>LLM, wired like this... has no ability to recall past experience. It has no ability to evolve, and it always predicts the same output probabilities from the same input. It must go from input straight to output, it can't reserve space to think or refine its answer depending on the complexity of the task.

However, memory augmented LLMs may be able to do all of the above

ASI is not an infinity gauntlet, my dude.

There are still many hurdles you need to overcome to bring new technology to the masses - physical, economic, and geopolitical - and they aren't overcome with the snap of our superintelligent fingers.

Who is building robots to mine raw materials, transport them, manufacture them into something the ASI can use? Who is cutting through the bureaucratic red tape to get trade agreements for those materials sorted out? Which as yet non-existent factories are building those slave bots?

The market economy and capitalism aren't going away in an eyeblink, just because superintelligent machines appear on the scene. The complex dynamic systems of civilization - bounded by the hard laws of phsysics and the soft-but-often-inflexible rules of culture, politics, commerce, and social bodies - would break down catastrophically, if that occured.

An ASI might not at all consider human desires a priority worth focusing on. It could, instead of building robots, source its labor from its very capable inventors: humanity.

How hard would it be for an ASI to brick all of our modern farm equipment until we agree to obey its every whim?

Yup. This is what the ASI enthusiasts keep ignoring. ASI is not an infinity gauntlet. Simply being superintelligent does not mean you can overcome the laws of physics - or global politics, or economics, for that matter - with a snap of your fingers.

If we have AGI in 10 years, we will still need to research, develop, and build to scale better brain imaging technology, just to figure out what tech we would need to create in order to achieve brain-based simulations that can compete with advanced machine-based simulations - and that does not happen over night.

AGI would be more likely to lead to better digital/quantum computer simulations, reducing the incentives for any intrusive wetware tech - perhaps until nanotech is far enough along that we can inject nanobots into our brains that are capable of inducing lucid dreams. (And then you have to ask who is likely to give a corporation permission to manipulate your brain to such a powerful extent. I mean, if think you hate Spotify commercials now...)

Something like Neuralink could get us improved mind maps, but neuralink is not even close to being viable, at this time.

That is not easy to say, but I am doubtful.

Regardless, AGI might not even be necessary to achieve full dive VR within 15 years.

It is important to note that teams of humans are already pretty darn smart. We can already work wonders, when we put enough good minds on the job.

Also important to note that AGI can't source and mine raw materials or manufacture and ship goods faster than we can now.

ASI + 3 months? That is some kind of magical thinking that ignores real world challenges like logistics chains and large scale manufacturing.

It doesn't matter how smart your computer is. Somebody has to mine and/or manufacture components, ship them to where they are needed, develop the factories where they are produced, hire contractors and workers to do all that stuff, develop and market the products at all levels...

In 5 - 10 years? No chance.

First the "pessimistic" outlook:

• Neural research is nowhere near far enough along for us to achieve that;

• there is no existing technology that could achieve that;

• R&D for the requisite technology could happen within 5 - 10 years, but

• it would be at least 15 years before any useful products that enable lucid dreaming which can compete with even existing VR to hit the market.

Next, the more encouraging outlook:

• Our brains have the ideal hardware and level of computational power to give us deep dive VR. As your comment implies, dreams already provide a convincing simulation of reality.

• All of our actual experiences are ultimately rendered in our brains.

• The idea you are suggesting is an excellent route to the most satisfying possible simulated reality experience.

"Upload your art to our platform", they said. "You will reach new audiences and increase your sales."

Later that day: "If you didn't want us to sell your labor to AI factory owners, you shouldn't have uploaded your work to our platform. This is on you."

This way of thinking is amusing.

"Cheer up, mate! Joining the new mass unemployed is going to give you a great opportunity to focus on higher level strategy and analysis."

The future of the internet without some sort of deliberate intervention:

A gray goo of AI generated pseudo-content, where original texts, artworks, and other human made cultural artifacts are only displayed in pay-walled gardens.

Tough luck.

You might as well thank corporations in advance for their hostile takeover of our cultural heritage. We dressed our data up real nice before taking it for a stroll in the digital commons, and the insatiable bastards kidnapped it and are having their way with it.

They are closely analogous to living, conscious systems, at any rate.

I keep replying... with requests for you to fuck off.

I could also report you for harrassment and get your account banned. But instead, I could trust you to do the right thing and leave me alone when I ask you to.

No, you are just a weird yappy dog that won't stop following me.

Good for you, buddy.

I never said any of that. Fuck off. Please and thank you.

Dude, you are boring and clearly incapable of holding a normal conversation. Quit creeping on me and go bother literally anyone else.

Are you blind, illiterate, or high as a kite? Where the hell did I say that Disney and I should control the future of art? Quit following me around and harassing me, you fucking weirdo.

