Have you never tried Chatgpt? Anybody can use it. It's free and available. And it is beyond belief. Let me ask you this. At what point is is it likely a narrow AI can have enough processing speed, "big data" and novel computing architectures, that it can mimic "understanding" in such a way that to our perception it is indistinguishable from actual understanding. In other words, the exact same outcome from two vastly different cogitational procedures. In fact they are so different that it is only the laws of physics that are being obeyed. A simple example the horse and our artificial "horse", the automobile. Who says that an AI must operate the way a biological brain operates? It will do what we want but in an utterly alien way. Humans are incredibly easy to trick. You will believe the AI is conscious and self-aware. But it won't be at all. And it won't matter.

Anyway, let me see what i can do. The one thing I can't reproduce for you in text here, is the unbelievable speed at which Chatgpt operates. You have to go see that for yourself.

I could not remember what precisely I was looking for in that solar wind question, so instead I went to find an introductory abstract of the original paper on string theory. Then I did the same things I did in the example above. The copypasta is entirely unedited and is as it was copied. Having said that, the presentation is far more user friendly than this c/p obviously because of greatly different formats. Also, probably because I was using Chatgpt at a peak user time of about 11:30 AM the answers were generated slightly slower. It took about 2 seconds for each answer instead of a split quarter second. But the first time I used it was at 2 AM local time. There are probably lots of localized servers that keep the speed up as it is.

Here it is.

Welcome back! What would you like to chat about? Received message do you understand this abstract? Sent message. do you understand this abstract? I’m sorry, but I don’t see any abstract in the web page context. Could you please provide more information or clarify which abstract you are referring to?

Received message. I'm sorry, but I don't see any abstract in the web page context. Could you please provide more information or clarify which abstract you are referring to?

Like DislikeMore . Introduction/Overview 1.1 Motivation for String Theory Presently we understand that physics can be described by four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, responsible for beta decays and the strong force which binds quarks into protons and neutrons. We, that is most physicists, believe that we understand all of these forces except for gravity. Here we use the word “understand” loosely, in the sense that we know what the Lagrangian is which describes how these forces induce dynamics on matter, and at least in principle we know how to calculate using these Lagrangians to make well defined predictions. But gravity we only understand partially. Clearly we understand gravity classically (meaning in the ~ = 0 limit). As long as we dont ask questions about how gravity behaves at very short distances (we will call the relevant breakdown distance the Planck scale) we have no problems calculating and making predictions for gravitational interactions. Sometimes it is said that we don’t understand how to fuse quantum mechanics and GR. This statement is really incorrect, though for “NY times purposes”, it’s fine. In fact we understand perfectly well how to include quantum mechanical effects into gravity, as long we we dont ask questions about whats going on at distances, less than the Planck length. This is not true for the other forces. That is, for the other forces we know how to include quantum effects, at all distance scales. So, while we have a quantum mechanical understanding of gravity, we don’t have a complete theory of quantum gravity. The sad part about this is that all the really interesting questions we want to ask about gravity, e.g. what’s the “big bang”, what happens at the singularity of black hole, are left unanswered. What is it, exactly, that goes wrong with gravity at scales shorter than the Planck length? The answer is, it is not “renormalizable”. What does “renormalizable” mean? This is really a technical question which needs to be discusse Sent message. Yes, I understand the text you provided. It appears to be an introduction or overview of a document discussing the motivation for String Theory. The text explains that physics can be described by four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. While most physicists believe that they understand all of these forces except for gravity, the text clarifies that gravity is understood classically and partially at the quantum level. However, a complete theory of quantum gravity is still lacking. The text also mentions that interesting questions about gravity, such as the nature of the “big bang” and black hole singularities, remain unanswered due to the lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity.

Is there anything specific you would like to know or discuss further?

Received message. Yes, I understand the text you provided. It appears to be an introduction or overview of a document discussing the motivation for String Theory. The text explains that physics can be described by four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. While most physicists believe that they understand all of these forces except for gravity, the text clarifies that gravity is understood classically and partially at the quantum level. However, a complete theory of quantum gravity is still lacking. The text also mentions that interesting questions about gravity, such as the nature of the "big bang" and black hole singularities, remain unanswered due to the lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity. Is there anything specific you would like to know or discuss further? Rephrase this in a manner that would be understandable to a 6th grader. Sent message. Sure! Here’s a simpler version: Scientists study how everything works using four main ideas called forces. These forces are like special powers that make things move and stick together. One of these forces is called gravity, which is what makes things fall down and keeps us on the ground. Scientists understand a lot about how gravity works when things are big, like planets and stars. But when things are very, very small, it’s harder to understand how gravity works. That’s why scientists are trying to learn more about it.

Is there anything else you would like to know?

Received message. Sure! Here's a simpler version: Scientists study how everything works using four main ideas called forces. These forces are like special powers that make things move and stick together. One of these forces is called gravity, which is what makes things fall down and keeps us on the ground. Scientists understand a lot about how gravity works when things are big, like planets and stars. But when things are very, very small, it's harder to understand how gravity works. That's why scientists are trying to learn more about it. Is there anything else you would like to know? Rephrase this in a manner understandable to a sixth grader but include an explanation of string theory and quantum gravity Sent message. Sure! Here’s a simpler version that includes an explanation of string theory and quantum gravity: Scientists study how everything works using four main ideas called forces. These forces are like special powers that make things move and stick together. One of these forces is called gravity, which is what makes things fall down and keeps us on the ground. Scientists understand a lot about how gravity works when things are big, like planets and stars. But when things are very, very small, it’s harder to understand how gravity works. That’s why scientists are trying to learn more about something called quantum gravity, which is a way to explain how gravity works when things are super tiny.

