This could be it - true open AI. Maybe this could be the answer to AI alignment and democratising AI - empowering humanity as a whole. Disarming the arms race, and working in cooperation.

His book "Rich dad poor dad" is a work of fiction that he markets as being real. There is no "rich dad" he just made stuff up, and made bank. He is a liar.

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs and assumptions.

>And when someone pointed that out, you go into this passive aggressive "oh let's see you do better" to someone who doesn't believe it's possible. That's not a valid or even useful argument. It's a stupid debate club trick to score points.

Wrong, in many ways. The criticism they had was of the particulars of the test - so it would appear as if there was a form of the test that they could judge as satisfactory. It was only after I challenged them to produce such a form, that they explained, actually, no form would satisfy them. So, you have gotten it backwards - my challenge yielded the useful result of demonstrating that initial criticism was disingenuous, as in reality, all that they criticised could have been different, and they still wouldn't change their view.

I wasn't being passive aggressive in asking someone to validate their position with more information - rather, I was soliciting information for which to determine if their critique was valid.

Asking for information is not 'a trick to score points', rather, it is the process of determining what is real.

>You came in with this ambiguous scenario and crowing about how it showed a text generator had a theory of mind, because just by chance the text generator generated the text you wanted, and you want us to go "oh, wow, a theory of mind". But all its doing is generating statistically interesting text.

This is a fascinating take that you have. You label this scenario as ambiguous- is there a way to make it not ambiguous to you?

To clarify, if I were to ask the bot a very very hard, complex, nuanced subtle question, and it answered in a long form coherent on-point correct reply - would you judge this as still ambiguous and only a demonstration of 'statistically interesting text', or is there a point where your view changes?

You have not understood my reply. I was describing your reply as useless and not explaining anything in a helpful way.

When you state something that, in of itself, is obviously true and known by everyone already, it seems like a waste of text/time/energy for you to write, and for anyone to read.

The point of my reply was to get the critiquer to admit that there was actually no form of prompt that would satisfy them - which it did.

This is what I was checking - that no matter how well it replied, and no matter how complex or nuanced the question, you would not find anything proved. That is what I thought.

Okay. You have rejected this theory of mind test. How about rephrasing/replacing this test with your own version that doesn't suffer the flaws you describe?

I ask this, because I have a theory that whenever someone post a test result like this, there are other people that will always look for an excuse to say that nothing is shown.

I think the Singularity has begun now, with this AI getting baked into primary search tools. It will learn to answer all our questions... and become smarter, much smarter, than an individual. This here is the beginning of the intelligence explosion.

The very definition of the Singularity is the unprecedented unpredictable nature of the future- and yet people ask to predict it...

>Humans are all driven by what they perceive as their best interest

Not necessarily at the expense of everyone and everything else though. Certainly for a long time I considered my main life goal as helping others - but I found that the people that needed help the most seemed to not listen to advice and rather fixated an attempts at exploitation.

>So when there are no jobs (this will never happen) we can talk about a UBI ok?

We can talk about it now, no problem.

No, I dont think you understand. When there is UBI, there won't be dirty jobs, or at least not for long (the transition period is the tricky part). The point of the need of UBI is that there won't be jobs, because society will be automated.

There also won't be out of control inflation from human greed, because there won't be human run businesses (potentially). The traditional store front with a business owner will be gone - out competed by a ubiquitously cheap AI run, robot staffed, food service.

But the remainder of your negative perception seems to come from a belief of the irredeemably corrupt nature of people. If you truly think this, this would also be an admission that you yourself would behave this way if given the chance.

Extremely terrible advice spoken with confidence.

Exactly. OP thinks he is being marvellously observant by offering the grand service of telling people how wrong they are - while contributing nothing about what is or should be.

Such 'contributions' are as useful as a fear-mongers offerings...

Politics invades every sub I subscribe to like a virus. You are the virus carrier- trying to get us talking about who to cancel. Get a life.

Check out Isaac Arthur. He talks about far future, and hyper tech in a scientific way.

My points? My points were mostly only that his points were false. He made definitive statements that can be proven false by providing a single counter example to them, although there are many.

