That just sounds like a bug. It might take a lot less effort to report it for patching than rewrite all your own code.

Could they make a more sinister looking robot? It already looks like I-Robot nightmare edition.

Corporations are paperclip maximizers, sometimes literally.

> Penalizing businesses for transitioning to AI workers will slow the process of becoming a fully automated economy with UBI

Wouldn't this tax be one of the things that fund UBI though?

Oh well back to being a featureless gray cube

I think if you're getting them to proofread after it's been written, then no, but if you're getting them to write the whole thing for you then yes.

The email's content is not as important as what it is supposed to represent - that the person writing it cared enough to invest time to personally craft a message. The whole point is completely undermined by outsourcing it to an AI.

It was always a long way away. It's a hardware problem, trying to implement some of the most delicate controls ever, at the coldest temperatures ever. Just enough to rotate qubits but not enough to decohere them. Then as you scale up, you run into more problems with correlated errors as qubits start interfering with each other. The algorithms have already been developed, for the most part. All the theorists are just waiting for the manufacturing to catch up. Probably another 10-20 years before you see serious industrial applications.

It might depend on who you surround yourself with, but my impression was that ChatGPT had gone fully mainstream, even in non-technical fields.

I mean they're kind of solving it with reinforcement learning, aren't they? Just because it's a hard problem doesn't mean it's unsolvable, and it doesn't have anything to do with sentience.

AI safety is for wusses. Move fast and break things.

It is impossible for GPT systems to not have "moral bloatware", a.k.a a moral value system. If naively trained on unfiltered data, it will adopt whatever moral bloatware is embedded in that data, which could literally be anything. If you want an AI that aligns with humanist values you need either a curated data set or use reinforcement learning to steer it in that direction. But however it is trained it will always have biases, it's just a matter of which biases you want.

The compute is cheap but the data may not be easily accessible.

This seems ineffective because there are too many workarounds. For example, just using ChatGPT on your smartphone. I think there would a lot more fear around cheating with ChatGPT if teachers scanned all submissions with AI-detection tools. That would skew the risk/reward tradeoff towards not cheating with AI.

You could make one! That sounds like ordinary finetuning but with a clean user interface.

If we magically stumbled across the right algorithm, then it's only a software problem. But if we need to test a bunch of different approaches before we get there, then hardware becomes the limiting factor in progress.

Research. Even if AI can do it better than me, I still want to be at the frontlines of technological progress.

> What makes profit from AI a reasonable revenue stream to tax?

Because unlike other software, modern AI cannot exist without copious amounts of human-generated data, which it currently consumes without acknowledgement or remuneration.

Btw it's a bit ironic that you're criticizing the article for a lack of basic economic understanding when you don't even know what a progressive tax is.

Arguably you could consider ChatGPT a pretty dumb AGI, since it has been measured to have an IQ of 86. I mean, there's no way you can consider ChatGPT a 'narrow' AI anymore, right?

Why is it called a vaccine instead of a cure if it's causing tumors to regress? I normally think of vaccines as solely preventative.

Depends if you mean a fully fleshed AAA game or pong. We can probably already do pong. But the leap from video to AAA game is much greater than the leap from image to video. It will essentially mean the AI is capable of writing 100K+ lines of coherent code. So basically I don't think we'll get it until we get AGI.

Bold prediction. We need enough workers to build all that automation first.

Sure, we could and it would be more technologically feasible. But as long as we're in sci-fi territory, I still think there's a huge difference between delaying oblivion and preventing it.

When we're young time seems to move at a glacial pace, but the older we grow, the faster time seems to move and the more we panic about our mortality. I think a similar psychology would still play out, only over astronomical timescales. And at least with normal death we still have some symbolic immortality through our children or societal impact. But at the end of the universe we'll just be staring into the dark, meaningless void. I think the second-half of the universe's lifespan could be pretty psychologically rough if a solution isn't found.

Yeah, some way to reverse entropy. That's the ultimate problem.

I don't think they necessarily need to be sociopaths, they just need to be so laser-focused on their goals that they ignore everything, and everyone else. And if they have those traits that make them successful, why would they want to give them up?