[deleted]

A program playing at the "2 dan" level is essentially crippled and would have exploitable flaws that are magnified to the point that much weaker players with nothing better to do can find them. This is why advice is pretty much the same as chess, playing engines limited to human level play is essentially useless for improving arfter a point. Basically, the ego massaging is usually entirely unintentional on the engine creator's parts, but limiting an engine to a consistent human difficulty is hard.

The bragging is still dumb though.

I appreciate the optimizing but you should really look at all the problems that occur when using artificial hearts. There is a reason heart transplants are gold standard and artificial hearts are just used for bridging.

The first Star Trek movie was loosely based on this, with very investing results

It's machine learning not true AI, and its only a tool, and like any other tool, someone has to develop, build and maintain it.

> Usually takes awhile to iterate on designs, two weeks saved per iteration is huge.

Agreed.

> Especially considering the cost of the engineers involved, you don’t exactly pause those paychecks.

Since they work on microprocessors they must be familiar with pipelining techniques. These techniques apply to optimal use of microprocessor hardware. These techniques also apply to optimal use of engineering talent. High latencies make pipelining essential.

First: At-cost is certainly possible! Free might be, but there also lots of other things we need to spend our limited resources on as a society. Some of them definitely higher on the list than AI access.

But it would require finding a different way of funding future research and development. This is already partly covered by government-funded research, but that doesn’t necessarily cover the whole route to making AI actually usable and available to the public.

Second: There’s a seriously large difference in cost between using a trained AI model (such as ChatGPT) and training it in the first place. The second would be far more costly to make available for free (orders of magnitude, really). But without it, possible innovations from making AI available for free would be far more limited.

So long as we talk about AI using words and concepts typically only applied to living things, then I think there's truth in what you say, but maybe for different reasons.

Of course AI does not experience anything but the way we talk about it, sometimes, suggests that it is experiencing. We use words like "think" and "learn." We talk about, "it told me X" or "it discovered X." Then we add conversational AI to give it a personality, we give it a voice through text to audio. Robots are often humanoid. And all that before the people who don't understand this technology at all come rushing in and perceive an AI-self because they lack the technical knowledge to know that that isn't so.

We are definitely on a trajectory to treat AI as if it is autonomous and "deserving" of rights, but that's not because AI is becoming so sophisticated that it justifies that. Instead, because it is becoming so sophisticated and because we talk about it using human-specific verbs, I do think a large portion of end users will simply view AI as human-like, regardless of the truth of it. That is, AI rights will grow out of ignorance and humans anthropomorphizing inanimate computations.

We can change this. If the AI field started purposefully rejecting human-specific verbs, and if journalists stopped being so superficial and dumbing it down, and if we can improve social media conversations where there are often ignorant people proclaiming that AI is sentient, and if government bodies codify how the law views AI and that it is neither human nor deserving of any legal status beyond technology regulation - if we do all that, we can get people on the same page about what AI is and how it works. But I'm not holding my breath.

Who is going to pay the talented and expensive technologists who build these AI models?

[removed]

Usually takes awhile to iterate on designs, two weeks saved per iteration is huge.

Especially considering the cost of the engineers involved, you don't exactly pause those paychecks.

I'm being downvoted by the very people I'm referring to.

I don't know why you are being downvoted, this is absolutely true.

I mean, sure, cutting back on meat is great (and tbh for budget reasons alone...) and it's kinda nice to have something incremental to work on where every step has the same effect instead of all or nothing, it's less stressful IMO. But how many Americans would you have to convince to cut meat by 30, 50 or 100% to reduce emissions by 1 Gt CO2e? Or even 200 Mt? Versus how many it might take to swing a national election? (Scale as necessary if working with a smaller country) Government action is essential too, and if that action cuts emissions in sectors that are easier to cut that just means we get things lower sooner.

Yes, but it would have to be explicitly made that way, pretty much.

I'm sure politicians will try the re-skillling thing, but that isn't going to work at scale. There is no industry safe from automation and there are no uniquely human skills that can't be emulated by machine. It wasn't long ago that we were being told to pursue creative careers and then Dall-e burst that bubble.

So you’re saying an entity that doesn’t have a human body can feel the human/animal interpretation of pain?

We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo

It will reach a point where it starts making small improvements to itself. Basically evolving AI. Except it will happen over hours instead of millennia. Genie out of the bottle.

Nah, you've got it all wrong.

The diet becomes mandatory to supply lubrication to the moving parts.

>Citation needed for an empirical truth about feelings. Lol! Please, tell me, how do you feel without a body?

Hh...

We have a neural network that is running a program. A part of that program is a model called "homunculus". We have sensory inputs, and when we get certain inputs which are mapped to the homunculus, we feel pain.

If I'm being REALLY generous with you, I might give you the argument that one needs to have a MODEL for a body to experience pain the way humans do. However, who's to say that the way humans feel pain is the only way to feel pain - and this isn't even getting into emotional pain.

Did anyone ever watch Incorporated where even artificial hearts had a subscription model and one poor kid almost had their heart taken away by the corporation for using a hacked heart or something along that line?
Yeah....I believe we may be heading in that direction.

Actually, in the US least-cost pathways with adequate transmission capacity show much less deployment of diurnal storage (about half), solar and nuclear compared to the scenario where transmission is constrained. Sufficient transmission capacity to minimise cost is about 2 to 3 times current levels (compared with up to about 20% increase for constrained), and results in close to double the deployed wind substituting for the ~30% decrease in solar.

Your iKidney 6.5 has reached end of life.

If you still need this function you will need to upgrade to iBody 2, with embedded iPhone.

Upgrades to iBody 2...

By clicking this you accept tracking of your location, and that all live streams of all of your senses / sensors will be shared with our advertising partners.

Clicks cancel.

By clicking this you accept tracking of your location, and that all live streams of all of your senses / sensors will be shared with our advertising partners.

(Meanwhile, the beeping from iKidney 22 turns from "panicked" to "frenzied".)

Good luck with experiencing full automatation