StopTech @ StopTech @lemmy.today

Posts

230

Comments

228

Joined

4 mo. ago

Moderating

---

And those natural resources are used for what? Smartphones that addict and cause depression. Flock cameras that watch you and report to Palantir. Data centers that are used for AI propaganda and disinformation campaigns to manipulate our views. Chemicals that poison our crops and end up in our water sources. Modern industry is mostly bad for humanity.

It's funny that this is posted in "A Boring Dystopia" and "Positive News". What looks positive with narrow vision is often dystopian when taken to its conclusion.

No but it was a warning, just like 1984 or most sci-fi about AI

I don't see how it was misrepresented. The X post didn't claim this was being done already and clearly states it was an argument in a bioethics journal. It seems to me the paper's authors are not just presenting an interesting argument somebody could make but an argument they actually support so I don't think it would be right to treat it as a purely hypothetical argument.

I'm not complaining about the lack of upvotes, just I don't see why it's getting promoted to your front page

Weird. You can see they don't have that many upvotes. It wasn't my intention to spam anyone's feed.

LLM output is often indistinguishable from genuine creativity. You can give it an open ended prompt like "illustrate how the world is from the perspective of an LLM" and probably get something nobody has ever seen or thought of before. People use LLMs for generating ideas as well as coming up with novel solutions like I posted. Saying it's not creative is mysticist cope.

This meme implies that AI data centers have been around for a long time. They have not. And it's not really the number of data centers that matters it's the techniques that AIs use.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shoggoth-with-smiley-face-artificial-intelligence

But I don't see any of my posts on all. The most any of them has right now is 59 points, which is hardly a lot. And when I post them how would I know they are going to be popular and flood people's feeds? I wasn't expecting them to be very popular.

It's fallacious to say that because they don't "think" that they can't behave exactly the same as thinking things would, including the appearance of self-awareness and taking over the world.

Genetic editing of ticks would require ethics approval. Ethics approval is more likely if there are ethicists arguing that we're morally obliged to do this sort of things. This is step one of the process. Stop being a pedant.

There's lots of communities with the same purpose on different instances. Why shouldn't I post to all those that apply?

General-purpose LLMs can already beat the very best of human intelligence some of the time (recent examples). So it won't take very long for a few more breakthroughs to be made which will enable general-purpose AIs (LLMs, other neural networks, or something else entirely) to beat human intelligence most of the time, and then 90% of the time, then 99.9999% of the time. AI is already doing a lot of the coding to make AI and it could discover better alternatives to LLMs just like an LLM discovered a method to prove a mathematical conjecture nobody had been able to prove before.

Edit: I'm not even talking about that big of an extrapolation, as you can see. Although it took a long time just to replicate a small fraction of human intelligence we have clearly been accelerating. It took thousands of years to come up with a slide rule. Then 200 years to invent the direct multiplication mechanical calculator. Then 100 years to invent computers that could run programs. Then about 50 years to have somewhat decent machine translation of human languages. Then about 10 years to have chatbots that are hard to distinguish from humans and image generators which are hard to distinguish from photographs and videos.

Computers that used to take up whole floors and lots of power can now sit in your pocket 100 times over and last several days on a single battery. Resource demand for individual computers goes down as techniques improve. The human body proves that complexity and intelligence don't require a lot of resources.

I don't know what you mean by current iteration but what I do know is that general-purpose LLMs can already beat the very best of human intelligence some of the time (recent examples). So it won't take very long for a few more breakthroughs to be made which will enable general-purpose AIs (LLMs, other neural networks, or something else entirely) to beat human intelligence most of the time, and then 90% of the time, then 99.9999% of the time. AI is already doing a lot of the coding to make AI and it could discover better alternatives to LLMs.

Building community is being in bed with a laptop? Humanity is doomed.

If you believe that the human mind is just a product of the brain then obviously it would be possible for a new kind of brain to exist which is more intelligent. Or even if you don't believe that you can just observe the history of artificial intelligence and extrapolate.

Bioethics is pretty philosophical. But this seems like a lot more than a hypothetical because it's dealing with a real illness spread by real ticks and the authors point out it's "presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks" while presenting an argument we have an obligation to do such a thing.

How much of this is a rejection of Schmidt or his personal brand of AI and how much is a rejection of the future this technology is leading us into?

You can never have the good side of a technology without the bad. It's like black magic and that's why most technology should not exist.