It's still a fake domain name. Don't trust random websites the same as how you use the web in general. Also, asking for a bank's OTP code is a gigantic no-no, but I don't suppose they really need that to collect the money?
If they were very profitable instead of just getting by, more of them would appear until they were just getting by again. So that's not a sign of lack of impact of your spending.
I'm pretty sure that the Luddite's were at least partly concerned with potential for the further exploitation of unskilled labour (in the case of mills at the time - child orphans). I don't think it would be fair to paint them as simply self-interested.
There's nature and nurture and regardless of where the lines fall, the implication from idiocracy is the morons cannot adequately nurture any positive genetic intellectual variance. If they can't nurture it, it doesn't really become an advantage. I'm fully convinced we've lost numerous genius individuals all capable of changing the world because their entire life was spent in a rice field or similar setting. What would Einstein have achieved if he hadn't had an electrical engineer as a father who helped unlock his fascination with the world? I have no idea.
Nurture does almost nothing for intelligence other than severe abuse reducing it. It's mostly random and inherited. If we knew how to nurture intelligence, don't you think every parent would be doing that?
I used to think that about geniuses but now I think another person would have done what Einstein did, and every other genius. They appear when they environment is ripe for their work.
Don't you ever wonder why you can't quantify those predictions and what they would look like if you did? They're all things that already occur and have always occurred to some extent, what's the difference?
Thanks but I've never been able to find much in IPCC. Can you identify what the unimaginable water shortage crisis is? What I find in there is quite confusing. For example:
"Currently, roughly half of the world’s population are experiencing severe water scarcity for at least 1 month yr-1due to climatic and other factors (medium confidence)." Since it's how it already is, we have to be careful reading this that "severe" water scarcity is normal and not a crisis.
Perhaps you can somehow describe what this water shortage is predicted to look like in real life? Would all Californians in 2100 turn on the tap and nothing comes out for 6 months of the year and they all just shrivel up an die? You did say unimaginable but you imply that you know what it is. Will we also run out of energy to be able to do desalination?
What exactly are you worried about? OpenAI/etc. gaining too much power? If they use it, the government can stop them. If you worry about the government, isn't it better that than rando terrorists? Seems similar to the early days of nuclear and rocket technology. It took stupendous amounts of money and smart people. It was barely accessible to many countries let alone people.
> What exactly are you worried about? OpenAI/etc. gaining too much power?
Yes. They have already shown to have no scruples when it comes to making profit and to have little to no morals.
> If you worry about the government, isn't it better that than rando terrorists?
In my country the largest terrorist attack was almost certainly financed by Iran and caused roughly one hundred deaths. This number pales compared to the thousands who died during the latest, US-backed military coup, a move that relied on a doctrine that the US has never stopped asserting [1].
And those morals I mentioned earlier from AI companies? They do not apply to me because I'm not a US citizen. So no, I do not think the US government is the "seal of quality" you think it is.
I don't think the comment you're replying to said that the U.S. govt. is a seal of quality, at all. They kind-of implicitly concededed that trusting a government with that power is highly sub-optimal, but better still than allowing it to get into the hands of terrorists. Which is a very real issue and a nontrivial point of tension. Like, I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I personally see the "the government is not the seal of quality you think it is" as a rude and even patronizing misinterpretation happening far too often in discussions, and as needlessly diverging attention from the crux of the problem.
I want to push back on "better than getting into the hands of terrorists being a very real issue".
I am currently in Germany. In the 21st Century roughly 60 people have been killed and 160 injured in ~40 terrorist attacks, most of them perpetrated with cars or knives [1]. In comparison, the US' war in Iran has costed Germany 2.781 billion dollars in fuel costs this year alone and the US government has publicly announced its plans to interfere in German politics partially by funding far-right activities [2].
My point being: the probabilities of terrorists shaking the world order with AI are rather low, seeing as even the most successful attacks in this century have been performed with the simplest of technologies. In contrast, the probability of the US flexing its power irresponsibly are rather high, seeing as they have been doing it for a couple years now and are, in fact, doing it right now.
As far as I'm concerned, and from an evidence-based, day-to-day point of view, the "AI in the hands of terrorists" is an irrelevant concern while "the US may abuse its power" is not.
The US government has shown, time and time again, that they will always side with large corporations. Having them as the last backstop is not reassuring.
Have you considered the possibility that the AI labs could actually become more powerful than the US government precisely because they control this technology?
I guess the objection to closed source slurries releasing world-shaking mathematical proofs, from a conservative libertarian standpoint, is that it's inherently dangerous to individuals whenever access to information or technology is concentrated too much in one place, whether that's government, private equity, religions, cults, terrorist cells, or anything else.
Saying something for years doesn't make it right. Has nobody ever challenged you on that? Our brains prefer to read enjoyable bits, not raw information. If you only got those 300 bits, you aren't going to bother putting them into your LLM to generate 700 bits to make it a more enjoyable read, you're just going to struggle through the 300. Maybe when browsers come with built-in automatic text puff-uppers, then you'll have a case but almost nobody does that now.
Here's a clearer example - would you rather learn a concept from a research paper or a textbook or blog? You say the research paper but they're dense and hard to wade through where-as blogs and textbooks are more wordy but hold your hand, which is something that helps humans learn.
Plenty of people have challenged me on this! There are a lot of exceptions we can come up with (summarization and private context are the biggest examples), and everything's changing in various ways as AIs get more capable. Usually, conversations about people pasting LLM output focus on things like AI generated blog posts, people who have no taste in writing and want an AI to rewrite everything for them, people who are just plain lazy, etc.
> would you rather learn a concept from a research paper or a textbook or blog?
I pretty much always read blogs first, and then move to a research paper only if I want more details or care enough about the subject to verify with the original source. Typically this is because research papers have too much information to be approachable.
It's not honest in AGI timelines (only biological ones). It just accidentally supports your unsubstantiated belief. Your belief isn't magically true because you're somehow able to see the future when others can't. You're just arrogant.
It's funny that your kinds of ideas were heresy a decade ago. Back then, we weren't supposed to think there was anything we could do about the effects of global warming in case we started to think mitigation was possible and stopped panicking. I suppose now that's politically permissiable?
It surely resonates if your reason for working is to extract wealth from others (ie. be a parasite) but if it's to improve things for everyone, then it's wonderful. You might still work just as much and get paid just as much but produce a lot more because of technology.
reply