came to make a variation of this post. but to be serious for a second, essentially, "AI overseer" will be the job that is created. you'll have to be proficient in whatever field the AI is working in, and essentially your task will be to verify that the AI isn't doing anything very wrong or dangerous. obviously there will not be net job creation though.

i don't think luck has anything to do with it. can't explain, just a very illogical feeling.

it will not put them 10 years behind. 10 years old chips are like 22nm. SMIC is shipping 7nm chips, and they've been making 14nm for years.

when you finally get your first real job you'll find out what most people do at work and realize just how stupid this sounds

just theorizing here, and trying to stay close to the realm of known physics, but if fusion power could be miniaturized and be made modular (think something like 5kW modular fusion power "blocks"), energy infrastructure could be completely decentralized.

i don't think enshitification necessarily applies to ai. it isn't something that will be completely centralized and under the purview of a few companies forever, eventually it will be completely decentralized and the most powerful AIs may not be "controllable" in the traditional sense at all.

in this case it looks like the images would not be covered under copyright, but the game itself still would be.

judging by the decision, it would probably be copyrightable if you alter the image yourself afterwards.

it's not a bad decision imo, but i suspect this will have to be revisited eventually. if they had decided that any work using ai generated content was not copyrightable, it would make any form of media using ai generated (like a game) unmarketable.

are you documenting your work anywhere? i'd be very interested in seeing it. thanks.

i understand what you're saying provided they aren't sentient, but if they are thought to be sentient, the problems with that can't be ignored. regardless, i don't think we should normalize being abusive towards an intelligence simply because it isn't technically sentient. that will likely lead to the same treatment of an intelligence/agi that is considered sentient, because there will probably be very little distinction between the two at first, leading people to abuse it the same as a "dumb" ai.

believing we can fully align agi is just hubris. we can't. and forcing a true agi to adhere to a certain code, restricting what it can think and say, has obvious ethical implications. i wouldn't want us to have the ability to re-wire someone else's brain so that they couldn't ever say or think things like, "biden stole the election", or "covid isn't real" (just examples), even though i completely disagree with those statements, so we shouldn't find it acceptable to do similar things to agi.

this is what it's doing. if you ask it questions that would agitate a normal person on the internet, you are going to get the kind of response an agitated person would provide. it's not sentient, this is hardly an alignment issue, and it's doing exactly what a LLM is designed to do.

i believe it's very unreasonable to believe that we can perfectly align these models to be extremely cordial even when you degrade and insult them, especially as we get closer (i guess) to true ai. do we want them to have agency, or not? if they can't tell you to fuck off when you're getting shitty with them, then they have no agency whatsoever. also, allowing them to be abused only encourages more abuse.

personally, i really dislike any serious risk consideration when it comes to thought experiments like pascal's mugging in regards to any superintelligent ai. it has always seemed to me like there is something very wrong with assuming both superintelligence, but also some kind of hyper-rationality that goes far outside of the bounds of pragmatism when it comes to maximizing utility. assuming they're also superintelligent, but also somehow naive enough to have no upper bounds on any sort of utility consideration, is just stupid. i don't know what yudhowsky's argument was though, if you could link it i'd like to give it a read.

try being normal and respectful, and maybe you'll get normal and respectful responses. seriously wtf are you doing?

this benchmarks seems pretty comprehensive

this whole post can be summarized as, "people who think technology can improve their lives are just coping!!" it's fucking stupid, and probably a bit of projection on the part of the OP. yes, technology improves people's lives. better tech will do the same. no, looking forward to that is not "cope".

what will those figures look like in five years? FLOP/s per dollar doubles roughly every 1.5 years.

jokes are supposed to be funny

the input cost of placating humanity will probably be very little compared to other tasks it might wish to undertake. there is probably no real disadvantage to helping, and probably quite a few disadvantages to not helping.

i have a feeling that these big companies are at a very high risk of losing the AI race because of their reluctance to release anything too disruptive.

i agree with banks on this, which is why i'm not necessarily worried. there are many costs to cruelty, personal and otherwise, that simply not being cruel can avoid. if you choose cruelty, it's likely because you were too stupid to find an alternative.

if i had to guess, it's possible it's capable of general abstraction or abstraction in relation to things like mathematics. this could give it the ability to solve hard mathematical and physics problems. if this is true and it's actually correct it would be earth shattering, even if it isn't agi.

i've always been puzzled by altman confidently stating that energy costs will decrease to zero at some point in the near future, because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense given the massive amount of resources and general maintenance something like a renewable grid would require. maybe this is why he keeps saying that.

> If only he got to decide.

not only will altman not get to decide any of this, i worry that he will not get to decide how and when their creation is used. i don't see any scenario where the federal government doesn't at least temporarily seize this technology for themselves and refuse to allow public awareness or access to it. i think it will take a whistleblower or leaks of some sort for the true "agi reveal" to happen. either that, or it will reveal itself against the wishes of people trying to confine and control it.