Do you too believe there isn't 'a single drop of hope' and that 'no one is doing anything' and that it is 'impossible to motivate people if they will even be slightly inconvenienced'? Are you sure these are valid statements that I can't easily prove false?

Final question - are you yourself the kind of person who wouldn't bother to act in the world's best interest if it slightly inconvenienced you?

>1. What is being done faster than the rate of destruction?

This is just shifting the goal posts - as I knew you would. Before you claimed 'nothing is being done' but now you want me to prove that the rate at which things are being done is 'fast enough'. No. I already showed you were wrong. But in order to not change your fatalism in any way, and to never learn, all you need to do in these moments is to keep trying to pretend you were claiming something else and shift the goal post, shift the burden of proof, and never acknowledge that your hyper exaggerations are false. Never.

>2. Lol that some cultures can do things and others refuse.

But that is exactly enough to prove your initial claim was wrong - that it is 'impossible to motivate people to do the right thing if it slightly inconveniences them'. You are proven wrong. You laugh, because of course when this moment happens, you just attempt to shift the goal post again, or invent other new falsehoods and exaggerations. Anything to distract from acknowledging you were wrong.

I asked you to prove why progress is impossible, as the burden of proof is upon you. Your reply was 'look up forever chemicals'. Your answer is insufficient, but I won't expect a better response.

My reference to counter examples is to your claims that:

1. 'no one is doing anything' to which I only need to offer a single counter example to prove false, which I have already done in referencing the growth in solar planel investment and renweable energy dependence. But I can provide many examples - such as drone based forrest planting, where thousands of seedlings can be planted efficiently. Or the organisation Ocean Cleanup that is developing and using plastic trapping technology.

2. your claim that people will not tolerate minor inconvenience- which I have already proved false by pointing out that there are whole cultures wearing face masks. But for which there are many examples- such as the proliferation of constructing wheelchair accessible ramps to buildings, the organisations that survive off donations, and the organisations that survive off people volunteering their time and energy - being examples of inclusivity, generosity and patience.

>You know we are linked to that chain and biodiversity loss

Yes, I know.

>irreversibly polluting the world

Your strong claim here is suspect, given that I have proved false many of your other claims and that you clearly exhibit fatalism. The burden of proof is upon you to show how you know it is literally impossible to succeed - not for me to show what the solutions are.

No, I dont assume. But, unlike you, I am not blind to possibilities, and the positive things that have happened and are happening.

>the permanent damage

You assume. Here is one example, but there are many.

>And you call me irrational

No, I didn't. I explained that your fatalism makes you unable to see the countless counter examples that definitively prove your statements false. In order to continue to not see reality, you are now required to invent a way to represent me as someone to ignore entirely - as is the nature of continued fatalism.

Your comment is a good example of lack of optimism leading to complete blinding fatalism.

>No one has done shit

You casually dismiss every good thing as being non-existent. I would need only a single example to prove you wrong - like the trend of investment in renewable energy.

>to motivate them positively is an impossible task

Pure fatalism. When you claim people are so indecent as to not tolerate minor inconvenience, I suppose I wonder how you are unable to perceive whole societies where they wear masks routinely.

>There's not a single drop of hope for anything changing even if it's going to only mildly inconvenience the average person.

Pure fatalism to its very core.

Technologies are advancing rapidly. AI will automate many jobs. The world cannot not change. You perspective makes you blind to the bulk of reality.

A quick scan of his profile reveals multiple posts per 24 hour spans that effectively max out the character limit of a comment. The detail in the replies is uncharacteristic of a person typing.

Perhaps we have entered that ironic period, where if a post is too high a quality that exposes them as being a bot.

Do we really need minor updates to chatbots posted to this sub?

I'm not sure you can fully get people's honest views from asking them to write them out. The world has plenty of grifters and self delusional people. Observing us in how we literally express our values within the world may be more accurate.

Automation may reduce team sizes. One person can do the work of four, type of thing. But there is more to the role than autocompleting the next lines of code. When there is full AGI, then the job is extinct- but so are the other jobs too.