcc.ch

If you click the link I've given you twice now, you will see that it is indeed the IPCC WGI report, and you will see that the chart on p.13 and table on p.14 demonstrate that warming is indeed predicted to stop (and reverse) after net emissions turn negative for SSP1-1.9.

> a 2021 article from carbon tracker.org which a financial think tank.

You appear to be confused, as the other net zero link I posted goes to carbonbrief.org, and not "carbontracker.org", whatever that is. carbonbrief.org/about-us/ shows that the link I actually gave has a ton of climate and environmental scientists on its staff.

Feel free to head directly to the scientific papers cited in that article if you prefer primary sources; for example this paper from 2008, this paper from 2010, or this paper from 2020 concluding that warming will stop at net zero emissions.

As a point of interest, I'd never heard of "carbontracker.org" before you mentioned it, but I agree with you that it seems like a probable misinformation source.

> You can find the evidence yourself

I have, and I've linked it for you.

[removed]

Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.

From the article.

>Imagine that as you are boarding an airplane, half the engineers who built it tell you there is a 10 percent chance the plane will crash, killing you and everyone else on it. Would you still board?

>In 2022, over 700 top academics and researchers behind the leading artificial intelligence companies were asked in a survey about future A.I. risk. Half of those surveyed stated that there was a 10 percent or greater chance of human extinction (or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment) from future A.I. systems. Technology companies building today’s large language models are caught in a race to put all of humanity on that plane.

And.

>For thousands of years, we humans have lived inside the dreams of other humans. We have worshiped gods, pursued ideals of beauty and dedicated our lives to causes that originated in the imagination of some prophet, poet or politician. Soon we will also find ourselves living inside the hallucinations of nonhuman intelligence.

This man can write. But I wrote some warnings my ownself starting back in 2017...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7obqv8/truly_creative_ai_is_just_around_the_corner_heres/ds8rzp5/

I like to use the analogy of an approaching tornado or tsunami to describe the impact and effects of exponentially ever more powerful AI on human civilization on Earth. For such a long time 2016 to 2022, it looked so far away but dreamlike and mesmerizing in its affect.

Today it is upon us. Yes, just like that. I just had Chatgpt look at a highly sophisticated abstract concerning the physics of solar wind impact on geomagnetism, cuz I wanted to see if we were gonna see the Northern Lights here in the Twin Cities (MN) tonight (25 Mar 23). First, I typed can you understand the following abstract. And it said, provide me the abstract. So, I copy/pasta the abstract. In a fraction of second, probably less than a quarter of a second, it came back with "Yes, I understand this". Then it paraphrased it in similar highly technical prose. Then I typed, because I was not going to take a chance that I could not understand a HS grad equivalent explanation, "Explain this abstract in a manner that would be appropriate to a 6th grader". And in a split second it did. And then I fully understood what the abstract meant.

"What hath God wrought?" That was the first message sent by telegraph in the USA. What indeed hath God wrought for humanity with our shiny new AIs. I'm thinking we need to slow it down now too. But I think that is now a physical impossibility. It is already too entwined in everything electronic, especially national defense. That of the USA, China and Russia and more than likely, everybody else.

We are now at the point where we can no longer predict with certainty what our civilization will look like one year from today. That is the impact of this AI ascendence. I was sounding the warning as far back as 2017, but everybody regarded me as well, "somewhat hyperbolic". The less kind said I was detached from reality. It was "not how AI worked."

At any rate, the time for warning is over. The time for attempting to adapt has begun. I hope it all goes well for us. I hope we have enough "alignment" philosophy inculcated in GPT-4 and whatever on Earth "GPT-5" is gonna be.

I had predicted that the 'technological singularity" would likely occur about the year 2029, but we know today that in probably less than three years now, something very much akin to ASI, that is "artificial super intelligence" is going to exist. And ASI=TS. I don't know how we can control this. All of the AI experts are either stunned or attempting to smooth over what is coming. I posted several of these already. They are not reassuring.

Anyway, about every three months now there will be "significant" improvement in our AI efforts. I guess I'm just along for the ride at this point. I hope we can get something like UBI or post-scarcity for our citizens. Because buckle your seatbelts, it's gonna be a (crazy/insane/unimaginable) bumpy decade from here on out.

I'm Catholic. I pray that our Lord Jesus Christ returns today and finds us all good and faithful servants. The Second Coming. If not and we make it thru these next couple of years. Yes--Next. Couple. Of. Years. That it may have been God's Will that the TS occurred and that we will be on the "next level". And capable of receiving new revelations that would not be possible to comprehend prior to the TS.

Do you think I'm too hyperbolic?

Yeah, some public trials would come in handy there. Show, don't tell, and all that.

I swear, early futurama had lots of thought put into it. I can imagine them adding ads to dreams being a new thing when technology gets far enough. This is just part of the baby steps towards that reality.

Additionally, the 5th would only protect what you say. It doesn’t, for example, prohibit search or manipulation of your body. For example, fingerprints are not protected by the 5th. I don’t see why brain fingerprints would be.

The title of this picture says it perfectly. There is always going to be plenty of things the people are going to be guilted in to doing to save the climate. That's the gimmick. As long as there is federal funding being competed for the data will always be skewed. If not why are they wrong time and time again. Politicians love the people to be scared and academia loves to pocket our tax dollars.

Hi! I love your enthusiasm!

Candid feedback:

• This needs to be better formatted for readability.
• It reads as a bit repetitive. Perhaps I am missing new concepts introduced between the introduction and explanation but there is no need to make it long if it is to convey concise concepts simply to convey a patina of thoroughness.

Question:

• How is AI involved? Is it meant to be a 'bedspring' for human thought? To provide a foundation to flesh out the interstices of nascent ideas?

If anyone cares: I found Appendix B, but there wasn't much more helpful information. In particular, I don't understand how the randomly-generated images in their evaluation process were produced. And, as far as I can tell, the significance of the paper comes down to that detail.

• If the randomly-generated images were systematically defective in any way, then the 80% result is meaningless.
• On the other hand, if these randomly-generated images are fairly close to the image shown to the person in the fMRI-- but just differing in some subtle ways-- then 80% would be absolutely amazing.

Sooo... I think there's something moderately cool here, but I don't see a way to conclude more (or less) from than that from their paper. Frustrating. :-/

They arent running GPT4 locally, it sends the request through an API.

GPT3 has 175 billion parameters, at float16 thats 326 gigabyte just for the parameters. That would fill most phone's storage, not to mention the 12 gig of ram the most expensive phones have.

Then GPT4 is many times that...

[removed]

Your link is not from the IPCC. It’s from a 2021 article from carbon tracker.org which a financial think tank. The other thing you posted literally does not say once emissions are stopped warming will stop. There is a lag in emissions and warming. You can find the evidence yourself I’m not here to do homework for you.

> > The scenarios on p.13-14 of the IPCC report show clearly that warming stops shortly after net zero emissions are reached
>
> Warming WILL NOT STOP when emissions stop.

The climate scientists who wrote the IPCC report appear to disagree with you.

Do you have evidence that they are wrong? Or is that just your feeling on the matter?