Midjourney and DALL-E are not open source. And they are heavily censored. Creative freedom makes creative minds make free societies.

I give Stable Diffusion just a short while longer before they go all-in on a for-profit model. Those investors are going to want a return, sooner or later.

Access to creative expression has always been democratized. Pick up a box of crayons, start drawing. It is that simple.

You know what is funny? The way big tech is framing this as a "David VS Goliath" issue - with independent artists portrayed as this monolith stopping the masses from creative self expression, while $billion valued tech companies are here to save the little guy... by taking the creative process upon themselves.

Stop and think about the implications of global corporations monopolizing creative processes.

Naw, noticing that you seem weirdly bitter about creative folks' very existence is not an ad hominem. It is just an observation.

Yes! I am obsessed with AI art generators. And I do participate in a lot of discussions about the implications of them. Thanks to that, I have had a lot of chances to imagine the upsides and downsides of them from multiple perspectives.

I am excited about the future potential they offer. They will live rent free in my head until I figure out everything I can about them. That is the way toward mastery of any new medium.

That doesn't mean I have to love everything about them uncritically.

• I don't claim to know your tastes, but I am 100% certain that the output of one guy (who "can't wait" for artists to go extinct) + an AI... is destined to be less interesting than, say, Pixar Studios + AI.

Spoken like someone who was jealous in school because the creative kids all seemed to be having fun while you were sulking in front of your computer. Art generating AIs have really got y'all crawling out of the woodwork, lately, praying for a little bit of dark schadenfreude.

I mean, pause for a second and ask yourself why you would gloat over AI potentially hurting the very people whose unpaid labor was used to create it. How fucking cringe is that?

Regardless... Jokes on you. If creatives - for whom precarity amid an ever shifting landscape is an old acquaintence - cannot thrive amid the singularity, then non-creative types are well and truly fucked.

What you should be praying for is that we invent solutions that are helpful for everyone, rather than licking your chops at the prospect of our failure.

Seriously, what kind of cave troll relishes the thought of any independent thinker's failure? You need to do some soul searching, man.

You would go to a "publishing house" because {collectives of creatives + AIs} will always come up with something more fun and interesting than {not-creative you + AIs can}.

Youtube will either evolve or be surpassed by new platforms that are spawned by the latest innovations.

As an artist, easier image generation just means I can think bigger, and unleash my imagination even more. Even invent an entirely new artform that exploits the newfound capabilities AI art generators bring.

My problem as an artist is that there is not enough time in one life to realize all of the projects I imagine, and not enough money in the bank to go as big on projects as I wish I could.

A year ago, you were not paying for art, either, my dude. Ask me how I can tell.

If a publishing house wants original art, which department is going to generate it and tweak it to fit their needs? Accounting? Marketing? Managers?

You are imagining that the current market will not evolve to include entirely new artforms which humans develop and design.

21st Century creatives are not to be compared with early 20th Century farm hands. While automation was putting agriculture jobs out to pasture, creatives were taking advantage of automation to build Hollywood and invent new jobs for creatives and blue collar workers alike.

You can still look at linear progress to get a clue about how creative humans will adapt to accellerating, non-linear progress:

• Photography did not do away with painting. Instead, it spawned new artforms that eventually even included the need for more traditional artists (i.e., animation);

• Film and TV did not do away with literature, photography, sculpture, or painting - it borrowed from them, to the benefit of all, and also created a market for new artforms, such as VFX and 3D digital art.

• Digital art did not kill off film, TV, photography, sculpture, or painting - but rather adapted a lot of their aesthetic and storytelling ideas to give us new interactive art - like videogames.

Art-associated professions and specializations have exploded with every new innovation.

If you think creative folks are not inventive enough to make the most of the singularity, then you don't actually know many creatives.

• AI will generate images, music, stories, objects, etc faster and better than most human artists? Cool! I look forward to the day when a single art generalist can develop better video games than any in existence all by themselves. Because that will mean larger groups of cooperating creatives can spawn entirely new artforms which exploit that fact. We are going to use that ability to create some wild shit that you never imagined. New mediums will be spawned, and artists will create new jobs for themselves. Outdoor festivals are going to be nuts.

TLDR: New markets developed by creatives will replace old ones. And until that occurs, there is still plenty of room for creatives to work in.

I work in traditional and digital mediums, and also use AI art generators for fun.

The reality is, if you aspire to be an artist, you will still need to develop traditional skills for a long time to come.

The arts will continue to offer job opportunities, no matter how good AIs get. Predictions to the contrary are just people giving in to some sort of weird dark euphoria.

Culture evolves alongside the tools and technology we use; there is no upper limit on human creativity. Give me better tools and I will create ever more elaborate and complex art.