One idea that scientists have come up with to help explain quantum gravity is called string theory. String theory is like a story that says everything in the universe is made up of tiny strings, kind of like pieces of spaghetti. These strings wiggle and move in different ways to make up all the things we see around us. Scientists hope that by studying string theory, they can learn more about how gravity works when things are very small.

Is there anything else you would like to know?

Remember that you can endlessly tweak your prompt to get exactly what you want as an answer. For example I now realize I missed adding "Lagrangian" and "planck scale" to my finessed request. But it can do it all, no doubt.

ASI will solve all problems pretty fast if we get it. It is called technological singularity for a reason.

Perfect response from where it was created.

Nobody cares about men's safety even if they are the most victims of violent crimes. Nothing new.

[deleted]

i am not talking about its opinion, i am talking about intent. i want it to know what the intention of my question is regardless of the question. i just gave this as example to someone else...

as an example if i go to a small town and I am hungry. i find a local and ask "i am not from around here and looking for a good place to eat" they understand the intent of my question isnt the taco bell on the corner. they understand i am asking about a local eatery that others call "good". An AI would just spit out a list of restaurants, but that wasnt the intent of the question. therefore it didnt understand.

If i point at the dog bed even my dog knows what i intend for it to do. it UNDERSTANDS, an AI wouldnt.

Can’t prove something if you don’t know what it is. It’s a deep rabbit hole with many different sciences , from philosophy to neuroscience.

Tl;DR: The amount of energy you would need to move all the mass of the structures you need is so high, that it would take over a million years, to make such an investment be profitable. The engineering part is a hold different aspect. In short the answer, if you're are bored and willing to use centuries upon centuries worth of energy to built it, then yes. But mostly no.

If you place the idea this way nothing except an army of highly trained mercenaries loyal to you will stop criminals to harm.

Yet as a general population we live in the safest era there ever was.

Scientists discover another way how cancer cells evade immune system. Would be less clickbaity

Tbf some humans struggle with these things too.

>GPT4's strengths have little to do with spitting facts, and more to do with its ability to do reasoning and demonstrate understanding.

I am not talking about an opinion, i am referring to intent. if it cant determine "intent" it can neither reason nor understand. Humans can easily understand intent, AI can't.

as an example if i go to a small town and I am hungry. i find a local and ask "i am not from around here and looking for a good place to eat" they understand the intent of my question isnt the taco bell on the corner. they understand i am asking about a local eatery that others call "good". An AI would just spit out a list of restaurants, but that wasnt the intent of the question. therefore it didnt understand.

Not the best example. Why would an AI have an opinion on coffee if it can't even drink it?

>Just need some stupidly rich person ro realize the gold mine and then do it and then live like a king while fucking all of us peasents over as they monopolize the fucking sun

More like an evil corporation would do it. Wayland-Yutani, maybe?

I gotta agree with Ben Franklin on this: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Really appreciate this answer, thanks. Food for thought!

if an AI fails to understand your intent would you call it a win?

5x + 3y = 17 is satisfying because there is one and only one answer using positive integers

The TLDR is currently no, but it's still an inevitability if the human race lives long enough. It takes several stages to build up to it and we're not even stage 1 right now.

A single stupidly rich person isn't stupidly rich enough to enable asteroid mining. One of the big 3 countries needs to do it for it to be possible. Takes a lot more than just spaceships and fuel.

I feel like some people maybe take the word "soul" a bit wrong, because it sounds like something from fantasy-fiction. But consciousness is something that undeniably exists and it's very difficult to prove that any machine has one.

Asteroid mining would actually be a great source. No need to take from earth and its already in space. Build a processing plant on say the moon to refine and manufacture things. Its doable. Just need some stupidly rich person ro realize the gold mine and then do it and then live like a king while fucking all of us peasents over as they monopolize the fucking sun...

The way this is written it seems like Dyson specifically mentioned bitcoin and social media, in the 1960s....

European countries are already facing this problem, it's why their health and social care systems are teetering on the brink of collapse.

Nope. The only way it's remotely useful in preventing crime is if someone is paying careful attention to the feed, and even if that's your only job it the human mind can only process so much data at one time, and CCTV operators typically have a fuck ton of other shit dumped on them because it's not a "Real" job. You can't really watch more than about 4-6 feeds tops without having to ignore some of them, let alone when you're taking calls, making logs and whatever else they want you to do to feel like they're getting their money's worth out of you. Source: was a CCTVs operator.

Just having a camera doesn't mean much if anything in crime prevention. Even if someone sees what's happening to you and immediately sends help your way, a lot can happen in the time it takes help to actually reach you.

Feeling secure and *being* secure are two different things and the former is actually a bad thing, since it robs you of the opportunity to realize you're at risk and be alert. Every time I hear someone whining about feeling safe, I want to slap them for that reason.