Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reality

13 (65%)

Universe

4 (20%)

The World

3 (15%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[jipehog]

people think chatGPT is a breakthrough in AI getting closer to being "intelligent", but it's actually most likely a dead end. Every time you think it's being smart, it's actually just repeating an approximate copy of an answer to your question that was written by some human on the internet. At best it can change a few details and keep the answer coherent.

I'd use different framing. As a language model ChatGPT breakthrough is in the ability to understand input and generate output that correspond to something that we understand. On its own chatGPT is reconstituting previous knowledge in novel ways, which is already enough to put many out of business, but on top of that it can be matched with actual computation models which generate new knowledge for example

[King Zultan]

It's just what you associate most with the kind of luck that will help us.

But don't they all have a chance to save us?

[Scoops Novel]

It's just what you associate most with the kind of luck that will help us.

But don't they all have a chance to save us?

Correct! But what's the biggest?

[Maximum Spin]

Well, the universe and reality are the same thing and both much bigger than the world.

[dragdeler]

Nah if they're presented as different choices, just gotta assume they are different, regardles of logic it's improv rules that take over in this case.

Reality-> laws of physics
Universe-> destiny
World->society

I took a while because I had no convincing argument, today I saw italy outlawed openai for data protection stuff, (not real data protection, the adherence to an EU law called gdpr)... Yeah ok I can concretise my vague impression now:


AI is just too cool and too useful, we can't have nice things. The general public is gonna get cockblocked out of owning / executing one oneself in the pionneer phase, then it's going to get gradually regulated away, until being barely accessible, except for the biggest players who will weasel around the law (this is a classical search query we just tune certain aspect with the language model blabla... we only use it to analyse input but it doesn't output to the user blabla...), and the day the piece of shit suggests you some product when you asked after a local file, you're gonna wonder what the problem was with the chatbots back in the day again, and why it has to suck so much today?

[Starver]

(I was going to reply that "reality is over-rated", but reversed out of such a solely-flippant post.)

The problems with AI wrt GDPR are not because of the specific AIness of GPTs, anyway, but as much an issue with Facebook/Twitter/etc, if not more. And chatGPTs themselves aren't the way that our few surviving children will inherit a Killbot Hellscape to live in.

The gap between pure kneejerk reactions and deliberately letting someone else shoot your foot off is an arguable one, of course. I just don't see this singular issue as the one that will need to worry about.

[MaxTheFox]

VPNs: Allow us to introduce ourselves.

[jipehog]

Many developed countries rely on services sector and information services are increasingly essential element of it, we are talking about intangible wealth creation traveling cross-border valued in trillions. With that in mind GDPR is essentially digital protectionism as digital economy is seen as essential part of EU block economical future and its goal to encourage local competitive digital economy and avoid getting steamrolled by foreign industry giants who reap the benefits that are enjoyed by tax payers elsewhere.

[McTraveller]

I'm old school: intangible wealth, isn't wealth.  You can't eat it, you can't live in it, you can't use it to build anything, you can't use it to keep yourself warm.

The only argument that "intangibles" have a wealth aspect is if you include "the ability to do work" as an aspect of wealth - so "information" is only wealth inasmuch as it gives you the ability to create tangible wealth.

Art is interesting - you can have a tangible instantiation of art, which is definitely wealth.  Using information to increase trade - I'd argue that isn't really wealth, though it can indeed affect the ability to create wealth and does indeed have value.  It influences the trade of tangible wealth.

But AI... unless it is used to improve efficiency of tangible wealth creation and distribution, it's just noise.

[King Zultan]

I'm old school: intangible wealth, isn't wealth.  You can't eat it, you can't live in it, you can't use it to build anything, you can't use it to keep yourself warm.

I'm also of that school, if I can't hold it in my hand it might as well not exist, and that's why I don't trust credit cards and probably why so many people have loads of credit card debut.

[Starver]

Well, i've held credit cards (not always wisely), but I refuse on principle to have contactless... Though the insecurity of the "last three digits" bit was brought home to me the one time I managed to lose my card. (Whilst nobody even got around to trying, before they got cancelled, the time I was physically and directly rolled over for the contents of my pockets, interestingly...)

[jipehog]

I don't want to get into discussion on objective/subjective wealth. I'd just note that you can't hold Dwarf Fortress, but this intangible asset valued far more than the economic value of Toady's computer.

In the same way, you can't touch the software on your phone, movies you stream, online retailer and their stock, intellectual property etc but their value often surpass that of tangible assets. For example, the value of Steam storefront is FAR beyond the value of their server farms, and covid vaccine formula valued FAR beyond the tangible production machinery the company owns.

In the information age data is raw material, and it plays bigger role in many industries, in this case online user data makes a lot of money to tech giants overseas which have many applications, as Starver noted two posts back this isn't something specific to AI.

[McTraveller]

Well yes: wealth is objective, value is subjective. Dwarf Fortress has value much greater than the computer, yes. Assessing the wealth of something like DF is difficult - it has some tool-like properties related to learning and entertainment. But you can’t use DF to do anything other than manipulate information.

Information is not a raw material in the classical sense: you cannot build anything out of data other than more data. This is not to say information has no value. It has significant value in fact.

So the only danger in AI is if attach it directly to actuators and let it manipulate matter directly or that it uses Humans as de-facto actuators via suggestion and emotional manipulation.

[EuchreJack]

Who's gonna build the first AI mine?_{I'd make that a thread, Novel Style, but I have an image to protect}

[King Zultan]

Pretty sure attempting to mine a AI will break it.